status, visibly status, things like that. slack did include lgbtq status, but why isn't that common? >> one reason is companies no collective that data. so we need to do a better job asking people to self identify because if we are not measuring these things it can be hard to track what is the experience like for people in these different groups. >> also i think companies might be scared to track certain date, to ask somebody if they're lgbtq. that seems a little scary, like traditional h.r. manuals say you don't talk to your employees about that, right? it's a tricky place i think we can grow there for sure. >> are there any others that you think are missing from these diversity report a? >> we don't see retention data.

the stats we see are like percentages of employers but we don't see retention. we don't see how many harassment cases got settled out of course. we don't see how many people are taking the parental leave has offered. there's a lot updated that just isn't in those reports that could really speak to like what the culture is like at a company. >> i do think though you are starting to see starting to see countries on the data continuum. last year we started showing our retention data. we started showing our payday. the next thing i think we're going to start looking at is to get our lgbtq, the first ability and patterns of data. i think you got to start somewhere. sometimes you get the analysis paralysis. if i don't show everything i'm not doing anything. for better or for worse people have started with especially women and then broadened that to look at underrepresented minorities. were the future is headed and showing data about everything. we've got to realize schillinger data can be a good thing.

it's nothing to be afraid of. then the floodgates open. >> last thing and we touched on this earlier but institutionalized racism and discrimination. those are topics to discuss for some people. how can we get to join in this room feeling comfortable about talking about it? >> i mean, it's tricky. it's an uncomfortable conversation for many people. it's hard for people living outside the tech industry to talk about institutionalized racism, but i feel like it's very important. i think people in tech should look at themselves like being isolated from the rest of society. like we're in this bubble, we are different from everybody else but the reality is people come from everywhere, and there is institutionalized racism and sexism and bias against people of all different sorts. once we come to terms with the fact that we are not different from the rest of society and that we have to work on an

address these issues also, we will make some good progress. >> that's all the time we have. thank you so much. give them a round of applause. [applause] >> live now to remarks from fbi director james comey as he addresses the cybersecurity conference this morning. speaking out is a bit of the host of the conference. >> so this really gives us a platform that in addition with some technology, allows also to remediate these security problems as they happen to the vision we have is that not only can we detect the problems, isolate the input, isolate the user come we can isolate the user's credential accessing applications across all the

endpoints and then we can remediate that problem and did it in an automated way that reduces your expenses and had to come after the cleanup after the malware. so we think that that is really big differentiator but it does require network and endpoint to do it. and it's a very exciting opportunity for us. so i think one of the things that i talked a lot about when we announced the measure of bluecoat in symantec, enough for all, isn't the combination of the two organizations. many of you know from symantec over many years it has one of the best collections of threat data on the earth and that is because of the footprint of the hundreds of thousands of customers and millions of endpoints, also augmented by what happens from the consumer

population that uses things like the norton products from symantec. when we combined these with what we get from the network telemetry from bluecoat, the bluecoat network everyday, it sees 1 billion website request that an event hit before. but hundreds of millions of users that are consuming the web from the customers. is a very interesting events because of these websites are new. quite often their associated with malware. when we put the combination of these new website racing every day, the billions of e-mails we are seeing everyday and all the grace of things that happen on the influx, we get a set of threat to liberty that is fantastic at one of the first things we are doing is integrating our threat databases which makes oliver standard products way more effective. so that's something that we really are excited about june wedding that value for our customers is it does require you

to change the product that you are running from other legal or symantec, that it becomes more effective almost immediately. we think that this asset is something that is unique to symantec, something that is highly relevant to every organizations fight against cyber crime and cyber defense. and is extremely valuable and close to our ability to realize that without boiling the ocean. mobile workforces, this slide, we really believe that the is no other workforce, a mobile workforce across the world. governments have a really strong responsibility to protect users and data, in the adoption of mobility is a little more difficult and perhaps

potentially slower, but absolutely required to get the productivity gains that are needed that are being experiencexperienc e in the enterprise from her that the dropping a completely mobile workforce. symantec is getting the billy to protect those users and protect the data that they are accessing in a way that i think is highly differentiated. we are bringing together a platform and you'll hear about it over time which is really the cloud generation security platform that combines blue coat and symantec organization will make available to our customers, opening an aspect. so if you're used to integrating third party products not from symantec or blue coat we will commit to making sure we continue to do that but we are really the place for the best in point protection across all channels, taking care of all the e-mail and messaging, all the web borne threats, protecting your data and giving you the

best platform for the adoption of really the cloud generation. so hopefully with that, that gives us a little bit of some of the industrial logic behind the symantec and blue coat combination. in just a couple of words, i am very proud to be the leader of the combined organization, and i'm definitely a very customer for an seo. i spent a lot of my time in the field and try to get the signal to mac ratio to the customer base is in shooting labs to be very clean. i come from an ancient background. i read source code, things like that but i really want to be able to listen to your requirements and have our organization very responsive to those. and it's an honor to speak to you today in your 13th of the symantec garden symposium and

give you a little bit of some of our thoughts. with that i would like to introduce director comey from the federal bureau of investigation. jim comey has a very distinguished background, and prior to the fbi, james comey was the general counsel, senior vice president at -- i can't -- lockheed. i'm sorry, jim. that was supposed to be on my prompter and it's not. very sorry about that. and he's a very distinguished individual, and with that i will introduce jim. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you, greg. he had dire straits for his welcome and i think i like them better. good morning, everybody and thank you for the introduction. thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. let me start by thanking symantec are putting this event on four this event on four the 13th year, and for the work that you do and the attendees are due to keep so many of us safe from the threats that the fbi worries about every single day. what i want to do is give you a sense of how the fbi is thinking about those threats, some sense from our perspective as to what we think all of us can do together, and to focus more on the fbi and explain to you how we are try to contribute to reducing the threats across a variety of bad actors. i want to share because they can get on the stage without talking

a little bit about the problem we call going dark, which is encryption. then i would like to take your questions. i hope you think of a question that has something to do other than secretary clinton e-mails. how do we slice up the stack of actors that all of us in this world have to worry about? we start at the top of the stack with the nation-states. think china, russia, iran, north korea, entities that are getting much more sophisticated, much more aggressive in state-sponsored intrusion activity which i will say more about in a minute. next level down the stack we would put the multinational criminal syndicates that are getting increasingly specialized in their roles and increasingly sophisticated. people are interested in stealing information is to make money, to sell it to the highest bidder the way criminals have always been the next level down in the stack would be the purveyors of rent somewhere which is spreading from our

object like a virus all across this country and all across the world. where for people running a business it becomes a challenge between choosing paying to get on with your business or resisting the spread of the virus and helping us fight it and rooted out the next level down we put the hacktivists which is a motley crew of people with all men and motivation, political, personal, philosophical, some that are hard to figure out at all who are interested in information to embarrass, to expose in their view, to send messages and it's not about money for the. at the bottom of the stack which may surprise you, we would put terrorists. the reason there at the bottom of our stack is terrorist organizations around the world, especially the group that called itself the islamic state, are proficient at using the internet to spread their message of hate, to recruit, to connecticut for operational purposes.

they are literally able to buzz in the pockets of fellow travelers or would be terrorists 24 hours a day, and that has an enormous impact on the fbi's counterterrorism work. but what we don't see them doing yet, and i underline yet, is moving towards and developing the capability for computer intrusions. logic tells us that that has to be the future of terrorism, as we make it harder and harder for them to get physically into this country to kill people and to do damage. surely they are going to turn to try to come in as a photon and doing damage to the internet. so that's our stack of actors that we worry about. let me say a few words about how we see them operating. over arching theme is increasingly sophisticated, large-scale attacks from all of those actors. combining multiple techniques and especially combining inside knowledge that's harvested

through social media, that's harvested through all the ways to come to understand the potential human factors that they might use to get into our organizations. all of you in this room know this. as we make our systems harder and harder for people to get in from the outside, the weakling always remains our people. the threat actors know that is so they spend a tremendous amount of time trying to understand how they might get in through human beings, through spoofing, the existence of a particular human being or actually recruiting someone who is disgruntled, he was unhappy, who's looking to damage an employer or maybe to make extra dough on the side. what is this stack after? that's obvious but they are after information, access, advantage whether that is political or economic or ideological. and we are worried of course not just about the loss of data in pursuit of those goals, but we worry every day about the potential for the manipulation

of data to accomplish the same illicit ends. and impact the attacks, your industry because you understand the impact of these attacks level spent a lot of time on this. they are more than just attacks on our infrastructure. they are attacks on our employees and our customers. they are attacks on our reputation, on our economy, on our security, on our basic freedoms. the sony attack was an attack aimed at free expression to it was the act of a bully looking to silence speech in the united states and around the world by intimidation and harassment, in that case, of sony pictures. so what can we do? we can't possibly prevent every attack. especially the more sophisticated actors, but we believe that this behavior, no matter where it comes from and the threat stack, is deterrable. these are not people who are committing computer intrusions

high on crackin having found their significant other in the arms of a stranger. these are people who are thinking coldly and dispassionately at a keyboard as the act. and it offers us an opportunity to change behavior. that is an audience that is potentially deterrable because they're not drug addicted or desperate in a way that a bank robber might be or a mugger might be. to do that, we need to be more predictive, less reactive. and we as a government need to recognize that the answer is not just us, it's the government at all of our private sector partners. we think there are three joint goals that all of us have in this regard, three things we all must do together, and then want to talk to about how i think the fbi in particular can contribute. all of us together can do three things. we can reduce vulnerabilities. we in the government can equip

you and the private sector to understand hackers and cyber criminals and their techniques, their tactics and procedures. you in the private sector can help those of us in the government understand the same thing. together we can use that information to harden our targets. we can make with that information i decisions of cybersecurity be a priority at all levels in our organizations. there is a risk that leaders sometimes will think of cybersecurity as something that is i want among other risk factors. it's kind of off to the sit sidd we turn and have a conversation about it at our quarterly meetings. folks need to understand that cybersecurity must be an integral part of everything we do come in any kind of enterprise whether it's government or private. no matter what type of work we do, because we are living our lives in the digital space.

cybersecurity affects every aspect of an enterprise. it is not just about our systems. it's about our people, about our processes, about our technology, about the way in which we interact with world. cybersecurity has to be part of every single thing we do and should be part of nearly every conversation in an enterprise. that's the first thing we can all do together is try to share information to raise the focus and reduce our vulnerabilities. second, we think we can all work together to do a better job of reducing the threat of the reasons i said. we think this is behavior that is deterrable, that we can, by together, holding people accountable in a way that will change behavior. i was a more in the second of the fbi's time to do that. we think we can do a better job at mitigating the damage. we in the government and in the private sector can help people understand better quickly what just happened, what's the path

back to restore our processes and our business. so that's what we think everybody can share in terms of goals. the pieces that we in the fbi can uniquely contribute, we break down into five parts of our strategy and i want to share that with you now. the first thing we're trying to do is focus better on people. we mean this in two different respects. focus better and deploy a smarter way to people who already work for the fbi can do a better job of stealing your talents to work at the fbi. first, focusing better inside the fbi. the way in which the fbi has done its work for over 100 years is physical focus. we ask ourselves, so where did it happen, and wherever it happen, whether that's a bank robbery or a fraud or a drug deal for a payoff to a corrupt official, that's where we do the work. the bank robbery happened in the chicago suburbs, and so the

chicago field office will be responsible for the bank robbery, and that makes good sense and has made good sense for a century. the challenge we face today with the threat that comes at us at the speed of light from anywhere in the world is that physical place isn't such a meaningful way to assign work any longer. so where does it happen when you're talking about an intrusion that's coming out of some other side of the globe into multiple enterprises either simultaneously or in sequence? that it is different than it ever was before. so we changed the way we are signing work. we have now created a cyberthreat teen model where we assigned the work in the fbi based on the ability. which field office has shown the chop to go after which slice of the threat we face, that stack. and then assign it there. and this is two things for us. it allows us to put the work with the expertise is, integrates a healthy competition inside the fbi.

because everybody wants to be at the front of the list to a important threats that come at us. and so we assign in a cyberthreat teen model a particular threat, let's imagine it's a particular threat that comes at us from a certain nation-state actor. we assign that to the little rock division because the little rock division has demonstrated tremendous ability against that threat. but we are not fools about important physical manifestations. because tha the threat is what t does particular enterprises around the country, and the ceos of both enterprise and the boards are going to want to know as the fbi be new to talk to us, and what's the nature of the investigation and how is it going? so to make sure we accommodate that need we are going to allow up to four other officers to help the team that is assigned to the threat in little rock. so if a company based in indianapolis and one is in seattle and one in miami, those

few officers will also be able to assist in the investigation, but the lead will be in little rock. in the air traffic control from all that to make sure we're not duplicating efforts or sending confusing messages will come from the cyber division at headquarters. we are trying to dig we've been doing it now for about a year and a half. seems to be working pretty well. it is set up very, very healthy competition inside the fbi which is good for us. but we are confronting a challenge and i went to work with have never seen before. so we are eager to get feedback, and in it a rate. we are not -- iterate. we want to be humble enough to understand that just as our world has been canceled in our lifetimes, the way in which we do our work is being transformed. we have to be open to changing when it makes sense. so the cyberthreat teen model is at the core of our response. also at the core of our response is a team of experts with the because the recall the captain to the cyber action team.

just as in terrorism, we have preassigned fools of expertise that can jump on airplane and go anywhere in the world in response to a terrorism threat. we believe that an adult that same typical with respect to cyber. so that if there is a particular intrusion, let's say sony in los angeles, we have the talent, the agent a who attempted and the talent, the technical talent that's already assigned to the cyber action team that is agreed and is ready to deploy in a moment's notice to literally fly to los angeles to support the investigation. second, we are focusing on trying to skew people. you were trying to hire. to be able to staff those cyber action teams and the cyberthreat the market a good way we used out there this is enormous challenge for us because we don't have the dough. we cannot compete on go pick a good is if we can compete on nation.

we tried to portray our private sector colleagues as soulless and exercise, and then convince theithe taliban to come to goodr a living. we are seeing how that's going. we've met with limited success so far but the good news is, the more we show people the nature of our mission, and just how fun it is and how rewarding it is, to have your mission as the fbi does protecting the american people and uphold the constitution of the united states, that attracts a lot of talent there one of my children describes me what our problem is in recruiting. she said the problem is you are the man. i thought that was the consummate so i said thank you, i really appreciate that. she said i don't mean that in a good way. i mean you are the man. who would want to work for the man? i think she's right but i said to her, if people saw what this man and woman of the fbi was like, and what we do and the

challenges we face, i think they would want to come work for us. so i don't want to share too much about our recruiting strategy because our interests are not fully aligned, was the work for the government or for a private entity in this room, but we are working much harder to make sure people understand what it might be like to work for this man and this woman, ma and do this for a living. then we are working very hard inside the fbi when we get that kind of talent to demonstrate more agility than we have, that we might not to demonstrate when you're 108 years old. there's a child when you're 108, when a smart young kid comes in with a wonderful way of approaching a problem or approaching no problem in any way, you might try to crush a person spirit by saying no, we have never done it that way. we are working very hard to work a whole lot cooler than you may think we are. we are not the bean bags and for no and a lot of whiteboards yet we are working very hard in marching in that direction so

that when this content into our organization, we are open to having them make us better. and a way that connects us and them to our mission more closely. we are also doing things like, the we've never done before. we will hire a senior level data such as. someone who knows how to think deeply about the technical challenges we face together, and the talent, technology, process but we're looking to hire that person, bring them in at the shoulder of the assistant director of our cyber division. obviously, we're trying to higher lots more cyber talent in our special agents. here's our challenge. to have a cyber special agent unique three buckets that you beat. you need integrity which is nonnegotiable. you need physicality. wwe're going to give you a gun n behalf of the united states of america. you need to be able to run, fight and shoot. so there's a physicality required. obviously, there's an

intelligence we need for any special agent, but to be a cyber special agent we need a highly sophisticated specialized technical expertise. those three buckets are rare to find innocent human being in nature. we will find people of great integrity who of technical talent and can't squeeze out more than two or three push-ups. we may find people of great technical talent who want to smoke weed on the way to the interview. [laughter] and so we are staring at that asking ourselves are there other ways to find this talent, to equip this talent, to go discover? if we find people of integrity and physicality and it intelligence, can we grow our own cyber expertise inside the organization? or can we change speed we are leaving fbi director comes remarks not for a moment for a quick pro forma session of the u.s. senate.

the senate finishing a brief

pro forma session. now back to remarks from fbi director james comey. >> department of justice will have believed through the fbi of the joint task force. and responding to threats and investigating threats, dhs given your incredible capability with respect to threats you will be responsible for threat mitigation. he will work to reduce impact, mitigate vulnerability, intensify and assess risks, director of national intelligence, your job, you will be the lead for intelligence support, making sure the best thinking is pushed into threat response and mitigation efforts. this is the most important message. it shouldn't matter to anybody outside the government who you call when you have a problem. our job should be to figure out who should do what and this clarifies for us exactly what

the lames of the road are and we evolved over the last several years on our own. the second point we are trying to shrink the world, trying to forward deployed far more cyberagent that cyber analysts and have them sit with foreign partners so though we face a digital threat moving at the speed of light, the human connection between investigators, shrinking the world so we can detect and incapacitate bad guys better, the core of our strategy. third thing we are trying to do is impose costs, we think this behavior, this intrusion activity by nationstates or activists or thugs and criminals is the terrible. we want to lock people up to send a message that it is not a freebie to kick in the door of an american company or private citizen and steel what matters to them. if we can't lock people up, we

want to call out, name and shame through indictment or sanctions or public relations campaign, who is doing this and exactly what we are doing. the department of justice first indicted chinese actors, and that seems like an empty gesture. i think we have managed to send an important wind through that. you might have to go abroad yourself, spending your kids to be educated, and see those kids. maybe they are not all that smart, but it took them 50 years

to give up on db cooper who jumped out of an airplane on washington state. the long arm of the law is very patient. trying to send that chilly wind is the same reason against iranian actor, and, all of this helps us grapple with a set of norms, it is the way we understand the framework. there are people who were series people with whom we have a series framework, nationstates gather intelligence, they always have. we are trying to get information about other countries and others

about us, we try to detect it and stop it. what nationstates must not do, cannot do to be community of nations to steal stuff to make money. that is outside the framework of acceptable nationstate activity and we are making progress making people understand that is a framework that makes sense is whether through indictment or sanctionable publicity we are working hard to make people at keyboard feel our breath on their neck to change that behavior. we got to get to a point where we can reach them as easily as they can reach us and change behavior by that reach out. we must help state and local partners be more effective to and responding to all manner of complaints to citizens about

fibercrime, and and training and equipment and task forces, responding to the cry for criticisms for help. people every day are asking about money in nigeria. i am not the president of the federal bureau of investigation, i am not in nigeria, do not wire me money but there are citizens every day scanned in similar ways, we have to help our partners give them justice. the last thing we need to do should be obvious to you. we have to work better with the private sector to address these things. all the information and evidence we need sits in private hands in the united states and that is a wonderful thing but an enormous challenge. we have discovered the majority of our private partners do not turn to law enforcement when they face in intrusion so that is a big problem. it is fine to turn to be

excellent private-sector entities and with remediation, that is good but we have to get to the point where it is routine for people who are victimized to turn to our assistance. we know your primary concern is getting back to normal, when you run any kind of enterprise, for profit business but we need to figure out who is behind that attack and it is in your interests. people sometimes think my interests are not aligned with the federal government, i need to get this over with and get on with my business. people think even if it involves paying ransom, our long-term interests are the same. you are kidding yourself if you think that problem will go away and not return to victimize you. we must work together to defeat these threats. what is our strategy for getting you, the private sector, to talk to us in the private sector more?

we are going to hound you and explain to you over and over again why it is in your interests as a matter of practice we can work well together. we are going to convince you we will not re-victimize you if you contact us and seek help and we will treat you as we have for a century as victims of crime. in working with all victims, our paramount goal is not to re-victimize this poor person whether it is a victim of sexual assault of a robbery victim or a company that suffered in intrusion. we also understand concerns about competitive advantage. we know you are trying to get out from under the burden that disrupted operations that affected the supply chain and risks affecting your reputation, and employees and customers. we understand, i understand your

concerns about liability given i was general counsel of two countries before coming back to this work which is better than private-sector work. we have been at this a long time. we strive to be humble and we have gotten good at it was we are good at minimizing your disruption and pain to your employees and protecting your privacy and legitimate concerns about competitive advantage. we do not share your data about employees or operations. we will have adult conversations with you to tell you what we will do with information you give us. some will make risk-benefit decisions that you give us. we will not allow you to be blindsided. we understand if we do that you won't talk to us anymore. what do we need you to do? we need you to talk to us, to

get to know us, to understand what we are like and how we do this work. we need to make sure you understand how important it is to your competitive advantage to integrate the fbi into your risk assessment plan. you spend a lot of time no matter where your facility is making sure the fire department has a basic understanding of the layout of your building so in the event of a disaster they can save lives. i suggest you do the same with respect to cyberthreats and risk assessment plans. we were able to respond to help sony investigate, attribute and mitigate because they had taken time before the fire to get to know us, not the details of their business plan, not any secret of their proprietary information. we knew the basics of their network, with the key people were, and the facilities and

locations. armed with that in a situation with smoke all over the place, and get the work done quickly. it is in your competitive advantage to make sure we have the opportunity if a disaster hits your company. if you are in a private enterprise and you do not know someone, every single fbi officer has a significant presence, you are not doing your job well enough. i want to know the commander's intent, we are waiting to build those relationships. i like and this experience, building trust with each other, to the germany we went through, the fbi and cia over the last 25 years, it was on the books, allowed criminal prosecutors and agents with integrity of the community, there was a criminal

prosecution that touched on intelligence equities. classified information procedures act was passed in the 1980s, they thought we solved that problem, friction between intelligence and law enforcement. it required trust building, case-by-case, person by person to take this example, the cia understood the fbi would not burn their equities. a great example of this occurred in summer of 1998 with attacks on american embassies in kenya and tanzania. the investigation that followed involved agency people and federal bureau of investigation people and the way we did it was people went on searches to do search warrants in east africa, we sent people from organizations so something was found that later would be useful in a criminal case, the fbi agents testify about it, won't be necessary to talk about cia

activities or its presence was that was consistent with the law that requires trust building to get there. three years later fbi personnel testified about those searches at a federal court women manhattan. the cia didn't have to be involved in discovery operations. those things build a culture of trust. it is not enough to say these are the rules of the road in a statute of regulation, we have to demonstrate person by person case-by-case so you are going to see that from us trying to work with you place by place, enterprise by enterprise to demonstrate we know how to do this and do it well. a brief word because i can't resist to talk about encryption is a problem, the issue of going dark is a term we use to describe increasing inability with judicial authority to get

access to information that sets on a device or is traveling in real time. the challenge we face is the advent of default ubiquitous strong encryption is making more and more of the room we are charged to investigate dark. there was always a corner of the room that sophisticated actors could get access on devices, to encryption. what happened in the years since i have been director post snowden is the dark corner of the room through defaulting options or encryption on devices, spreading through more and more of the room. it has dipped below public consciousness and that is fine. what we want to do is collect information this year so we can have an adult conversation in this country. here is why it requires adult

conversation, nation's founders struck a bargain, 240 years ago, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our houses and cars and safe-deposit boxes, that is a very important part of being an american. the government cannot invade our private spaces without good reason, that is reviewable in court. it also means with good reason, the people of the united states through judges and law enforcement can invade our private-sector. that has been at the heart of our liberty since its founding. to take the most common example law enforcement has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime, your bedroom or your car or your safe-deposit box for your

laptop, showing probable cause, and in the constitution, you search where the judge says they can search, and your closets, but dressing for, they can take whatever the judge says they can take. even our members are not absolutely private in the united states. communications with our spouses, lawyers, clergy, medical professionals were not absolutely private. certain circumstances the judge can order all of us to testify what we heard, there are important constraints on that but the general principle is when we have always accepted in the united states it is at the core of our country, there is no such thing as absolute privacy in america, no place outside of judicial authority, that allowed us to achieve two things we love

dearly, privacy and security. widespread default encryption changes that bargain. in my view it actually shatters the bargain at the center of our country. there is something seductive about the notion of absolute privacy. i have a histogram account with 9 followers are related to be. one serious boyfriend may be related to me, let him and at my daughter its request, don't want anyone looking at those pictures. there is nothing inappropriate but it is private. when i hear someone say absolute privacy is of paramount value, our devices ensure privacy as absolute in america and i step back and realize we never lived that way. that is a different way to live, it is very important.

for our case it affects national security investigation and our criminal investigations so we believe in the fbi, we have to talk about it and our role is limited. the fbi role is not to tell the american people how to live or govern themselves but simply to say those fools you are counting on us to use to find people in criminal cases in national security cases they are less and less effective because of this challenge. as wonderful as they are as great as their stuff is, to tobia people how to live and govern themselves, to sell us great equipment. the american people should decide how we want to live and be governed and govern ourselves and to have that conversation in a mature way we need space and time and information. we need to understand how is this affecting our work and

share that. the challenge we face having this conversation is intensity of emotion around the issue that makes it hard for people to avoid demonizing each other and have a thoughtful exchange. the like to say we like to we can encryption, trying to build backdoors to everybody's devices, to be clear, we believe the issue is not strong versus we can encryption. it enables us to protect people from thieves, fraudsters, hackers, spies, terrorists of all kind, we love strong encryption but also believe user control of data is not a requirement for strong encryption but organizations including our own, issues on electronic devices to employees, still retain control over devices. and those organizations served

with a warrant, those organizations able to access information and comply with a warrant. the ability to do so by design does not require week encryption. that is why i describe this as a really hard problem but not a technical problem as much of the business model problem. it doesn't make it easier to solve but that is a fair description of the challenge we face. we believe in the fbi, we need a conversation. at the end of the day if the american people say we are okay with that portion of the room being dark we are okay with the fbi in the first ten months of this year getting 5000 devices with local law enforcement and persistence in openings imagine 650 of those devices being unable to open those devices, the criminal is not cost, evidence not found, sentences that are far shorter for

pedophiles and that is the judges can't see the true scope of activity. we should not drift to a place where a wide swath of america is off-limits to judicial authority. tech companies last year wrote a letter to the president that i found depressing, disheartening because it was a letter that wonderfully describe the benefits and as i read it paragraph to paragraph i read absolutely, very important. the letter ended to do without any acknowledgment of the cost of widespread ubiquitous strong encryption especially by default. my reaction was either they don't see the costs or of being fair-minded about acknowledging the costs. it makes the conversation even harder.

we need a conversation. we need to start from a place where we recognize there are no evil people in this conversation. we share the same values, will privacy on the one hand, security and safety on the other, we may weigh them different, i see the world darker than someone who sees it in silicon valley. i may overweight the dark side but we have the same values, that should allow us to have a thoughtful conversation without demonizing anybody or trying to bumper sticker anybody. i want you to participate in the conversation and we can have it next year, not being engaged in an election. to finish i don't know whether we can stay ahead of the fiberthreat. it shows hubris. we can mitigate the threat, reduce the threat, messages the change behavior. in the face of a threat unlike any we have seen before we need

enough humility to be agile and take feedback from our partners, to figure out how we can be better, we need each other. thank you for being part of that, thank you for the help you have given to the fbi and the advice of the feedback, and we will make the world a safer place. [applause] >> we have time, we have a couple people up. >> you mention the sony pack several times with the reason that was considered significant was it was a foreign entity attacking a constitutionally protected speech. we have confirmation that

foreign actors conducted an intrusion on state election systems. how would you characterize an incident like that in the november elections, something we require from immediate action on behalf of the federal government particularly on dhs? >> an important question. we take very seriously any effort by any after including nationstates, especially nation states, moves beyond the collection of information about our country and to influence conduct of affairs whether it is an election or something else. those kinds of things are something we take very seriously

and work hard to understand so we can equip the rest of our government with options for how to deal with it. >> you talk about deterrence and along the same line, a year ago obama signed an agreement to try to not have intellectual processes, and we changed their behavior through an agreement like that. i want to hear what you have to say about that and how you think about the russians in terms of interfering with this presidential election, have we done anything along those lines with the administration, to

react to that. >> i will only answer the first part of that. i won't comment -- the second part of your question. first part of your question, it is still early but we see encouraging signs on how chinese counterparts are talking about and understanding the framework, and they do not engage in set for commercial purposes. the talk is right and there are indications of efforts to cooperate in investigating people who do that. it takes a long time particularly because he felt at the heart of it is people understanding of people are stealing information are they stealing it for intelligence purposes to make money and that is very complicated, i don't want to take a picture that the problem is solved but there are

encouraging signs. >> i had to cut this short. on behalf of the attendees and state and local government, talking about that collaboration partnership, thanks for your time and taking off a great day for us. [applause] ♪ >> we are going to take -- >> if you missed any of the fbi director's remarks you will see it in its entirety later in the c-span video library. for live coverage coming up this morning we will hear from former it ministration officials who worked on usa's are policy giving us a preview of president obama's trip to china and laos hosted by the strategic center for studies, live coverage of a couple moments on c-span2. >> before taking summer break the senate voted for a second

time to block funding to combat and prevent the zika virus. >> just last may when our democratic colleagues asked us to act and act with urgency but today they turned down the very money they argued for the rest may and decided to gamble with the lives of children like this. instead of protecting them. as i said they ignored their own calls to get this done quickly and refused to pass urgent members that would prevent a public health crisis. as i said when i started, mister president, this was a test today to see whether our democratic colleagues cared more about babies like this for special interest groups and they failed the test. as simple as that.

>> the republican and senate approved what happened to the house, planned parenthood, and organization, hundreds of thousands of women go for their care, women in america today to make sure they have the ability to not get pregnant because the mosquitoes ravage pregnant women. under the logic of my friend the republican leader they don't need to go to planned parenthood. they can go to las vegas or chicago or lexington, they can go to the emergency room and say i am sorry, i didn't get birth control, can you help me, that is what planned parenthood is 4.

women who need help, that is where they go, planned parenthood. the legislature got back from the house -- >> this thursday a preview of four major issues congress will debate when they return from recess, zika funding, defense policy, gun violence and the impeachment of irs professor john cosco and. we will have senior congressional correspondent thursday at 8:00 pm eastern on c-span. >> live now for a look at president obama's trip to china and house hosted by strategic and international studies just getting underway. >> he flies to laos for

bilateral in laos or speech, his final speech on is a policy. the east asia summit with leaders of ten members of the association and full east asia summit and amy will talk about that and there will be bilateral with turkey and other leaders including from europe, vladimir putin will address what issues might come up. this being the last trip i received a lot of questions how to think about president obama's legacy, and the history of us strategy, and good starting stuff for, i have been thinking

a lot about where we are in the art of history of american engagement with asia. let me start with opening thoughts on the obama legacy, with the cosby, most historians would say it is too early to make such a judgment but reality is for decades afterward, let me make a stab at that. after 7 years there is more about president obama's policy, it is not a radical departure from what clinton and bush did, neither is it a bold discontinuity for departure from what previous presidents did. the first to declare themselves the first pacific president was

richard nixon who served in the pacific, the governor general of the philippines, herbert hoover had been a businessman in china, muttering around the white house, john f. kennedy served in the pacific and so forth and many of the initiatives that have come to prominence began in the case of the defense realignment, but broadly speaking in a historical context what president obama has done is build on a set of broad policies started many decades earlier. every president since richard nixon has built around engagement with china and that hasn't changed. every president since reagan has

complemented that, and the favorable balance of power and content with an increasingly confident and recently assertive china. for the clinton administration building of the alliance, the bush administration, an official in the nsc, building on top of that partnership with india, president obama, strategically in the southeast asia piece, building along those lines. let me focus on that. of the closely at the pivot, the most significant legacy for the president is engagement of southeast asia. president obama had a lot to do

with it, the first president to join the east asia summit, president bush decided not to for a variety of reasons including the revolution in burma. after some debate in the east asia secretaries clinton and kerry attended every meeting of the foreign ministers meeting in asia, their predecessors in the clinton administration, this is the most sustained engagement since the vietnam war. there have been spurts of energy, no sustained comprehensive approach. the obama administration will deserve rightful credit for reconnecting to southeast asia and opening up in a sustained way. on this trip i am sure that will be part of the celebration, the

east asia summit is based in washington and the select will show that and the president's speech will show that. the last country to get this high-profile attention from the us, the record on democracy and human rights, this is a long play. other aspects are challenging on this in the philippines, basically every country in southeast asia has improved relations with the us, having to do with china's rise, it is complicated. what the president will probably get somewhat lower marks, but below par, in the management of

great power relations, president obama inherited stable relations with china and a strong relationship we had, for a variety of reasons, a relationship with japan with more defense guidelines but a bit of a trust for reasons i can explain and the relationship with china is scratchy to say the least, queens and unsettled. this has to do with factors that control the united states, the financial crisis suggested to many in beijing that the us was entering secular decline. it is a more nationalistic -- some of this is the result of

stewardship that is inconsistent in asia. the basic problem is when the pivot was announced in 2011 the bottom line was never here. in 2009 president obama and president who announced they would announce interest in asia that were received badly. in 2011, in washington, took interests out and the president -- australia had heavy military. it was not received in china. in 2012 president she proposed a new model of great power relations and the administration embraced that in 2012. it was very badly received in japan, india and elsewhere because of correlation articulated by beijing, china and russia, india, australia.

this back and forth has exacerbated a growing problem in the context of the financial crisis. the chinese overplayed their hand. what you will see is support and encouragement, the chinese overplayed their hand but on this summit, you will see no grand joint declaration we saw earlier in the administration, no celebration, some agreement on climate change but a rough relationship. we don't know whether china will build more airfields in response to the arbitration panels in the philippines. nobody expected china would take

its next move before the g 20, but no question whether the big move will happen after that. we have great difficulties with china in the un and great questions operationally with steadily increasing show of force and the incomplete gdp. i am certain the president will say publicly and privately he is committed to gdp in lame-duck caucus, most experts say it is a longshot, i hope he succeeds because the next president will have a hard time getting back to tpp quickly. the good news is the agreement will be ratified in the fall, it will hold in australia and elsewhere, we would suffer a hit in terms of credibility and

reputation but we have time to recover because the region generally once it. the last one, north korea. no president has handed to his etc. better situation with north korea, they are blowing through every agreement. kim jong-il may not remain quiet as the world works on that part of that. >> from the sublime to the ridiculous, the g 20 on the east asia summit, very involved. the group of 20 summit will be held on september 4th and fifth, the 11th leaders summit since the g 20 was elevated from finance ministry for him to the middle of the global financial

crisis in 2008. 10 of those 11 summits so the g 20 brings together 80% of the global economy. the map of the g 20 never works so it is actually g 63. i just tilted it up, 19 individual countries plus eu 28, tween 9 invited guests plus 7 international financial institutions so there will be a lot of people around the table. from a us perspective this is a legacy tour, legacy trip. if you recall in january of 2009 when the president came into office the us economy, the global economy was crashing and burning at the g 20 was part of the effort to stabilize in part by bringing passengers upfront to steer the plane so through

regular summits, try to get cooperation on global growth, financial stability and reform of the international financial architecture so these things don't happen again. the president and the white house will one to celebrate the progress that has been made, stabilizing things and getting growth back on track and more financial stability, avoiding protectionism is a big accomplishment, what they didn't fly, there has been a lot of little protection which will be a source of great concern. climate change is another piece of the g 20 broader agenda. i think -- there are major challenges of global growth that are inadequate, it is

underwhelming, and trade, protectionism, flipped back into parochialism, the president will take that on. there is a particular concern about overcapacity in steel and other commodities, a major topic of conversation steel will be mentioned in the g 20 which is pretty unusual and that is one of the headlines, establishing a local forum. from a chinese perspective it is mostly about the show. china when they host these international events, we all remember the show, in the positive since china wants to be a good steward of this organization, the first time it is chairing it, a milestone in

china's participation in global economic governance and it is important for this to go well. china has identified four themes, adjectives to describe the word growth, innovative, invigorated, interconnected and inclusive and they have particular meaning. inclusive is the most important for china, they want to get these people around the table and so they are the leader of the developing world in particular but innovation is important and they are committed to stronger growth for an interconnected infrastructure and trade kind of activity they want to highlight. ..

>> and we'll focus on president obama's bilateral meeting with turkish president erdogan it is informal meeting with president putin and indicated a bit of european context particularly and light of this morning's announcement regarding apple, sort upholding from mike's thought about legacy, indeed it will be a very interesting legacy discussion regarding president obama's turkey policy. as you recall in 2009 in one of his first speeches as president going abroad, he delivered the keynote speech recall the u.s.-turkish relationship a

model partnership and certainly turkey to become a model partner for the middle east. and today, i think we see a very fundamentally changed relationship between the united states and turkey. you have two descriptions right now of u.s. government officials, deputy necessary advisor ben rhodes describes the relationship in the context of a broad and active agenda special envoy brett mcgurk described it yesterday as turkish intervention in syria unacceptable and a source of deep concern. you certainly don't have necessary agree but within the u.s. government about the shape and contour of this relationship. i would describe it as one that's rapidly deteriorating. it's been an historic number of your senior visits to turkey following the july 152. you at chairman of joint chiefs general dunford, the first

senior sufficient to arrive in turkey after the coup. unit vice president biden's visit last week, august 24 and now you have this bilateral meeting between president erdogan and president obama on the fourth. clearly, syria will be a critical element of the agenda. a plan that the u.s. government had been formulating related to syria i think now no longer exists. this meeting with president erdogan has to reconstitute a strategy for syria. the original plan was to close the turkish border where ice is controls the gap between where syrian kurds control the west and east of the border, but the center is where the islamic state still rests, and with turkey's military intervention, again at the time and vice president biden's visit to

turkey, again, signals i think the great break in this relationship. so i hope we'll see from this bilateral meeting a new understanding about the objectives of the syrian strategy. i think it's going to be extremely difficult to move to pyd, this year encourage military east of the euphrates. that is the guarantee that the obama administration has made to turkey. that will be difficult and is clear turkey is continuing its intervention. so this will be a huge element of this bilateral discussion. the second element is clearly centered around the status of the extradition of mr. gulen which was an important part of the conversation turned vice president biden's trip last week. and other than sending a justice department, state department

team last week to turkey, it's unclear that process to determine whether the strategic use trade relationship will absolutely rest on whether mr. gulen is extradited or not. so clearly this relationship is near a breaking point, and he it will be very interesting to see a president obama couches the future of that relationship. after that heavy lift we're told it will be an informal meeting between president putin and president obama, at the discussion will also be syria as well as ukraine. again on syria we have an interesting development with the turkey russia were approach much. and to see how that understanding works and whether russia will work to be a cooperative partner in syria can even after last week's marathon meeting between secretary kerry and foreign minister lavrov. we see absolutely no productivity.

we see lots of meetings. we just see no outcomes. i think questions if they raised about what this ongoing dialogue is producing i think it is produced very little. on ukraine, although not certainly the headlines that syria is grabbing, the cease-fire agreement is rapidly deteriorating in ukraine as well. two weeks ago a very serious buildup in crimea. russia's unannounced snap military exercises on the ukrainian border. this isn't unsolved issue. it is continue to deteriorate and it's very unclear how and what the role of the u.s. will be in helping to shape the outcome. we are not sure whether president putin will be meeting with french president holland and chairman chancellor angela merkel. that meeting has been canceled, put back on and canceled again. we will see this normandy format

minus you can because it's unclear whether you clean it president petrol poroshenporoshen ko would be part of that discussion. again, there is no clear solution and russia continues its military buildup, and the cease-fire violations continue. so this will again the legacy of president obama's russia policy is very much a question mark finally chisel bit of european context. i open the informal meeting that we don't know about but is scheduled in the margins of the g20 is president obama's meeting with prime minister theresa may. this is are coming out party, her first major international event. prime minister may will be having a meeting with president putin. this is actually an important meeting as well. british-russian relations have been very rocky, to say the least, and there's been a sense of seeking to normalize that relationship. the uk has been a stalwart

forced to using sanctions against russia because events in ukraine and crimea. so we will see what that turns out to be. it will be interesting theresa may's visit to china as it comes whenever first issues as prime minister was to review a major chinese investment in the uk, nuclear power plant, which is critical attention, certainly the chinese government very upset by this decision being reviewed and she will have to work very hard to put some minds at ease over also very interested to see as brexit negotiations are ongoing what form that will take. and begin what impact that will have on the global economy. finally, i couldn't end without a brief note on european relations with china, particularly in the european spectrum. very much overcapacity in steel. stew will be on the minds of

europeans, very concerned about overcapacity, market economy status. there's a growing unease about chinese investment in europe, i would say, on a larger trend. and certainly we will be looking, the german chancellor was just in china in june. or can't visit. she's been the one european leader that has been seized with trying to create a robust economic relationship, and a german business leaders are increasing speaking out about all the problems that american businesses have been having in china. now certainly driven companies and others are expressing very similar issues. and as much as we are extremely concerned about the status of tpp, i would argue our european colleagues both the german and french are increasingly not happy with the transatlantic investment and trade investment partnership. so ttip is as trained as tpp. certainly as the global economy, free trade is not in good shape

on both sides of the trading block. so with that, over to you. >> thank you, heather. so for the second half of the trip to kind of return to some of the things mike laid out, this will be very much about president obama's signature foreign policy initiative, the rebounds for the pivot, and from the beginning this really has south east asia at the center. it specifically has had a real embrace of austin, the association of southeast asian nations, as an organization and a support for asean and the super bowl out of place as a container in the region and the center, central player in the region secur secure architectur. the rebounds as also very much about building up new cooperative relationships with emerging partners, new partners and laos is a good example of that. so laos is chair of asean issue which is what it is hosting the main summits in its country.

and so president obama will be the first sitting president to ever visit laos. and we have been building up our relationship with laos on a number of fronts. so the bilateral visit will very much served to highlight our bilateral relationship, particularly in the area of development assistance where we is a programs on health and nutrition and agriculture. and legacy of were issues where we do a lot of work on unexploded ordnance and cooperation in finding remains of our missing in action. president obama will travel where he will hold a town -- a town hall with young leaders of laos. very similar to the youth engagement, the town only did in malaysia last year or for those of you who may have seen, this was covered live on television, and it's a really good example of a free flowing exchange of ideas with the president of the united states and youth leaders in southeast asia.

i think it's a very meaningful especially for them to be able to have that kind of exchange. and as mike said this going to be a wide ranging speech that will attempt to capture all the progress that the obama administration has made under the rebounds and look towards the future of our relationship. on the second day in laos, president obama will meet with all 10 of the leaders of asean. this would be the ninth time the president obama has met with asean leaders of u.s. policy in, which is pretty remarkable in eight years. the last time you met with him was in february in sunny land california. this meeting in laos we very much about building on the momentum that was achieved in sunny lands. i think there will be a real focus on discussion around the south china sea and maritime security cooperation more

broadly. to also be a focused discussion on economic engagement and the obama administration will announce some collaboration of its u.s. asean connect initiative that it initially announced in sunnylands. this is his attempt to bring together a number of different programs that are run by many different agencies to bring it together into a, platform to really promote engagement with the private sector a round issues of infrastructure and entrepreneurship and innovation. there will also be a discussion on some transnational issues like counterterrorism and climate change. i think there will be a real emphasis on youth engagement through the young leaders of southeast asian initiative. and women's leadership as well. and then finally it is the main event, which is at the east asia summit. this brings together all

10 liters from asean with a dialogue partners which in addition to the u.s. includes china, japan, south korea, india, australia, new zealand and russia. the east asian summit has really emerged. it is celebrate its 10th anniversary last in malaysia so this'll be the 11th of its net and its emerge as the premier leader led forum for discussion in the region on political and security issues. this would be the fifth time president obama has participated in east asian summit, and i expect he will use this as an opportunity to advance the rules-based order in the context of specific challenges, most notably perhaps south china sea, and recent developments related to the south china sea, including the ruling by the geneva-based, excuse me, database tribunal panel in the case of the philippines brought

against china on maritime issues and south china sea. i'm sure president obama reiterate the u.s. abuse that this ruling is final and binding, but at the same time we also see it as an opportunity, a turning point for using more diplomacy to try to resolve some of these disputes. another topical be north korea, and the need to enforce u.n. sanctions against north korea and its recent easy. and also there will be i think more discussion than before on the issue of human trafficking and migration. finally in addition to these summits, president obama will be meeting with a 10 asean leaders as a crude. the we some limited amount of time to have some of the bilateral meetings with some asian leaders. i'm told he will not have very much times i don't think there'll be a lot of bilaterals and, of course, he is met a lot of southeast asian leaders recently.

he just was in vietnam in may. is hosting in washington, d.c. the week after he gets back. he hosted president gerry cauley here late last you the one southeast leader a pretty companies go to meet is the new president of the philippines who was elected in june. is a very colorful figure of course. easements a very controversial remarks and has taken some very troubling steps on domestic policy in terms of dealing with drugs and crime that have cost real human rights concerns. in the larger context the u.s. philippine alliance has made great strides in recent years with negotiation of enhanced development cooperation agreement and begin admitting that in a number of other things we've been doing to build capacity for the philippines in terms of its security, as well as economic areas. so i think this will be a good

opportunity for president obama to sit down and touch base on all of our operation and build that relationship. i will stop there. >> we will not open it up to questions. just point of order, if it's any and who you're with a double help the transcript the there's a few people in the back where we have microphones for you as well. >> two questions for you. you are the one talking about the need to -- [inaudible] what in your mind china u.s. navy other major economy should do individually or maybe together in this regard? second, can you explain to average people like g20 is accomplished over the years? thank you. >> good questions. on growth i think the u.s. and china will be aligned in wanting

more combination of more demand stimulus and structural reform. the u.s. perhaps a little more action on the form of steam leading demand through fiscal and monetary policy, and china a little more on the structural reform agenda. the challenge in the g20 is that not everybody agrees, everybody agrees on structural reform because everybody knows they have to fix their own economy but it's difficult politically and is domestically, based on domestic policy decisions and political choices that are difficult for a group like this do anything other than to see structural reform is an important thing and we should all be doing that in our own country. on demand, the problem is that one country in particular, and i won't mention any names, its initials are germany, is very opposed to any talk of fiscal stimulus. germany is a host of the g20 next year so that are already part of the so-called troika of

leaders which previous post turkey and future germany with china. i just don't think it will be any substantive progress on demand stimulus, and so that's the real challenge. overall, i was as i said in my introductory remarks, the g20, what i was editing what president obama's going to say to the american people about the g20 is that the g20 has done three brought things. it has set an agenda for global economic cooperation, and that's important for trying to talk about these issues of growth, financial sibley, tax reform and other things people talk about. where the leaders have said an agenda, political agenda. secondly, it does solve some problems starting with intervening to prevent a deep and lasting crisis in the global economy and financial system. more specifically it solved some specific smaller problems like advancing the trade agenda or

doing, improving, cracking down on tax evasion and so forth. and then the third thing it has helped to build habits of cooperation. it has brought together countries representing a very diverse group of economies large and small to talk about comment interest, common challenges. that's a big deal. it's something that doesn't happen very often, and so the g20 as a group can take credit and the fact that china, largest emerging market, second largest economy in the world, is now chairing this group, shows there's been tremendous progress in advancing international discussion and cooperation. i think those are the things i would emphasize. >> george, national children might come to talk about the president builds on previous administrations and then he talked about the stars president in southeast asia, but is there any reason to believe that

anything on the pavement or in southeast asia endures past january 20, that this will last? >> lots of reasons. the simplest is if you look at the structure of international relations with all respect to our european friends, a dynamism both good and bad is shifting to the far east. the developments in the far east now are affecting the globe after centuries whether west basically influenced the far east. americans know that. pretty consistently. there's one exception in the new pupil but pretty consistently, polls which asked americans what region of the most important u.s. interests have shown asia is never one for the past five years. it was europe for decades before that in the german marshall fund, chicago council on global

affairs. we their own survey at csis, our counterparts, think tank, academics and elites and former government officials in 10 countries, and we asked about the gulf of the rebalancing do you support it, should we continue? over 80% in asia suggests outside of china. it was a reverse in china. only about 20% and china thought it was a good thing. but the most interesting result was in the u.s. come over 90% said yes. we sent the survey to hudson, heritage, aei. so i think beyond republican, democrat, right left politics at the elite level there's a broad consensus. and precisely because it's not new, it's built, the g20 started at the end of bush, the japan policy i worked on in the bush administration started in clinton. is a lot more continuity. so i'm pretty optimistic about it.

to me the wildcard, there are two, one is do you get senior people in the next administration who know asia? candidly, we don't have that right now. if you look at the top ranks right now, the literacy and experience working on asia is not as strong as the past four. four. it was lower than it was in the first obama term. so willed senior deputy secretaries, secretaries bp to instantly get asia and? the other question is what happens in the middle east and russia? how much bandwidth will the next president have to continue this work? i'm optimistic actually. >> i will add briefly, i think it will be enduring, although a lot will depend on the new leadership coming in with the new administration, as mike says. i see within or decisions, within the pentagon but within other agencies as well just a real shift in focus on

priorities and programs in real frameworks and agreements towards southeast asia in particular compared to previous administrations. to take defense, for example, first of all he do have a very knowledgeable and committed leader in secretary carter. but over the last couple of years it hasn't just been secretary carter's engagement of president obama's engagement on defense and secure the cooperation. it's been the whole of the department, a combination to baltimore to a focus on southeast asia and asean in particular. we develop new frameworks with particular country. we negotiated access to grants with the philippines and with australia. we're doing more than we've ever done before with countries like malaysia and indonesia and india. we've broken new ground with countries like vietnam in defense cooperation. so these are real gains that, of course they need to be that momentum needs to be maintained, and energy and attention that

will be needed to move those things forward. i think the new administration is inheriting a much more robust set of relationships with across the region, and there's a real regional demand signal for maintaining those relationships and framework are i think it will probably carry forward. i think the one real, as already been mentioned from the wonderful affiliates on the economic side because we have made a lot of real gains on the secure decide, on the economic side we negotiated this very complex and landmark agreement in the tpp but it's now quite vulnerable and so we will have to wait and see whether the u.s. can pass it. >> angela with bloomberg. one thing i didn't hear you mention is cybersecurity, clear that something of interest with some of the bilateral relationships. there's a group of senators that are pressuring obama to try to

make cybercrime's a priority with the g20 discussions. we are teaching that will play both in the g20 summit broadly as well as in the bilateral, special with china and russia? >> our cyber expert isn't jim lewis. the four of us sort of semi-managed to make the iphone's work. but politically, i'll speak for myself, i don't manage -- politically -- very, very significant problem. with china is a significant problem. i think you'll have some fact sheets. the initiation is not going to make announcements on u.s.-china relations the way they did the first few years. there are too many negative, difficult places to be celebratory. the view on cyber is quite divided it by between the state department and the pentagon. the pentagon's view, i would

summarize this as being we are already in a state of cyber warfare with china and russia in real-time. the state of humble focus on cyber dialogues. and efforts to talk about cyber. i think the reality relies more and the pentagon field what's happening in china but i don't think it's likely the administration will come out at the end with any kind of workable framework with china on cyber at all. part of that is because they deterrence side, the cost to china has sent been established. i think russia is probably an even bigger problem but have you can explain. >> i certainly hope president obama raises the cyber question. clearly u.s. government is struggling over the dnc hacks, getting from attribution to cost imposition. very much as they struggle with the opm act as well.

its deliberation upon deliberation to speak of our colleague who has just written a piece on the. he placed the cost imposition should be swift, if it in fact is attributable and understood. so far russia, it is clearly a tool of statecraft to influence, to shape them into the worst, to confuse. we've seen this across europe in particular, whether it's information operations. they can also be critical infrastructure as we have been seeing in ukraine in december when the grid was taken been. these are great challenges and influence how our societies function. to get our arms around this but being extremely clear, particularly with russia, that these acts will have costs i think is vital. the question of how president

obama will approach that, what decision will be reached, i think an informal meeting the would not be an enormous amount that may be able to be a message publicly but i certainly hope there's some strong messages privately. >> administrations in the last six months historically are loath to impose costs. for two reasons. one, the tissue is creating a crisis for your successor and in responsible sort of foreign policy doesn't want to do that. the second thing it can ruin your legacy. if the other side retaliates in your final months in office. so personally i'd be surprised if it can cost imposition were talking about becomes a feature of our policy i in the next, you know, nine months or so. >> my name is sally. i have a question for

mr. goodman. so you have some experience working in the white house. can you share your expectation or prediction this time obama travels to asia 4g 20, can actually generate any legacies of his administration in terms of years of china relations? >> well, mike also worked in the white house and both amy and heather also worked in administration and dealt with some of these issues but i think mike lee did a fairly nicely what the overall legacy in asia is, and i agree with almost everything he said. i think u.s.-china relations are a centerpiece of what this president and the last seven presidents have spent a lot of time focused on addressing the president going to china, i've forgotten the last count how may times but it's been a lease for five times as president, is

trying to leave a relationship in which we are engaging constructively to try to both promote areas we can cooperate, and there are a number of those. climate change has been mentioned by several of us and that's what do what you think white house wants to emphasize. and by the way, g20 and working together in 2008-2000 to try to prevent this global meltdown. that was a signature accomplishment. at the same time this engagement also have to be to manage competition. because we have competition and our relationship, as an economist competition doesn't bother me on one level. i think it's something you have to deal with to make yourself stronger. but honestly of course there are also aspects to this competition that are troubling and problematic and the president is going to want to be very clear

to president xi and two prime minister lee when he sees him at the east asia summit, that went to find a way of resolving these issues, a management. 's i think there's going to be a very short message on the concerned about maritime issues, about cybersecurity, about a trade and investment challenges in the relationship which are heating up as well. it's all of that. >> and i ask a follow-up question with heather? the g20 is supposed to be the platform for economic cooperation. so how important is the voices that emerging markets in the current context? >> maybe matt is a better place in the. for me is watching the last several years the evolution of previous, and i think in some ways there's a focus on bringing

in new voices to help enlarge this conversation, has been very, very important. what's been interesting for me to watch the evolution as europe is becoming much more active and needs to be more active in asia with emerging economies. this is work that the obama administration has been pursuing to try to get other larger developed powers to work with engaged in the architecture, the economic architecture. because we are seen the index in emerging economies. for me brexit is an example of that, that we are so interconnected. we just are struggling with our geometry, if you will, of the right balance of voices that can shape it. i would almost argue in watching this g7 that the g7 more of a political security body that

talk of economics. i wouldn't be surprised if the g20, will go into new political as because again it's a table of new voices to wrestle with these larger more complex issues. >> to quick additions. one, if pittsburgh when he is hosted the third some in the fall of 2009, the g20 agreed under u.s. leadership that the g20 would become the preeminent forum for our international economic cooperation. this is just to coordinate among the countries that are actually in the room and not to impose on others. but the point is there was a conscious decision by the obama administration to embrace a broader table setting in which emerging economies, including china, were very much empowered in equal part of the the second point is china is hosting. china is again the largest, fastest growing emerging market in the world, and it is hosting

this forum so that i think speaks for itself, that emerging countries have a lot more voice. >> "christian science monitor." michael, i'd like to ask you, you talked a lot about the scratchy the state of u.s.-china relations and as this is, in the context of a presidential campaign, especially if you go back to the primary. there was a lot of talk about need for tougher stance with china, both economically and in terms of security, south china sea and this president has sort of paved the way and not done much to stand up to china. and i wonder if you expect to see sort of that context, any messaging back to the u.s. electorate, to the american

people to kind of address that characterization of the administration. >> we always say these summits, half of it is what's being messaged back to the domestic audience. >> right. you know, trying to dodge that bullet because of the quality of the rhetoric between the two leading presidential candidates has become so base in so low that china actually can get a free pass in this election, who knows. i've traveled in asia a lot as to my colleagues, and i don't mind saying broadly that there is deep, deep anxiety about donald trump, especially among our allies. but even in beijing.

that is in beijing i find our mix. some see as an opportunity because donald trump never mentions human rights, criticizes our allies and so forth. others, chinese of investment in the united states. that you in beijing, and this has been a few since 1995, that hillary clinton will be tougher on them than secretary kerry or than president obama's. she gave a speech in 1995 that was will receive internationally a very scratchy and uncomfortable and controversial for the chinese. the chinese scholars and journalists attribute the troubles in u.s.-china relations to the rebalance and they usually blame her the there was an op-ed in the people's daily when secretary kerry announced welcome him because he would be wise enough not to meddle in the far east like hillary clinton. so across the region i think there's probably an expectation teams will be tougher with china.

but this is an election that has unnerved everyone. secretary clinton's opposition to tpp has gone deeper than i think in australia or japan and the other tpp partners expected. they are all nervous if she wins she may try to force the renegotiation. i thought, maybe i'm wrong, there are always side let's be straight agreements. there may be ways to do this but they are starting to realize if it doesn't get through in the lame duck, it will be hard for her to the vet back to the position she had as secretary of state. so this election has unnerved friends and allies, and it's going to be so that i think president obama will have very much in mind i'm sure it will come up among friends like the singaporeans or japan, australia, europeans but i'm sure it will but he always had that happened in the last meeting. i don't think he can reach her by commenting on the election publicly very much. if i were advising and i was

able to the opinion polls americans have about free trade and allies in asia. they haven't been tempted i this election. i would point to the continuity we talk about. and i think for the most part our tpp partners are not giving up on us. and are in for the long haul. they don't have much of a choice. but it is definitely to be a factor in this trip that the president is going to have to really think about and reassured without, you know, overstepping and ending up becoming sort of fueling and even more destructive debate back your. >> can i at one point since tpp is come up a few times? i don't disagree that our tpp partners will stick with us for a few years because everyone recognizes the tremendous potential, and so if we have to stall, it's definitely a suboptimal outcome but do what i think will walk away from the table right away.

however, i want to underscore that for many of these countries, vietnam and malaysia and japan, they have put their leadership has put some real things on the table in the negotiations that have come with some real political cost and political risk. and so it's going to be tremendous a damaging to u.s. credibility, the sensor uses reliable partner if we look like, that we're willing to walk away from tpp. i just think we need to bear that in mind that it puts countries like vietnam for example, in a really difficult position. >> go to the side of the room. >> good morning. i wonder what you could comment on the application, the u.s. reaction to that, put in sort of broader perspective. apple is not the most popular company in this town as we know.

but the reaction of the treasury department was very clear but also very needed, how you see try going for the german government assessment is tpp is day. is this just another death knell for ttip? watcher point? >> certainly i share with the callee, the u.s. and eu have gotten into a negative cycle on trade, economic investment and we need to stop and try to return to a more positive dynamic. clearly secretary lew last week, they knew this was coming and the u.s. has already registered its increasing concern about the direction and clearly we all woke up to this shock of 13 billion euro. for me, as an individual, equal shock at the level of taxes that apple paid as well and that gets

back to the g20 agenda of tax evasion and a challenging this is in a globalized context for multinational firms that are able to use with is not a level playing field, and we know irish corporatcorporate tax rates hava cause for concern for the eu for many, many years. i think the question is this is the best way to address it? and i think increasingly it's not just in the apple case but it's been a whole series of anti-competition measures, particularly for american i.t. firms. we are really struggling. we've always i think look, the u.s. and europe have been friendly competitors at tried to bring our values but get great economic growth and some of that cycle begin to change, and now we are seeing each other as increasing obstacles to this. we've got to get out of this dynamic quickly. i think the u.s. house is but a little more time engaging europe in this conversation.

it's a very complex conversation dealing at both the national ad european level. it's not easy but i think we see now the stakes are enormous. i'm increasingly concerned, we are a year out from german parliament elections and the germans are acting a little more, to america like in the election campaign. they are starting to early and we're seeing a great division within his social democratic party and with the vice chancellor has been saying, not only on ttip but on russia, on migration, on turkey. there's a very important that i think the basic dynamic that is occurring within the coalition government. a the stakes are high on some of the the chance of getting those results while she's in asia, we will see how this dynamic works out. the fact of the matter is on ttip, the electoral calendar has always worked against this.

it's clear to me that there is no possibility of moving on ttip until the french presidential elections and the german parliament elections occur in 2017. in 2010 due to our midterm elections and implementing european parliament elections in 2020 about the general elections. so unless we change the dynamic among our publics about trade and in the german context i think it's become a vehicle for anti-americanism in general with a lot of specific concerns. in france it's more protectionism. in the u.s. it's just anger against trade in general. we have to change the dynamic where everyone sees there are benefits to trade, not just a small group it into a change that and i think it's going to get harder and harder for election cycles to sort of support in ratifying these important free trade agreements. >> we are coming up a little bit against time so i will try to

get in a few more questions. the gentleman in the back. >> thank you very much. about south china sea issue, china have already declared that are not -- any internationally. can the president did any political reaction from president xi? ..

it's on a steady increase in the east china sea in south china sea and the big move by china would be to do and proclamation. you will see it first on a mti. that would be a big move, the 4g204 china. very self-defeating and could be before the election, but we are

moving largely indifferent directions picked the administration in the philippines and others are remaining calm and not to victorious about the decision in the hope to get traction going, but i hope-- he talks about the tract in the idea that rising power seems to fight and if you want to avoid that you need to agree to this new model and make concessions to china. depressed" except that. the present will talk about the things amy said it will come out with essentially no resolution in my view and then it depends on how much risk he wants to take and how firmly we are about freedom of navigation operations and continuing to work with the philippines, but i think despite what he is saying his government is pre-much on the same tract and i think amy would agree with that. >>