the evidence to back up these specific accusations in a court of law. the indictment is particular. we have exposed the faces and names behind the keyboards this in shanghai used to steal from american businesses. this is not conduct that responsible nations within the global economic community should tolerat tolerate. in the united states we believe we are entitled to our property and intellectual property. we believe one's work should not be taken from you and given to others. responsible nations do conduct intelligence activities and nations openly acknowledge that they have intelligence services. like others, our intelligence activities are focused on national security needs of our

country. that's why the president this year reaffirmed in a presidential directive that , quote, it is not an authorized foreign intelligence purpose to collect such information to afford a competitive advantage to u.s. companies and u.s. business sectors commercially. u.s. foreign intelligence collection occurs under the framework of the rule of law involving oversight by all three branches of government. as the church committee recognized in 1976 the constitution provides for a system of checks and balances and interdependent power as between the congress and the executive branch with respect to foreign intelligence activity. the very protections that are built into that legal framework, subject that information to rigorous oversight and prevent sharing with private companies for their private gain. let's be clear. those protections do not exist in other countries targeting every day american trade

secrets, sensitive business information and intellectual property in order to steal specific information and pass it along to their domestic companies in order to give them a competitive edge and to prevend otherwise is to promote a narrative of false equivalency. even though we know of no nation that stands up publically to defend corporate theft for the profit of state-owned enterprises, in the shadows there may be some who encourage and support it. in short we alleged that the members of 61398 that we have charge committed theft, pure and simple. although this case is the first of its kind it is also in some respects just business as usual. prosecutors in the field and at csips used criminal investigation and prosecution to disrupt cyber crime. it is one of our most important partners in the fight against cyber crime.

law enforcement has long been used to combat cyber threats. as recently as this week the criminal cases made a tremendous impact on cyber security. as you have likely seen on monday the department of justice announced charges in connection with blake shades malicious software. these were part of the largest ever cybe in the national security arena when criminal law enforcement has to disrupt terrorist threats. we employ it or shield it from prosecution. when criminal enterprises steal our personal information or threaten our security we investigate and we prosecute. these are not the first charges that we have lodged against individuals who have stolen from americans to benefit state-owned enterprises. just one example we successfully obtained a significant conviction, the

first jury conviction. walter lou an electrical engineer, a process honed over many decades for making a white pigment and he passed it to a large company. what he told was something that americans see and use daily, something that does not have any national security implications, something that simply brings a profit. e -- he was brought to justice in the exl justice system. like lou we alleged that the members are charged stole the benefit chinese state owned enterprises. they both took place here in the united states. but the difference is that unit 61398 operated remotely in shanghai. but we will no longer permit safe havens.

individuals wherever they are cannot avoid consequences simply by operating from the comfort of their desk half a world away. these crimes are the same as many crimes that we have investigated and prosecuted before. the method or means is different. but the threat we face is increasingly moving out of the physical world. of those who steal from us reportedly must and will become normal. we will continue to pursue this option along with others available. the threat of economic espionage is serious and the threat of cyber espionage is mounting. some estimate that the united tates loses more than 3 $300 billion from theft of our intellectual property that's equivalent to the level of u.s.

exports to asia. losses of that magnitude cost the american economy untold numbers of jobs, real jobs. and they reduce the profit that americans make from research and development which in turn reduces the incentive and resources for innovation. as the u.s. attorney in pittsburgh david hickman says when these cyber intrusions occur, production slows, plants close, workers get laid off and lose their homes. such activity under mine our trust between companies to do business in our global economy. and our companies can't face this threat alone. companies cannot depend solely on anti-virus software. it's not a fair fight. to defend against those empowered by a government we need our government on our side. we must support our

entrepreneur by using every tool we have to prevent, deter this conduct in any way we can. and likewise we need you. just as the local police can't control crime without victims calling in those crimes, our law enforcement officials too need corporation from victims. it is our hope that the more cases we bring and the more perpetrators we bring to justice, the higher the level of corporation we're likely to receive. we cannot let this conduct go undetered. doing so will threaten our nation's security. cases like the pittsburgh case will have a deterrent effect. to those critics who raise questions about whether these charges will have any impact in light of the challenges concerned with arresting and trying the individuals and the charges can still be significant. former state director explains that the only way to deter cyber attack is to work to catch perpetrators and stake

strong public action when we do. the f.b.i. director, muller call first figuring out who is targeting us and going after them saying we must remember that behind every intrusion is a person responsible for that intrusion, a warm body behind the keyboard. whether he or she fits in teheran, shanghai or seattle, bucharest or the bronx, our ultimate goal must be to identify and deter the person's behind the keyboard. the government and private sector alike are increasing the call for prosecuting the cyber theft. we need to prevent attack. prosecutions can simultaneously punish those who have committed those acts and deter those who might otherwise commit those acts in the future, in other words by going off these crimes we can help stop the next group of criminals. it is, of course, possible that we will never obtain custity.

but even if these five defendants evade arrests the criminal activity takes it out of the shadows. law enforcement investigations can also support other valuable tools. criminal charges can justify economic sanctions from our lleagues in the treasury department, sanctions that deny access to u.s. financial systems. they can facilitate diplomacy as our nations diplomats lay out evidence of cyber theft to foreign government officials and force them to answer for those actions or as they coordinate with other victimized countries. furrer more the investigations themselves can lead other government to take action even when the united states does not end up doing so. so we will continue to bring these kinds of cases. however, it's not easy. and prosecutions like this present unique challenges. cases can take years to

investigate and that can sometimes be tough to attribute the activity to particular individuals. they involve difficult decisions regarding how to protect sensitive sources and methods and even after charging it can be difficult to obtain custody of defendants and to bring them to justice. but difficult does not mean impossible and the status quo simply will not do. as the attorney general said this weekend announcing these charges, enough is enough. we will not stand idly by as people hauled away our wealth and trust and likewise we cannot allow it to be sucked out by the internet. the indictment that i discuss is an important first step. but it must be just that, a first. prosecutions will not solve the problem alone. we need to build on this success and keep responding where prosecutions were possible but also with all the other tools in our tool kit.

we need to keep at it. and we appreciate the bipartisan support we receive from congress including particularly supportive words from senator king along with the house and senate and the judiciary committee. many of the individuals above provided resources and encouragement as we undertook the information and we need their help until we continue the transformation. we must continue until our adversaries realize that the cost from stealing with our companies outweighs the benefits. so far, we've talked primarily about criminal prosecution and other tools. while we recognize that stopping attacking before they ever take place is the ultimate goal. we will have succeeded when there are no more charges to bring. for that end we work hard to improve our defenses both with government and the private sector. the f.b.i. worked closely that have been the victim with

hackers in its program. that program which has more than 25,000 active members brings together individuals in law enforcement, government, the private sector, in academia to talk about how to protect our critical infrastructure. and likewise the department of homeland security, the department of energy and other departments and agencies routinely work together closely with companies to protect critical infrastructure. and the department has heard rom them and has taken steps in the private sector. they issued a policy statement that antitrust law should not be a bar to legitimate cyber security sharing. earlier in month the justice department issued a white people that declared that it does not restrict operators to share information to protect

information. this will help the private sector collaborate more freely to protect itself. but all of this is just a start. in going forward we need legislation to facilitate greater sharing between the government and the private sector. the charges announced earlier this week benefit not only victims but also the broader american people and others worldwide. chief justice burger once noted that criminal prosecutions as a general matter has an educated effect on the public. while we may appreciate on the theoretical level that hacking poses a major national security threat, there's no substitute for the edge kay active effect that an indictment has, putting a face at the keyboard and quantifying the damage done may help to galvanize all of us to improve our cyber security. and they also make us more vigilant to the economic, military and geopolitical dangers. for example it might lead

others to examine their connection log to see what those activities reveal and from where. to wrap up, i want to applaud the dedicated investigators and prosecutors whose hard work produce this week some important indictment. it's only a first step but it's a big step and it's part of our growing effort to hold accountable to steal american innovation. at the same time we must acknowledge that prosecution alone is ultimately just one tool in the broader tool set for addressing the cyber threat and that prosecution alone will not solve the problem. trusting government depends in part in our ability to defend, protect and obtain justice for our citizens. they are one clear and poy we areful way in which we the people governed by the rule of law legitimize and improve our allegations. these abcs have real consequences for the target and deter those who might otherwise

become criminal in the future. we continue to protect americans from being victimized through cyberspace and will need your support to do so. thank you for your attention. and i look forward to answering questions. [applause] >> can you hear me? ok. all right. thank you. i'd like to start by pushing you a little bit on the

distinction that you've drawn between u.s. activities over seas of which we certainly heard a lot over the last year. and the sort of activities that form the basis of this indictment. now, as i understand the u.s. posture, we do not -- first of all, we obviously engage in espionage. and we don't deny that some of that espionage involves spying on companies. the distinction that we draw is when we spy on companies it's in pursuit of national objectives not in pursuit of economic objectives of the particular objectives of helping u.s. company at the spence of the companys that we are spying on. m interested in -- to what extent that is a distinction that sort of only the u.s.

could love in that we're an intellectual property generating a company. china's a giant economy. they produce -- why can't they just define their national security objectives as including the economic health of their companies. i mean, is the distinction that we're drawing really a stable one and that we'll be able to sustain in an international argument over what's legitimate and what's illegitimate in the rem of economic espionage? >> well, it's a good question. let's think about it the other way around for a second because whether or not we bring prosecutions and follow the evidence where it's a choice no matter what. and what we're seeing is we're seeing victim companies, private entities inside the united states, indictment

details. they might design a pipe and put a lot of research in designing the pipes. and then the -- there's a question over whether you buy what they have built with their hard work and innovation or steal it. and when we come across a case of somebody stealing it by hacking into somebody's system without permission and taking the design that they would otherwise buy and sometimes it's right before they're right to get bought so we know they're interested in it. if we follow the facts, that might lead us to a criminal group. if it led us to a criminal group, i think everyone would agree that the proper course of action would be to try to build an indictment and prosecute them and if we could find them and bring them to the u.s. to draw a distinction when we follow the facts and it leads to someone behind the keyboard

and they happen to be wearing a uniform that now there's some type of free pass that's somehow criminal activity. it's the same thing we're seeing from other criminal groups is not a distinction the american public would want us to make. but more importantly i do not believe there's a country in the world that would idly sit by and accept that type of stuff. and yet we do have an understanding in the government to government espionage department that, you know, we do certain things. you do certain things to us and if we follow that keyboard back and if you follow that keyboard back and you find on the other end it's n.s.a. spying on your government, you're kind of supposed to leave that alone and if we follow that keyboard back and follow that it's the people's liberation army we're not going to have quite the same attitude toward an

intrusion and the u.s. government computer system than we would if it were an organized criminal gang or an individual hacker. or would we? >> well, the -- what we were talking about here is the theft from private companies for the benefit of other private companies for who they are in competition and that's where particular and specific facts, specific actions and specific actors matter. we use a charging instrument like an indictment we're not charging an abstract entity. we're charging particular people for a specific act. the evidence suggests for the benefit of another company also interestingly in it you'll see that they were building a corporate intelligence data

base for a company -- and that's what they were paid to do as part of their job. that's theft. every country in the wormed, almost every country in the world has some type of intelligence service and the dwrod have some type of intelligence service to protect your national security is an old conduct. but what you will don't see countries say we have a service throughout whose goal it is to steal it and give it to our companies so you don't have to buy it to compete. >> so you mentioned in the speech that china does not defend this practice. they deny the practice. i'm curious are you aware of any country that defends this ractice doctrinally or is it universally denied rather than defend it. >> i'm not a person that says

we ought to allow whether it's the military or the spy service or criminals in your country to go hack into somebody else's private company and steal what they're pruing. >> so i want to talk about the value of indictments. you talked about this a little bit in the speech. but some people will look at this and say, you have no prospect of getting custody of the suspects. china's a big country. it's very amply cable of protecting its people. our jurisdiction is limited. and therefore the role that an indictment like this place is really one more of a kind of combination of an overt diplomatic pressure, a willingness to put stats on the record on a form that's provable in law that's backed up by evidence and has a certain hack. nd is therefore some sort of

sophisticated p.r. rather than you rather get custody of the suspect and bring him to court and -- and prove the case. what -- as succinctly as you can articulate it, what's the value of an indictment in a situation in which you have no expectation of obtaining custody. >> i still want to challenge -- these are real charges based on evidence that was pain stakingly compiled by f.b.i. investigators that we can and hope to investigate in front of a jury with all rights of due process and we would not be allowed under our principles of prosecution to bring such an indictment unless we believe we have the evidence to secure beyond a rnl doubt. er look forward to having the opportunity -- i look forward to having the doesn't to do

that. we indictment individuals all the time who are not currently in the custody of the united states. nd we may not know their where abouts. two terrorism cases that took more than a decade to bring. and we brought the charge and people may have said then you have no expectation of getting this individual. they're overseas. they're in government territory. they're in friendly space. but they committed crimes and we charged it. and we waited until we could bring them before court. and similarly i think you've seen that approach over the years whether it's in relation to the mafia or drug conspirators. but sometimes it's true. people who they've captured and even when they do evade capture never face charges inside a court. i go back to what i was saying before to not bring the charge

and to somehow say that this is not criminal activity and that you're not stealing. but you are. and that's the effect that it's having on american companies. that's the cost that we're seeing in terms of american jobs and we're prosecuting the same cases when they're committed by someone physically inside the united states and we're prosecuting those same cases when they're a group that's not affiliated with the government. so to decide somehow here that we're giving ate free pass, not only deters, i think it encourages individuals to pursue this type of theft. >> so there has been a fair monday that ince this is the first of a weave and that we should expect to see a lot -- wave and that we should expect to see a lot more. obviously we wouldn't ask you about individual cases but is this -- you said that, you know, there was a

transformation going on. as a general proposition, is this something we should expect to see a lot more of and to the extent it is. how much of it should we expect to be about china vs. other countrys that we frequently hear are major theevers -- theevers -- theft -- thieves of intellectual property of the united states? >> as part of what i was discussing, we've had a transformation structurally in terms of how we approach these cases. at the national security division, we trained hundreds of prosecutors in conjunction with our criminal colleagues throughout the country to work on these types of cases and look at the intelligence day in and day out. and the f.b.i. has similarly restructured to put these courses out throughout the

country. and now the people are trying to building this criminal option as one of the options when they look at the information that they're gathering. i believe they can and will bring additional cases. now these are -- these are hard cases to bring. they are technically complex. they cross national boundaries. and so it's always going to be difficult. and now the people are working it. i believe they can and bring additional prosecution. they are going to follow the -- the facts and the evidence where they lead and respond to the crime that they see. by no means is it a strategy for any particular country. it's aimed at the crime and then following back the crime to see who committed it. and the focus is on economic theft of the unit. so that's the type of charges

you may see. >> i want to talk about one difficulty complexity of this type of case that does not arise athink in a lot of cases where primarily looking at witness interviews, you refer to the warm body and back of the keyboard and i know in a lot of these computer forensic cases you can prove that a certain thing happened from a certain account. or that a certain thing happened from a similar i.p. address but it can be very, very difficult to prove that the individual whose notionly societied with that account was in fact the warm body sitting behind that keyboard when the offense took place. i'm just interested on your thoughts on how do you -- what are the strategies that one has to go that -- not the extra mile. it's the extra quarter of an inch, right? and that the hands on that keyboard are the person who

either you have to know beyond a reasonable doubt -- you have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not that the computer are instrumentalities of the offense but that it's the one you think he is or she is. talk a little bit about that challenge and how you need it. >> that is a challenge. and the -- i'm not going to give the means and methods by which the f.b.i.s are trying to find those individuals. forgive me for that. one key step for meeting it is trying to meet it. so one change that takes place when you look to see if you can preserve a criminal action and have the opportunity to bring a criminal case is to focus on that type of specificity and

retribution because that is important in our system. for intelligence purposes, you might -- it might be sufficient to do the attribution and say oh, this is so and so nation-state and they're trying to take this type of information for intelligence purposes. that might be enough to do an assessment of what's happening. when you're doing a criminal ase as you say, you need to go that extra step because we're not interested in the overall intelligence service. we're interested in a specific crime conducted in a specific manner by a specific actor. and one thing i think that's important to that which is why we need the corporation and to talk to companies and victims is knowing why when we're trying to prosecute the theft of corporate secrets why are they taking it. not why would a government generally take it but what

business are you competing with that would specifically want that information and why would they want it at the time that they took? that could help narrow it down. >> so the basis of this indictment is u.s. domestic criminal law which forbids the fact of intellectual properties from u.s. companies. i have not nor could i looked up chinese law on the theft of material from chinese companies for not u.s. national security purposes or from chinese government servers for u.s. national security purposes but i'm relatively competition that chinese criminal law has something to say that would forbid a lot of what we routinely defend you and i both in different ways that goes on at fort meade. that is we have an open policy

that we engage in espionage. i steal secrets for national security purposes. but probably run rough shot over a lot of country's criminal laws in the course of doing so. i'm curious why -- whether we should expect foreign indictments of u.s. intelligence officials and why we would -- other than to say that our law distinguishing between the purposes, why would this be different? how would we react if the chinese government started dieting n.s.a. officials, current, former, future for acts that we would consider perfectly considerate espionage? >> this is not about

intelligence collection by a ation state to figure out, you know, >> we also charged violations of the computer fraud and abuse commit those acts for economic advantage and personal financial gain.

distinction.rue i think it is one that is recognized through the world. wants to have the rewards and the fruits of their labor. china, along with many countries in the world, have creative entrepreneurs who want to have the benefit of what they produce. down the door, stealing out of their safe, and use it, or take it by the internet, that is a crime. >> we will ask one more question. wait forve a question, the microphone. introduce yourself. identify yourself before you ask questions. >> whattional question

is the reaction from other governments. of governments have anxieties about chinese activity in this area. have also cried foul and public. what is the reaction from other intellectuals, other ip producing countries? >> it has been a slightly busy week. i am not sure i am in the best situation to give the reaction. >> fair enough. >> in the front. he is always patient about waiting for the microphone. >> i am trying to remember your question. [laughter]

i write the mitchell report. when i first heard about the indictment, and particularly listening to you today being grilled by one of the best, at two reactions. one is about cost-benefit. mr.other is about favorite "known unknowns here go --." though it is clear that you have been clear -- careful in the , -- there is that business about proving they were there when it happened. i am thinking in larger terms.

might look at it as a specific indictment of a specific first and. it is my assumption that the chinese president do not. to them, it is a broadside. if that is true, it raises the kind of question that prosecutors must deal with all the time. is the cost of pursuing this ofictment worth the benefit what ever the outcome might be. in these terms, i am talking about both diplomatically, but did --ficulty of demonstrating just how much beenl economic harm has done and will be done by the zacks.

there is the cost-benefit question. the known, is unknowns. i wonder what edward snowden is doing right now? is thatean by that snowden has revealed a lot about us and what we are doing that almost no one seemed to know about. isonder if mr. snowden , now it is time. few othert lose a goodies that people don't know about. they are going to make this more difficult. >> he has put a lot on the table.

a thoughtful question. the president had said in 2013 state of the union, so we it is notnnounced, acceptable. i think we tried to deliver the message that that is not intelligent business as usual. the reason why we are that distinction is that it is immediately causing real harm to private citizens and the ability to produce and participate in our economy. whether it is real harm occurring in actuality each day

means we must take action and not just watch it occur. it, track it, investigate it and follow it. bring not just going to criminal charges for these acts depending on who the actor is. that is not an acceptable place to be for american companies and american citizens. in terms of the cost-benefit, that is the status quo that is unacceptable. andeed to raise the costs make it extraordinarily clear that the benefits you're getting for stealing this information do not outweigh the costs. we need to the cost until the behavior stops. i hope never to bring another criminal case. i hope the activity will stop.

i hope everyone, whatever their persuasion is, would like to see this type of activity stop. the president also made it clear something theis united states won't do. >> gary johnson. >> thank you for doing this. johnson from in pr. i read the fbi was purchasing some malware. i am wondering what their role some of theeing intelligence gathering inside the united states. how do they oversee the fbi

offensiveors capabilities in the cyber area? i am not familiar with the specific report you are referring to. there are a couple of different roles. one would be if the fbi were applying before the foreign ,ntelligence surveillance court then before they could prevent -- presents as an application to the clerk, they would go through lawyers at the national security that they made out the proper predicate and probable cause under the fisa act. similarly, if they were trying

to use it through the criminal -- who have worked with them on obtaining the proper permissions, a criminal court process. you have an oversight section that national security reviews. it reviews the use of national security authorities, so if they it, thenmpting to use it would be reviewed by applicable legal rules and predicates. >> yes, in the back. hi i am with abc. media reports out today are saying that the justice

tapped someone to probe the floor of foreign fighters into suri cruise i'm wondering if you can talk about what he is going to be doing. why is this necessary? -- who him? security threat that we are facing right now. it is on the top of the agenda for the department of justice. it is also a birdie for our european partners throughout the world. an substantial number of individuals outside of syria who are traveling to syria to commit acts of violence and extremism. dozens we were concerned with the councilman in the afghanistan-fest debt -- facts

region,on -- pakistan those traveling to fight. we need to be concerned, alert, and vigilant when they return after committing acts there with ideology, and a desire to commit acts of violence here. want to make sure that individuals in the counterterrorism section are focused on the threat. we also want to make sure that we work regularly with our partners in europe and elsewhere to see that we do what we can do to stop the threat. >> what does that mean? in similar cases that did not happen. why now?

he along with others in the division are focused on the foreign fighter threat. it is important to coordinate the different cases across the country to provide relevant expertise. also, they need to be available to meet with foreign partners. i am representing myself today. , aa little over a year ago report came out. what are your thoughts on that? is that a precursor to what you are doing? what is your reaction to that report? >> i saw that it was an excellent product. it was good work.

imagine earlier, not only is the government working on this, the private sector is as well. exactly whenssing our investigation started, it did not start because of a report. back.the >> and you talked about the difficulty of putting these cases together. that can take years. wondering if you can talk a little bit about to what extent the victim companies themselves can be useful. are you reaching out to them to encourage them to come forward with information that might be andful? you contact them asked them to participate in investigations? case,ause this is an open

yes, in general, in the national security division, the national security cyber specialist in the field, and are partners of the fbi and other agencies are definitely reaching out to both to warn individuals about the threat and an encouragement to take steps to bring it from happening, but also to work with them when it does occur. that is critical. learncritical so we can of the intrusions and take the steps we need to protect u.s. companies, and it is critical if they're going to try to bring a criminal case to have that cooperation and to talk to the companies so that you understand what was taken and why it was of importance. >> in the front here. curious how much

consideration -- >> phase identify yourself. >> university of california irvine. you talked about some of the consequences. specifically, still thinking that there is most likely going ,o be some retaliation in kind either from the chinese or other countries. while the u.s. might make this clear distinction between economic and national security as the nash, others might not. i am curious of you thought about these potential negative consequences. scenario, itse might lead to rings manship amongst the powerful -- brinksmanship amongst the powerful. >> i want to add to that question.

i imagine the view on this question would be subtly different from the view of the intelligence community, which concerns about the amount of declassification you would have to do to bring a case like this. the state department has two interface. everything that the question outes, i imagine it plays in the interagency as you're contemplating something like this. and all of our work, criminal prosecution is a tool and a larger set to try to stop threats to national security. in terms of, stopping the terrorism threat, in terms of stopping spies, and it is true in stopping the threat of those who would steal our trade secrets.

, itach of those instances won't be the only solution. you will be a little bring it in every case. in every other context, it is one of the tools we have on the table. that should be all the more true when the contact is such traditional criminal conduct. thing, the chinese said, bring us hard evidence that could stand up in a court of this criminal activity, and so one hopes that now that we have, they will take action and stop this criminal activity. , and i'm not said aware of any country that condones his behavior, -- >> in the back. the very back.

i work and study here in the city. sort of building on the other point, this is the largest populated nation in the world, second-largest economy. there could be trade sanctions. there could be any roots of retaliation against the united states. symbolism is everything. brought with the consequences before bringing these charges against a formidable economic power? >> we are going to follow specific criminal acts that we find where they lead. i have been clear that stealing trade secrets from american companies and using it to provide to other

companies in cup titian -- in competition with them is criminal. when it occurs in the united states, we will follow it. in this case that led to five particular individuals who happened to be where they were, and had the jobs they had. i am comfortable that that is a proper way to proceed. >> we have time for one more. people.et a few we will start over there. around, collect a few, and then we will give him a chance to wrap up. i go to american university. my question regards what the president said -- how does this

affect the indictment on this case? job,if, considering their how does it effect if they got their instructions from higher up? how does that affect chinese and u.s. relations? there, andn right then the gentleman right in front of her after that. this is a bit more of a broad question. he mentioned that there art two types of american companies that have been hacked by the chinese. overflow in the amount of cases to come out now that there are faces. if so, how would these cases be divided question mark --

divided? >> ohio state. governmented states repair to guarantee that although it does spy on foreign businesses, none of the information gathered makes its it waynto the -- makes into the hands of american businesses? >> one more in the corner there. from the faculty at george turned out -- georgetown. i'm curious about this line you have been making between economic espionage and state driven espionage. --a general matter, how is important is it in these cases to make a showing of economic ?enefit to companies

how would this look different under the statutes in play here if there was really some sort of commercial information taken with no invariant connection to national security, but no real showing this was going to benefit any particular companies unfairly? how would that change things? [applause] >> the floor is yours. of the testimony --terday, i tend we are adjusting across the country. ofope that one consequence bringing indictments is that it encourages companies to come

forward and to realize that there are steps we can take. we won't just watch the activity continue. we will take however many steps we need to to make sure the activity stops. we just won't leave them out there responsible for their own defenses. rule, as the president has stated in his presidential policy directive, we do not take information from other people's companies to provide it to our own companies. on the statutory question, it will depend on which particular -- you're charging. for the violation of the , ituter fraud and abuse act commercial core

advantage or private financial gain. tried that the state secrets, which is nice -- is not required that you show a particular foreign company. we charge the crime of economic ofionage for the benefit another nation. >> we're out of time. please join me and thanking our guest for joining us. [laughter] [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much.

[inaudible] >> next, some of the commencement speeches from around the country.

>> that is what i chose to write about. the new york times called it a "stunningly intimate story." i wanted to know what would it feel like. what did that feel like? as he was considering the evidence. what does it feel like? likeately, what is it feel to want something that everybody else has and be told you can have it? >> from the first attempts to stop proposition eight, joe becker on what some are calling the new civil rights movement. words onght on after

book tv. join other readers in the discussion at book tv.org. >> thank you for your service. you going to have a nice a surprise when you go into the memorial. it is beautiful. thank you. get my wife in here. where is she? [no audio] [applause] are you in the navy? marine corps?

thank you for being here today. >> thank you for all the service. veteranr world war ii bob dole regularly greets visitors at the world war ii monument in washington. that is monday night on c-span three. facebook chief operating recentlyheryl sandberg updated her book adding college of ice for graduates. year, sheryl sandberg addressed students at city colleges of chicago. this is 15 minutes.

>> congratulations to the magnificent class of 2014. [applause] it is a privilege to be with you here today honoring 2000 students from seven great schools across chicago. college is named after giants who dared to imagine a better city, a better country, a better world. like dr. king and harold washington. [applause] and people who served their country. [applause]

graduating is a remarkable achievement. i know all of you are so proud today, but i will tell you as a mother, your families are more proud. [applause] when the ceremony is over, let them hug you and hug you for a little bit longer. they will look back on today and say that was one of the happiest days of my life. you will look back today and say, did i really think that was an ok way to wear my hair? today, many of you become the very first person in her family to earn a higher degree. i want to take a special moment to celebrate that achievement.

to your families and to me, you are heroes. students who work while they take care of children, students who worked while they had jobs, students who worked while supported their families, you learn to write code, you healed the sick, do invested not just a lot of money, but your time in your sweat, but it was worth it. with the skills you got here, you are not just going to have a better first job. you will go on to have more and better jobs. not only higher incomes, and higher expectation for a better life. education lifted my family, too. my great-grandparents immigrated here from eastern europe. they came here and my grandfather grew up in an

apartment, one bedroom with his eight brothers and sisters. they shared a bathroom down the hall with eight other families of the same size. my great-grandparents did that for the promise of a better life and that promise was fulfilled when my grandfather and his siblings became the first members of their family to graduate from college. my grandfather graduated from city college of new york. it put my father and me on a different path. many of you are setting your families on that path today and i know everyone here joins me in applauding you for that amazing achievement. congratulations. [applause] as i thought about what i wanted to do here today, i thought about the many graduation

speeches i have heard. the best ones had two qualities. they were relevant and they were brief. i will be both. [applause] i encourage all of you to post to facebook as much as possible, but i would appreciate if you would refrain from sheryl sandberg is boring posts until i'm done. i want to use my time to urge you to stay ambitious, to keep dreaming. some of you are leaving here and heading for more school and some of you are heading into the workforce. no matter what you are going to do, it is worth taking a minute to reflect on your time at city colleges. in addition to everything you have learned, i hope you learned this -- dreams can come true. [applause] with hard work, with sacrifice and perseverance, you turn your dreams into reality and the proof of that is that every

single one of you is sitting here in your gown. stay ambitious, do not lean back. lean in. as you extend your reach, it is within your grasp. i want you to see that nothing is impossible. your dreams are the possible dreams. how do you get there? every every path is unique. the first and most important, believe in yourself. the leaving you can do something is the very first step to doing it.

i know firsthand that is how confidence comes more easily to some than others. when i was in high school, i was a senior and my brother was a sophomore. we had dates on a saturday. they canceled on us. i spent the rest of the week and wondering what was wrong with me. my brother said, that girl

missed a great thing, and went out and played basketball with his friends. my brother and i took a class in college. i was a senior, he was a sophomore. we took the same class and i went to all of the lectures and i read all the books. he went to two lectures and read one book. i wish i could spend a few minutes as him. it must feel so good. in reality, even he has moments where he doubts himself. we all do. ariana huffington talks about the obnoxious roommate in our heads, the voice that tells us

we cannot do something, that our ideas are not good that we are having a truly awful hair day. that obnoxious roommate holds us back. over my many years in school and in the workforce, i have seen so many people hold themselves back. i have seen them sit on the side of the room rather than at the table. i have seen them sit in the back. i have seen them lower their hands rather than keep them up and i have seen them lower their voices when they should speak up. i have seen over and over again how much self-belief drives outcome and that is why i force myself to sit at the table, even when i am not sure i belong there, and that still happens to me. when i'm not sure anyone wants my opinion, i speak up anyway. believing in yourself is what has gotten you to this special day, so keep it up. do not let anybody put limits on you, do not put limits on yourself. know that you can and will go want to complete more school if you want to. know that you can and will get any job you want, even if you have to take other jobs on the way to getting their. know that you can provide for yourself and family. know that you can make the world a better place.

plan and chase your dreams. i am urging you to be fearless and to dream big. sometimes big dreams can be overwhelming, it feels like you can't get from point a to point z. you do not have to. you just have to get from point a to point b and then b to c and so on and so forth. breaking big dreams into small steps is the best way to get there. my mother and i went up the mountain and took a wrong turn and wound up on a really hard slope, people whizzing by us. i panicked. tears streaming down my face, i looked at my mother and said i cannot get down this mountain and she said do not look at the bottom. take 10 turns, 10 steps and then stop. and then take 10 more steps and

then stop. larger tasks can be overwhelming, but if you break it down, that fear goes away. as you can tell, i made it off the mountain. [applause] keep an eye on your goals, but look at the small steps to get there. your career and your life will have starts and stops, twists and turns. that is true in our economy.

take full advantage of every opportunity you get to develop your skills, or each of us find our own way in our own time. you may not love every job you have, but you can learn from every job you have. third thing, know that this world needs you to change it. last year, i wrote "lean in" and i wrote about the inequality between men and women. it turns out, shocker, that men still rule the world. if every child got the education he and she deserve. if -- [applause] if leaders of different genders and races and backgrounds and this made the decision at the tables were those decisions are made. my generation failed, we are far from my dream of 50-50 equality, where women run half of our countries and companies and men run half our homes. we have an african-american president, but racism is far from gone. so we turn to you. we turn to you. you are the promise for a better

and more equal world. [applause] there is no finer example of this than your chancellor. she graduated from city college, she sat in the chair you sit in today. four years ago, she and your board took on a reinvention of these colleges to give every student access to improve education. they have nearly doubled the graduation rate. she is proof that one person can make a difference. your life's course will not be determined by the things that are easy and things you know you can do. it will be determined by the things that are hard, the jobs you want, and you work like crazy to get the skills to get there. the moments you feel alone and ask for help and create a bond with the person you asked because helping you does not just help you, it helps them.

the times when you see something is wrong, but you wonder why no one else is speaking out. you convince everyone else. those are the moments that have real impact. do not let yourself off the hook by deciding that something is out of your reach. never know what you are capable of until you try. if you embrace challenges, no matter how big, and keep moving forward, one day you will look up and be surprised at how far you have come.

this is how your generation can become the lean in generation, the generation that knows no boundaries and changes the world. you stand here today proud and brave, one goal down, so many more to go. figure out where you want to go and aim high and then take the first step in that direction. believe in yourself. your families believe in you, your classmates believe in you, i believe in you, and we are all rooting for you. [applause] at facebook, we have red posters that inspire us to dream our dreams. one says fortune favors the bold. my favorite says, what would you do if you weren't afraid? today, as you celebrate years of hard work, ask yourself, what

would you do if you weren't afraid? take a minute. what would you do if you weren't afraid? look to the future and then go to it. congratulations, class of 2014. [applause] >> on our facebook page, we are asking who you would like to see as a commencement speaker. i like the idea of jay leno. he is smart and articulate. he would not be boring.