survivor so they are getting really good information that they are able to pursue. comingave fewer matters before prosecutors that do not have enough information to move forward, which is the biggest issue we see when it comes to law enforcement. not having enough information so that the case can move forward. >> a lot of campuses are really devoted to creating a collaborative environment. they are establishing sexual assault teams that include a number of individuals who have the responsibility for responding to those particular crimes. that way they can go with the victim to say this is what we can do for you and needs are the avenues we can take. that would be something i would advocate for, the establishment of some sort of team.

>> one of the challenges we found is that survivors who go through their college and go through law enforcement also are doubly traumatized and victimized. if the law will -- if the local law enforcement does not have specific person or group of people who are properly trained on how to conduct an interview and how to collect the forensic evidence, it can be doubly traumatizing. the story that came out of columbia university were one of the survivors has been working with the senator. she went to her college disciplinary process and the college did not find her assailant guilty of anything. i was noty said, getting the outcome i wanted, so i'm going to the nypd. an officer showed up at her room

and disregarded a lot of her concerns, kept wanting her to repeat very traumatizing information, kept trying to the nature of her relationship and the nature of the assault because they had had consensual sex before he did rape her. i came out of that experience ceiling incredibly -- feeling incredibly disempowered. >> where was this? >> at columbia with the nypd. of the largeste law enforcement bodies in the nation, is in training officers properly and how to interact, i do not think we can start to require students to have to opt out until we can train local law enforcement. any am not aware of moderately sized police department that does not have

trained sexual assault detectives that would take that report. that does not sound like a trained sexual assault detective. toi brought people to report police before and sometimes they make them report to someone initially to go see detective from the right unit. you cannot always control who is responding. i promise you, if we handle this issue well, you do not ever have to mandated. it is a reflection of how our system is. we are talking, our faces are in the news. it is changing already, but what we need to see if the pieces we cannot control. see the consequence, we know it is safer for us to speak out. >> we will spend a lot of time

on this. understand the incredible stress and heartache and problems with coming to law enforcement. but i also know that the vast majority of these perpetrators are not even getting a criminal interview. momente never having the where the police officer sits across the table from them and asks them the difficult questions. we will not get any meaningful deterrence on this problem until that begins happening. there is a chicken and eight problem happening -- chicken and here.oblem happening if they do not have any confidence that something could happen to the perpetrator in terms of being convicted of a

crime. istraining law enforcement not just about how sensitive you --, it is >> i shock people by talking about repeat perpetrators. -- they enforcement will investigate better. right now, we only talk about the big gyms and that needs to change. -- victims and that needs to change. >> jane doe reporting, i guess part of it is -- part of me thinks that if the universities were required to report that this crime occurred to law enforcement without any identifying information, that is another check on the institution , but they would have to be telling the police that this occurred, or even though it

would not be giving out the name of the alleged perpetrator. >> would police be required to investigate them? >> they do not know the name of the victim or the perpetrator, but it would be another place the data would be located. the federal government feels distant and not something people are worried about. if the university president was confronted by the chief of police that he turned and 12 incident reports to the local police without identifiers, all of a sudden, he is seeing a front-page article in his future or she is seeing a front-page article in her future. that is another place that you would have to be accountable and if nothing else, it opens a line of communication between the university and local law enforcement.

issue.there is a huge i bet you spent a lot of time at your meetings talking about how meaningful and healthy cooperation between local police and university police because there is a natural friction. >> it depends on the institution . >> and the leadership. expanded andx has local law enforcement has begun to understand these particular things, it has created even more friction because their understanding of what our requirements as campus law enforcement goes against the mission within their own agency. it becomes very ethical. -- very difficult. the jane doe reporting, it becomes extremely difficult to

investigate those crimes without any willing victim. when i began the domestic in the 1990's and i had people come to me and said we cannot do domestic violence most the time, we don't have a victim. we need to expand the homicide unit. we managed to put cases together. it is amazing there are cases that can be put together without a cooperative victim. >> that is the problem and that is why we don't want mandatory reporting. we do not want that done for us. clery has already anticipated what you are trying to do. city can that the

share data and supplement the report. campuses have no authority to make city police work with them. that is something the government could do. back.an oppose and hold that way you are not forcing victim disclosure, you are just having a better relationship and that sounds to me like what you are getting out. know from laura's perspective, when you do have a college campus the does have a law enforcement agency trained versus a college campus that does not, you see more of a disconnect between local law enforcement and the institution when you do not have that entity on campus. it creates a lot of different challenges when dealing with the sharing of information. beshould campus staff

required to report to the administration? >> i am not sure if i know the answer about whether they should or not, but if we require faculty, but also staff to report information, we have to educate our student body about where there are confidential resources and out -- and about the responsibilities of anyone they share information with to report. every member who has an obligation to report also has equally robust training so they are appropriately responding to that student so the student is getting support and care. one of the challenges when we expand our reporting say toments is that we the student, you can tell

anybody on campus this information and they will share it with the institution. and then we create the obligation that that person is going to be equally poised to be able to address those matters. that is something that we should think carefully on as to whether or not all members of the campus will be supporting survivors. now, under the clery someone who isx, law enforcement or monitoring access, anyone you designate, --n there is the someone who ie people with significant responsibilities for student that cities. that encompasses most of your student affairs, life coaches,

greek life, greek advisors. with the responsible employee -- onet sometimes goes of the pieces that we have seen from the organization is if it is done really well, and there is a lot of training, if there is training about what you do when a student discloses and how you handle that disclosure, if there is not training, it could have a chilling effect because it creates -- the institution running around -- you cannot say and the not train them on what that means. you are a campus security authority. you have to provide then talking to the students

saying we know you are building rapport with students but you not qualified to take this disclosure. ways to talk to the residents regularly about what the requirements are and if ou have to disclose you can keep it private. it may not be able to be you can keep it private. i think it is good if it is done well. >> i'm an r.a. i want to apologize because i now.to leave but i wanted to, first of all, how valuable this feedback is for us. really appreciate your time here. senator mccaskill started saying this y roundtable will be a success if nobody was like they have left and said i wanted to make that point and i didn't. i leave i guess i want to offer the opportunity we f there is a topic delved into --

this first hour and a half that ou want to leave before i unfortunately have to depart. >> something that might be of we were at you when he table talking about considering internet crimes and couldn't address it but that is an issue. cyber elements, not just like stalking but harassment, intimidation. are not actually captured clarion. maybe an area to look into. >> thank you. >> additionally. revisit that. i think it is important to fund more research on this issue. where campuseses do receive research dollars to public significant issues is around alcohol and other drugs. research to increase our knowledge on this so when aware

acts of ying with the campus safe we are doing so with practices that are based on evidence. >> also going along the line of internet and technology, the a hnology is coming up with lot of great intervention strategy and programs for violence on ual an to haveervention, funding and access to those programs on college campuses go a long way. i don't know how many attended on campus sexual violence at the white house but there were great proposals about kpraoet intervention and kprefrpgs strategies and creating accountability for regarding the aggregate ata that is reported through third parties. >> thank you very much.

an r.a. and somebody on video on a ngs me a ell phone and it is clearly someone having sex with someone it is pretty obvious from the video that the victim is incapacitated. and there is even conversation or more perpetrators about the fact that she's incapacitated. and the r.a. recognizes who the victim is. the victim -- does the r.a. in that circumstance have a duty now or should she have a duty under the law to report it? they need to create a policy a policy of reporting when the victim is to do so.

they may not even know it occurred and i think that is a different circumstance. it doesn't mandate reporting but it does say colleges are upposed to encourage that type of reporting. >> but does this a r.a. need to talk to the victim first? >> i don't think so because the victim may not know it happened. not at if the victim feels incapacitate and saw the video and clearly it still looked to r.a. as if this was n nonconsensual. r.a. have a duty to report that? >> my advice there as a c.s.a. so there is that piece for good faith. rape director for a chri it is center report this clear they are not to investigate. the last thing you want to have r.a. do is go to the victim and say listen, there is what -- have, to me it sets up a bad example -- it is -- it has already been

a ad situation but it is start of a bad situation if the victimes to question the in the video. >> we want the survivor to have as to whether or not this case is criminally but at the or not same time there is a public of people that work at this university to protect from these crimes. so, if we are going to give all power to the survivor as to whether the case goes forward bystander comes forward you are saying they would almost have to check off ith the victim before they once law act -- enforcement gets that name and once law enforcement gets that has , then law enforcement a duty to go question that victim. the law enforcement do not have a choice. say, well, yes,

this crime was committed but now the victim still has the to cooperate.t and say i'm not going to tell you anything. ultimately the victim has a lot of power because it is very difficult to move forward with investigation with a noncooperati obviously, the most important witness to the crime. i guess that is -- everybody mandate reporting but wait a minute. e need to mandate reporting because very few people do this on once. this once.ople do >> senator mccaskill one way the niversity of michigan has addressed this conundrum is creating a review panel. where we have a survivor who is unwilling to institution's the process for whatever reason, a eview panel that is made up of representatives from law enforcement, a representative organization, a reserve

who represents the interests of and also ourtudent title 9 coordinator get together matters pecifically at of community safety versus autonomy and talk through the issues to make a determination in the instance who ishere is a survivor unable or unwilling to move forward with the institution whether or not the institution has an obligation to or inue to review investigate that matter or if there is other action the address on may take to the responsibility for community afety while not investigating that particular incident. >> yikes. hat makes me really uncomfortable. if there is a video of somebody being raped i want law to get it like in 10 -- you have a panel law estion whether or not enforcement should receive it?

>> that was looking specifically at campus responsibility. not law enforcement responsibility. >> i'm talking about campus having a responsibility to report to the then would have a duty to report to law enforcement under those circumstances, i believe. solve this to problem make victims comfortable making that choice themselves. say it any other way. i hear the pain, i have worked gang rape. have been a victim of gang rape. i helped a student. i care for every survivor. the reason i reported i didn't to be e victims victimized by the same man. when i felt i could come forward but you e to do so can't take that choice away. know you want to give the individuals who have been harmed victims will see the system and they will see an

article that doesn't let the football player go for rape and reporting and ms their cases are mishandled and we know it in our bones that is not safe yet. hen we see the cases that are reported handled better we will automatically have higher reporting. it this way we will deter survivors from speaking. your recommendation is the law would not require somebody who has direct of a ndent corroboration felony that they would not report it? > i don't think they should be mandated to report it if they choose to do so that is one thing. taking it away from victims who can report it capable,es and they are intelligent individuals that can still occur. it is not as though that crime if we ver get reported don't force somebody else to do it. jurisdiction would you be it if it e in the law said it could be reported so the institution would though there

is an issue? i think the whole idea of reporting is to be investigate and those men taken off the street. anonymously and you still don't do that. something keeping track of the severity of the problem. he clarity is not a basis of prosecution. it is all anonymous data. but now you are trying to also has the law enforcement purpose which you are right it hasn't had before. i think that you will change the beast and i promise you campus survivors will not appreciate it. campus ieve that the security authority in the scenario you gave, every r.a. io is different the would have to give that to their they may notnt and know the name of the person in the video, maybe they do. there is a lot of unknown but campus public safety or law enforcement would need to they need to warn, if something they need to warrant on anything and if they that is person i think a team like holly's might come

this reach out and not say was reported, it was mandated reporting. i think that would be the best way it play it. but to reach out to that student and say this came to our attention, this was brought by a party. do you want to talk about this. the student may say i don't want to do anything. but they have been given their option. scenario you are giving as a campus security authority was a . i would think it violation and i would put them violation for not reporting in. obligated to report that. i think that would be in good faith seeing it on video. >> i agree with allison if she r.a., if ed or he, the they are mandated as a campus most ty authority they likely would have an obligation. from a campus law enforcement talk about as we c.s.a., the definition of c.s.a.

defined so oadly some institutions may designate not.nd others one thing we talk about is narrowing that definition and sucked encouraging that reporting for those who are c.s.a.ignated as a >> and there is -- i think it is that everything e do in this area empower victims and survivors and empower survivors to be the ones who make a decision. completely agree with you, laura. t just is very difficult when there is clear evidence of a theres crime and you tphknow are repeat offenders that someone with get the wrong impression that they didn't have any obligation to bring that forward. at kly, in some instances least in my experience the urvivor, when at the realize other people were there that

wanted to help it made all the in the world. t loneliest journey is when you think no one is on your side. prosecution of sex crimes. i feel very passionate our needs to bed and it reformed. it is just how it is framed because survivors are being told don't tell me anything because i will have it tell police you reporting. ever as long as it would be made clear the survivors can keep having their voice. >> i would say some cases we have heard about the problem isn't getting it to law enforcement because they are getting there. is the response you are hearing. i don't want to speaker everyone are things but there i read in media accounts i thought nobody would say that learn because you meet that person and you are like wow somebody said that. we had a mistake. this person said one of these absurd statements students are to keep getting raped

until chickens come home or whatever the statement and you that was said and so there is ot much -- only so much we can do in the getting it to law enforcement but until we are a campus hink, having a campus and designed can process through title ix until away get to the point when the made ents are not being and they are being made in the campus process, too the don't get me wrong. anything else? i have gotten through my list. twoave done it in less than hours. anything else that you all want up?bring that we haven't talked about or anything you feel like you need augment? clery ng one thing with

that will come up, it originally like howdea that house safe the physical campus was iving gone to an urban school walk a block and i'm not on i pus but i'm by the school know that it is geography any of issues.es a lot surveys victimization did it happen on or off campuses. worried about e having crimes counted against them and making it feel unsafe. campuses in the students' mind where the students hang out and not be ive and that may considered campus under the i know that is an issue that needs to be addressed. be needed to g to be updated. is n the military it wherever the member of the

military is. it is not just on base. we do not limit the authority of ucmj if the perpetrator or of the ivor is a member military there is jurisdiction. nd it does not matter -- now, there is dual jurisdiction. if it happens in down as opposed a base. i think that is right. . think we need to look at that and even though on some campuses they don't consider greek houses campus which really seems to but there are campuses that don't. >> another idea i know i floated earlier the complaint process going into effect with the taking force in the fall will take place for the first time ever. they don't always know about and a lot can be condition

to make sure that is on and this er we centralize information. investigators have limitations on how they can update about whether you are doing a title ix or complaint, s stressful to be on campus and not know if anything is being looked at, not know if anything is being trucked to, and i think the government can do more for transparency. someone is talking about it? let me add my story. let's expose what has been happening. the more we can do with transparency matters. >> let's hear from universities about that and maybe from you. why should we not have all these investigations? why do they need to be a secret until they are over? the university of michigan is currently under investigation and we have shared that information with our community. why a campusin

would not share that information with their community. >> why -- i know that they put the 55 names out there, but there is evidently has not been a change in the policy that will have an ongoing disclosure. >> we didn't make those 55 names public and we certainly can give some more thought of how to in the future. there is anand if notstigation that you do want to reveal the details of the investigation while the investigation is pending, because you can screw up the investigation. bad guys can get away. if it is a matter of letting people know that there is an investigation, i think you are right. i think that knowing is someone is looking at it will give him

for two other survivors that there is a process in place and they can rely on structural support. >> giving information about where that announcement is made, here. here is you can e-mail if you want to contribute. just with my work through survj who say, wee people want to add this information. i think there is a benefit. [indiscernible] not just we investigated. we internally corrected everything and it magically goes away. we need to know what went wrong so that others can look at that and learn and do better. while wek that came up were talking about sanctions. we just had the regulation that will go into effect in the fall that will require schools to show all sanctions for dating

violence, sexual violence, and stocking. what about sanctions? sometimes they are not doing a good job of sanctions. they will do an educational video as a consequent order -- consequence or summer suspension. maybe they can include that in reports. we have had five cases of sexual assault and zero consequences. that says something about a campus and how they are taking it. i think that can be added to cleary, requiring sanctions. >> i think we should do the same for institutions. if an institution is not complying with the law, this is what will happen, and not just a $35 fine. fore think it is important people to have opportunities in investigations. we started doing public listening sessions to provide that opportunity. >> public means on campus.

what about alumni who have left? i think it can be expanded. we are seeing alumni organizations that say, hey, that happened to me 20 years ago and it was handled poorly. just thinking beyond that. >> anybody else? campusto add that in the ,tate regulations that i am proud of, that will be issued in november, we set appropriate bars for campuses to reach, i believe, as it relates to training and prevention. for many campuses, this will be a lot of new information. i am concerned that those campuses get guidance and resources fromnd the federal government. i see already the cropping up of many for-profit organizations ont are looking to cash in

an institution's fear. what we want is for institutions to be operating from the point of the best practice possible, not from a place of fear. that would be my encouragement. >> do people like you have an organization across the country? >> we do not currently have an organization across the country, though this is something a number of us are hoping to create. i have a colleague in the audience who will join me after this to discuss this matter. >> i think you should. >> thank you. >> i think you all are being with putting your universities and colleges in a compliant position, not just by making sure you have done all the things you are supposed to do, but that you have robust training and policy supporting it and that everyone understands that it is not just her office that has a role here. i think you all could benefit

from cross-pollination. >> thank you for the encouragement. >> i don't know what i can do besides saying it is a great organization, but i think it is. >> i think that even -- before it started happening before the -- throughout the country, it has to happen on campus. that everyone at michigan knows the great work that holly is doing, but there are probably some folks who don't. i think knowing your resources on your campus or all campuses -- and i don't know, i guess that is nothing we can legislate. , i think we have seen the clearance complier -- cleary compliance role on campus. we have a collaborative learning program and we have ongoing professional development in teams of five. it forces them in teams of five

to really examine compliance from all levels and then assess themselves. there is a self-assessment tool where they have to do their own program review. they are doing their own review to see what they can find and do it with others. that is another thing. while it is great to see it happening nationally, i think you see it happen in our own campuses. it sounds so simplistic, but that is what we are missing. the biggest rechallenge the round -- silos would be number one. >> this is another place where the campus climate assessment could be a useful tool. looking at the levels of information saturation on a campus. forng campuses set goals improvement over the course of time. when we are looking at campus climate assessments, it is important that they are happening on intervals so

campuses can monitor their progress. >> i am glad to see that you are excited about it. i have a feeling we will have pushed back about the mandated campus climate assessment. we will have to be ready to win that fight. >> absolutely. >> i just wanted to add on to what allison was talking about. in a court meeting across campus for the uss system, just looking at higher education opportunity, which includes all of this -- when i had started this initial ispliance progress, and this three years ago, grassroots because we have a problem, we need to get everything into compliance -- when it was all said and done, i coordinate with 27 separate urbanization of units. everyone from law enforcement to .o.lness two d.o. -- to d.e it has to start with the institution and there needs to

be a central entity to keep track of it all. ,y law enforcement officers what they do every day is completely different from their title ix quarters -- coordinators. a central organization is very important. piggyback, some great work around this is coordinated immunity responses are happening at the community college level because they typically operate within the local community and have to have more cooperation with local law enforcement and local domestic violence shelters. plus their students, plus title ix, plus on campus long worsen. a community college in new jersey has created a great intervention program that is bilingual to serve their student population. that connects them with all the resources on and near campus. it is leading the way. we have seen great were coming from community colleges because

they are set so much in the community that they are required to work with more community members and don't operate in his ivory tower or within silos of the university. a side issue that takes away from that conversation. >> i know you are interested in the idea of combining forces. i think the department of education obviously has done some good work, but i have been continually disappointed with a lot of the title ix cases regarding enforcement. with ahad the thought lot of other survivors, that the office of civil rights the to get involved. sometimes schools are more than just filing civil rights -- violating civil rights. they are actually obstructing justice in many ways. i think that in looking at that model, bring in the department of justice would be a statement. this is not just education. we are not just throwing money at this problem. we are laying down the law. it is a crime. it is a civil rights violation. i can encourage the enforcement

aspect. i think that really needs to happen from the government and very it is not something nonprofits can do. demande government can significant apartment and i hope you look in the -- at the department of justice and the role it can play. >> ok. i learned a lot today. i appreciate all of you being here very much. please consider this open channel of communication. we should have draft legislation done sometime after the last round table. we are working on it now and honestly -- obviously, we anxiously await everyone's input to the draft and what we include and what we don't. we are working on a collaboratively and it is really going to be informed by these roundtables. staff inhave a lot of this room today taking lots of notes and all of that will be correlated and we will look at it in light of the things we are talking about legislating about

and hopefully come up with the right piece of legislation that will augment and improve what we empower our -- and their survivors with the right mix of regulation, support, and penalties. thank you all very much for being here. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

up next, former treasury secretary tim geithner talks about his new book on the 2008 financial crisis. then, attorney general eric holder announced the indictment of members of the chinese military who allegedly hacked into the computer services -- servers of u.s. businesses. >> federal communications

commission chairman tom wheeler will testify about a proposal to block companies such as netflix to be charging more in order to deliver content faster to customers. chairman wheeler is also expected to get questions about media ownership and spectrum auctions. tomorrow ate begins c-span 3.ern on a recent report was critical of the safety procedures for pipelines used to transport gas. a house transportation subcommittee will investigate safety. former treasury secretary tim geithner sat down to talk about -- "stressk, guest: test: reflections on financial crises." he spoke with mike allen and ben

white. this is 55 minutes. >> base and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage mike allen and ben white. >> good afternoon. welcome to this year's first book launch. time in thist amazing setting at the hamilton. i have alongside me ben white.

>> no one can do that, mike. >> welcome all of you and live stream land. we appreciate you joining us. host timcited to geithner. book, to talk about his "stress test: reflections on financial crises." copies are available in the back. i would like to thank bank of america for making these conversations possible. onappreciate the partnership this form to talk about the issues that matter most in washington. we thank them for their continued support. >> thank you everyone for being here. it is exciting for me to see people eating at these events which is sometimes a rarity. i hope everyone enjoys their lunch. went to urge people that have questions -- you can send them to us at #playbooklunch.

i did pay for this at barnes & noble in new jersey. [laughter] we will be tracking twitter questions. please send them. we don't have a lot of times a let's not waste any of it. please look up to the stage timothy geithner. welcome toe stage -- the stage timothy geithner. >> i would make the former goldman sachs bankers joke, but apparently -- >> do any of you guys have jobs? former goldman sachs. >> thank you for joining us. we have a lot of ground we would like to cover. i want to start with the main tension around the tim geithner story. that is -- >> there is not just one. arehe main one seems to be, you the savior of wall street and the broader economy at the expense of main street and

housing and all of these other things? one of the things that struck me in reading the book again on the way down here is some of the discussions around housing reform and i want to read one quick passage from the book. >> you put housing in that same question? >> in the context of the question. >> go to page 379. >> this is when you're discussing what options are on -- table to help owners homeowners get to the tarp program and bailouts. he said we did not want to spend tax dollars to help all workers who can stay current without our help. there are real political issues around people using tax dollars to help neighbors in over their heads. didn't you do for bankers, helping them when they got in over their heads through the tarp program and other programs, and you are unwilling to do that

for homeowners? you applied something to homeowners that you did not to banks? >> no. that would be mistaken. with theant to start recognition. this is a classic financial panic. it is the worst kind of crisis. it does not happen that often. people forget how damaging that are. prevent fuelto from mass unemployment is to step in and make sure you prevent a collapsing failure of the financial system. that is the essential, necessary, moral thing to do. nothing is possible if you don't do that. it is like you are in a plane. the plane is on fire. bunch of people who are going to die if you don't landed that plane safely. and yet, people warn you to come out of because that is try to figure out, could you negotiate conditions on the banks before

you landed? could you figure out what caused the plane to catch on fire? no. you're going to land the plane. that was our obligation and that is what we try to do. it was messy and very damaging because the panic had so much momentum. that was the first obligation. after we did that, we tried to do everything we could to try and get more support for the economy over a longer. of time. so on a car -- unemployment would come down more quickly and we would have a stronger recovery. we worked with that and tried. did not get as much as he wanted done in that context. we got the economy going again in six months, remarkably quickly. record of our the outcomes in this crisis, even with all the challenges we face as a country, they look very good against the last 100 years of crisis response by governments in developed countries. think of what panics have caused

throughout history. in the great depression, for comparison, we had a massive financial shock. it cost 25% unemployment, the economy shrank by 25%. there were bread lines across the country for about a decade. the shock at the beginning of this crisis was five times larger than what happened at the beginning of the great depression. >> there is a handsome graph -- >> i would like to do a dramatic reading from the footnotes of this graph. [laughter] book --ecretary, in the >> i want to come back to housing. go ahead. >> go-ahead and finish row quick. housing was terribly disappointing to all of us. nothing we didn't housing had as much traction, as much benefit, as much power as people deserved in this context. why was that? because the scale of the problem was just massive relative to the tools and the authority and

resources we had. why was it so massive? because this is the crisis following a huge, long boom in borrowing on credit and leverage. because so many people lost their jobs because of the force of the initial panic in the recession, in that context, we try to do as good a job as we could with our limited authority in our use of that authority did help millions of people stay in their homes. means of people refinanced and took advantage of lower rates. it eventually got the market starting to heal. those actions were not powerful enough. >> really quickly and over to my. yes or no. could you take in $700 billion as you did with tarp and do principal write-downs and allow people to reduce their mortgages? >> i asked barney frank in the midst of the financial reform fights as to whether we could merge the sec and the a sec. he said, yeah, you can do that.

not just in this country. [laughter] bernie frank said that. maybe you could fight harder to make it happen. quick to give up on ideas -- >> i don't agree with that. look at the scale of things we did in the crisis. i bear all the scars of our mistakes, the damage still left over. i have a deep appreciation for how much damage is still left and we failed to do. if you look at the scale of what we did in this crisis relative to past experience, we did dramatic and remarkably effective things in the face and peril of that thing. it was messy. it was not perfect. it seemed equally unfair because paradoxically, in a panic, to rescue people from the risk of mass employment, you will do things that looks like you are helping the arsonists. it is inescapable. it feels terrible and we hated doing it.

the alternative would have been much more unfair to the innocent victims of the crisis. >> let's talk about the politics of housing. only times wehe see the president being sharp with you in the book. the president was pushing you to do more on housing. >> the president would get these letters. i think he has talked about this. he would take home a set of letters every night to read. number number -- a huge of letters, understandably. many of the letters for about the pain and frustration. he would pass them on and he would put relentless pressure on us to try and make sure that we were stretching the frontiers. >> what to that pressure look like? face to face? >> yes. and you would want them to do that. that is what you want in a president in a time of crisis. >> you know this president that are than almost anyone. you spent more time in the west wing that any secretary of this

in thiset president administration. when he puts pressure, what does it look like? >> is what you think. [laughter] it is not really that comfortable. >> but what is the style in that situation. >> let me say it different way. when he was exceptionally good at doing, and this is a necessary quality for any effective leader, is he would subject the problems we were facing and the solutions we presented to relentless internal debate without getting too deep in the weeds with technical issues, and he was very good at trying to make sure he was amount of a diverse views from inside the team and outside. that was good.

it was not that comfortable. it was good and it was necessary and just. he could not put himself in the position of saying, my secretary thinks i should do x. he was doing to -- he was willing to do hard things after the alternatives. none of the alternatives were good. they were all bad and messy. he would expose himself to those, not many of which survived much debate. they run into the reality of life. warren buffett told me a story about mike tyson. after he retired, someone asked him, what was it like? how did you approach the challenge? people come into the ring and they have a strategy. he said, and then i had them. -- hit them. [laughter] >> i don't know how i can make

this compelling to people. so much of life is like this. you come to the problem. you have these ideas of what you should do. you sort to that. he sort to the best ideas and then you run a guess a -- whicht a crushing thing is politics, congress, or money. >> what is president obama's most overlooked characteristic as a leader, boss? >> there are too any to list. i think the -- i am not sure how i should say this. i am a deep admirer of him. i don't recognize the per trail in what --l of him much of what he is written as. wrote about barack obama, what with the first page say? >> is embarrassing to say.

greatawesome and crisis, at making decisions, tough on people when he should be tough, deep empathy, and word about what -- worried about what is the right thing to do. it sounds too naïvely optimistic, but it is true. him, i waseting with painting for him to terrible darkness of what we're going to face, and we were going to commit to lend hundreds of millions of dollars to unworthy giants. he said, i want to do the tough stuff early. you figure out what you think is the right thing to do and don't worry about the politics. we will worry about the politics. that is what you want in your leaders. you want them to say -- you want ,hem to look past the deeply

the deep noise of politics in the short term and write to figure out how you can look past that and figure out what makes sense. that was my experience. >> in the book, he seemed often to tend to what you would call old testament justice for banking. >> every human being wanted that. >> you would pull him back from that, and i think specifically of the morning shortly after you became treasury secretary where he wanted to express outrage over wall street bonuses paid in 2008 during the height of the crisis, which he did. you are also part of the talking point that said, i won't read this. what you decide that and why do you think it was inappropriate for you to echo the president's comments? it was what the american people were feeling, which as we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing them out and yet in 2008, they got record bonuses. >> i don't know this is helpful, but have you seen the talking points they asked me to read?

unless you had seen those --king points, you shouldn't and remember, he is the president of the united states. we are in the oval office. he was a giant orator. not my strength. thought it was important for him to carry the burden at that time. >> they were too weak or what was the problem? >> there is nothing worse than public life than watching people read. talking points they did not understand. good atjust not that doing that. did you watch me afterwards? i am not that good doing that and i am not that good at in making it up on the moment.

>> you have gotten good at it. in the book, you talk about the 2008 a meltdown. what is the likelihood that in our lifetime it will happen again? >> very low. one is the memory of this crisis will last a while. these things -- looked what happened after the great depression. a great time of people you saving a huge fraction. it may not last that long but it will last a while. again, the risk is not zero but it is very low risk because we did a dramatic restructuring of our financial system and cleaned out a lot of really bad things. much the system to hold more capital against the risk of another crisis and passed a set of reforms that are not messy. at the core, had this usually powerful change which is the force people to hold more

cushions against the risk of mistakes for things they don't understand. it will find its way around it. they have a very good prospect of buying us a long period of relative -- not forever. it is very good and powerful. >> it sounds a little bit of the speeches you gave at the new york fed leading up to the last crisis. not that you didn't point out there are risks building in the system. there was also a lot of talk about how much more stable the banks have become, the system had become. when you look at the years leading up to 2008 and the crisis, what are the specific things that you wish you would see more clearly or had been able to react to to prevent the crisis we went through? >> it is a common failure of imagination which i was a part was not was it

conceivable that we would face a risk of depression like financial panic. crises,in financial watch them over time. i found out how to deal with them. i knew the system was very fragile. i knew they were deeply damaging. i watched a governments mess them up for more than a decade. when i went to the new york fed, i was very concerned about these two basic forces. we are in the midst of a long boon. i talked about that quite opening but also huge part of that leverage was building up outside the core of the banking system. after the great depression, as a country we did the right thing. we did constraints on risk-taking for banks with deposits and insurance. that risk against runs which you need to prevent a collapse of the financial system.

over time, the market outgrew that. u.s. institutions, -- you had institutions, you know who they are, ge capital, franny and freddie mac. they grew larger than the core of the banking system. the fed had no authority over them. no visibility into them. it was a problem and i was deeply worried about it. it was a problem that was not amenable to any solution. i talked about is very openly in the book. uneasy about how much we knew about whether capital was sufficient. uneasy about the risk and the systems. we had a look at try looking at the early stages and trying to figure out how the system will bear in the event of pretty big losses. great depression

like losses to create a vulnerability to a panic like this. that was something which was hard to anticipate. hard to talk people into the view that in the united states of america in 2007, you needed to prepare for the risk of the great depression. most people thought house prices was not going to follow. it was sort of a deeper set of competence. >> people were trying to convince you at the time that there was this crisis waiting to happen. the mortgages were going to go bad and the leverages the banks used to package the mortgages was going to come back. >> remember, if you look at the crisis, there were huge amount of things contributing. it was a terrible amount of fraud in the system. there was a huge amount of risk outside of it. systemthis regulatory with a lot of tribal war, but

not much scope in that context. there are a lot of things to worry about in our system. they were -- a lot of the things were observable. the thing that was hard to anticipate or even imagine was the risk that losses in subprime -- even the loss or a bad recession which triggered a run on a financial system that had the power. the reason why the run had so much power is because there was no standing set of tools that could come in and stop the run. that was what was so damaging. counterintuitive because people still lived with the view that this conventional wisdom that the bailouts were too powerful. it is a little more complicated than that.

what happened was the run was allowed to gain a huge amount of momentum. it is much harder to slow and reverse. 2008, we had a republican president had to go to congress to ask for truly unprecedented emergency authority. it is a complicated story. feeling the scars and damage caused by that. >>. frank gave you new tools that will rias -- dodd frank took away some your firefighting abilities, some of your bailout abilities. does that worry you? metaphors't -- i mix a lot and try to find this right one. you don't make fires less likely by depriving the fire stations of equipment. it is not just the way crises work. frank are saying the dodd

legislation did that to the administration? tothey gave us authority have more capital against loss. as a systematic part of what we do going forward into provision, it is designed to make sure the system is running with the capacity to absorb a great depression like losses. that is a very important thing. when it applied to 30% of the financial system. abilitynk gave us the to wind down a large competition institution without a taxpayer funding it and the risk of damage. we didn't have that authority. it is a very important thing. dodd frank, we were legislating in a deeply populist moment, it took away the authority to guarantee the liabilities of bank holders without congressional approval. verywas an unfortunate,

consequential judgment. in theill be some time future, hopefully generations from now, when they will need that authority again because in a financial panic, that is a necessary part of the arsenal. reduce thecan incentive of the run, they will rush for the exits to protect themselves and that is what brings the risk of massive unemployment. >> as much as everybody in the room lights that discuss dodd frank, i want to talk about the point you are trying to make as obama not trying to pick u.s. treasury secretary. that context in that you mentioned hillary clinton as a possible treasury secretary. >> you are mixing two stories. i told my publishers not to give you a book without an index.

>> it is hard to keep the story straight. hillary at one point. what would make her a good treasury secretary? >> she would be terrific. she would be -- she has a great capacity to make decisions. she is very tough and smart. she is very careful. she has a pretty good ability to work with people on both sides of the aisle selecting she would be great. >> we have a public service question. in yesterday's new york times, there was an unanswered question from your book. it was how could a huge regulatory army missed economies buildup of risk? there was a lot of regulatory failure in our system and i just described it.

the main failure was the failure to extend i had of the crisis -- ahead of the crisis the basic constraints on risk-taking and the type of protection against runs that are essential to preventing a financial crisis. the deep failure was the failure to extend those over parts of the system that working living large risk -- that working relating -- that were accumulating large risk. those were systematic failures. the only defense against those failures -- it is not like you can prevent financial crises by having more regulators necessarily or by having central banks that have a perfect view of the future. it is unrealistic. ist causes financial crises the excess confidence reduce by long boons, and makes people feel more confident. the only defense about that is this mix of shock absorbers

against loss. like with the stress test force in our system. you can anchor in reforms and make very powerful and durable. alongside the capacity to put a lot of money in the window when things fall apart. you have to do both. unless you have that, you are going to leave your country more vulnerable to crises in the future. we are in better position today against those risks. will notn we say wile no be vulnerable. people who are of theble that the side record and not very ideologically opposed to what you did, there are certain things they pull out and say this is a big missed opportunity to do something that would punish. something that would make people feel better, a little bit better

about what we're doing to bailout wall street as a necessity. one thing that comes up is the fact that after aig got this they announced, plans to pay large bonuses to people at aig who impart were responsible for the blowup. you may be argument that there was just nothing within your authority to lock those bonuses, rule of law applies. ofld you not use the force the office, the force of the presidency as well and say you guys cannot have this money? you cannot take it because it is bad for america. >> most humans have the same view. we had no means at that time. as i write in the book, we didn't just try to figure out how to get some options.

the president went out and thatnced to the public monday that he was going to ask the attorney general to go back and look. they did a nice thoughtful look at that and they reached the same conclusion that we had. it would be great if there was otherwise. >> could you have taken them into bankruptcy and done it that way? >> in a financial crisis caused by a massive run produced by a fear of systemic failure across the system. the financials of the united 2009,, even in early think back to what it was like. the economy was falling off the cliff. even after, we had guaranteed or liabilities, it was still a gravely dangerous moment.

the idea that we would've been able to protect the risk of unemployment being much worse than it was with the economy still falling off the cliff by allowing more failure, somehow that would've been fair and just, that would've been terrible. >> that panic would've intensified -- >> absolutely. if you think about financial crises, they are about the loss of the basic trust and confidence. waslready had a crisis that pretty bad because there were a lot of zigzagging by the united states, probably because of limited constraints. that is what produced a crisis of this terrible. it was that basic sense that we should let this thing burn because it would be just for the people who took so much risk. that instinct which is so understandable, so human, so important is what causes

financial panics to become great depressions. that is what happened in the great depression. that is what happened in 10 of the last systemic crises. that is the instinct to let it burn because it is just is what causes the most damage. >> isn't it possible to let one thing burn and not something else? >> the ideal thing in the system -- we are much closer to that today -- we want to run a system where you to be indifferent to the mistakes of people running the institutions. indifferent to those failures, that is what you want. to do that, you have to do two things which we didn't have before the crisis. you have to have much thicker shock absorbers against loss applied much more broadly. we are much better decision today but that is not enough. now to have the ability to break a panic and stop it from running and that requires the full

capacity to guarantee everything. 2009, the capacity didn't exist. your question is the right exist -- question. you want to allow the failure to happen in the weakest part of the system and be able to build a fire break. it was so powerful and so broad, the fire cannot just -- jump that bridge. that is the ideal thing. we are better off today than we were but not perfect. >> the most fascinating psychodrama in your book is between you and your former mentor larry summers who was the economic policy advisor -- >> it was not that dramatic. [laughter] deeply tortured psychodrama. the president's first summer in august, august 2009, he renominated ben bernanke to a second term.

he considered nominating very summers to be the fed secretary. what was your advice on that and the role in the president's decision? >> that was pretty early in his first term. still, i think most people felt like the crisis was still with us. it was a very tough economy. he was facing this question about what to do with the secession of the fed -- succession of the fed. he was pretty thoughtful about it. he said is this the right time for transition of the fed? if make -- if i make this change at the time, i will have two transitions. we are going to a transition of fat in a gradual moment and i am going to lose larry summers. it seems -- those are two bad things. he made a decision to ask the chairman to stay.

i thought that was a good decision. >> you advised him to stay the course? >> we talked through it. we talked through all the options. i thought that was the right balance. >> this is a summers related question, too. he argued the case number of times for the possibility of nationalizing citi and bank of america and the fact it wouldn't have a bad implications. you can then force out management that would satisfy. >> i am in favor of the old testament. [laughter] i really am. i think it is important for people to understand there was terrible damage. people deserve the greater measure of justice. putting out the financial fire in making sure it was not a great depression was not going to feel satisfying.

i was very supportive trying to make sure we gave our enforcement authorities much more resources and better power and reforms so they can do a better job of meeting that. i am deeply in favor of that. the debate we are having is whether -- is not whether the old testament was good or bad, it was just necessary. it is a highly different question about how you land that plane. need to make it a crisis, yet the make choices about the order and sequence which do things. if you try to have and always, we will do a little this and that, you are going to leave the country burning. don'tionalization -- i think it is quite fair to say. excellent at looking in every option, looking in every choice from all sides. sometimes kind of frustrating but necessary and good for a

president who is curious and exacting. he thought we should look at all the options and we did. we came into the crisis with no memory of panic and we knew the great depression was something catastrophic. we look at the experience of the other models around the world. we the decade-long drift in japan. there was sweet in which was a pretty successful example of nationalization. we looked at those choices. when we were having this debate which was in a period where the stress test was pending, we knew there were some risk. the stress test would reveal a level of losses that were so large that the market would not provide capital and the tax we would have to put capital into. if that was done at a massive scale, that was going to look like nationalization. we talked a lot about how we are going to do that if we faced that issue. it was a hypothetical discussion

at that point because we were waiting for the results. as you know, this is very thertant, what happened is fed release the stress test results. the market was incredible. the level of transparency was without precedent. in the market came in and put capital into those institutions on a very substantial scale. we didn't actually have to put additional taxpayer capital into all but one additional institution. we had a pretty active debate about what we are going to do in the event the holes were so large in a market. if we put a bunch of public money in there, we were going to do some things that probably you guys would've called old testament. >> one of the great moments in the book is with scott brown who was a senator from new hampshire and now is running for senator in --

>> he is back. >> tell us that story. >> financial reform. complicated process. i am not trying to make it boring. i'm charlie give you some context. -- i'm trying to give you some context. because weee him needed some boats on financial reform and he was new center. -- senator. we had a nice talk about different issues. he said, i think i want to be with you want by natural form. i thought that was good. -- you have to do two things for me. we have these two institutions that we have to make sure you don't get caught up in the volcker rule. i thought it was appealing that he had this staff to remind them -- two institutions to protect.

>> remind me what they are. you have to understand was happening across congress. everybody wanted to be for reform. there were people that wanted to be for reform but a lot of people wanted to be for reform could not be for reform if reform is going to damage the economics of institutions or businesses in their states. booku come away from the thinking your worldview is washington is better than we think and congress is worst than we think. >> i don't think congress is worse than you think. [laughter] >> it is hard to do that. we bullet the luncheon crowd beside. tell us about your phone calls to the senator from illinois when he was in china. >> i was in china. i went to china pretty early in my tenure. i arrived in china and the

foreign services officers who had been following mark around beijing told me that in his meetings, he was telling the chinese to sell treasuries because we were going to have hyperinflation and might default. remarkable and somewhat disturbing. there was no evidence, no reason to be concerned because the chinese were pretty good investors and most of their buying chantry'-- treasuries would produce more treasuries at that time. there was a corn tradition about the politics and it is generally not a good idea when you're outside your country to claim we are going to and in hyperinflation. >> you famously enjoy the occasional expletive -- >> he was pretty responsive when i said that. >> were you gentle with him in

that conversation as you describe it or was it more of a heated conversation then you are letting on? >> i was very direct with them. he was very responsive. we did end up working -- i don't want to impugn his credibility -- we work together on consequent to issues. >> one last summer's question. he didn't get the fed chair when you hope for it. he was once again for the last time around. >> that was a question about timing at that point, not merits. >> you do want to change a fed chair in the midst of a rolling economic crisis. >> if the fed chair is deeply confident which ben bernanke is. i thought larry was excellent about this. i think you thought the president's decision was reasonable. another year at the job in the white house --

>> should he have gotten it the last time around when he was up to it? i think he didn't get it was because of a lot of the lingering anger of the lack of tied to wallng -- i street was one of the creek -- with the critiques from them. was the possibility of being a fed chair he quietly -- a casually? ity. >> you need a world where you live and 60 votes. 60 votes are hard to find. you cannot find them in one party. we have a political system now which is be divided in both parties. not just between the two parties. larry summers was going to lose some democrats, no doubt about it. that probably would've happened at any time. you can probably have a booming economy and that would've happened.

was there going to be enough republicans that would join in that context? we are not living in a time where there is lots of those moments of grace. >> you think you would've been a good share? >> absolutely. >> what is the more credits -- the criticisms of the right or left? of -- how should i describe this? it is really important if you were in these jobs, you need to understand what your critics say because you want to understand how your policies are being received and described because politics is essential to the government. you need to understand those things. generally, i try to not pay attention to what people wrote about me because if you do that too much, you will want to go

crawl under a rock and you won't make any decisions. when you make decisions, you're going to make people unhappy. was that a good response? >> sure. you're not going to be more responsive so -- >> he is abandoning the question. >> you said that you are not working for wall street right now. what is the distinctive between what you are doing now and wall street? >> think i would say it quite that way. i had is great amazing privilege of working in public life as a public servant for a long time. i knew i could not do it forever. i had to do something new and different. i was deeply worried about the perception you referred to. i made a conscious choice. i wasn't going to work with a regulator we rescued directly. i had a long-standing interest in the investing world. it is a very important part of our economy.

people that i think are really good at that. i feel pretty lucky to be doing that. old school growth and firm -- investment firm and i'm helping them do all that. >> why not go to wall street? >> most of the people think i came from there and i thought about validating that myth about me, going back. >> you are taking all the flak anyway, might as well go work for goldman. >> i just want to ask one history question that gets out of a lot. in the 1990's, there was an effort to regulate the derivatives market more closely. put all the derivatives have them in an exchange rate of a lot of this came from berkeley born at the cftc. admired her you ideas but there was no perfect land that should put four.

was that a missed opportunity to clear up the financial system that came back to haunt us? >> it was. just to do a record, and i write about this debate in my book. my time at treasure before i was secretary, i worked on the international side of treasury. i was not a combatant in those fights about fiscal reform and had no experience in those things. markets andemergent currency things and things like that. of coarse it is a missed opportunity. and ittinct was right was happening across the financial system. pockets of innovation and change and risk that were growing up outside of these basic safeguards the system needs. it was hard for people to appreciate what was risks were. that they would worry about the risks. they were complicated and need legislation. they had not been tested by a severe crisis for a long time. much confidence

in the stability and efficiency and coolness of our system. to illustratebout look so i will do a couple of rapid routes. there is an editorial where they talk about a ruling that you'll have to turn over evidence of a conversation you had with s&p after you had an oval office, session with the president. will that compensation to be more interesting or more boring than they think? be morenversation interesting or more boring than they think? >> definitely more boring. with that quick enough for you? >> two people ever -- do people ever come up to you and say thank you? >> they do. it is pretty surprising. people are very gracious to me -- except you two. >> we do our best. >> if john mccain can president, there was a possibility that he

would ask you to be treasury secretary. >> i don't think so. >> you are a republican in your past. >> not at that time. -- read oneuld we reviewers first, would it be larry summers, president obama -- >> you could do better than that. >> i'm trying not to read any reviews. >> you have not read reviews for the most part? >> i have not. at some point i will. my colleagues say it is pretty good. >> we talked about the time you spent in the west wing. what is the role played in this ministration by vice president biden? >> most of my experience with him was in the situation room, meetings of the nfc were talking about affairs of state or in the fiscal negotiations we had over the course of 2011 and 2004.

i would work closely -- 2012. i would work closely with him in that context. he gets very deep. a really useful thing which i think is important in life. he tries to understand not just what the opposition thinks, but why do they think that. why do they hold that view? view, evenhind that yo when it is so different than ours? i admire him a lot. >> the role played by valerie jarrett. formalrie has a responsibility for business liaison and governmental affairs. a whole range of work with outside groups. a long tradition that functions and the white house. she is one of the president's hostess friends -- closest friends.

she has a seat at most tables. >> coming with tables she is on. istell me what tables she on. >> i am not sure i can phrase it that way. >> the financial crises tend to have long lag times. give us your quick you on the rest of this year. are we going to see fat growth? >> i don't leave in forecast. take this with a grain of salt. i think the u.s. economy today is definitely stronger than it has been in the last four years. i think it is stronger than it was in 2005, when growth was unsustainable foundation. we work through a lot of the imbalances of excess borrowing and a lot of the headwind that slowed growth in the early part of the crisis, like fiscal

policy turning too too fast, and i think that if you look at what is left, i see an economy that is gradually getting stronger. we are such a lucky country. we have this amazing amount of innovation going on in technology and plans. we are bringing things back from mexico and china because america is a compelling place. energy -- a compelling amount of change there. we have very high rates of poverty. a long. of no growth in the median income. decades of inequality. if you grow up in america today, how well you do, the quality of school you get to go to, the quality of health care you get depends way to zoom much on the color of your skin and how richer parents are. those are things that governments can do things about. there is power against those things and i think the economy

-- pretty resilient, pretty good. political system, still kind of broken. we have to find a way to rediscover that capacity to govern so we can make a bit more of a difference in the basic confidence -- >> the wealth tax is still in any quantity? >> in this country? on this planet? i just don't see how it happens. i wouldn't look at this problem of poverty or mobility or inequality or opportunity -- you don't want to look at it just to the prism of taxes. maybe that is part of it. you need to look at it more deeply, the set of public investments that affect the quality of opportunity that people get. >> any chance of tax reform between -- before 2017? >> i am not a good person to ask that. it seems unlikely, but you should ask more be -- people who

iknow more about that. >> you think your collaborator, mike. what is he like as a collaborator? >> unbelievable. a great writer. very hard on me, as you would expect and i deserve. we go back and forth and i would send him stuff that i thought was pretty good. poetry, even. [laughter] he would say, it looks like you have been typing with your mittens on. try again. >> people would be surprised to find out what you do in your basement. >> torture bankers. that old testament joe, finally. >> -- joke finally. >> i have a long aspiration to learn how to do would better. -- wood better. il with mylf ta son. i have done dovetails. i would like to do more than that. >> how his tennis like life? >> i don't think it is like

life. not at all. >> who is better? >> my arm is damage. that is like life. the place you served on the cape has been infested with great whites in the last couple of years. >> it is true. even when you serve, you are not supposed to serve if there are seals for the obvious reason. there are definitely more seals. >> when you see a shark, do you think, seal? >> i have never seen a shark. >> secretary geithner, thank you for your time. i have about 100 more questions but i will come to you personally and asked those. thank you for coming and we would like to thank our live stream office, the bank of america, our political colleagues for making his bobble, and all of you. thank you for a great conversation. >> primary voters go to the

state -- the polls in six states tomorrow. a senator is retiring. five republicans are vying to fill the seat. -- democrats will decide in pennsylvania who will face the incumbent governor tom corbett. >> the justice department filed charges against five members of a chinese military unit for hacking into the computer systems of five u.s. companies and one labor union in order to allegedly steal trade secrets. we'll hear from attorney general eric holder and officials from the fbi at this 30-minute news briefing.

>> good morning, i'm joined by john carlin, the united states attorney for the western district of pennsylvania, dave pickton. executive assistant director of the fbi, and scott smith, the special agent in charge for the fbi pittsburgh office. in the 2013 state of the union address, president obama called the theft of corporate secrets by foreign companies and countries, i quote, a real threat to our security as well as to our economy, end quote. we're here this morning to discuss a matter that prove this is threat warned about by the president is all too real. today we're announcing an indictment for five officers for the chinese people's liberation army for serious cyber security breeches against six american victim companies. these represent the first ever charges against known state actors for infiltrating united

states commercial targets by cybermeans. a federal grand jury in pittsburgh found the five military officers conspired with others to hack into the computers of western pennsylvania and elsewhere in the united states. the victim entities include westinghouse electric, alcoa, allegheny technologies incorporated, united states steel, steal workers union, and the solar world. this is a case alleging economic espionage by members of the chinese military. the range of trade secrets and business sensitive information stolen in this case is significant and demands an aggressive response. the indictment alleges that the pla officers maintained unauthorized access to steal the information from the entities that would be useful to the competitors in china including state-owned enterprises. in some cases, they stole trade secrets that would have been

beneficial to chinese companies at the time they were stolen. and others, the sensitive internal communications that would provide a competitor or adversary with litigation and insight to the strategy and vulnerabilities of the american entity. in some, the alleged hacking appears to be conducted for no other reason than advantage state-owned companies and other interests in china at the expense of businesses here in the united states. this is a tactic that the united states government categorically denounces. as president obama has said on numerous occasions, we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to united states companies or to the united states commercial sector. our economic security and our ability to compete fairly in the global marketplace are directly linked to our national security.

the success of the american companies since our nation's founding has been the result of hard work and of fair play by our citizens. this is how it ought to be across the globe. success in the international marketplace should be based solely on the company's ability to innovate and compete, not on a sponsor's government's ability to spy and steal secrets. when a foreign nation uses military or intelligence resources and tools against an american executive or corporation to obtain trade secrets or sensitive business information for the benefit for state-owned companies, we must say enough is enough. this administration will not tolerate actions by any nation that seeks to illegally sabotage american companies and undermine the integrity of fair competition in the operation of the free market. this case should serve as a wakeup call to the seriousness of the ongoing cyberthreat. the criminal charges represent a ground breaking step forward in addressing that threat.

this indictment makes clear that state actors who engage in economic espionage even in the internet from far away places like offices in shanghai will be exposed for the criminal conduct and sought for apprehension and prosecution in an american court of law. but that is my pleasure now to turn it turnover the assistant attorney general for the national security division john carlin. >> the national security divisions mission is to protect our security by using every legal tool available to confront and defeat threats to our country. today that tool is an indictment back bid the independence and credibility of the criminal justice system. the threat is members of unit 61398 of the chinese military

who targeted the u.s. private sector for commercial advantage. we allege that members of 61398 conspired to hack to the computers of six u.s. vick tinls to steal information that would provide an economic advantage to the victims' competitors including state-owned enterprises. in the past, when we brought concerns such as these to chinese government officials, they responded by publicly challenging us to provide hard evidence of their hacking that would stand up in court. well today we are. for the first time we're exposing the faces and names behind the keyboards in shanghai used to steal from american businesses. and thanks to the investigation of the fbi and the hard work of the western district of pennsylvania, this indictment describes with particularly the specific actions on specific days by specific actors to use their computers to steal information from across our economy. it describes how they targeted

information and information ranging from nuclear to steel to renewable energy. and it shows that while the men and women of our american businesses spent their business days innovating, creating, and developing strategies to compete in the global marketplace. these members of unit 61398 were spending their business days in shanghai stealing the fruits of our labor. and it shows that the business information that these individuals stole, including trade secrets, would have been beneficial to chinese companies. let me give you some examples of the allegations in our indictment. right about the time that solar world was rapidly losing the market share to chinese competitors that were pricing exports well below costs, these hackers were stealing cost, price, and strategy information from solar world's computers. and while westinghouse was negotiating with a chinese state-owned enterprise over the

construction of nuclear power plants, the hackers stole trade secret designs for components of those plants. to be clear, this conduct is criminal and it is not conduct most responsible nations in the global economic community would tolerate. at the department of justice and the fbi, we have repeatedly pledged we would do more to hold those accountable who engage in these actions and today we begin to fulfill that pledge. and we will continue using all of the tools at our disposal to persue those who steal our intellectual property no matter who they are or where they reside. i would like to turn it over to david heckton, the u.s. attorney of in western pennsylvania who's been a valuable partner in these efforts. >> thank you, good morning. as you know, pittsburgh has long been pre-eminent in the metal

industries and home to organized labor. now as a result, pittsburgh has become the target of state sponsored cyber-intrusions. united states steel, the largest steel company in the u.s., westinghouse, one of the leading developers of nuclear technology. alcoa, the largest aluminum company in the united states. allegheny technologies, a large integrated specialty metals company headquartered in pittsburgh. the united steelworkers union, the largest union in north america, and solar world, a leading solar manufacturing company. these victims are tired of being raided. it is important for their government to take a stand against criminals who infiltrate and exploit their computer networks.

our domestic corporations struggle to compete with china on the pricing of steel and other goods. our competitive advantage has been to engineer superior, stronger, and more advanced products such as oil country tubular goods and seamless standard line pipes. these initiatives costs billions of dollars in capital and research and development costs. and these computer intrusions enable the theft of this technology and blunt our ability to compete. at the time of these computer intrusions by the chinese military, u.s. steel, the steel workes, and ati and other companies were involved in trade disputes to redress dumping by choo in a's state owned steel companies through accepted international dispute reck

-- dispute mechanisms. the success of the entities and trade litigation also made them targets. the hackers stole internal trade strategy, attorney-client communications, and cost and production analysis. the conspiracy by chinese hackers targeted each of these entities at critical times such as in the midst of negotiations to build a nuclear power plant were in the middle of a trade case. the effects of economic espionage are far reaching. obviously the victim companies lose their capital investments in research and technology. but the important message is that cybertheft impacts real people in real and painful ways. the life blood of any organization is the people who work, strive, and sweat for it. when these cyberintrusions occur, production slows, plants

close, workers get laid off, and lose their homes. this happens in steel towns in western pennsylvania like braddock, mckeyes port, and clarn tin, as well as other similar towns and cities in the united states. this 21st century burglary has to stop. we would not stand idly by if someone pulled a tractor trailer up to a corporate headquarters, cracked the lock, and loaded up sensitive information. hacking, spying, and cybertheft for commercial advantage can and will be prosecuted criminally even when the defendants are state actors. these victim organizations and indeed every organization are entitled to a fair shot and a level playing field in an intensely competitive global market. we thank the fbi for the great work.

it took world class investigators to follow a complicated trail of avenues from one building on one block in one city in china. and we stand ready to bring the defendants to justice in federal court in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. thank you. we'll now hear from bob anderson, the executive assistant director of the fbi. >> thank you. >> good morning, everybody. as my colleagues have said, today's action is charging five chinese military hackers who have been illegally penetrating the computer networks of six u.s. victims demonstrates very clearly that we will not stand by and watch other countries steal our nation's intellectual property. it's no secret that the chinese government sought to use cyberespionage to obtain the economic advantage for the state owned industries. diplomatic efforts and public

exposure has failed to curtail these activities. so we've taken it to the next step of securing an indictment of some of the most prolific hackers of the three p.o.a. these individuals are alleged to have used a variety of techniques, including e-mails that launched malicious software to steal proprietary and sensitive information from our u.s. victims. the victims have suffered significant losses as a result of the tactics. our future is being built every day by the innovation and effort of american workers. and companies. none of us can afford to watch it be stolen. this first indictment of chinese -- we believe there are many other victims and we hope that this encourages them to come forward and talk with us. this announcement is a culmination of several years of work.

that includes a task force for the department of justice national security division, the united states attorney's office, office, heittsburgh cyber division, the counterintelligence division, and the criminal division at fbi headquarters. this investigation has touched 46 fbi field offices in the last several years. it is a landmark case that shows how interaction between u.s. government and private enterprise can succeed. this first indictment of chinese cyberactors clears the way for additional charges to be made. this is the new normal. this is what you're going to see on a recurring basis, not just every six months, not just every year. it's very clear -- if you're going to attack americans, whether for criminal or national security purposes, we are going to hold you accountable, no

matter what country you live in. thank you. >> okay, before we take any questions, i would like to make this one further statement. i just want to confirm that over the past weekend, there were a series of law enforcement actions undertaken across the globe related to the separate cyberhacking case, working in close coordination with the international partners, we conducted a series of arrests and other actions targeting the creators and purveyors of malicious computer software known as black shades that can victimize ordinary americans by stealing and exploiting their personal information. there is an announcement at noon in this matter in new york city. i would refer you to the southern district of new york for other questions related to the case. so despite this case, we're stepping up the cyberenforcement efforts around the globe, whether the perpetrators are

foreign governments or civilian hackers, we will not tolerate these activities. i'll be glad to take on your questions. >> [indiscernible] what if anything is the fbi trying to shore up a few sites in that cyberattack? >> well, i hope that the chinese government will respect our criminal justice system unless -- and let the case proceeds as it should. let justice take its course. we expect, we hope the chinese government would work with us in connection with us to bring the indicted men to justice. we're going to remain vigilant when it comes to cyberthreats from china or other countries. >> mr. holder, is it likely these defendants would stand trial in the u.s. courtroom? if not, what's the goal here? >> our intention is for the defendants to have due process in an american court of law.

this is the intention of what we have done today to hold accountable people who have engaged in activities that violate american criminal law. that is our intention. >> but it does seem unlikely, doesn't it? do we even have an extradition treaty with china? do we extradite the people with these offenses? >> you can never tell how things will play out. we have stated what our intention is. we have brought a charging indictment. it is our hope to have these people stand before an american jury and face justice. >> you mentioned this is the first of its kind prosecution. what new tools were available to you to make this happen in 2014? or what barriers or obstacles do you have? i will defer to the folks conducting the investigation? >> i'm reluctant to get to the manner or means of the investigation beyond the details what we shared with you in the fairly detailed complaint. but i think we're grateful for the leadership of the president and the attorney general who gave us a green light to

proceed. we have both the will and the manner and the means to achieve what we've put before you in western pennsylvania. >> since these are state actors, is it possible that you bring such indictments against the state? >> i think we're not going to discuss what possible charges might be brought in the future. beyond to say these cases are the cases like the cases we brought today are hard. it was through phenomenal work by the fbi that we were able to bring a case that could say by name what people did in the specific actions that they took. we hope that the conduct will stop by bringing criminal actions. but if it doesn't, we'll use every tool at our disposal. the status quo can't stand. american businesses cannot continue to have their secrets stolen day in and day out.

>> so in light of the nsa spying controversy and the chinese government, you know, frustration with what happened there, is there any worry that they could retaliate in a legal context and start filing charges against u.s. officials who spied on china? or things like that? maybe i assume these guys, these chinese are now on interpol. they cannot travel outside of china. so could that happen? >> all nations are engaged in intelligence gathering. what i think distinguishes this case is that we have a state sponsored entity, state sponsored to have the advantage. >> do you put a dollar value on the information that was stolen, either the components or in total? >> not possible to put a dollar value at this point.