from 1989 to 1997 and when they came in from 97 to 2005. these are not people that by accident showed up in her joining the party. there is a cohesive thinking on their part in terms of what they'd like to take the country and that is their strength. so far they have been able to go to the supreme leader and say you need to sign this deal because without this deal, what will happen is the resistance will start unraveling from within. ..

from the west, tiger money and investments in and therefore you are going to make this nuclear deal sustainable. but they are saying is that it's not about the guns but it's about how many big corporations are going to come in and invest their money, go back to the z. and speak good to us. whether it works out as a different matter. the supreme leader is okay with

economic reform and so far had said nothing about the great headlines we are hearing for instance to give you one example $185 billion worth of investment in the next five years. that investment brings you to the global economic mainstream in ways we have to deal with people that were enemies. and he hasn't opposed any of these projects or ideas so far. what i think you need to watch out for is if i was an american analyst watching this and i want to know how many people in the administration are going to square this thing and go back to the economy and deal with the western world which khomeini state has one of the key issues to say we aren't going to become a dumping ground for the import.

we have to stand on our own feet and learn lessons from the last ten years of distinction. so he's very cautious in what he says. forget about everything we've done in terms of sustaining our economy at home. he says we are all going to do with the europeans only when it makes from the point of view of the resistance. and this is the key to understanding how the khomeini supreme leader's office is going to come against this planet. he has been extremely careful to make sure the supreme leader in his mind is the one driving this thing forward. i suspect the same thing is going to happen on this major economic world economy. i'm not going to get into this but perhaps in the q. and a this is one of the key questions what

was the intention for the nuclear negotiations. was it to prevent the war or make friends and a lot of people in the united states have questions about the latter. hispanic litany stop here and hopefully we can get to the other points. >> i'm sure people in the audience have things they would like to hear more about. what we ask you when you are following is there any institutional obstacle and when did we know he know that this is accepted institutionally? >> they can go out there and say parliament has approved it and once the congress rejects it with the dealing for the last two years and this is how they treat an agreement so that's one

thing we can put forward. it's not the decision maker. if anything it is used to control the atmosphere politically. how much of a hard-line waste away want to have making sure they get into the parliament and that is one of the key issues to look out for. so if you see the people being rejected between now or dismissed by the framework being dismissed that as a sign. therefore he's gotten what he wanted.

the one-way putting obstacles in the path is to make sure they don't get too many supporters in the parliament. the parliament is not a key actor in this. the nuclear negotiations are going to be verified by the national security council and some members of the parliament are asking for a vote before they are doing is clear they want to see if the americans play games we can play games. >> we are not used to political fear in the u.s.. [laughter] >> let's turn to you. they may be having different reactions. what is your reading about how others have taken this agreement and how does it impact the relations with the u.s. and iran and are there any nuclear arms race issues related to this and what are your thoughts on the reactions and actions?

spinnaker look out at the audience and i see so many friends that have been doing this too long. i want to start off in all the years i've been writing about the middle east i recently learned a fact, a random fact i want to start the discussion with by leaving it with you. islamic law provides the attacks levied on nonbelievers in the islamic community. i learned recently that one of the first acts upon consolidating their control over arabia in the earliest years of stability shia, the attacks on the nonbelievers. and to me if you want to understand the collective attitude about shia, that tells you.

so keep that in mind as we go through the rest of this discussion. last fall, i attended two of these events on other institutions. on the first day the panelists were current and former american officials in the state department, the national security council and basically all of them said the same thing. we in the united states have an unshakable no doubt about it commitment to the security and protection of our friends in the gulf and you'll find it in all of our doctrines in the commanders statement in whatever you want to read from a book while journey all defense review. all the documents were turned up in washington. this is the gospel according to us. and you would have thought at some point we were talking about

israel. this was the general saying you can take this to the bank which became a famous quote. the next day i went to the panel which most of the participants were in the region and it became apparent that they had heard all of this and they didn't believe it. it was a fundamental cognitive dissonance between them and us over an issue that mattered and that he saw in different ways. that's when he was still the king of saudi arabia and it's when the saudis and others in the gulf were indeed apprehensive about the way things were going into the probable the possible course of the discussions with iran and what it was going to remain to be so mean to them. so what is happening now is the

members collectively, and i waited for you to shoot me down on this. the countries collectively have decided to believe that whether they do or not, what they tell each other over coffee at three in the morning or scotch at three in the morning i don't know. and they are not going to tell me anyway. but beginning with camp david in may you can see the leaders had made a collective decision that the deal was going to be done. they were not going to do a full on this. they need us more than we need them. and i think that is clear especially because of the realities of the market. there was a joint statement that president obama at camp david said we all recognized a

well-crafted agreement could be beneficial to the security throughout the region. and that's why the statement that he issued last week were recently when secretary terry was there wasn't a surprise. now that the deal is done they said that we've reiterated the position they've taken knowing that it was going to be done. and i think now what it seems to me that's happened is the gcc countries have decided that if she was behind them so they are going to take the united states at its word to all of the security arrangements we've committed ourselves to which the first manifestation of the patriot sale which came out not long after and they will work with us the best they can and better with each other to confront the problems in the region. how do we see this?

they are feeling better and bigger the ones that matter the most. they are feeling better about the situation in yemen. i don't know whether they turned the corner but the deadly destructive stalemate followed the onset of the bombing campaign in march and now seems to have been broken with the big airbase to the north and the returned of the vice president and you can now see the possibility at the very least getting back to the negotiating table in yemen. i don't want to enter a turf war but i don't think it was a coincidence that the foreign minister certainly suddenly showed up. you are all familiar with the link that it provides between the gulf and iran.

i don't know what they said. he hasn't talked to me since he got mad when he was the ambassador in washington 20 years ago. but all of a sudden, the air was full of airplanes going here and there and you can see i think what i would describe as a sort of collective waking up into the agreement for better or worse is a done deal, therefore we have to look for other things. so let's work with the americans and each other to address things whether they can actually get their act together, i don't know. but they certainly are going to have the military equipment and capabilities to do what they think they need to do. and the american commitment - i read this morning reading in the press i was reading a piece that

pulls all this stuff together. finally, to me just say one of the arguments bandied about in the united states during the discussion about the treaty mostly raised by people who in my opinion don't fundamentally understand the gulf war saudi arabia is the treaty would set off a nuclear arms race in the gulf. i don't believe for one minute that that's true. and i've been writing this until people were bored with my writing more than a decade and my reasoning hasn't changed. yes it's true they have a stated commitment which some are acting on to create nuclear power in their countries. and they have very ambitious plans which frankly they need nuclear power.

basically they would raise this argument. you heard what my colleague was saying about the economy. in saudi arabia which is the country that matters the most on this subject and throughout the gulf, the first law, the first rule is self-preservation. they've decided and recognized that they can't do that as a confrontational state in which they give people brad and don't fulfill their aspirations for a better life. they've committed itself to a future of full integration with the global economy. there's a reason why the biggest foreign investment plans and operations in saudi arabia last year that went online or in

general electric got to say something of the mars candy company. they can't afford to be adult wants to be the north korea of the gulf. they understand perfectly well that their position as a full partner in the economy and the commitment to surpass germany as the exporter of petrochemicals cannot be fulfilled in the nuclear outlaws and therefore they won't do it. >> thank you very much. very excellent and concise presentation. we also came out with a phrase. let's turn to turkey. obviously there is a lot going on but focusing on the nuclear deal with iran and what is the spectrum of opinion and how does the government ceded and what

are the pros and cons and how might it affect the turkish government policy. >> tom mentioned that if you want to understand you have to understand the issue and if you want to understand turkish politics you have to understand but fear so the domestic policy that is the key to understanding the behavior and it plays a part in the policy as well. on the nuclear deal, turkey shares the western objectives on the nuclear program that it has promoted engagement instead of isolation against the sanctions and that's why in 2009 and 2010, back in the old days when the foreign ministers had problems

turkey wanted to play bridge between the west and iran. they voted against the sanctions and they were happy about the nuclear deal for two reasons. the first one is economic. iran is a huge market for the turkish goods and the provincial trade agreement with iran and close energy ties. turkey has been mobilizing to invest in iran so that is the opportunity for the turkish business but also they have objected to a nuclear iran arguing that that could change the regional balance of power in favor of iran. so that is the policy at that's

why all political parties and business organizations, pretty much everyone is happy about the nuclear deal and the lifting of sanctions but they have strategic concerns about iran. the first is in iraq. we've always argued that the stronger iran is committed to have power and to step up its support and it's the destabilizing factor in the policy. so that's why they are influenced into similarly they are on the opposing fronts and

it's undercutting the policies and the second concern is closer ties between washington and iran turkey and washington haven't been on the same page. they have had conflict in priorities and objectives. they have closer ties because of the nuclear deal and then they can undercut the policy from the regime from the get-go from the uprising march and 2011 turkey has been, or late august in fact the 2011, turkey has been

supporting the opposition into turkey has become an operational hub for the opposition and has invested heavily in the coalition so that is the strategic number one in syria and they see it as a threat so that's why there's a lot of tension between washington. untold very simply turkey has refused to open the airbase in turkey for air strikes against the islamic state. and the u.s. and other western allies have complained that turkey hasn't done enough to stop the crossings of the foreign jihadis. so there has been a mismatch and

the two countries haven't seen i do i so now turkey fears that they could cut a deal in syria and turkey has been trying to mend fences thinking that it could also join the newly emerging front. and the third concern is for the pkk offshoot in syria. and that isn't a new concern for turkey. for decades they have zero relations because they always feared that they were supporting the pkk to destabilize turkey. and after the conflict started

the issue has become bolder boulder because they supported and a lot of the pkk leadership to return to the country. so they should become more complicated for turkey because of the conflict. more recently there has been a cease-fire between turkey and the pkk. but more recently, the two sides resumed violence and now turkey fears that they could play the card again. and the turkish media last week reported that iran approached the end and promised them support at his id has provided. if they join the fight on the regime this is a huge concern and that is one of the reasons behind the recent attacks.

so in response to those threats and concerns, turkey has done several things. but after he died, turkey launched this to counter the rising influence of the region. and also, they've been pursuing a very aggressive policies and 2014. they've been supporting the groups that radical islam. and i think that is also partly in response to the effort to come to the influence in syria. and recently, turkey opened the

airbase for the strikes against the state and the main reason wasn't the nuclear deal that killed 32 people, kurdish activists. so that was the turning point. but i think part of the reason is they want to mend ties with washington but still they have peaceful relations for centuries so turkey on the one hand is concerned about the rise but on the other hand, i don't think that it is willing to completely alienate iran and it could be able to answer but on the one

hand they had very close relations economically and very close ties at all the other hand despite the different stances and syria in iraq, they could be able to manage to have a working relationship and i think that it will remain so. hispanic thank you for the fascinating presentation. thanks for that. let me turn to the ambassador. impacts on the long-running conflict in syria and iraq. >> it's nice to be here. thank you for the invitation. when you start to speak for five or six minutes. how is this going to affect syria and iraq.

[inaudible] a british archaeologist and fight at the end being the 20th century to give a talk about his archaeological research that he'd been digging up temples and ancient cities [inaudible] she went to his friends, the british playwright and said how can i explain everything i know in just 20 minutes come and he told them speak slowly. left to just used use the per minute so i only have four to go. just on syria and iraq, washington is consumed with the issue that this nuclear deal and the politics. the problems in the syria and iraq do not evolve around iran or the united states. the problems in iraq and to syria in both grievances among

the communities that are long-standing and predate this nuclear accord and they are going to go on well beyond it. i think a bigger question would be a reasonable prospect of the cooperation of the two conflict zones. when i pick up this war in the islamic state i think of it at the eastern front. the pressure on the envy entity of the iraqi state are growing exponentially now. the oil prices are pushing to curb more and more to seek independence because they are not getting the pay they were promised. it's one more grievance among

others and there isn't much progress on reconciliation between iraq. the iranians are part of it although they are not the most important part. they have close allies and they are particularly close to the capable and potent militia that killed hundreds of servicemen during the military presence in combat. i don't think they are likely to give up those allies and they

themselves have political ambitions. in fact if you're watching the news, they are calling on members to join the demonstrations that have been taking place protesting the poor provision of services. these political militia leaders are very smart and ruthless and capable. in the absence of reconciliation it's not clear that they will be able to work a whole lot because

the islamic state problem is basically one that recruits its losses and as long as the political entity is marked with distrust they will be able to recruit and the fight goes on. if they saddle up too closely to the militia it will actually help the state recruit. i think the administration is aware of this and they refused to provide air cover when they attacked the city of tikrit which was a smart move so how they will cooperate on the ground in iraq is not clear yet

only if they are willing to feed the authority of the militia i think would then have a greater margin of maneuver. that's the good news. the bad news is the regime is now losing and i was just talking before we started the opposition is closing in on the homeland but there's no sign that they are backing off their support. just last week the minister was

visiting and he said the promise that they would stand by and then they said it's up to other countries in the region to change their policies. there is however some diplomatic frequent flyer mileage with visits being treated and there is a report dot confirm that one of the most important secret intelligence service officials visited which would be a remarkable visit if it occurred. there are reports they were about to put forward a peace proposal which would include.

it would include a change to the constitution to better protect the rights of the minority communities and it would include the promise of free elections on the international supervision at some point in the future and they visited and then went to presumably to talk about this proposal. its coordination between the russians and syrians. i don't think this is going to go very far. they are not signed into this.

i'm sure this will be on the agenda. they have a veto in all of this and i have to say based on my discussions i cannot imagine and even if they did they would not let him stay on as part of the transition government. so in syria is there a scope to work against the islamic state and they are both urging them to stop pushing against them and work with them but remember what i said at the beginning they are now losing end and the army is starting to withdraw.

there were demonstrations in the home province in the home base. think about that for a minute. is there then much space if they cannot retake the suburbs with our chances of being able to take on the islamic state which are three, four, 500 miles. instead there would be a diplomatic corps to the nation. that will require the iranians to accept the regime is now losing the war and that there has to be a transition out. it will not be possible to bring turkey along without making that

confession and as a part of the sanctions relief they will be willing to make that concession but in short the long-standing grievances don't suggest an immediate change for america to affect the collaboration of estate in serious syria. >> thank you very much, robert. let me come back to each of the panelists with one question each and then turn it over to the audience. you give us a very excellent picture of how things are being viewed. in the statements relating to the part was what is the spectrum of opinion relating to

iran's relations and particularly in the gulf states is there any new language or proposal that has made a number of those but more on the hard line is there any vision that this deal might signal a new era and with relation to turkey they have a longer history of economic cooperation but the difference are we seeing any new language that relates to the regional partners and anything that can be built. let me go back to give you a flavor of the contradictions which doesn't help in terms of making friends or were convincing anyone. as we have on the one hand the foreign minister talk about they want to and we need to talk to them. specifically to talk about yemen but also in this case took out the situation in bahrain.

but then we are talking in the strongest language you can imagine putting them in the same category. you sort of sit there and scratch your head and say if we are trying to meet new friends and you decided you want to walkaway, this isn't going to convince anyone. should i take someone very seriously which has been the question that we've all had for the last two years and are they going to make a difference and will they be used for the purpose of removing the sanctions but then once that is done, the skeptics of the deal. i see the division into the

thinking. you have the people. i mentioned some of them who - let me give you a specific example. it's the key in the cabinet because it depends a lot on the oil revenue since he's got the key task if you want to continue to maintain the stability you better do something with the economy. so he obviously in close cooperation with the president was successful in getting a nuclear deal. find greater than reaching out to europeans, find. now there's another issue to him which is how does iran come back to the world energy markets. this is a country with 18% of the world's natural gas but it barely exports any. today it exports but it did a

few years ago. there is a lot of catching up to do. and in the case of the context, the elephant in the room is saudi arabia. i can see the thinking on the part of the so-called moderates and pragmatic forces of the equation of the republic that as soon as possible they discard, if they play carefully and with some skill, they might go places but if not, they've got to be basically in the same argument that people have been hearing in the last two years which is rrw being quietly supported by the saudis. how can you argue us dealing with the country that basically says all syria have to guide. that is the counterargument that they are going to hear from the ir gc - irgc people. they will be desperately looking forward to veto for ammunition. and if the president doesn't

play this post sanction period in a smart way - because remember the potential big losers of the deal are the irgc and the many 800 affiliated subsidiaries that are a part of the irgc world. suddenly those 11,000 contracts they got from the period might not be on the table. so they are fearful not just in terms of ideology but if they are going to get hit in their pockets. and if he can play that game and say look we are going to bring the terms in but that doesn't mean that you're going to lose out. that is the message that we are hearing from the likes. so when we talk about the region specifically saudi arabia because whether we like it or not it is the giants that iran has to deal with first and foremost and the only country that is mentioned by name two years ago. now the nuclear deal is in the bag.

does he think politically that he is able to take this issue up? it is a very contentious issue, saudi arabia. but perhaps he's got what it takes to go forward. there is no doubt about it. >> i may ask you a bit about the dynamics. just about a year ago the content was isolated. there was a lot of internal politics. they are cooperating very much and a number of the states have a lot of economic interests now. to what degree do you see as being somewhat cohesive, doesn't make a difference into and how is it playing as a group? >> the short answer is i see them being cohesive rhetorically but not in terms of actual

policy. keep in mind the only thing in the press is going back and reading the charter which i've done. the words defense military security do not appear in the charter. it was an economic political organization from the beginning and there've been various exams over the year to hang the military doodads on this structure. you may recall there was another announcement they were going to form the command. there may be people in the room that no more about that than i do but are they showing any signs of coming into existence i

haven't seen any and they do not have it have not had all along the unanimity of the views. the split in the saudi arabia wasn't about iran. that was about the muslim brotherhood in egypt and they managed to tape or that over. they do the talking for the group and they are being forced to accept it in this kind of american superimposed superstructure in which they have to hang together. but it's true that even in the darkest days you can go to dubai

and look across iran. you can go out on the golf and see that somebody gets a phone call when the customs officials go home for the night and all of them done it from the site of the straight and go over to the kurds in iran there is a lot of back and forth as well as actually one last word on this. there is no unanimity. don't get them started on the subject of the parliament. that is just one example. so, they are going to hold their noses to deal with each other and with the have to do for self preservation. that's not the same as being converted spirits in my opinion.

>> good evening. turkey is at a time of political change. the plans for changing the constitution didn't work out and get all of these issues are also very much a play. how do you see not just the deal but much of what you talk about how do you see that impacting domestic politics which will also determine the new power structure into the role of the new vision after the old vision has that's how do you see that impacting turkey backs spinnaker to the conflict was in 2012. [inaudible] in that interview he said syria isn't a foreign-policy matter for us it was misinterpreted. many people thought that this is a new way of the region but in fact what he meant was syria is

a new place in the domestic politics. so yes it's not a matter of the foreign policy. we have too many refugees but aside from that cut the communities living on different sides of the border are family ties and whatever happens in the membership is of the origin so whatever happens has a direct impact on the plastic policy center said that's why when there are these reports there was a meeting between iran and the leadership, that is alarming for turkey because they think that if iran and syria have used

the card for a long time and that this changed - that was the main driver of the middle east policy. so now the card is again dare to be used by iran and syria. so in a way it is in the context and recently i think that it was in the military official who was critical of the bombing of the targets. so the sole concerns in the turkish mind that iran is going to have use and use the card. this would translate into a very domestic policy and of course there's more at stake. now by using the pkk and

pounding the targets in northern iraq and arresting hundreds of thousands of members domestically but targeting mostly at fault part of his populations he wants to appeal to the nationalist. but there is a response to what is happening in syria and iraq so what kind of impact will it have on the domestic calculations? i think that he's playing a risky game. it's a great thing that he finally opened up the airbase and seems to be fully on board and yet he still sees a bigger threats but on the other hand this is risky because it could

cost him. so far it seems him targeting the pkk is working but if there is an islamic state bombing in the resort in the mediterranean, that is going to weaken and i think that could weaken his prospects were succeeding at capturing more. >> thank you. i know that that you are be signed for a good many reasons. let's say you were back for a week the weekend had to devise the president if there's been a big diplomatic achievement. you were involved in geneva one and two. if the secretary had to put on a roadmap for the remaining year

and a half for this administration to make efforts on the crisis of medically - diplomatically what would you do come then is the process all completely dead and are there any possibilities of cooperation on anything. they ended in a hurry. the opposition put forward in writing a year and a half ago to the united nations special envoy to put a proposal that would negotiate the national unity government and even the future was subject to negotiation but they didn't have.

but theyay that again, they didn't have as a precondition that he stepped down. that was a year and a half ago. at this point, so much has changed and so much blood has been shed, and as they made advances on the ground, the syrian arms opposition is now probably going to be a lot harder to extract concessions from. so going forward, i noticed that the new united nations envoy he doesn't think they can get to a conference any time soon. they suggested instead that the establishment of some working groups to discuss things such as security, political transitions

but which don't involve a political negotiation for the new system. that is a good way forward but at the same time given that saudi arabia and qatar are helping the opposition more than they were say a year ago. it's important to get back on the same. the military victory is probably still some time away even if it isn't impossible to imagine how. but it would be better to negotiate a deal but that means the secretary is secretary is good to be back on an airplane or inviting counterparts to washington to talk specifically

about syria. so reinforce the intensified discussions. they made some progress with the russians in terms of getting them to agree to a united nations security council resolution. in fact they have agreed in that it is a good step. some more engagement but without any more expectations of the breakthrough. this is to manage for the day that we can see some light on the iranian side and gift table. >> thanks. let us now turn to the audience.

as you start coming introduce yourself. i will start with the lady in the back. my question is for ambassador ford. i work for the state department. it's been said that iran runs the show and they've said that if iran would use the deal to funnel lots of money and arms.

the gentle man in the second row. >> [inaudible] mit is learning that some turks have joined in to wonder if that is a big factor in why turkey has finally decided to declare war on isis or was it strictly the bombings? >> thank you. into the gentle man in the front. >> i have a question for both tom and do you think that would make it more likely or less likely? spinnaker you know there are a lot of hands and i will try to get to them. >> question for any of them

regarding if they need them more than the u.s. needs them. the countries are the key to 22 countries for leadership. 57 islamic countries for the leadership, to regards to islam. they are the epicenter of the prayer and pilgrimage of spiritual humanity. forth with regard to shia, saudi arabia has had good relations better than bad relations. with iran and yemen and lebanon then it's the negative ones. and last with regards to geography, they may be along as a content with their teenagers on the military aspects. last year they did have 130,000

troops that have joint maneuvers and it's larger than any of the exercises that they've had and the issue of whether the unified or not the european union is and unified with a number of other issues so i think we do need them immensely. they need us immensely and the implication that one needs together more than the other. >> the gentle man at the very back. >> my question is on the future of the relations between the

breast and - the west and israel. their ability to reach a deal to the growing tensions with the u.s. and israel and particularly the balance of the administration, and secondly, what does the deal mean is the deal mean for the future of the relations? >> let me go back to the panel that start with robert in the reverse order. >> to answer the question it's very difficult for me to imagine in the short term the iranians will not use some small portion of the financial resources that they inquire as part of the sanctions release over the next year and a half.

.. countries like pakistan and afghanistan and iraq to go and fight in syria. i would recommend to you a report by the washington institute put out about two weeks ago about the casualties among expatriate shia in syria.

hundreds have been killed in the last year and have. that's because of the iranians. i would expect the iranians to take him at his word during his visit to the gulf last week that they're going to stay on and double down. i think that's the least they're going to be. the prospect of sanctions relief for iran means there will likely be an increase in fighting in syria in the short and medium term. >> in response to the question why turkey finally joined the anti-islamist state coalition, i think the bombing on july 20, it was a turning point. there were 32 people who got killed in turkey could not not respond especially at a time when there is potential early election. turkey, syria, syria policy is

very unpopular so turkey and respond. i think there was an agreement, between the u.s. before. so bombing almost became a safe haven way for turkey to join the anti-islamic camp. yet you write, turkey is quite vulnerable. there are now 1300 turkish nationals fighting in syria for these young states. they are well established salafi networks and major turkish towns but i think turkey yes will go to the rally that infect islamic state poses more direct and bigger challenge than i thought. shares a long border with syria and there are too many syrian refugees. but i think the main reason is again the kurds. turkey is quite uncomfortable with a just decision to airdrop weapons and kobani.

turkey decided -- in return that asked for the u.s. to establish a safe zone within syria. that is a way of common it is right in the middle of, there are three enclave in northern syria, and with the foremost, the kurds managed to link up those too. turkey has been worried that the kurds are now forming a corridor which could have access to mentoring and that's a nightmare for turkey. so turkey decided that if it can convince the americans to establish a safe zone in between those two kurdish enclaves, then it could prevent the kurds, linking up those enclave. that was the deal. that was the condition. that's a turkey decided to open the airbase. a short answer, yes, turkey has realized it is vulnerable, but

on the other hand, the kurdish question i think played a larger role in turkey's decision. >> in response to ambassador max question but relations between saudi arabia and iraq, always hesitant to get into this in a roomful of people who know more about this than i do. but for those of you who have not followed this. this cat has a long tail. going back to the fact that when -- what was his name? maliki. when maliki was running for prime minister the saudis opening act as a poet, his principal opponent. although he was himself a secular shiite. there was no possibility that saudi arabia and iraq were going to come back together as long as allowing with prime minister of iraq. now under abadi there been some signs what i would call movement. that is to say about two months

ago probably in the late spring the saudis finally for the first time in many, many years designated a resident ambassador to go to baghdad and represent the saudi arabia. shows interest was a military intelligence officer last seen in beirut. thanks to phoebe, the pleasure sometime last year of meeting a career iraq a diplomat who had just retired. his last post was iraq's ambassador in saudi arabia. so saudi arabia was in it as he iraq have an ambassador in saudi arabia but they did not have one in baghdad. saudi arabia had an ambassador in tehran but didn't have one in baghdad. king abdullah was immovable on this subject. i think now the saudis are less immovable, but at the same time,

remember along the border between saudi arabia and iraq they are building a fence that donald trump would be proud of dauphin.[laughter] >> by 20 clarify the point i made about the shias in saudi arabia. the argument that the kingdom of saudi arabia is going against the shias this one hard-liners in tehran have put in for. that's not one necessarily that the mainstream islamic republic of iran subscribed to. even if they did the likes of rafsanjani who is the godfather of the rouhani camp still making the argument on a daily basis in this case, we made it, we made it back in the 1990s. iran could, after a nasty 1980s and saudi arabia backed saddam hussein found in itself to go and reach out to saudi arabia but the early 1990s, if

they could do it then why not the same experiment with the argument being saudi arabia simply too much of an opponent, rival in the context of iran is trying to do regionally and globally this would be ignored. i want to emphasize. one of the very few handful of countries that rouhani mention in his election campaign in 2013 whether it's a neat in his mind to really make some serious change with the saudi arabia. you could perhaps if you want to be playing the king of wishful thinking say he is been busy the last two years but the nuclear weapon issue hasn't come right to. of the country and saudi arabia. it would be a two-way street. there will be compromises made of both sides but i would hope if it did go down the path that would be good news for the region. >> maybe not all aspects of the questions were answered. you might want to corner some the people after the talk is over. we have a few minutes left. let me start with the gentlemen here and move quickly because

our time is limited. right in the front. >> thank you very much. so over a year ago u.s. government officials quietly asked whether they would accept iran -- [inaudible] nonstate fighting group, iraq. the only thing adopted is more likely -- [inaudible] ambassador ford, you mentioned the u.s. needs to keep an arms length or newsgroups and iraq but in syria we still support groups that directly fight against the iranian backed fighters. so if the u.s. were to suddenly announce cooperation with iran on syria, should the syrian opposition see this finally as the end of even rhetorical support from the united states?

>> i wil would turn to the extre right. alan. >> thank you. alan keyes with the middle east institute. the discussion has been premised on the factor on the assumption that the iran deal survives congressional scrutiny. so what are the regional dynamics, the regional replications if congress kills the deal speak with you hav afto that in the last two minutes. [laughter] >> do we have another hour and a half? >> let me go to the back. >> thank you. i didn't hear a lot of focus on places and associate groups and others wonder, does this mean for ambassador ford, but others might responder is there a tacit sense that isis is on the

defensive, and will wither away? or on the contrary, is there some reason to think that isis and the associated groups are offensive, that they have all sorts of possibilities, not just in syria and iraq but in other neighboring places? >> thank you. the lady in the third row. third row from you. microphone is coming your way. >> i've been married to an american diplomat for close to 50 years. we served in middle east, and africa. and my question is, since israelis or israeli lobby both to me seems the same, trying to kill this deal, i wish somebody would've been on the failed to explain to us what the hell is going on. >> i'm going to have to cut it at the kind of people wanted to ask more. i'm sorry but the constraints of time. let me start with you, alex, and

throwing out the possibility you sort of handed out, if the congress, particularly if there's actually a veto opposition, if it falls through what you think a scenario would look like? >> that's not a bad place to be because sanctions are pretty much grumbling. post-ukraine, russia suddenly makes more overtures over the arenas and the iranians are considering russia in a more serious matter than probably have ever done given to the history of suspicion between iran and the russian empire. was basically that does for how many it was hardly have been most narrow focus in terms of what is going to be at the end of this deal. if you take the ayatollah to go this clout trichet, he just wanted the sanctions removed, an american walking away from this

deal basically what it does this brings that international sanctions regime against iran. so again khamenei couldn't care less about u.s. sanctions. on his party couldn't care less. they dealt with sanctions for three decades. what he's been something from our the international sanctions were tightened since 2012. from his perspective he doesn't have to worry too much. the so-called rouhani camp will wasn't much better economic agenda and commitment to the international mainstream, they would not be too happy because that is going to put the brakes on from their perspective. >> thank you, alex. tom, nobody has commented on israel. any thoughts on that? >> you will need to talk about israel speak with i'm wondering, there are a few questions about israel and the nuclear deal -- >> look, in the unthinkable event that the nuclear deal is

not survived in congress, i haven't read one word of useful commentary from any outfit in the gulf about that possibility. because it's unthinkable. and also because their governments have accepted. are not about to challenge it at this point. but the answer to that question might lie more with israel than it does with the members of the gcc, and the gulf states. they know how to take us at our word that whatever else happens, iran will not be permitted to get a nuclear weapon. how we would prevent that, that would be up to us in the absence of this agreement. but what would happen if the israelis were to decide that the failure of this deal been meant that they had to take some kind of unilateral military action?

the consequences would be enormous but in my opinion almost entirely unpredictable. >> thanks, tom. gonul, anything from this round of questions you want to respond to before getting to robert? >> i can speak the question of whether the islamic state is in retreat in turkey. i think it is recruiting more and more from turkey, and it's i think relative harder for the islamic state to cross the border. now turkey stepped up border protection and working with european countries to stem the flow of foreign jihadis. i think right now the islamic state is, it's hand is stronger in turkey and now that the turkish government decided to wait a simultaneous will against the gcc. so just last weekend, just last week issued a threat the islamic

state issued a threat threatening turkey that it would be very easy to destabilize turkey. turkey fully joined the fight against islamic state. it would just -- that's what the statement said. just take a bomb in a turkish resort. it is a stronger position in turkey but i don't how that would translate for the isis activities in this area. >> robert. >> in answer to professor hudson's question about the islamic state, i think and iraq agenda are on the defensive. in syria they are on the defense in the northwest. they've had to fall back quite a bit but they're on the offense in other parts of the country, in the center pushing towards the west. they are getting fairly close to

northern suburbs of damascus, although there's plenty of fight left in regime units around damascus. i haven't talked about islamic state so much simply because i see no way to manage the isis challenge, the islami islamic se challenge, without having unity government in both countries. i don't think the time it will put tens of thousands of combat troops on the ground in syria and iraq. i certainly hope not having spent five years trying to get troops out of there. i don't think any form -- tens of thousands of troops and the country big enough into space, the islamic space occupies is so to take tens of thousands of troops. the real question is can these two very broken, very broken political entities find ways to achieve national unity and rally

more people into the islamic state fight? abadi is trying to do that but iranian backed militias have really put some arranges into his effort to end on the syrian side i see no sign of bashar al-assad is more interested in the fight against the islamic state than in preservation of his family's hold on power. >> thank you. our time is up to visit the an excellent very rich and excellent very rich panel on a topic that will continue to unfold. please join in thanking my colleagues. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the c-span system or visits historic sites across the nation.

from local historians, authors and civic leaders every other weekend on c-span2's booktv about american history tv on c-span3. this month with congress on its summer recess the cities to it is on c-span each day at 6 p.m. today we traveled to greensboro, north carolina, children about the literate life of the city. that's at 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> with the senate in its august break will feature booktv programming weeknights in prime time on c-span2.

>> later this month on c-span2, look back at the voting rights act would've signed into law 50 years ago this month.

>> this sunday night on cue and a, antiwar activist phyllis bennis on u.s. foreign policy since 9/11, the recent appreciation with iran and the war on terrorism. >> who is isis, what are the origins, why are they so vile that? all those are important and i addressed that in the book i think what's more important in some ways because it's something we can do something about is what is the u.s. policy regarding isis? why isn't it working? can to go to war against terrorism? are we doing the war wrong or is

it wrong to say there should be a war against terrorism at all? i think those are the questions that in some of the most important and will be the most useful. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> now a conversation on credit card fraud and the steps retailers are taking to make credit card transactions more secure. we will hear about new chip technology in credit cards and effort from the federal government to protect americans from credit card fraud and identity theft. this is one hour and a half. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm debra berlyn. i'm leader of protect my data and president of consumer policy solutions, and i like to welcome you to our program and thank you for being here to take part in this discussion today regarding an important consumer issue. protect my data is a consumer

education campaign on credit card security. we are joined today by our distinguished white house guest speaker followed by a panel of leading industry and consumer issue experts to discuss this issue. after a brief opening remarks at our discussion we will open this up to answer any questions you all may have. we are here today to explore the steps retailers and financial institutions are taking to secure credit and debit card transactions. the differences between chip and p.i.n. technology compared to chip equipped cards -- thank you -- chip equipped cards -- that's better -- with signature requirements and to provide a brief overview of what the white house is doing to protect american consumers from credit card fraud and identity theft.

after what seems like an unending occurrence of cyberattacks at government agencies, financial institutions, retailers, health care companies and even in the entertainment industry in recent years, hundreds of millions of american consumers have had their personal and financial data stolen and their confidence shaken. given these recent data breaches it's no surprise that data security is at the forefront of many consumers minds. congress is trying to work in a bipartisan manner on efforts to improve public and private cybersecurity measures, but less attention has been paid to the issue of improving payment security measures. while we certainly need more robust cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive financial data, we also need frontline measures that will stop criminals who try to use stolen banking and credit card

information. the most common credit card, like the ones you have undoubtedly been just get back to the 1970s. they use a magnetic stripe on the back of the card which houses our financial information, along with a signature for authentication. but as we all know, fees, master the ability to exploit the weaknesses of existing credit card -- feeds. they can use to the financial information to exploit the weaknesses of existing credit card. what's more, they use the financial data to create counterfeit cards to run a fraudulent transactions and steal from consumers accounts. to help combat fraud many card issuers and financial institutions in the united states have begun deploying new microchip equipped cards, also known as emv cards that are

encrypted. some of you already have started to receive these new chip cards. however, most of these cards still rely on a signature as a secondary form of verification. a feature that unfortunately can still be easily forged. instead, chip enabled cards could offer greater protection for consumers by coupling them with a requirement that consumers enter a personal identification number, a p.i.n., to properly authorize the transaction instead of a signature. at 10 requirement as a distinct layer of security to each transaction that has been proven to reduce fraud. our panel of experts will discuss these issues in more detail. the evidence of chip and p.i.n. benefits and hypersecretive protection the highlighted in president obama's executive order issued last october, and it is with great pleasure that i welcome our first guest speaker

today, to tell us more about the administrations actions. dr. marisa porges is a senior policy adviser at the national economic council and is the lead for the president's by secure initiative. she is a very impressive background in international affairs and also served our country as is flight officer in the u.s. navy. so please join me in welcoming our first speaker to present today, dr. porges. [applause] >> thank you, deborah. thanks everyone for being here today. i'm really excited to get a chance to talk to the group and join my fellow panelist for a conversation about consumer financial protection and look at

the cybersecurity lens and optical excited to see some faces i've worked with the names i've worked with in the past but also new people coming to the table for this conversation. because as i'll describe as i think our conversation will demonstrate, this isn't about home of government approach, not about of interest approach. it's about the whole that they're going to approach including folks here who are representing their members of congress including our consumers in the conversation, and the fact i was the other to demonstrate why it's what about including everyone in the conversation is looking back at our data report rather than reports of data breaches. it used to be if we think back to the 2007-2011 timeframe, we often mostly thought of the business sector as being the target. and, in fact, for that period over 34% of the data breaches reported were targeting businesses, retail industry, they payment processor. if we look at this year evening to the end of july we have seen

the health care industry becoming the number one report of the data breaches. second behind and, of course, being the government and the military. we've seen this year we will likely surpass that flashy which in and of itself was, set an unfortunate standard for how many data breach instances that american consumers were facing. so with that any understand it's about everyone playing a part, i'm going to talk about consumer financial protection through the lens of the white house and look at it in three areas. first and foremost, what would the perspective of federal government to ensure the federal government is better protecting american consumers are second, how we are making sure the private sector is positioned for success on this front. last but not least to talk briefly for a strategic perspective how we think consumer financial protection within a broader landscape of cybersecurity and how we should

think of things not interest next year but moving forward over the next decade, what questions, concerns, issues should we consider? with that i will dive right in to looking at it through the government lands, what we are doing to enhance american consumer financial protection. i'll go back to what debra mentioned a few moments ago. the executive order signed by president obama in october of last year which launched the buy secure initiative. buy secure has become a keystone in the federal effort to lead the way in protecting american consumer transactions. during that announcement and ever since we've been working to transition federal agencies to ensure that we're using enhanced security payment technology with all our retail payment. what does this mean? it means the two lead agencies to work with card issuers to issue cards on behalf of the u.s. government which, gsn treasure, begun actively

aggressively issuing cards that have that chip, that have the dmv technology that of chip and p.i.n. enable. i'm excited to report that we got the numbers back in history for the month of july and it means gsa working with the payment industry has issued over 1 million new emv chipping paint enabled cards to federal government workers so they can use them in a travel, making payments and this is an effort to drive into the way for a work that should we protect our transaction. treasury have started issuing 10,000 new cars a day as part of a phased approach to introduce dmv technology, recipients of the benefits of a direct express debit card. we are really looking at all sides of the system on that front but even if the past dmv how using other secure enhanced payment features. things like online payment, card

not present it so you may have seen in february treasury announced that if you pay, paying bills to government agencies online through pay.gov, court fees, things like payments to your sba loan, you have multiple payment options to include paypal and dwolla. of course the to think of it on the receiving end agenda have pashtun anyone been to the u.s. post office lady? you will notice their payment terminals have been upgraded to include enhanced security features. that's something we're doing across federal agencies and we see 19 federal agencies are currently upgrading their terminal. is not just what we put out the trick is how we are receiving the american customer, consumer for any federal payment transaction. i can talk more, there's other things in terms of tools but it gives you a taste for what buy

secure is doing to demonstrate how we can better protect american consumers and their financial transactions. i'll turn briefly to how we are looking to the private sector on this because again, it's not just a hope of government approach to its a hope of government, industry, consumer, congress, everyone approach. this is a challenge that industry and government must tackle together. sufficed to say our computer network and systems that consumers do with every single day are mostly held by the private sector. on the other hand, government ofttimes has the latest interest intelligence and information to the private sector monitor threats and respond most effectively and quickly. so it's only by marrying those two groups of the making sure that partner and work collaboratively together that we can't ensure consumers are better protected. what does this mean? it happens on a multiple front. first and foremost it's about

positioning the private sector to lead and effectively lead on this issue. hopefully a number of you saw or heard about, hopefully attended since is in california in mid-february, the cybersecurity and consumer financial protection summit held in september, rather held in stanford in mid-february and it was an exciting event. notches because of the good weather and not just because of the 24 plus senior leaders, ceos and other executives from the tech industry from consume at a secret, for me to come help her, others. but it was about the dialogue that happened and, of course, commitments those companies made coming out of the summit. that day we had over two dozen companies made major commitments to improve their cybersecurity efforts, to do more to give consumers the tools that they could use to protect their identity, to manage their risks better and introduce more

security payment features. what does this look like? this looks like announcement by qvc, walgreens, u.s. bank, pacific gas & electric and others to start using the cybersecurity framework to better protect information that failed on behalf of the american consumer. it looks like visa announce a more aggressive timeline for tokenization, mastercard announcing millions to introduce new safety net procedures and features. and american express pitching advanced security technology in the form of multifactor authentication. and entities like a nation star who are now offering free credit scores on irregular basis to the consumer. begin tools that we all can be using to monitor for identity theft. and more quickly respond to a malicious attack or incident. what else are we doing? the other interesting thing is how we are collaborative more ever since. one thing that came out of the dialogue was that ofttimes

individual core sector specific issue is the most effective. what does that look like? that looks like efforts by specific pages is resting the sectors they work with to simulate cyber incidents, talk to the responses and identified key challenge is moving forward so they can better more effectively respond in the future. specifically one good example for the previous treasury. treasury has one multiple tabletop exercises, public and private exercises that they can send it would have been a malicious attack and determine how best to respond so that we in government can help the private sector more quickly, more effectively protect the american consumer. a key part of that as always is information sharing. now as a third lane to bring to consider how this all fits into the broader cybersecurity

efforts, cybersecurity and consumer financial protection are often two sides of the same coin. we've seen this out yesterday threat continue to evolve over the past few years. and likewise our responses continue to evolve. so, too, our responses must continue into an ever evolving process. what does this look like? this looks like conversations about legislation, conversations about including stakeholders in the conversation, conversations about how consumers and the american public consider their identity moving forward in the next decade, and what identity management looks like. to dive into a few of those little more, on the legislative front. i would be remiss in this august not to mention it, specifically since 2014 was such a really good year for us when you look at the congress passing cybersecurity related legislation to specific legislation that addresses that

improves have the federal government protects its own network and positions the federal government to engage in cybersecurity missions moving forward. but we are all well aware that there is still new legislation proposed to address specific consumer protection issues. i'm referencing legislation proposed by the white house earlier this year that addresses a few key issues, including information sharing and data breach notification. and provide additional safeguards to ensure the american public has its privacy and civil liberties protected. and provide for increased information sharing among government entities, between government and the private sector. so we are really hoping the momentum we had in 2014 will carry forward through the fall of 2015 and we can have progress on this front. it will set us up for increased moving forward.

last but not least was talking to other stakeholders, i probably would've said last twice because i two more things. one, we talked about the federal government but there's also a state and local entities. we were really excited at the national economic council to participate in a with governor mccallum at an event with a state of virginia announced they would be the first state to mandate the state agencies would begin accepting chip and p.i.n. during the regional transaction. and 55 secure initiative to start actively aggressive issuing emv enabled cards moving forward. begin thinking about the multilayers of our system and every to transactions at all those layers can be more secure moving forward. to support this effort and other states, other local entities we just put out late last week a

best practices, a guidebook of sorts that the gsa put together to get state and local entities for how they can more aggressively, actively do what other states are doing an issue being the enabled chip and p.i.n. protected cards. i encourage you to go online and go to gsa's website and see how they suggest other entities follow suit and also address the retail transactions more securely. so to close, and i said i would address one was tickled and i will do it in my closing. and i'll close by saying i think where every strategic impasse. i think we are positioned for success moving forward with all the people we have in the room, with the people on the panel, with a good effort on the private sector and by various government agencies and other entities on this issue over the past year. but there's a lot of work that needs to be done. nothing i mentioned is a silver bullet. it's all pieces of the puzzle moving forward. the last piece of course it is

the american consumer. i would encourage inner dialogue moving forward to consider how we include the consumer and our conversation, not just with how they should start using the chip on the card but really what identity threat management looks like moving forward. why multifactor authentication is key. how to pass the password and with the future of identity protection looks like for us all. so i look forward to questions and look forward to talking to the panel on this. dinky, debra. [applause] >> -- thank you, debra. thank you so much. those remarks are right on target, fabulous and it's so exciting to hear about everything the administration has been doing to move us forward for consumers, for credit card security. this is great. we have an outstanding panel before you here today and i'm really excited about introducing them all to you right now.

i'm going to introduce them all and they're not necessary going to stick in the order that you see lined up your cell ask them each to just sort of nod or raise their hand as they introduce them come and think we will get started. first up will be liz garner who is vice president of merchant advisory group. and then we will hear from bill boger who is senior vice president and chief legislative counsel for the american angus association. and then we will hear from our wonderful consumer issue team of john breyault who is with a national consumers league. is vice president of public policy, telecommunications and fraud. and stephen pociask who is president of the american consumer institute. i've had the pleasure of working for many years with both john

and steve on a whole host of consumer issues. so it's wonderful to have both of them here today to join me. so first off i'd like to call on liz to talk to us and explain what retailers are doing to better protect consumers. >> thanks, debra. and thanks for having us here today. a lot of familiar faces in the crowd. i would like to engage the audience but how many people know how many visa credit cards have been compromised in the last two years? how many people know how many mastercard cards have been compromised from the past two years? how many people couldn't a big retailer or big bank who's been compromised in the past two years? i think that says it all. that's why what you're the panel is our members and the brand who are at stake when it comes to payment card security because our relationship with the customer to protecting customer data and payment in particular

are paramount to the merchant community. it's something all of our folks take very seriously. at my organization are direct members of the finance and treasury professionals. i'm not even talking about cios and technology people within the company. the payment card security is the number one issue for our folks. that's how important it is because of the brand damage and customer service issues a retail merchant or another business like a bank or someone else faces is in the wake of a data breach. here's a couple things we're doing, some of the technologies that market that we are very focused on. we'll talk a lot about the empty bucket to that last. two of the other important ones are transcendent and encryption. from a very basic standpoint what tokenization does is it replaces data with a different value. if it's stolen and makes it virtually unusable. encryption is going to protected data in transit to a transaction is a very complicated low

between multiple different partners. when i go swipe my card at my neighborhood grocery store that goes out for authorization for my merchant acquirer. acoustic a macarthur grant and goes to the bank and then it goes back all the way to the merchant point-of-sale. that's not talk to some of the new transactions accounted i am transacting with this. i've got mobile carriers, potential at apple on my phone or android as a monitor for phone or samsung or some else who will touch the dead and protecting all the way through the transaction is critical. that's something i merchant ivory focused on, deploying tokenization and encryption solutions together. when i say tokenization i should clarify. i'm not talk about an an off the shelf payment card brand version. until you actually our own proprietary tokenization, technology that several members have been utilizing for years. include all the products that we

have, not discredit and debit cards. it goes beyond that to a regional discord it's much more expansive. same thing with some of the solutions were by from our merchant buyers. those are two of the security technologies are very focused on applying the next couple just to be and he is the one everybody spoke so because we've got this october why billy shift day. what is in the? europay, mastercard and visa, that's what d&d stand for its smart card technology that essentially is a computer chip on a card that helps prevent against counterfeit fraud on this card, meaning it makes more difficult for me as they to recruit this versus old cards we have that we so utilize today. the important thing here is that this prevents card not present, or card present, counterfeit fraud. that's what i get with the deployment of emv in the united states. was the last country in the industrialized world to go the. we've got is why billy shift in

october 1, 2015 too simple for, a lot of nuances of what happens and who bears liability once the ship goes into effect. to simplify it the party was done the least to enable emv will be the most responsible for fraud and a card present environment. if you look at some of the global diplomat numbers it's interesting. worldwide d&d card issuers, the adoption it on the issue is the site is about 40-50% whereas on the merchant side, merchant terminals, i set up the means to accept the the, closer to 80-80%. likely to see the same trends in the u.s. version of merchants installing the capacity to accept these cards if it's going to reduce their fraud profile. and the risk to the brand. i think a pew research poll came out the sedona one in 10 cards have a chip on it that is in an american consumer's wallet. we are close to october 1 as i think a lot of people asking

what does this thing for businesses? what does this mean for consumers when we hit this date? i think it means a few things. i think some business are going to be ready to accept emv. for those consumers who have this type of cars in their wallet they will be able to use it. there some other businesses who may not. i want to go into a few reasons why. it's not for lack of trying, but i talked with one of my large members yesterday who, equipment provider, hasn't certified they can accept these cards yet. he can't rule out the and the out the and the acceptance in a source in to the equivalent provider certifies this product and field tests it. one of the reasons we're lagging is this is a global specification to like i said before europay, mastercard and visa and a few other global card brands. one of the things we so with technology delay. whereby in the u.s. we have

domestic debit card networks. so the crew to see on the side of atm machines, wouldn't have access to transactions on these cards if we didn't deploy a solution that was very specific to the product. we didn't get the rights to the technology until sort of early 2014. the timeline for deployment of a simple technology project even a retail is 12 to 18 months because you're all these different parties. unit equipment providers. chip processes, everybody must go and test answered but it is safe and care for the consumer to use this product. we want to be sure it works smoothly, that is a seamless process for anyone who's coming into our store. we may not be the october 1 across the board with all stakeholders but we will be moving in that direction. some people ask me are all merchants going to deploy emv?

i think with to take a look at what is the return on investment for deployment in the? like i said there's a huge benefit to merchants if they can better protect their brand from data security. we are thrilled the white house initiative to move towards chip and p.i.n. cards, a million cards. that's fantastic to already be there. actually ahead of the gang to get to make art out of market and we're pleased to do that. we know the challenges the post office and others have dealt with to get their terminals ready as well because i think it's great the government is making such great headway. i can tell you i have a friend works at the state department who had one of the chip and p.i.n. credit card. he was so excited to get into mail because she traveled to eastern europe all the time and she's had trouble using her government card for years and ushers one that work that is more secure. we're moving in the right direction. one of the challenges of d&d in the u.s. is were not adopting

fully to chip and p.i.n. initiative that the government afford and is not in rubble or best practice with what's out there internationally. the are a few reasons why we're not. if the network driven initiative in the state. we have roadmaps from major card brands and there is very more concentrated network market share in the century by the versus the p.i.n. marketshare issue. on the issue were side as it visits i am very sensitive to argument that putting a password on one of these cards, a p.i.n., might make it a little more, might include more friction micro-to pull the cart out of the consumer. as it is i'm going to be very worried that would make me put this card at the bottom of the wallet and pick up another credit card. on the flipside i question how big is at risk. a very important point is that a

business driven decision. that's not a security drippings decision. security experts will tell you to factor authentication is the way to go to increase security for cardholders, for consumers. i also question some of us have my phone swiped out of the front of the car is not password-protected i will never not password-protected second apple gives me the ability to go in and said my phone outside have to enter a password to access this. i think i'm not on issue inside putting passwords on these products we're doing a disservice to the american consumer. i mentioned before where the last industrialized country to remove towards chip and p.i.n., d&d card. one of the benefits is we have more technology capabilities in the u.s. then others have that pulled us out to the one is the ability to accept p.i.n. online and that's a great future that several of my neighbors have

deployed and if the rpms on these cards up to help reduce internet e-commerce fraud. that's a huge concern for us right now. internet transaction of some the fastest-growing transactions in the united states. their transactions that typically do have a lot of fraud. and on the merchant side we are bearing some of between 70 and 100% of all the fun. so for of protecting those internet e-commerce transactions and given these mobile transactions is paramount. we'd like to see it even further. last thing i will say about p.i.n., you have a chart on your seat that some the study that came out just last week. look at the fraud lost one. that alone shows you why we prefer p.i.n. it's not about cost. it's about security, security to consumers. seven to eight times more secure. if you have a p.i.n. protected

transaction but those numbers in my mind speaks volume. if anybody says merchants want to pay less, we will get regulate issuers. the interchange line was very high. i would push back there's any other rationale behind merchants wanting tens. to conclude i think we need to be password-protected products would have to list of authentication so that we can better protect businesses and consumers from fraud losses in the united states. file 21 international example. australia watched a campaign that was run by all the major card brands to essentially move to credit cards which is what we should be in your. they did it in a very thoughtful way. they did it based off the risk of the transaction. there's a very big difference

between my stop in and about the wendy's at noon on a friday and it is at midnight on a friday. if i am buying $50 of food, i might not need to ask for a p.i.n. or $35, whatever the thrush was going to be, for the new transaction but the midnight or 1 a.m. i may want to ask for the code hold authentication just to be sure that the person who they are. that leads to more fraud in the system and that's bad for consumers and business. from our point of view we need to take the next big technology coming to the u.s. one step further. >> thank you, kindly. thank you so much. now we're going to move to bill boger who's going to talk about the financial service industry from american bankers assocati assocation, and talk about your

perspectives. thank you, bill. >> i was, thank you for inviting me first. i think this is an impressive turn of the i don't know if that was the free lunch but i'm very impressed you all are out there on on a hot day, so congratulations been in the audience. i have to tell you your opening remarks were terrific. you all set the stage for this talk, and i could tell you, information sharing is a huge thing for us. we appreciate all the work the white house has done. the house has passed information sharing bills with you guys have been constructive and we agreed information sharing is another side to the point we are talking about. perhaps the most important part of it is sharing threat information. liz, all your comments link at the background for emv and arguments were terrific.

talking about your analogy to late-night transactions, if there's any transaction after 10:00 that involves me, it is inherently a suspicious transaction because i'm in bed by 10:00. i would appreciate getting a call from my credit card company to tell me about that. in fact, i have recent experience where didn't involve a pin card, just a regular card of a major brand that is headquartered in virginia, if you're listening. and i had a nice little lunch. i took my son out as an intern at the american bankers association, had a quiet lunch at a local restaurant. not a big ticket item, and in excess of just enjoyment of having a conversation with my son, which if you are teenagers, doesn't happen very often but just having a talk with him i left and excessive tip which is over 20%. the next thing that happened was

my institution sent me a note asking me whether, in fact, that was me doing the transaction and looking at the fact that it was excess of 20%. i guess my point overall them and we can have added, is that i think the talk about p.i.n. as part of a multi-factor protected environment that we all share the we want to protect consumers but it's not the be all and end all of a finger touch of the mechanisms in place right now, technology we're using, biometrics that authenticate the transaction, that are in place and evolving data quite frankly are better than static technologies such as p.i.n.s. when you get a call from your institution, almost immediately after transaction takes place asking you to visit fraudulent transaction or not, that's pretty darned good work. we want to encourage that and we don't want to sit back and say

okay, if we put in place a four digit number, that's going to solve all the problems. we know it doesn't. we know it doesn't do with online transactions. we've all got to work together to try to solve these problems. we want to work with the administration. we want to work with you. we want to work with consumers. we want to make the and the a success. we want to continue to evolve our technology to do with evolving threats. but you all have to realize that our market, our credit market is one of the most complicated and extensive markets in the world. just a couple of -- 1.1 billion credit and debit cards are in circulation right now. 1.1 billion in the government you noted is making good progress with chip and p.i.n. that's a million cards versus 1.1 billion. the government is a huge operation but it's not like the private sector. ..