dr. carol l. fult, chancellor at chapel. senior political reporter, cnn. >> hi, everybody, thanks for being here. it's great to be here. we want to start the four pillars of course talent, infrastructure, investment and technology. want to start talking about talent. first. and i'm going to start with you on this one because this is something you've written about. the idea of learn bability. -- learnability. the idea of upscaling. what do you mean by that? and what sort of responsibility do you think employers have in terms of that area?

>> well, you know, part of this day has been encouraging from the aspect of talent. ever since we began or morning with the dr. conn, dr. crow, fred smith, everyone has talked about access to scale talent as being an absolutely necessity for our nation to be competitive. actual fact, it is true not only for the u.s. but true for the developed because labor markets are being affected by an ageing workforce, and developed countries alike. individuals making different choices based on changes in environments and organizations thinking about organizational agility in a very different way, so, all of this translates into a by fur kags of the work force.

i think it was dr. crow who talked about this this morning. out of the u.s. workforce, there's 60, 70% that is fully imemployable that has the right skills and 30% of our workforce and population that is not participating, so, the biggest challenge that is facing us to be competitive is going to make sure that we as a nation have access to a broad pool of skilled workforce and we know today that 30% of the workforce has low or is unskilled or does not have enough skills to participate and be successful in a global competitive environment, so, that will be the defining challenge of our generation to figure this out. because as brand talked about during lunch, if it's a very complex structurally driven global issue, there's not going to be a simple answer. because we've known about this and we've seen indicators of

our -- so this is not new, but we haven't made the turn. i would argue the current trends, the polarization based on the skills they have to contribute to the growth of organizations and to our economy, is going to accelerate and there's no indication that it's going to you know, mitigate or converge at this point. so, that's what's going to be so important for us to figure out. >> and carol, one of the things that's going on, talks about this bifurcation, in terms of the workforce. one of the things that seems to be going on is decline in investment. federal investment. in terms of science. is that a trend you see reversing? has it stalled? where do you see things now? >> i get to start off with good news because just two days ago,

congress did pass legislation that was going to increase nih. by about 4.8 million for some important targeted areas. 4 billion and another 4 billion on an annual bases and i think for all of us, that is good news and we're excited about it. i think that the needs are greater and the opportunities even graelter and i think that's where we start thinking about how can that investment be understood. can we do a better job making clear that if an investment comes back, people have been arguing that we can make sure that that investment isn't only going to help, it's critical. so, of it as being an investment in the workforce. we can probably talk about that more, but universities are places where it in these areas of science, technology, that's where the young people get excited. they get the skill sets. we made a bet in america after world war 2, that if we brought innovators into universities

where they were also teaching young people, we would create the entrepreneurial mind set necessary to stay great. when the money starts drying up, those people have a harder time doing what they do. they tend to retrench and not be as they become more risk adverse. they also tend to become less likely to increase the embrace of lots of different areas, so that talent force changes. the idea force changes. so another piece of good news is that it's related to bad news. last year, nih had 50,000 propoed sales. i'm a reviewer as are many people many this room. at least 25,000 of them had amazing work in them. if you run a business where you're throwing out 25,000 great ideas every year, you have to start wondering about your business model, but if we start increasing that even a bit, we've got people ready so, if the money comes in, we're not in

a position where we have a desert of ideas, so, it has that. it has the capacity to really fuel economies and i know all my colleagues out there could say they have these study, but a little fuel from the government, for example at chapel hill, we did a big study, for every dollar we get from the federal government, we generate 7 to $9 in additional money that goes to fuel research, back to the economy. we hire 100,000 people in the state. so, i mean, i could go on about that, but i think the good news is that should these investments increase, we're ready, the bad news is that if they don't, these pipelines that are holding on could hit a point where it's going to be a lot harder for them to actually take advantage of what is sitting ready if for us as a nation to use. for competitiveness. >> mike, i want to go to you on this. another pillar. infrastructure. done research in terms of

manufacturing sector and a lot of emphasis on that. coming in, you have specifically done research on vulnerability. in terms of cyber attacks. something i hadn't thought of. can you talk about that? >> sure. my voice, i came down with a cold this morning. >> it's kind of sexy. >> very sexy. >> it's a very interesting dynamic because what we're seeing is we're seeing that right now, innovation is the pillar of growth. i really love what bronze said at lunchtime, around the fact that you must be innovative and carol said about the entrepreneurship, but what we're seeing is what happens clearly is the ability that human error, cybersecurity, becomes an open issue with innovation. and the conundrum that any company has you don't want to

stifle through innovation and you have to keep going. and especially in the manufacturing sector. as things get more complex, using ecosystems, so you can't really secure yourself against human error. it does start number one is tone at the top. i think every organization from the board to the executive needs to have cyber security. supporting innovation, but the word i use is a harmonized way. making sure they're sitting back and looking at cyber security procedures.

using ecosystems, television really a balance of how do you push while at the same time watching for cyber threats. >> i wonder if you could talk about america in relation to where other countries are in terms of investment and infrastructure. we talked about sort of this global economy and this global erase towards innovation. where is this country? >> yeah, thank you, and i think i'm going to build a little bit on what fred smith said this morning. and i think as you try to drive your innovation globally, you have to really assess the ecosystem globally that you're going to participate in because that ecosystem determines the capacity to commercialize your

ideas globally. and over the last 30 plus years. the primary underpinning of the system that we've used is called trips. the trade-related property season. underpinning wto, and what was happening through tpp i'm more interested in tips minus. i'm not being pa jorty, i'm simplifying a little bit. then you have a administration that's saying i don't like trips plus, is sthat because it's not trips plus plus, or because trips wasn't right and i wanted to look at something else? so this is an uncertain viern

environment to commercialize in. there are rival risks. it's -- i find it highly unlikely they're going to come together in the near term. so this is a different situation for commercializing globally in the next decade than we've known in the past 30 years. i study these things a fair bit. one study i engagen to i should say, one stay which is very interesting if for your chair is in ag tech pa tenlts, last year, 92% of all ag tech patents from university research were from china. so they published over a million patents. this is a land grab and stay out of the game until you get enough land and come back in. which is rivalist and mercantilist.

so i think i personally -- sorry, i personally believe this is the most pressing issue to globalizing right now because the rules systems are die verve and becoming quite political. ed of what's happening in the election and the royals to the east and to the west. and all of their turbulence and nativisms. so i think this is going to be central to figuring out how we commercialize ideas in the next decade now. >> and, carol, i wonder if you could talk about -- one of the things that the obama administration has tried to do is put a focus on s.t.e.m. education, bringing more women into the field, encouraging girls to go into the field. has that mattered at all? have you seen a difference in terms of conversations around, around that or in terms of interest?

>> everyone that is in higher ed spends a lot of time to think about the disparity gaps, the changing demography or we look at the rooms in higher education at the top. most of us look the same. and many of it look like me and there's fewer that look like a lot of our students. and so we think a lot about bringing them in. i do think even going back to title nine, that's had a big influence in bringing diversity into our infrastructure and our research. a lot of the best examples of the value of diverse research teams actually come from entrepreneurial areas where they talk about, you put six people in a room that all come from the same background, you get the same idea. you put six people with six different ideas. six different backgrounds and you're going to get something that is really dynamic. i think this goes back to me about investment. one of the great ways investment in research -- and i'm talking mostly university research, but it's all research. one of the things it does is it

does give us a chance to also address other societal problems. we use that research to develop a diverse team of young people who start fueling as they move up with ideas like the way obamas did it where you get more and more people. you're going to see the diversity of the ideas and we have a chance. very much to start also reducing those income disparities that go with people thinking that they're limited to disciplines in certain, you know, that women can't do science or students of color can't become engineers. as we erase those boundaries, we start doing immense good not only for the science, the s.t. oechlt m. that we're doing, but the goal we have to diversify the work force and make the talent pool so much more internet jettic. i think they go together. >> do you want to jump in? >> not only neigh much more

energetic, i think the business, you know, the clear business case is diversity of thought drives better, better business outcomes. the participation of women, depending on where you are in the world is either lower or significantly lower than that of men, but in almost all of those cases. the level of education for the very same women is higher than it is for men. so if you think about a demographic that is shrinking in all of the developed world, all countries in europe have a shrinking population with one exception, we're just friends. we are holding our own, but within our own country, roughly the same tendencies are occurring depending upon necessity. so our need to bring in skilled talent into the work force is huge and women is actually the biggest untapped pool of skilled talent that is not fully utilized today to varying degrees in developed countries. that's certainly the case. >> and there also seems to be a

turn away from globalism and thinking that america is part of this larger economy in terms of immigration and in terms of bringing talent in. do you -- is that going to affect kind of diversity if there's this shrinking away, jim, from thinking that america -- yeah, is part of this global economy? >> oh, i think there's -- there's without a doubt a talent war, no question, but i think america does exceptionally well because of the quality institutions and the base of their company. so you have a bit of an embarrassment of riches, but of course it can never be good enough. but, you know, how you manifest that, there was a comment from the gallop gentlemen who said there's more business formation and diamondism is going down, so i do think how you manifest all of this into prosperity and

productivity, i believe the gating element sch more infrastructure, personally as dr. folz said, there's a lot of talent out and there not the infrastructure to receive it in her case. so, you know -- i mean that's more in a research thing than in a business formation, but i think it's a pretty good metric. and infrastructure is a very, very important piece to look at. i think they'll build off of things mike talking about the cyber. people are excited about block chain, it's really great because it allows this stuff, but allows people to do things without being tracked. so a lot of these things raise complex issues all along the way. >> yeah, mike. >> one thing when -- the question about s.t.e.m., what we've realized in the business environment is we've been a huge proponent on s.t.e.m. the majority of businesses need science, technology,

mathematicians. but we're down into high schools now. we have to start earlier and earlier. we're talking about programs for freshman in high school. we believe that now, you know, when you're taught internships in sophomore years in college, it's not good enough. we have to start younger. >> we been investing -- that's a big aha. if you speak to the younger generation. people in their 20s who have joined us in the past five, six years. they look at things totally differently than someone my generation looks and they believe you have to start early. you have to start getting those diverse skills, you know, embedded much, much earlier. so we're putting it in program now, looking at as early as freshman and high school now. totally different than when i started. >> yeah. does anybody have questions in the audience? >> yeah, i have maybe something to add to what mike said. when we talked about skill shortages, you know, we survey employers all over the world and

also here in the u.s., around their need for talent and whether they think they can find the talent in labor markets. and what we see today is that 40% of the employers we survey here in the u.s. say they have difficulty finding talent. what's encouraging is that almost 50% of the same employers are now saying that they are investing in training for their work force. where it's the same answer would have been a 20% of employers saying they had a hard time finding people, but only 20% were investing in the development and training. that i think is going to be key -- and it comes back to the question you asked in the very beginning. organizations will have an responsibility and a self-interest in making sure training and development for the work forces that they have. but longer term, we believe that the best predictor of employability may be something we call learnability. the desire and the ability to learn. because we've talked a lot about

the changes that are occurring in markets through changes in globalization and the mechanics and the different forces, and it's going to be very difficult for employers and educational institutions to predict what the skills are going to be 18 years out. they're going to be specifically on the hard skills needed. of course s.t.e.m. skills are always going to be in demand in a digitized world. so the ability to have a work force that is used to acquiring new skills as they go along, will protect us and will renlder us and make us even more competitive through the time. and we think that's going to be a key driver of employability. we think it can be one of the biggest drivers of competitive advantage if we crack that, we will have a work force that will stay competitive, not only be, you know, in phases competitive and then having to catch up like is the case right now. >> dr. folz. >> one of the ways we talk, we need to develop a whole

generation. i love the idea earlier that competitiveness might be measured at a big metric, but it only builds from a lot of individuals. those are what we used to do the best anywhere. i think that was the real serge in america. if we dry up those pipelines, we really do dry up that inventiveness. so by fuelling it and doing it in such way that would build those partnerships, we actually start every single student and learner has the capacity to be that invo natoer. that's part of the good news. the investments it takes is actually small. so what is nih's 30 billion -- the health care is 3 trillion. someone said rounding errors. each has the capacity to build

these partnerships in ways that can be amazingly transformational for every single individual. to expand this at the rate and speed we want to. we're sharing that with business partners and bring this in. i think we're at this moment where a little bit, especially. giving the willingness to reach across the sector seems to be at a point it really could escalate. you know, but it needs that intention that i think meetings like this give us when we come together and talk about it. >> and jim, in terms of what you would want to see. in terms of emphasis and investment and moving forward from the terms of partnerships, what do you to want see and what do you expect to see?

>> well, i think rco, debora said it earlier today, that innovation has had unequal distribution elements to it. and so i think you realize when you don't pay attention to that, it rears itself in surprising fashions and everybody's grappling with that. so i think everybody sold this stuff as trickle defense attorney and everybody would get a fair shake and in fact, it didn't work out that way within states and between states. and i think that's a lot of reason why people are pulling back right now and i'm not trying to just say oh, let's just spread everything to everybody, but i think the intention to the investments and distribution are not just -- it's not a justice thing, but you could make it that case. i think it's a functioning society thing. and so, i think that's really, really important. there's no -- there's no end of possible innovation things. you've heard them all.

all today and they're very, very compelling. each and every one of them. i do believe that how this is going to work in the world. you've seen how europe's pulling back. you've seen -- you've seen the ratting with china. you've seen ttp go up and down and people saying come on, bring it back up again. i think -- i think that's going to investigate a lot of this really good talent and this really good desire to investment. and i think the administration is going to be overwhelmed with the things they have to do. so i would say distilling these things into clear priorities could be the thing i would think would be the most constructive thing to do in 2017 with this administration. and that's going to be drinking water from a fire hose and try to get it to a manageable way that you can move ahead on it. >> and mike, what's your sense? >> i actually agree with what jim said.

i would say that though his perspective is a challenge between milking innovation and not tieing it to kind of a short term pnl look at it. innovation is long-term. and i think p&l. for our firm, one of the challenges for ourselves is the ability to -- innovation could take something five, six, ten years. if you get behind something you have to stick with it. it's really the long-term investment. to your point, you have to be able to call something. if it's not going to work, it's not going to work. everything that's innovative doesn't mean it is going to work. and the ability to seed out what is going to work and not going to work, and if it is, invest in it long. >> i would love to say something about that. one of the way the universities

have a different model is we have to invest in the discovery-based long term. so big example, zika virus. we would be nowhere on vehicle qaa virus had we not had researchers studying all sorts of things that had nothing to do with zika virus. when it comes up, the 10 individuals across the country who had been working on that is were there. this whole movement towards complete rethinking in transform active medicine is sin might have started 30 years ago by someone who was actually looking at viruses and bacteria. it didn't look like anything. but it took 30 years, and sudden isly we are on the cusp of the biggest insrepgz. i'm really glad you said that. we need to make sure theive research is wonderful. we can do great things with it. but it all dries up if we don't continue the basic research.

i really appreciate that too. >> what about you in terms of a new administration, encouraging them to focus on what exactly in terms of innovation. >> as we think about the areas that could drive tremendous growth in investments and infrastructure, reduction of regulation, and of course making the labor markets competitive and also ease of growth in terms of companies. the key issue is going to be reskilling and upskilling those in the workforce so they can continue to evolve. right now our employment is 4.6%. we can argue about the workforce participation right. give 2%. regardless of which we are following a number of hallmarks of a tight labor market.

some are under employed. some left the workforce. but the ones that are under employed and that are outside of the workforce probably at this point don't have the skills to actively and easily participate in a lot of the things that strong growth could generate. but i think that's going to be a systemic approach both -- and i know the panel after us is going to talk about education and the need for education in the long term. but certainly in the short-term, to deploy a lot of people to infrastructure projects is going to be challenging. speaking to a number of companies that are involved in big infrastructure projects, their biggest problem is finding infrastructure engineers. that is going to be the reality of hitting into this shortage of talent that can realize so many of those things. my hope and optimism would be a structural and systemic approach around really reskilling the

american workforce. a skills revolution is what we are hoping for. we think that truly can drive our competitiveness to untold heights not only in the short-term but in the medium and certainly the long term the. >> any questions out there? there we go. >> hi. i'm from the college of engineer at texas a&m university. i have a question for people who come from industry. as we invest resources in programs to educate engineering under graduates for innovation and what we call the mind-set of entrepreneur, what are the two things you believe are the most important things in knowledge and is skills that we should be focusing on? thank you. >> who wants to the take that?

>> we are probably all working on that sale thing. the skills of learning when you have hit a wall, how do you develop the is synthesis. >> i would say i think you used the term the inquisitive the mind. what we are looking for now as students is even if you come to a firm like ours and think you know what to do, have the ability to say in two years i may use that skill but do something different. when i joined the firm, you kind of had a career path of 10 years. you knew what you wanted to do in 10 years. now we want the students to almost make two-year commitments. innovation is moving so quickly that we don't want to lock them in for something. we want two year commitments.

it's almost this multiyear commitment to continue learning. >> hard knowledge can be acquired, experience can be leap frog because you have access to the an understanding at a much more rapid pace today. so this motion of transferability of skills between industries and between various aspects with what you do with an organization is going to be increasingly important. >> you are certain -- you are trying to insert yourself into a value team which all has their own marginal production costs.

that is an extraordinary contended exercise. so people who have these sophisticated stem skills, if they can marry them with the 1/2 nation skills which are very difference than traditional economy, that's gold. you know people who do that well because they have extraordinarily valuable tech companies. that's the dance you do. anyone who brings those to an organization while they're on the c suite, they are in the c suite quicker than anybody else. >> everybody knows the young estrogen raeugz com youngest gee the most excited this every year. that is another part of the hopeful part, when we give them the tiniest part, they are ready for that. but i think they want to know what it takes to do that. and they need to have the chance

to have a risk fail, risk fail and be skill. so we've got the material. and the opportunity. so we just have to get those double -- what was it? t squared, i squared. >> on that note, which is very hopeful, we are going to end. and we thank you guys for your questions and your attention. >> thank you. >> [ applause ]. >> to better prepare americans to join the 21st century workforce on, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the president of northeastern university, dr. joseph e.ayun and president of north rop grumm grumman, mr. wes bush. >> hello, wes. >> good afternoon, everyone.

and i would like to start by thanking the council of competitiveness because you brought us together. we are old buddies now. we have been doing this for some time. wes was at northeastern university and we had a dialogue. we want to talk about the skills gap. we have tons of surveys to share with you. the surveys are an indication. let's start by discussing some of the surveys at the business roundtable has been doing. give us flavor, wes, of what you found out. >> the business roundtable found a survey of its members. not surprising because they are similar to what the chamber had done, as well as other nonbusiness organizations and i

would say there are some elements you could predict. but there are also some interesting insights. some of the more predictable where the number of companies in our case is greater than 80% which cited a significant skill shortage. and not surprisingly as well, much of that skill shortage goes to the s.t.e.m. disciplines. s.t.e.m. is a big category. we often think of the engineering part of it. but the math and basic science were identified as shortages as well. in addition to the disciplines, though, some of the other feedback that we got in the survey that i thought was particularly insightful was the identification of some blogger sort of general applied skills

from a business perspective we all look for and we try and keep track of how well we're doing. things like critical thinking, the ability to tackle a problem and really dive into it and test a lot of different perspectives and come up with innovative and different perspectives. cognitive flexibility was another category we saw identified by many, many businesses. again, i think as a reflection of the pace of change that we have in the business environment, in fact, in the world around us. so it was for me a confirming survey of many other things that i'm seeing in either surveys. but it was insightful in areas that i don't think it quite got the attention. >> we just surveyed the college students nationwide. what we found is that only 14% of the students feel they are ready for the new world.

for the ai world, for intelligence systems, for the tech revolution that they know is going to hit them. you know, they know that the skwrbs are going to be redefined. so it is interesting to compare employers and at the same time the learners. the employers can saying, you know, colleges and universities are not doing a good job. only 14% feel they are getting ready for that. starting with you, wes, you have been partnering with universities. we have been partnering with universities. what do you look for in a partnership? >> there's been a model out there a long type that business is utilized and working with

universities. i think there has been a broader awakening that we need to develop very, very different models. the older model was sort of a combination of building good partnerships with the career office because we want to the make sure we're there and ared well and branded well when it comes to the recruiting. but sponsoring research and development was sort of a traditional model. and oftentimes it was just straight old philanthropic giving. which is good. all those things are really good. >> we like it too. >> and it is important we tomorrow to do those things. but we all realized it's just not enough. it is is not solving the problems that we're seeing. and i have to give a lot of credit to the business higher education forum. we are members and have been for some time. a number of years ago, through a series of discussions just like this where we continue to identify these types of problems, we decided to pilot some different approaches and test what would work and what

would not work. and we have found some models and we have applied it now both in the fields of cyber security and in the field of data analytics in a number of university settings around the country. and to your question about what are we looking for, what works? first off, you have to have a partnership approach and it has to work both ways. the university has to be open to engaging in a little bit of a different manner. and business has to be open to changing its model of engagement. what's been working in these new models has been a much deeper level of collaboration. it goes all the way in many cases to the co-development of curriculum. the university makes an investment. the person makes an investment. faculty comes together to define what some of the components need to be to better prepare the students. now, this isn't a training program. and i want to be careful about that up front.

oftentimes people hear this and think, okay, we are turning university into training. and that is not the intent at all. it has to be education and it has to be broad education. we want students not just training for the one instant thing coming into business. we want them to work for us over a lifetime and continue to tpgr. that said, there are some basic things they need today to get started that perhaps they did not need some years ago. and this model of engaging more closely surround the notion of developing curriculum. how we do internships and co-op. northeastern is from my perspective the world leader in defining how to have co-op programs be most effective. but engaging in the design and development. oh, by the way, business has to step up and work together with

the university so that these things are supportable. none of these things are inexpensive. so it is a little bit of a broader awakening across the business community that we can't simply stand by and conduct our surveys and complain. we need to be engaged and be a part of the solution. is and we look for universities like northeastern that are eager to partner and are eager to help us learn about what works and what doesn't work. because universities like northeastern bring so much to that engagement. >> thank you, wes. when i talk to my colleagues in higher education, it is clearly there is a big unease. we don't want you to come and talk to us about how to shape the curriculum. >> right. >> however, at the same time, when we get-together with our employers and we sit down, we have 3,000 employers working with us. it's because we send our

students for six months and long-term internships called coops. it is clear we have to change the way we are doing it, how we are providing education. what we are hearing from our employees is very simple. we need you to get our learners, our students ready for the new economy. what does it mean? we all know about it. they need to know coding. coding will become like typewriting. >> i guess. >> he they need to know beyond the tech literacy. tech analytics. big data. they need to know about human interaction, human literacy. and you are here as leaders. you didn't become leaders because you are great engineers only. >> that does help, by the way, though. >> especially for you, wes.

you knew how to motivate people, how to understand people. the is second aspect that i want to discuss is that i am afraid that we in higher education are giving up an enormous opportunity. we are in the middle of an enormous revolution. there are new jobs that are coming -- the the jobs are becoming obsolete. and people have to retool. people have to define what they do. the notion of lifelong learning is with us. now, higher education looks at lifelong learning as something very peripheral. we don't want to touch it much because we want to phone us on the 18 to 22, undergrads. we want to do research and ph.d.. but don't talk to me about lifelong learning. you know, this will bring down

the brand. in fact, we are becoming the railway industry. i hope no one here is from amtrak. it missed the trapgz revolution because they defined themselves as being in the railway industry and not the transportation industry. and i know that's what's happening to us in higher education. we are not thinking of ourselves as being in lifelong learning mission. so when i talk to you, wes, i ask you, you have employees. you are resraouting employees. you cannot say to them you is accept once and for all. so what look for? you must have extensive training, correct? >> absolutely. >> to have them retool, but i have to tell you, every time a

company tells me that they have set up an educational program is a failure of higher education. >> well, let me say a couple of things. one, most companies don't want to be in the education business. that's not what we do as our primary business. but most of us are. in fact, in the survey that we did in the business roundtable on average across the companies that we surveyed, on average companies were spending $80 million apiece on continuous education, much of which were internal investments because they didn't have these partnerships. they didn't have this capacity to work with the universities on this continuous lifelong training. so we look for universities that have that flexibility to the deal with beyond the 22-year-old age point or ph.d. age point and engage with us in the development of programs that our employees can benefit from.

despite what may sound like a criticism is of higher education, let me say up front i want a strong believer in the united states we continue to have the very best higher education system that exists in the world. what we are talk building is improving something that's great, but we have to improve it. because our needs for this, whether we're talking about the economic security of our company or the national security of our country we critically depend on the quality of higher education and the engagement of higher education. so these partnerships really are opportunities for us to connect in a deeper way and more meaningful way. and as a real opportunity not just company level. it comes down to the employee level. this means a great deal to employees. >> when we start talking about those partnerships and those opportunities, it led us to rethink our own model. for instance, when you work with

people for are long on experience and short on time, namely professionals already in the field, you cannot tell them come and spend two years with me. no one has the time. so universities have to move into the short what some people call the boot camps. actually, you know what happens, is there are companies that start boot camps in coding. why are they doing that? because there is an aoe normal need. now the need will be fulfilled. in terms of data an hrat eubgs, we started boot camp. that was a first for us at northeastern. we had to relearn that if you want to meet the need, you have to meet it based on the terms of the company or the people who want to learn about that. come here for a certain time. you know, whether you are in the company or whether you are with us, it doesn't matter. but you don't have time.

we're going to provide it around eight weeks. is similarly, you know, we have to device a new curricula. when you have to the sit down and go over curricula, forget about it. that is unacceptable. however, we have to do it because we have to the learn what the needs are. for instance, we have an enormous shortage of our data analytics, cyber security. you and i discussed that. computer science. so can-can we create new pipelines for computer science. we sat down with companies in seattle. amazon is and others. and then we took students who finished a b.s. degree and they give them long-term co-ops, those internships. and we gave them a masters in computer science over the period where they are there.

they are coming with a background in physics, math, economics. for us we have to relearn. so a masters in x doesn't require a b.a. in the same field. so it is a learning process. we have the best educational system in the nation. because we have it, we cannot be complacent. >> i think there is another dimension that goes to the heart of the pace of the technology and the pace of business growth that we all expect to see and want to the see as we go forward. and that's around innovation and the way we approach that from an educational perspective. long gone are the days when innovation was the product of single individual. most enterprises today, i think this occurs in universities as well, it is the product of groups of people coming together.

one thing that universities have been doing well for some period of time is working hard to develop that teamwork approach as students come through university. but as we see folks progress into business and into the work environment, oftentimes the discipline with which they were educated becomes the space. universities are leading the way in many respects in the way they do research. but bringing with that, the way they teach and the way they

engage in the innovative eco system that needs to get created both within universities and companies i think is is another opportunity still before us. >> i agree. my colleagues talked about the importance of fundamental research. and we all believe in that. that is also in addition to the expect that we have to be aware of. when we look at research in higher education, the most important factor in this research is the were doctor, student. the people who are going tore ph.d.. now, you know how we alleviate the programs, the ph.d. programs in higher education, by the number of ph.d. students placed in research universities. so if i place one of my ph.d. students at your company. >> i like it. >> you like it, but it's not you as plus, which is insane.

so we need to start thinking beyond that. we also need to -- there are things -- the all the innovation, as you had, is happening at the intersection. the intersection of not only disciplines but the intersection of what is happening in universities and what is happening in tech companies like yours. so why don't we start thinking about what we call experiential where we have co directors you have first rate researchers. we have first rate researchers that can come together. let me go a step further. how many universities have companies that have labs imbedded in those universities. very few. we don't have good protocols for that. we can do it. so those partnerships that we are talk building excite us a

lot. but also at the same time we need to start doing more in order to be comfortable. >> we do. >> it is is not enough to talk about the need for partnerships. we need to find a way to make it the default case. where now it is the exception. >> you came to northeastern and talked to the students, the faculty, and the community. you spent 10 minutes talk building diversity and inclusion. it is is very important for you and for the workforce. tell us why. >> it is certainly something we have seen in action in our company. if you think about the work that we do, we are a company of 65,000 people. about half are degreed scientists, mathematicians, technologies of one form or another. the language is innovation, change and how do you look at

problems through different lenses. we do best and we measure this. we do best when our teams are diverse, when our teams are operating in a very inclusive environment. and when there's a high regard not only for all the individuals on a personal basis but a high regard for the way in which everyone can work together and get things done the. this is not theoretical for us. this is tangible. it is is a powerful outcome for us. so there is a strong, strong focus within our company to not only talk about this from the top levels of the organization. we pressure it. we pressured across our enterprise. and we see the tangible benefits from it. so is i'm a strong proponent for the benefit, the business benefit of really work to go make sure we are doing the right things in diversity and inclusion. and when it comes to recruiting the graduates are incredibly smart.

and we find that they tend to look for environments that are far morin collusive that give them the comfort that they are going to be able to put on the table. their ideas, their views and to be who they are. >> that's another expect of the partnerships that we didn't discuss. the pipeline is not sufficient. we have to work together to increase this pipeline in k-12 by looking also community colleges. they work together to increase this? >> absolutely. >> this is something that is very exciting. frankly it hasn't been done enough yet. we have examples. but that's an opportunity.

we need culturally acknowledge i'll not only in the united states but a global scale. how do you look at that? >> i see just as i talked about diversity. understanding a more global view and being comfortable operating around the globe is a key part of the success of any modern enterprise. and you might say, well, a defense company isn't that primarily domestic focus? no. most of the companies in our industry are global companies and necessity the. we operate with our allies around the globe. when you're talking about national security, that's a very sovereign local perspective oftentimes. really operating on a global basis is critical. that's why universities that bring that view i think have a leg up. the universities that really encourage their students to

engage in that more global perspective and to learn to have some meaningful learning in that regard. whether it's the intersections with students on the campus for the international opportunities that are afforded to them. it's a great thing about your co-op program, that you afford them not just opportunities in the u.s. but also around the globe. and i think it really does produce graduates who step into the workforce with a broader perspective than they might otherwise have. >> you know, from this perspective, we have over 5 million students in colleges, if i tell you how many is less than 500,000. we have an opportunity to give our students and we have an obligation to give our students a global experience because we are working and competing on a global level. as a matter of fact, let me give

you the example g.e. if by the age of 26 you don't have global experience, it is going to be very difficult for you to grow. so imagine the situation where they are coming -- they finish by the age of 24. you know, they have a masters or more. then they go to work. they don't have a global experience. so what happens? that's a definite the sit. we need to work on that. is and that's why wes and i are very excited about being together and building those partnerships and those opportunities. i want to the address one mortem. when we look at talents, one of the issues is is obviously talent retention. how do you build talent retention? >> so it is a challenge. in today's environment where there are skills shortages, as we said earlier, in particular fields. whether we are talk building

those who are great computer scientists or data analysts or in the world of artificial intelligence, a whole variety, there is extreme competition. and what we have found, i can speak broadly for our industry, is that companies that are able to connect the mission of the enterprise to the work that the employees are doing are far more successful than others where it is a job. clearly in our space, national security, security is a mission that appeals to. many we generally find if we can keep our new hires the first few years they tend to the stay with us for a career. sometimes that means staying in our industry. people move around within the industry, and that's fine. but it is that deep connection to the a view that what you are doing is meaningful. and we find in interviewing on campus that students really want to understand that as much as they do the particulars of the

job that you might be speaking to them about. they also are looking for companies that have is a view of their corporate responsibility. and i enjoy getting out and interviewing students on campus and have been pleasantly surprised by the number of students who have actually looked to see do you have a corporate social responsibility is report and that does it say? that's just a broader view many young people are bringing to their career decisions than at the time i graduated from college. >> there is another dimension -- i agree 100% with what you said. when you talk to the students, there is a clear need that is there. another dimensions, is the company invest issing in me, because i know i have to invest in the company. the lifelong learning is important. we work with ibm. here, india, china to train executives.

what do they see? why are they doing it? retention increases. you see we are now in a situation where higher education has an enormous opportunity to move into lifelong learning. but once we move into lifelong learning we have to do it with you. we cannot be oblivious of reality. we have been oblivious of reality because we have been so good. we can't afford to remain. last word for you. >> step up. we have a responsibility to higher education. we need to see we are part of the solution. we can no longer stand on the sidelines and criticize the outcomes. we have a responsibility to make a role in creating the products we need to make sure our economy is going to be successful. >> great. thank you very much. thank you. thank you, wes.

[ applause ]. >> america's most precious resource is its people. they are the risk takers, entrepreneurs, and innovators. how can we unleash this true american strength in order to grow the economy and create new products, services, industries and jobs. ladies and gentlemen, please revolution l.l.c. partner and america online mr. steve case, the president of karpb by mellon university and the chairman and ceo of nano mek mr. jim phillips. >> well, hello. good afternoon. we're the last guys. >> thanks for hanging in there. >> thanks for hanging in there for us and everything. we will talk entrepreneurs. certainly have some entrepreneurs here.

and two distinguished panelists. this guy is best known for the careers of tom hanks and meg ryan. and "you've got mail." and he founded a company called aol that did real well. this man has been the former president of the national science foundation and did a phenomenal job. everybody knows that. now the president of carnegie mellon. we have one of the top people in i.t. in history with one of the top material scientists in the world. so this is going to be a lot of fun i want to get started. this is a great time to be alive. it is a great time to be here with you. we're in a very unusual time. everybody remembers when the patent sister everybody said everything is going to be invented. in the '70s, what most people don't know, the guy run the patent office at that time said more will be invented in the next 100 years than in the

history of mankind. now everybody says more will be invented in the next five years than in the history of mankind. we have been hearing that all day. this is all caused in our lifetime of four things. the chip, software, storage, and internet. and then all day long we've got to hear about all the incredible new things, full speed like ai, robo technology, genomics, avatar, and things like that. a lot of things that may at the end of the day even capture jobs. so my first question is a really tough one at the end of the day as we sum is up a few things and go down a different path i want to ask the distinguished panelist with me, are humans inventing himself it of work?

are there going to be more jobs servicing the robos, writing software and how many of those jobs will be created vis-a-vis the number of jobs. and i think that's going to be the question. it is is right in the middle of a number of future councils. it is is a long time. what kind of displacements will

take. i think another way to look at this would be slightly different question than this other than the number of jobs, which is only a crystal ball at this point. with all the technology that we have and if you believe in the so-called what we are supposed to be in the middle of the early stage of the fourth industry of revolution, which by definition is the convergence of the cyber world, the physical world and the biological world. everything we created in the 21st century. in 2000, the national academy of engineering came up with a report on the 20 greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century. three years later, they published the 21st century. if you put them side by side you can't help but wonder some of

the grand challenges are a direct consequence of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. containing -- securing cyberspace, containing nuclear terror, et cetera, et cetera. every major innovation we create there are intended benefits, unintended consequences and willful abuse of technology. so the question would be, with things like artificial intelligence and machine learning and robotics, et cetera, how do we address the human condition in concert with the development of the technology. some would argue that the reason for the 14 grand challenges of the 21st century was because we did not pay attention to the intersection of the technology with the human condition.

so i think one of the things we may want to look at is what is it that we did not do in the last century we need to do to this new technologies that will avoid the problems that we created. >> i agree. i just want to add a couple of things. first, it's inevitable the new technologies will will destroy some jobs. whether ai, driverless cars, what have you. the challenge is how do you that with pushing new ideas forward to create jobs. 88% didn't lose their jobs. we kind of went from agriculture to the industrial to the digital revolution that created new jobs. i don't believe we'll be successful in doing that. i don't believe we'll have a competitive nation. i don't believe we are the most innovative entrepreneurial

nation if we continue what we are doing, which is backing only a few people in a few places. last year, 76% of venture capital went to california, new york, massachusetts. if you look at the states that donald trump won, 30 states add them up, all 30 went to three states, 10%. so when people felt like they were left behind, they have. the majority of new jobs comes from few places. we're not going to have an evenly dispersed economy. we're not going to have a lot of shots on goal. some will surprise us and not just focus on tech partnership but baltimore, chipotle in denver the. we need to level the playing field so everybody has a shot at the american way. that's the best way to maximize

the odds that we are creating new jobs more than we are destroying. a lot of different sectors. a lot of different places. and that will i think maximize the odds of getting this right. and also in the process lift up some of the communities that are struggling. that are feeling kind of left behind. >> steve, stick with you. you have this new book that is a new york best seller, the third wave. that captured a little bit of it. so are we doing the right things to get the technology to the entrepreneurs, or is there just a gross shortage like we have heard in the council for competitive theness in entrepreneurs and maybe a third question to add to that, since

you're very involved in this, can you teach entrepreneurs? can you create entrepreneurs? >> i think there's a lot of ideas. it goes back to leveling the playing field. it took me a lot of years to get around to writing a book. i was 58. it is understanding what is happening in their start-up communities. if something was fundamentally happening and innovation, technology, the enter internet was shifting. the basic thesis, the first was building the internet, getting everybody connected. we got started 31 years ago.

they were on one hour a week. we had to build the on ramps. a lot of companies participate. in the 80s, nobody knew about the internet or frankly cared about it. that set the stage for the second wave, building software on top of the internet, facebook, twitter, snap chat. the first was pc, the second wave shifted to smartphones. it is is basic about software, adoption of software. what is happening with a third wave which is now beginning to celebrate is integrating the internet in seamless, sometimes invisible ways in your lives and think about health care, food, energy and other kind of things. these sectors change a little bit in the first wave, a little

bit more in the second. not that much. but it will change a lot in the third wave. that will happen in different places than most people. it will require much more with governments because they are regulated segments. policy will be more important. and these are hard problems. i talk about the three ps. it will be much more important. partnerships were not that big a deal in the second wave. facebook didn't need partners. policy wasn't important in the second wave. the small company and the large company had to get that right. it will rise up.

not saying silicon valley will fall. it is perfectly positioned to do well. we will see the rest rise, we will see innovation. right now we have too many eggs in a few baskets. and it's risky. >> that leads us into corporate, private, public relationships and everything. but right now we have an incredible country with obviously the best laboratories, the best universities in the world. that leads us into commercialization. you and i had a chance to testify in front of congress four or five years ago. you weren't a university president. now you are. and you've got one of the challenges is to do the tech transfer. what we have seen coming out of carnegie mellon is unique models, including one with uber and several others. can you speak to us a little bit about that. and is that going to be something really good, are the

universities going to begin to adopt new models and see more tech transfers commercialization of those great ideas? >> so maybe i'll start with a personal data point. i was a young -- when i started my academic career i was a young assistant professor at an ivy league school for 10 years. during those 10 years, i published quite a bit. during those 10 years i did not have is a single patent. then the next 10 years, after the first 10 years i moved out of the university, well-known university. during those 10 years, i had 21 patents. many were licensed. i wasn't any different. i wasn't any smarter. i had more opportunities available to me. the scientific work did not change. it's just is the opportunities that were available to me were really different. carnegie mellon 10 years ago there was a change of policy for

faculty -- to disclose inventions. we call it 5% and go in peace. within two years it led to a fourfold increase to a number of closures. why some went through a serious economic decline were able to come up. when other cities suffered a is similar fate could not reinvent themselves, they chose pittsburgh as an example of a city. and they attributed one factor, this is according to brookings institution. bruce katz did a study on this. and the factor they said was if major research universities exist in a city they have an opportunity to contribute to the

economic revival of the city. they attribute this to carnegie mellon, the university of pittsburgh. those are examples just in the last seven, eight years google set up shop in pittsburgh. employee number one was computer science and who went and started this operation. now it is is one of the largest revenue makers for google anywhere in the world. and now they have several hundred employees. they are tripling the footprint in pittsburgh. we actually got this faculty member who spent 10 years at google back, my dean of computer science. in fact, i joked that the only reason is coming back to the university is we can pay him more than google can. so i think it's a two-way process. same with companies like microsoft, uber and others. i think it's a brain circulation of a different kind. rather than losing faculty members from our university to the another university, now we

lose them to industry. >> this is going to go to loathe of you. we hear a lot about the immigration issue. i know in my company, all of my scientists are immigrants. it's been really tough with the visa program and everything else. but talk about that a little bit, steve. you're investing in a lot of companies. how serious of an issue is it. is there any way to get it fixed quick so we don't is send away our einsteins and werner von brauns. >> the companies would be formed partly because of the expertise carnegie mellon has and the technologies is really quite impressive. and the fact that uber, one of the most iconic silicon valley is companies is kind of betting

their future on pittsburgh. that's the center of gravity. i think that's a couple dozen cities. that story is the case of everyone. my favorite example is a company called magically that's in the augmented reality, virtual reality. $1.4 billion of capital from google in silicon valley from alibaba. where are they located? they're in fort lauderdale, florida. you're starting to see this. it will accelerate the next decade. i'm very concerned about this. i worked on some of these issues and president obama has me on a jobs council that i shared. i led the effort around the entrepreneurship. some moved forward. access to capital issues including funding and on-ramps for ipos. the number one recommendation is taking steps to win a global

battle for talent. and i testified in favor of the senate immigration bill. sadly, it didn't get moved forward. it is on obviously not going to move forward in that current construct. we have to the figure out some way to move some components forward one example that i can leave you with is graduated from wharton, started a company, started to show some momentum. but he couldn't extend his visa, so he's forced to leave. he happened to be from india. and that company now has 5,000 employees in india. it is worth $5 billion. and he wanted to the stay here. and i hear those stories every single day. and so i think with he need to -- of course we need him. we heard this today. focus on k-12 education,en couraging people to be more creative. teaching things machines can't do. obviously that needs to happen.

we need to win this battle. immigration is not just a problem to solve. it is also an opportunity that we need to seize. >> absolutely. obviously you have run into this many times. we're running a little bit fast on time. >> so let me give an economic argument on immigration. of course i'm biased because i came with a one-way ticket and half a suitcase. >> thanks for staying. >> merely 40 years ago. >> where did you hideout? >> i was in ames, iowa. here is the economic argument i would like to give. studies show if a child is born today in the u.s., it costs the parents on average to raise the child from birth to age 22 through college approximately half a million u.s. dollars. $400,000 to $500,000.

private school, public school, doesn't matter. half a million a child. let's say 100,000 students who come here, graduate students come here to get an advanced degree. if we make it easier for them to stay here, some other tax payer has already half a million dollars each to the 100,000 students. these are the best and the brightest. if we can attract them to keep them here, $100,000 times half a million is $50 billion, seven times the national budget of the science foundation. so in the second half of the 20th century, the u.s. has been the indisputed leader because all the other countries in the world have been subsidizing our eco system much more than we pay through the u.s. money through the science foundation. there is no substitute for cultivating domestic talent. but if you can cherry pick, pick

and choose anyone you want from anywhere in the world to come here, you can beat anybody in in know vacation. that's what we have been doing. if we lose that, we will lose the game. this year six americans won the nobel prize. all six of them got their degree abroad. all is six of them. so that is my response to the immigration question. >> that is pretty convincing for sure. >> i just want to say one thing. we both obviously are passionate about the issue. i don't think we all collectively have done a good job grimesing the issue. i think this election is a good example. a lot of people in a lot of places feel left out because they have been left out and left behind. part of the reason globalization, digitalization they view as a net negative and not a negative positive. it feels like people are coming and taking their jobs. we have to make the case that if we have more people coming here, some of those will be the big

companies of tomorrow. 45% had at least one immigrant founder. so we have to tell that story. that will help create the jobs, help lift up. but we need to spread the health. the companies are in pittsburgh, des moines, atlanta. not just san francisco, new york, and boston. >> all across the united states. >> this is titled the next wave of american entrepreneurs and everything. so you two will have an incredible perspective on this. it will probably be different. but what do you see? we all grew up through the digital revolution, architect, now we have material science. what do you see as the next big targets of disruption? if you want to get down what we went through with the kodaks of the world or encyclopedia britanni

britannica. are we seeing that innovator die is and are there likely targets out there? >> i would argue, in fact, all this week as you know, "the wall street journal" is has been running a innovation, and they've interviewed a number of different people. i spent some time with the reporter for the wall street journal just a few weeks ago, looking at different perspectives. i think the pace of innovation has never been stronger. the kind of students that we get today at the universities and colleges, these students are much more entrepreneurial, and they want to, they not only entrepreneurial and they have many more opportunities than a generation ago, equally, they are eager to connect the entrepreneurial spirit with societal impact in which ways their parents and grandparents did not do, which is wonderful for entrepreneurship. we need to make sure we are not

just training somebody in how to solve an equation or code a program or do an experiment, but how do adapt and think differently in a complex situation. i think adopting the education, teaching how to learn, is more important than teaching a particular subject. >> very good. >> you mentioned kodak, the story there is, to dig into a little bit, the general view is kodak is kind of caught sleeping, digital to he have phy came out of nowhere. kodak engineers invented digital photography. but the corporate leaders were not leaning in the future. they're focused on what was there, frankly, the paper business was pretty profitable. it is a reminder to all of us, you have to focus on where things are going, the best way to do that is to partner with

entrepreneur, not to try to do everything in-house. guess what, smart people work somewhere else. how do you create a network around your company so air not left behind. you are part of the future, and you're playing offense, not defense. clearly, the companies get large, aol, after we merged with time warner, we shifted from playing offense to defense. you can't do that. i think figuring out how to continue to be nimble and flexible, focusing on where things are going and not just talk about it, but how to execute will be one of the big challenges in the third waive and i think the answer gets back to partnerships. the ones that try to go at it alone will be left behind. >> the small companies that make up 95% of the new jobs need to partner? is that what you're saying to that extent? >> yes, different, though. >> the '90s are gone, where you up and sell and all that, and so -- >> i know you ran that play a

bunch of times. >> yeah, you did too. >> because of the nature of the sectors. >> it worked out for both of us. >> take health care for example, if you want to revolutionize health care, of course software will be part of it, but it is not dropping an app in the app store. you have to work with doctors and hospitals and health plans. that's going to require partnerships. if you want to do something about re-thinking learning, you have to work with teachers or professors or partner with carnegie melon. it has to move into this world where it is about integrating important aspects of your life and partnering with some of the players in that. unless you do that as a small company, unless you do that as a big company, you may not stay relevant. >> you know, we've got a minute left. this is a great group here. so i wanted to open it up for just a couple of questions while we are here. anybody? yes, sir, in the back?

[ inaudible question ] >> looking at those types of apprenticeship programs and re-establishing those, and providing that as a foundation for doing innovation, because unless you're working, you're not going to create a better way to do that thing unless you have the foundation. >> i agree. i think that would be a great way for larger companies again, how do you figure out a way for magnet, particularly young people in with different perspectives, and a bunch of different ways to do that as i said that earlier. apprenticeships, companies are

trying that and that will accelerate in the next decade. >> we see that all the time with our starting in the freshman year, the number of companies that come to attract students to go work for them. in fact, companies like pricewaterhouse cooper is hiring civil engineers. i mean, connections that you would not have thought of just a few years ago as trainees. and this also gives companies an opportunity to choose which students they want to give offers to when they graduate, try them out in different locations. and in fact, some of the students, at the end of the freshman year in our -- in some of our program, they have multiple offers. right at the end of the freshman year. there are lots of opportunities now. global scale as well. companies from around the world, coming here attracting students. >> so before we go, maybe as a wrap-up, just what would you like to say or recommend to

entrepreneurs, thousands, millions perhaps of them out there. you both have incredible experience in this area. how would you, just a minute, say? >> i'll be very brief. innovation is a contact sport. and engage in the contact sport and come in contact with as many people, like steve, who have succeeded, and as many people you can find who have failed, but tried very hard. >> two things. building on that entrepreneurship is a team sport. how do you assemble the right team of people aspect is critical. but recognize, i said earlier in this third wave, the game is changing. and the rules that worked or the playbook that worked in the second wave will not work or will not work as well in the third wave. so things like partnership really internally are hard. it is hard to structure with partnerships, but it is important. policy is hard and frustrating. of course you don't want to deal with government regulators, of course that will slow you down, but you are going to have me cal

safety, drones in skies, driverless cars. we're leaning into that and that's important, perseverance is important. and be open-minded about place. 50 years ago, if you wanted to be in the entertainment business, you had to go to hollywood. that's not true any more. you've got all kinds of -- a cottage industries around creation of music, all around the country, all around the world. people are running hedge funds and mutual funds from all around the world. we're seeing entrepreneurship regional lies and global lies and trying to figure outlook look where you shut start the company. something around some of the work that carnegie miller and pittsburgh does about the robotics and things that other places, agriculture technology, st. lewiouis, opportunities in

third wave are unbelievable. these are actually the most important things in terms of rely, some of the biggest sectors of our economy, so it is game on, but you have to adopt this different mind set. >> well, thanks. we definitely had two great panelists, and thank you for being here, and thank you, counsel and thank you, debra, for putting this on. >> happy 30th anniversary. >> thank you. [ applause ] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome back the president and ceo of the u.s. council con competitivene competitiveness, the honorable debra wynn smith. >> wow, what a great day. thank you all for being with us on behalf of the council's executive committee, i want to formally thank all the council

members, our speakers, our sponsors, the fantastic counsel staff that have worked very, very hard to put on our gayla dinner last night and this competitive forum, as we celebrate our 30th anniversary, but importantly, begin today the journey started today to craft the next chapter in the council's journey to make america more prosperous. there is no crkrystal ball, but few powerful themes. really emerge through the discussions. i just thought i would capture a few that we talked a lot about change, but we also talked about continuity. we talked about the collision and convergence of the scientific and technological f

revolutions and how they'll create new products and services. we talked a lot about connecting, collaborating, competing and coalescing around big initiatives to do big, important things for our country. we talked about how to co create, and construct, capture the value of our innovation capacity in america. and very importantly, all of our speakers in one way or the other really came down to addressing this challenge of how we can create together a new connected community of caring concerned citizens who are all part of the competitiveness journey. so again, i want to thank all of you for being with us. our clarion call for competitiveness will be the new strategy for the new president-elect. we urge you to take it back to

your states and cities and regions, and promulgate this and very much welcome you to be part of the next chapter in our competitiveness journey. thank you so much for being with us. [ applause ] senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, says he reports an investigation into russian intervention in this year's presidential election. >> senator, do you believe that the russian government was intentionally trying to sway this election to donald trump? >> as i indicated, the reason i

read that statement is i think that pretty thoroughly covers what i'm prepared to say about that issue. >> and you said you talked about an investigation. you support a separate bipartisan investigation, a commission in any way? do you oppose -- >> we're going to follow the regular order. it is an important subject. and we intend to review it on a bipartisan basis. >> you imbedded in your statement there, a critique of the obama administration, reset with russia or attempt with warm with russia. is it likewise concern you the signals coming from the new administration, at least from the top of it, of a different attitude orientation, and more friendliness toward russia? >> let me just speak for myself. the russians are not our friends. invaded crimea, senator mccain and i and some of our democratic friends met with the delegation from the baltic countries just this past week to say that

they're nervous about the russians, is to put it mildly. let me also say, as i said last year, nato is important. we intend to keep the commitments that are made in the nato agreement, which i think by any objective, has probably been the most successful military alliance in world history. and i think we ought to approach all of these issues on the assumption that the russians do not wish us well. presidential electors meet a week from today in their state capitols and c-span will have live coverage as they cast their ballots for president and vice-president beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern, live coverage from springfield, illinois, lansing michigan, and richmond, virginia. now, republican and democratic congressional leaders hold a ceremony to sign the 21st century cares act.

this is 20 minutes. wow, what a day and what a moment. i could not think of a better way to end the year than by signing this bill. this is exactly the kind of legislation that we need to be passing. this bill takes head on one of the big challenges we face. curing what today are considered incurrable diseases. i don't have to tell any of you that this moment was a very, very long time in coming. and we would not be here if it were not for the tireless, relentless work by so many people that are here standing

today, like fred upton. and now, we have a lot to show for it. i just want to say to all those legislators, fantastic. you guys did such a good job. [ applause ] look what we have to show for it. more money for medical research. that means millions of patients will get the treatments that they need. i'm talking about people like our good friend here, max shill. speeding up medical innovation could mean fewer surgeries and less hassle for max. it could mean millions of americans get to live longer, healthier lives. if that doesn't convince you that we need this bill, then i don't know what will. i would also be remiss if i did not recognize the good work of congressman tim murphy. tim murphy, just like everybody else on cures, worked so hard on getting mental health reform over the finish line,

crisscrossing america, listening, doing hearings, talking to people about how to fix these issues. he has led the charge to bring attention, and the resources to mental health issues. but all of you have worked very hard to put the patient back in charge. that's what this is all about. i'm so proud of all of the accomplishments of these members, and i simply want to say thank you and job well done. [ applause ] >> well, the speaker covered the significance of this and there are a whole lot of people here who deserve recognition. i'm going to single out one member of the senate, who did more than anything i think to acquaint us all with the significance of this. this is, i think, the most significant piece of legislation passed by this congress. i have the greatest impact on the future. and the fellow who educated us

in the senate republican conference about this was senator lamar alexander. he want to single him out for special recognition. [ applause ] i also want to thank the president and vice-president. this is a classic example of incredible bipartisan cooperation. the president had a particular interest in precision medicine, the vice-president, obviously in the cancer moon shot i had an interest in regenerative medicine. we all kind of pulled together here. when a bill like this passes with a very big margin, a lot of times people think, well, that was easy. some of the toughest -- leader pelosi i think would agree. some of the toughest things do around here actually in the end do end up passing by a very large majority, but it was really hard to put all the pieces together. so everybody behind us here played an important role in this. i'm pleased to be here today.

i think this is an exciting way to end this session. thank you. [ applause ] >> the 21st century cures act represents a vital step forward. one that is very important to modernize and strengthen our nation's pursuit of lifesaving treatments. the national institutes of health has the biblical power to cure. where there is scientific opportunity, i think we have a moral responsibility to allocate resources. that's part of what this legislation does. for providing reforms and resources that will accelerate innovative biomedical research, precision medicine, and president obama, research, and i want to particularly salute vice-president biden, because he really advocated for not only

his moon shot cancer moon shot initiative, but for the entire bill. bringing clarity to its purpose and votes for its success. frank palone, and diana digette have made this legislation their life work for a very long time. their knowledge, persistence, traveling the country, working in a bipartisan which, which is very important. finally, we have the $1 billion in opioid funding needed for the epidemic of addiction. we're making improvements in mental health and substance disorder services. that was a very bipartisan initiative as well. i'm also pleased to have a letter from the speaker saying

that promising that congress will meet its responsibility to robustly fund these commitments in the years ahead, not just in 2017 appropriation. don't worry okay? >> yes. >> you heard it. >> no worry. i'm relieved. accelerating development of cures and protecting the health and safety of the american people depends fully funding the fda, and the nih. may i say that when we make these investments, and we come forward with cures for interventions, we want them to be able to all americans. we will continue to try to work in a bipartisan way to champion the robust investment and innovation in r & d that powers new miracles, going back to the biblical power to cure. i join the speaker in saying that i can think of no better way than to start the holidays in signing this legislation

which makes america more healthy. thank you. >> thank you, i'm fred upton. and this has been a great couple of years, because that's how long it has taken. we have worked not only both sides of the aisle, but both sides of the country from north to south, east to west. and we did something that congress has often acrossed of not doing, and that is, listening. we listen to every group that was out there, the researchers, the scientists, patientrticulare patient groups. the clock is ticking. the folks that have a disease know that it will take them without a cure. this bill is going to fix that problem, because it expedites the approval of drugs and devices, and coupled with literally billions of dollars in more research that will find the answer for those cures years ahead of what it otherwise would

have been. i want to thank my colleagues on our committee, you'll remember this bill passed our committee 51-0. it was no easy task. republicans and democrats, but particularly, i want to thank my partners, frank palone and diana digette, and particularly, lamar alexander, who did an outstanding job as we did this together. in closing, i want to say what really made this important, it is personal. it is personal to everybody out there. our colleagues, our staff, our constituents. it is going to find the answer. it is important that we did it

right. we also want to thank the administration. because without them it would not be a reality when president obama signs it into law next week. thank you, everybody. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, fred, and you and representatives digette and palone have set a remarkable example for the united states senate and we're grateful for that. >> say that again. >> i'll say it again next christmas when we do the same thing. dr. francis collins, who is the remarkable leader of the national institutes of health, he calls it the national institutes of hope, predicted in a hearing before the committee that the following could happen in the next ten years. artificial pancreas for people

with diabetes. medicine that would identify alzheimer's before the symptoms are apparent, and then once identified, would help retard the progression of alzheimer's. a vaccine for zika. a vac for hiv/aids. bill fris will be out of business, because instead, we'll begin to use regenerative medicine to use your own cells to restore your own heart. this is dr. collins talking. and the real answer to the opioid addiction, which would be nonaddictive pain medicines. he sees those coming in ten years. these are truly medical miracles. this legislation helps make that dream come true in two ways. one, the funding for the

research. and second, to move all those cures and treatments more rapidly through the investment and regulatory process, and into doctor's offices and into medicine cabinets, so people can use them, hopefully at a lower cost. that is why the president said this is an opportunity we can't miss. that's why the vice-president was making phone calls to senator all week. that's why speaker ryan put this as part of his agenda for leadership. that's why mitch mcconnell said this was the most significant piece of legislation for the year. i want to especially thank the speaker ryan and senator mcconnell, because they had so many, as nancy knows, they have so many conflicting demands as speakers and leaders, but they cleared a pathway for a very complex bill with many important differences of opinion, and without that, it simply would not be here today. last year, we presented president obama with what he called a christmas miracle.

after a long time, we helped effect the lives of 50 million children by fixing no child left behind. this is his second christmas miracle, a medical miracle that the president will be presenting that affects more people, the way congress ought to work and i've privilege today have been apart of it. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, senator. i'm going sound like senator alexander in what i say. this was a significant bill that became even more significant as the leadership of everyone here got more and more involved. i have to start out by saying that first of all, fred upton and diana digette were determined to go around the country and listen, and knew and want our country to continue to be innovative. the feeling that those two had was that there wasn't enough innovation. that, you know, there may be too many restrictions or not enough

money being spent at nih at research for diseases that we hadn't found a cure. we could do more as a country to accomplish that. so that was 21st century cures. but as time went on, we had these other bills that were just as important, mental health reform, dealing with opioids, some you know we passed an opioid package and the president signed it back in july, but there wasn't the funding. and also, the cancer moonshot, which was a really innovative idea on the part of president obama and vice-president biden. and so all of this evolved into a package now that really is truly remarkable that we're able to combine all of these in one rubric if you will under the auspices of 21st century cures. he want to thank the leadership. really, i have to thank nancy pelosi, our leadership on both the house and the senate side, because there were many times when i met with nancy and you know, there were the naysayers

that we can't do all this, we can't put it altogether. there isn't enough time. she said there is enough time, we're going to do this. i hear the nay sayers, but they're wrong. this is a great bill. and it is. so i want to thank everyone here for putting this together. i think it is remarkable that we are able to accomplish so much in this last few days of the session. and now i would like to introduce diana digette, because if there was anybody who refused to say no, and say air doing it, it is going to get done, everyday, every hour, in my ear, it was my colleague, congresswoman digette. >> thank you so much, frank. it was almost exactly three years ago today that fred upton came up to me on the floor and he said you know, diana o', i'm thinking about doing a little bit to help revise the way we do biomedical research so we can

get cures much more quickly from the research lab to the approval to the patient. and i'm wondering, would you want to help me with that. so i said, sure, fred. and then i went back to my office and told my staff. so you can imagine three years later, as we stand here with all of our wonderful come padres on both sides of the aisle, what a special moment this is for us. look but it is not just special for all of us, it is really special for all of the patients of america. people for whom we need to have hope during this season. people like max, people like my daughter, francesca. people like so many other americans who have diseases for which we don't yet have a cure. and that is really when this congress can come together in a bipartisan way, to bring hope to those americans. everybody has said what a team effort it was, and it was a team effort. our friends on the -- in the senate on both sides of the aisle, our leadership in the

house, speaker ryan, leader pelo pelosi, i wasn't the only one who refused to say no. there were those many late night phone calls with fred and his staff, and of course, everybody on this committee. i do think that there is one group, though, that deserves our thanks more than anybody else. and that's the incredible staff that we have. all sides. give them a big round of applause. [ applause ] >> just one thing in conclusion. some commentators have said this is the way congress used to work. and guess what? i hope this will be a new day, opening the door in congress working this way again to solve the very serious problems we have facing this country. i now want to introduce the star of our show, max. so max -- >> hey, max. >> super max! max, by the way, he was with us

every step of the way. he was. >> hi, my name is max. thank you for supporting cures. cures will help people feel better. cures is more than help. it is action. thank you for working with each other on cures. cheers to cures! [ applause ] >> awesome. >> now we're going to sign some bills here.

[ applause ]

tonight on the commu communicators, purchase of aol and proposed acquisition of yahoo. discussing the need for massive fiber buildout, which could be part of the infrastructure program being considered by president-elect trump and congress. he is interviewed by john mckinnon, technology reporter for the "wall street journal." >> the wireless signals are traveling a shorter distance. that means when we talk about the wireless networks, 90% is fiber. you mentioned internet of things and cities, look what cities are trying to do. you need a massive fiber infrastructure to d that. >> watch the communicators, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2.

president electors will have coverage as they cast their ballots for president and vice-president beginning at 11:00 eastern, springfield, illinois, harrisburg, pennsylvania, lansing, mitch ganl and richmond, virginia. claire clear. c-span, will history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. that is brought to you by today by your cable or satellite providers. the number two official at the u.s. geological testified before house natural resources subcommittee regarding data manipulation between 1996 and 2014. this is about 1:10.