we will take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. atshington journal," live 7:00 a.m. on c-span. attorneyassistant general on the indictment of five chinese military officials for hacking u.s. companies. after that, a house hearing on trade and security issues affecting the u.s. and mexico. then, a discussion about updating the nation's communication networks. >> c-span's new book, "sundays at eight," includes writer christopher hitchens talking about his lifestyle. decided to take the risk of a bohemian lifestyle.

but it is an illusion or not come i don't think it is. it helped my concentration. it stopped me being bored, stopped other people being boring, to some extent. it would keep me awake. want me to enhance the moment. if i was asked what i do it is probablynswer yes. i would have quit earlier, hoping to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say, of course. irresponsible. the truth is, it would be hypocritical of me to say no, i hadn't -- i would never touch a stuff if i'd known. i did know, everyone knows. i decided all of life is a wager, i'm going to wager on this it. i can't make it come out any other way. >> rudy interview with christopher hitchens and other featured conversations from our book notes and q&a programs.

it is now available at your favorite bookseller. at the brookings institution on thursday, he defended the justice department's decision to indict five chinese military officials for hacking u.s. companies. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. is going to be a short and

relatively uninteresting session. i'm joking. it is actually an amazing time to have him here. haveu all know, or if you not been living in a cave for the last 48-72 hours, as is a big week in this area. it involves some very significant and unprecedented actions by the federal government. and the bringing of indictments against foreign military officials for cyber attacks on u.s. companies and espionage against american business interests. separately, the house just ,assed the usa freedom act significantly amending nsa surveillance authorities. there is a lot going on in the areas both of our own activities

, with respect to spying and collection authorities, and with respect to our response to other countries activities against us, how similar are these sets of authorities and actions that we are doing to those that are done to us, and to which we are responding. how different are they? is their principal difference between what they knology we do and what we authorize under our law and what we object to when it is done to us? these are some of the issues that i think we will be talking about this week. i can't think of a better person to have addressed them for us. been actinghas assistant attorney general for some time, was recently confirmed in the role.

he served previously as the chief of staff to his predecessor and principal deputy to lisa monaco when she was in the role. previously, he was chief of staff to robert mueller when he restrictor of the fbi. a career federal prosecutor, mr. carlin served as national court nader of doj's computer hacking and intellectual property program which consisted of 240 prosecutor specially trained to cyber crime and intellectual property cases. he has a lot of background in the area that gave rise to this week's indictment. he has a degree from harvard law speak area and he will for about 45 minutes and then have a q and a with him. i ask that you also answer phones because there are a lot

of cameras on in the room. please join me in welcoming john carlin. [applause] >> thank you, ben, for that kind introduction. and great lent to be your brookings today discussing emerging national security threats. a keen fan of the law fair blog. i push it your work on that, as well. on monday, the department of justice announced charges against five members of the chinese military for computer hacking, economic espionage, and other offenses directed at six american victims in the u.s. nuclear power, metals, and solar industries. today i will focus on this growing threat. state -- state-sponsored cyber intrusion into sensitive and proprietary information of u.s. companies.

these charges against uniformed members of the chinese member -- military with the first of their kind. some said they could not be brought. department, we follow the facts and the evidence wherever they lead, and sometimes the facts and the evidence lead us to a lone hacker in a basement in the u.s., sometimes they lead to an organized crime syndicate elitista, and sometimes to a uniformed member of the chinese military. lead,tter where they there should be and there are no free passes. by,hould not stand idly passively giving permission to anyone to steal from us. we will hold accountable those who steal, no matter where they are, no matter who they are, and whether or not they steal in person or through the internet, because cyber crime has real victims. while cases like the one brought in pittsburgh are extremely challenging, this week we proved

that they are possible. the criminal justice system must be a critical component of our nation's cyber security strategy. continues criminals stealing from american businesses, we will continue pursuing those criminals. announced on monday were groundbreaking, and they represent a significant step forward in our cyber approach. they were many years in the making. within the justice department, the national security division cyber, focuses on the threats to our nation's security. our approach to these threats is deeply rooted in our division's history and our success in the cyber arena built upon the solid foundation. was created in response to the great threat of terrorism. after the devastating attacks of

september 11 come it became clear that the justice department needed to reorganize to tackle terrorism and other national security threats more effectively. we needed a single division to integrate the work of prosecutors and law enforcement officials with intelligence attorneys and the intelligence community. in 2006, congress created the department first newly giving section in half a century. nsd. we work closely to make sure we leverage all possible tools to combat the terrorist threat. we proved in that context of the criminal justice system is a vital part of our nation's counterterrorism strategy. was this week, someone convicted by a jury in new york. he was involved in an attack on yemen that resulted in the deaths of four hostages and provided material support to terrorists, including al qaeda and the taliban.

in march of this year, another man was convicted of conspiring to kill americans and other terrorism charges. he was the son-in-law of osama bin laden and senior member of al qaeda. he was the face and voice of al qaeda in the days and weeks after the 9/11 attacks. in both of those cases, while it may have taken more than a decade, as a result of our integrated approach to combating terrorism, these men were brought to justice. the twoses are just most recent in a long line of successful criminal prosecutions of terrorist offenses. recently, we took the lessons we learned from counterterrorism and apply them to our work on national security cyber threats. in the face of escalating threats, we recognize the need to re-organize and integrate. -- we undertook a

transformation to meet the same growing cyber threat. in 2011, we brought that approach to nsd. in the fall of 2011, 10 years after 9/11, we established a review group to evaluate and chart out a plan for future threats. six months later, that team issued recommendations that shaped what what the cyber program looks like today. 2012, weificantly, in graded and trained the national security cyber specialist network to focus on combating cyber threats to the national security. -- adoptingknown as

the successful counterterrorism model, we now have prosecutors nationwide routinely meeting with the fbi to review intelligence and investigative files. the creation of the network was motivated by a desire to make it tangible impact on u.s. cyber security efforts and criminal investigations and prosecution. by december of 2012, we made theic predictions that with establishment of this department, by empowering more than 100 prosecutors in the fields working with the fbi and these cases, that one would be brought. this week, we made good on that promise. it is this new and integrated approach that made the pittsburgh case possible. creation of this department, we brought prosecutors from all parts of to help nsd build a case. we partnered with the western district of pennsylvania where the victims were repeatedly hit.

acrossed with offices the fbi from california to oregon to oklahoma and back here in d.c. our team thought creatively, they worked collaboratively, and explored all available options for stopping this activity. that is how we were able to indict five members of the third department of the people's liberation army or three pla, unit. these men were accused of cyber inclusions on a range of u.s. industries. arranged with regularity specific actions on specific days by specific actors to use their computers to steal information from across our economy. it alleges that while the men and women of our american businesses spent their business , andinnovating, creating developing strategies to compete in the global marketplace, that these members of unit 61 398

were spending their business days in shanghai stealing the fruits of american labor. it alleges that they stole information particularly beneficial to chinese companies, and the communications at would provide competitors with key insight into the strategy and vulnerability of the victims. now, there are some who question this law enforcement action, and generally speaking questions fall into three categories. first, whether there was a clear line between what these individuals had been accused of and what the u.s. or other nations do. second, whether charges like these can truly impact cyber security, particularly when there may be significant challenges to arresting and ultimately trying these individuals in criminal courts. third, whether government should instead focus on heartening defenses rather than pursuing charges. as to the first question, while some commentators may ask

whether this is a to draw, in fact, we are aware of no nation in the world that that theft ofs information for commercial gain is acceptable. case, china has not attempted to justify the allegation, instead, they deny them. this has been a consistent response. over a year ago, the chinese government flatly denied reports that unit 61398 was hacking u.s. companies. a spokesman for china's ministry of national defense said chinese military forces have never supported any hacking activities. china also challenged the united states to present hard evidence, evidence i could stand up in againstat cyber attacks american targets are connected to the chinese military. well, we did.

the response? hours after monday's announcement, the chinese foreign ministry's cause the accusations tuesday losers and absurd. we are confident that we have the evidence to back up these is the depositions in a court of law. league indictment. it is particular. for the first time, we haven't closed the real faces and names line between boards in shanghai used to steal from american businesses. thatis not conduct responsible nations within the global economic community should tolerate. states, we believe that individuals in companies are entitled to the results of our creativity, including our property and our intellectual property. we believe that one's work should not simply be taken from you and given to others. this is not a uniquely american value. and vigils around the world believe that people should not take what others make. responsible nations do conduct andlligence activities

nations openly acknowledge that they have intelligence services. our intelligence activities are focused on the national security needs of our country. that is why the president, earlier this year reaffirmed the issidential directive that, -- u.s. foreign intelligence college and occurs under the framework of the rule of law involving oversight by all three branches of government. as the church committee report recognize back in 1976, the constitution provides for a system of checks and balances , asinterdependent power between the congress and executive branch with respect to for intelligence activity. the very protections that are built into that legal framework subject that information to rigorous oversight and prevent sharing it with by the companies for their private gain.

let's be clear. existprotections do not in certain other countries that are targeting every day american trade secrets, sensitive business information, and intellectual property in order to steal specific information and pass along to their domestic companies in order to give them a competitive edge. topretend otherwise is promote a narrative of false equivalency. know of no nation that stands up publicly 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 allege that the members of unit 61398 that we have charged committed theft, pure and simple. although this case is a first of its kind, it is also in some usual.at's business as as a have for decades, prosecutors in the field use criminal investigation and

prosecution to disrupt cyber crime. this is one of our most important partners in the fight against cyber crime. law enforcement has long been used to combat cyber threats. week, they as this criminal cases have made a tremendous impact on cyber security. seen, onve likely monday, the department of justice also announced charges shadenection with black malicious software. these charges were part of the largest ever global cyber law enforcement operation involving more than 90 arrest taking place in more than 19 countries. likewise, in the national security arena, when criminal law enforcement is most effective tool, we have to disrupt terrorist threat, we employed, no matter how far away or shielded from prosecution the defendants may seem today. when criminal enterprises steal our intellectual effort and personal information or threaten our security, we investigate and prosecute.

these are not the first charges that we have lodged against individuals. an electrical engineer and a process for making a multipurpose pigment. ownassed it a large tiny's company. what he stole -- large china all of the company. what he stole was something that does not have any national security implications. it is something that brings a profit. justice in theto criminal justice system. he alleged that the members that are charged stole the enterprises. the facts are similar and they

both took place here in the united states. the difference is that they operated remotely from the basis of shanghai. you will no longer permit safe havens. individuals, wherever they are, not avoid the consequences of their actions. these crimes are the same that we have investigated and prosecuted before. it must and will become the new normal. the threat of as but not is serious.

u.s. loses money from thefts of intellectual money. that 92 the cost the american economy untold numbers of jobs, real jobs. it reduce the profit that american firms make from research and development which in turn reduces that incentive and resources for innovation. the companies cannot taste this threat alone. companies cannot depend solely on antivirus software to defend

against hackers. it is not a fair fight. to defend against those empowered by a government, we need our government on our side. we must support our entrepreneurs by using every detour,have to prevent, and disruptive the conduct in any way be can. cannot the local police control crime without victims calling in crimes, law enforcement echelon officials need -- the more perpetrators who bring to justice, the higher level of cooperation it will likely receive. to those critics raise questions of whether these will have an impact in light of the challenges with the individuals,

the charges could still be significant. detour cyberto attack is to work to catch perpetrators and take strong and public action when we do. calls fordirector 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. fromer he or she comes many different areas. our ultimate goal is to detour the person behind the keyboard. the government and private sector alike are increasing the call for prosecuting cyber theft. preeed to event attacks -- vent attacks. punish those who have committed bad acts and detour those who

might commit bad acts in the future. going after these crimes, we can help stop the next group of criminals. law enforcement investigations can also support other valuable tools. criminal charges can justify economic sanctions from our college in the treasury department. we can deny access to the u.s. financial system. they can facilitate the policy by the state department as our nation's diplomats, we have evidence of cyber theft. we can force them to answer for those actions. furthermore, the investigations themselves can lead other

governments to take action even with the best doesn't end up doing so. kinds ofring these cases. however, it is not easy. .t presents unique challenges it can sometimes be tough to attribute these unlawful activities to particular individuals. it involves difficult decisions regarding how to protect sensitive sources and methods and even after charging, it can be difficult to obtain custody of defendant and bring them to justice. but that's not possible a -- mean -- wedoesn't will not stand italy by as people are hauled away -- we will not stand idly by while people are hauled away.

prosecutions will not solve the problem alone. we need to build on the success and keep responding were possible. it. we to keep at appreciate the bipartisan support we have received them congress, including the support of the word from senator king and the white house along with the house and senate and homeland security and judiciary committees. individuals have provided resources and encouragement. we will neither help as we continued this transformation. must continue until the belies the costs -- until they realize the cost of stealing from our company'ies. that stopping attacks before it ever takes place is the ultimate goal.

you will have succeeded when there are no more criminal charges to bring beauty to that end, we have worked hard to improve our cyber defenses. the fbi works closely with companies that have been at the ends of hackers -- have been the hackeers.f -- hackers. it brings together many to talk about how to protect our .ritical infrastructure likewise, the department of homeland security and the department of energy and other departments and agencies routinely together closely with companies to protect critical infrastructure. the department is hard for them and is taking steps to address concerns of the private sector and. you have made it clear that its antitrust law is not and should -- ae a bar to deliver the

bar to legitimate information sharing. here's a paper that clarified it did not ordinarily should restrict them from sharing certain data with the government. this guidance will help the private sector collaborate to protect itself. all of this is the start. in going forward, we need legislation or between the private sector and the government. the charges announced earlier this week that the settling the them's but also the broader american people and others worldwide. chief justice burger once noted that the criminal prosecutions as a general matter as an educated effect on the ugly. while we may appreciate on a theoretical level the hacking could still corporate secrets come it poses a major national security threat. there is no substitute that the indictment has. done maythe damage

help galvanize all of us to improve cyber security. other companies should examine their connection logs a little bit closely to see what those activities reveal and from where. want to applaud the dedicated investigators and prosecutors whose hard work reduced this week important indictments. a big step and part of our growing effort to hold accountable those who feel american -- with those who still teal american -- s innovation. prosecution alone is one tool in the broader toolset for adjusting the cyber threat. it depends on our part to the ability to attain justice for our citizens.

we the people governed by the rule of law and legitimize and improve our allegation. these actions have real consequences for the criminals that they target and detour those who might become criminals in the future. we continue to protect americans from being victimized through cyberspace and we will need your support to do so. thank you for your attention and i look forward to answering questions. [applause]

>> can hear me? ok. thank you. i would like to start by wishing you a little bit on the distinction that you have drawn between u.s. activities overseas which we have heard a lot about over the last year and the sort of activities that form the basis of this indictment. as i understand the u.s. posture, we do not -- we obviously engage in espionage. we do not deny that some of that espionage involves spying on companies. the distinction that we draw is that when we spy on companies, it is in pursuit of national or they objectives particular object of of helping

u.s. companies at the expense of the companies that we are spying on. it would extend is that the distinction that sort of only the u.s. could love. we are in intellectual property generating company. china is a giant economy. why can't they define their national security object to that includes economic health of their companies? is the distinction really a stable one and one we will be able to sustain in an international argument over what is legitimate and what is illegitimate in the realm of economic espionage? >> it is a good question. let's think about it the other way around or a second. whether or not we bring

prosecution and file the evidence where there is a choice , what we areat seeing is we are seeing private inities inside that u.s. pipe they might design a and put research into designing that pipe. there is a question over whether you buy what they had built with their hard work and innovation or steal it. when we come across a case of somebody stealing it by hacking into somebody's system and taking the design that they would otherwise buy and sometimes it is right before they're about to get bought, and we follow the facts and evidence where it leads, that might lead us to a criminal group. criminalds us to a that is in no affiliation with the state, think everyone would agree that the proper course of

action would be to try to build an indictment and prosecute them before you can find them and bring them to the u.s.. to draw a distinction that says we have all the facts and the evidence and their son behind a keyboard and happen to be wearing a uniform, there is some type of free pass for what is clearly criminal act to that he. it is the same that we are seeing from other criminal groups. i do not believe that there is a country in the world that would it leave sit by and accept that type of stuff. >> yes, we have an understanding in the government to government espionage department. we do certain things and you do certain things. if we follow that keyboard back and if you follow that back and you find on the other end it is

nsa spying under government, you're supposed to leave that own. similarly, we have followed that not to find out -- we will have the same attitude toward an on a u.s. government to peter system than if it were an organized criminal gang or individual hacker -- or would we? what we are talking about here is the theft from private companies for the benefit of other private company with whom they are competition. that is where specific facts and actions and act or's matter -- actors matter. we are not charging some abstract entity. we are charging a particular group of people for particular acts. they are stealing pipe design and evidenceany

suggest that moment of another company. we are building a corporate database for a happening. it is part of their job. that is that. every national is -- that is theft. dead yet having an intelligence service to protect your national security is an old concept. the you don't see in countries is them saying they have service out there whose goal is to steal what you are making and give it to our company so they don't have to -- >> you mentioned in your speech that china does not defend this practice. they denied the practice. aware ofus -- are you

any country that defends this crack this or is it simply universally denied rather than defend it? i'm not aware of any country in the world that defends this and says that we ought to allow it whether it is the military or spy service to go and hack into somebody else's private company and steal what they are producing. >> i want to talk about the value. you talked about this a little bit in your speech. some people will look at this and say you have no prospect of getting custody of the suspects. china is a weak country. it is very capable of protect its people. our jurisdiction is limited. therefore the role like this place is really a kind of combination of an overt

diplomatic pressure and a willingness to put facts on the record that is provable and backed up by evidence. it is a form of very sophisticated legal pr rather than an indictment in the sense that you expect to get custody of the suspect and bring it into court and prove the case. as much as you can articulate it, what is the value of an indictment in a situation in which you have no expert asian of obtaining custody? -- expectation of obtaining custody? charges basedeal on evidence that was painstakingly compiled by excellent work by fbi investigators over years. i hope to present in front of the jury with all -- all the rights of due process and it

would not be allowed to bring such an event in him as he believed he had the evidence to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. look forward to having the opportunity to do that. we invite individuals all the currently innot the custody of the united states. today in couple of cases that took more than a decade to bring. we brought the charge. some have said that they have no expectation of getting the individual. they are overseas or in government territory or unfriendly space. they committed crimes. we charged it. we waded into we could bring them before a court. similarly, i think we have seen that approach over the years whether it is in relation to the mafia or drug conspirators.

sometimes it is true cap people -- that they capture. i go back to what i was saying before to not bring the charge is to say that this is not terminal activity and that they are not stealing. that is the effect it is having on american companies. seeing cost that we are and prosecuting the same cases when there committed by someone physically inside the united states and or prosecuting those same cases when they are a group is not affiliated with the government. it a free pass not only detours, but encourages individuals to pursue that type of stuff. there has been a fair bit of talk since monday.

this is the first of a wave that we should expect to see a lot more. i wouldn't ask about individual cases, but he said there was a transformation going on. that we shouldng expect to see a lot more of and to the extent that it is, how expect to see about china versus other countries that we frequently hear. a theft of intellectual property in the united states. >> part of what i was discussing is we had a transformation structurally in terms of how we approach these cases. oftrained hundreds

prosecutors in conjunction with our criminal colleagues throughout the country to work on that type of cases and look at the intelligence day in and day out. that fbi has restructured the task forces out throughout the entry. now that people are kind of built with terminal options is one of the options when they look that the information that they are gathering, i believe that they can and will bring additional cases. these are hard cases to bring. they are technically complex. it is oh is going to be typical. now that people are working it, i believe it can and will bring additional prosecution. they will follow the facts and themvidence and respond to crimes that they see. it is by no means a strategy that is for any particular

country. then aimed at crime and tracy who committed it. they need to focus on economic death. -- economic theft. >> the difficulty, the complexity of this type of case that do not arise and a lot of other cases where you're primarily looking at witness interviews, you referred to the warm body in back of the keyboard. i know in a lot of his computer forensic cases, you can prove that a certain thing happened from a certain account for that a certain thing happened from a particular ip address. it can be difficult to prove ist the individual who associated with that account was in fact the warm body sitting behind that keyboard when the offense to place. i'm interested for your thoughts

on how -- what are the strategies that one has to go that extra quarter of an inch and the hands on that keyboard are the -- or the person who would you have got to know beyond a reasonable doubt that you've got to be able to prove not nearly just that particular computer is the offense, but the individual associated with those of the one you think he or she is. talk a little about that challenge and how you meet it. >> that is a challenge. give all of the means and methods for which that the i are trying to find those individuals today. is key step to meeting it trying to meet it.

one change that takes place when you look to see if you can option andriminal have the opportunity to bring a criminal case is to focus on that type of specificity and attribution. at is important and a key principle of our criminal justice system. for intelligence purposes, it might be sufficient to do the attribution and say this is so and so and they're trying to take this type of information or intelligence purposes. that might be enough to do an assessment of what is cap earning. when he do a criminal case, you need to go that extra step. we are not interested in the overall intelligence service. we are interested in a specific crime conducted any specific manner by specific after. 1 -- by specific actor.

when you talk to companies and , the theft of the corporate secrets, why are they taking it? what business are you competing specificallyld want that information. why would they want it at the time that they took it. i can help narrow down the actor . indictments of this is u.s. domestic criminal law. it forbids theft of intellectual robbery for the u.s. companies. i have not nor could i have looked up chinese law on the fact of material from chinese companies or from chinese government servers. i'm relatively confident that chinese criminal law has

something to say that would forbid a lot of what we routinely defend. it goes on at tour to. policy we have an open that we engage in espionage. we still secrets for national security purposes. roughshod in the course of doing so. shouldious whether we expect foreign indictments of officialsntelligence and why other than to say that our law distinguishes between the episodes, why would this be different? how would we react if the chinese government started

,ndicting nsa officials current, former, and for acts that we would consider perfectly legitimate espionage? this is not about intelligence collection by a whatnstate to figure out another nationstate is thinking about. nor is this the case of an intelligent service. they stealing particular plans that would benefit companies in china. that is what we charge. we did charge economic espionage and trade secrets. we also charge violations of the

computer fraud. the problem we were charging is when you met those acts for economic advantage and personal financial gains. true distinction. it is one that is recognized. everyone wants money work on something to have the rewards of the fruits of their labor. certainly china has created entrepreneurs. when you knock 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. if you have a question, wait for

the microphone. introduce yourself. identify yourself before you ask questions. one additional question >> what is the reaction from other governments. a lot of governments have anxieties about chinese activity in this area. they 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. the other is about mr. rumsfeld's favorite "known unknowns here go --." though it is clear that you have been clear -- careful in the indictment, -- there is that business about proving they were there when it happened. i am thinking in larger terms. we 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 indictment worth the benefit of what ever the outcome might be. in these terms, i am talking about both diplomatically, but the difficulty of did -- demonstrating just how much actual economic harm has been done and will be done by the zacks. there is the cost-benefit question. the second, is the known

unknowns. i wonder what edward snowden is doing right now? what a mean by that is that snowden has revealed a lot about us and what we are doing that almost no one seemed to know about. i wonder if mr. snowden is saying, ok, now it is time. we will let lose a few other 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 publicly announced, it is not 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 -- the president had said in 2013 state of the union, so we publicly announced, it is not 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. we watch it, track it,

investigate it and follow it. we are not just going to bring 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. we need to raise the costs and 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 it -- that it is something the united states won't do. >> gary johnson. >> thank you for doing this. kerry johnson from in pr. the other day i read the fbi was purchasing some malware. i am wondering what their role

is in overseeing some of the intelligence gathering inside the united states. how do they oversee the fbi investigators offensive 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 intelligence surveillance court, then before they could present as an application to the clerk, they would go through lawyers at the national security division to see 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 system -- 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 were attempting to use it, then 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 department has 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? >> there is a 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. there is 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 pakistan region, those traveling to fight. we need to be concerned, alert, and vigilant when they return after committing acts there with training, ideology, and a desire to commit acts of violence here. we 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. a little over a year ago, a 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. without discussing exactly when our investigation started, it did not start because of a report. >> in the back. >> and you talked about the difficulty of putting these cases together. that can take years. i'm 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 helpful?

or do you contact them and asked them to participate in investigations? >> because this is an open case, 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 companies, 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. it is critical so we can learn 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. >> i am curious how much consideration -- >> identify yourself. >> university of california irvine. you talked about some of the consequences. specifically, still thinking that there is most likely going to 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. in a worst-case scenario, it 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 might have some 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 raises, i imagine it plays out 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. that is true, 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. in each of those instances, it 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. another 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. they've never said, and i'm not

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. how 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. let us get a few people. we will start over there. we will go 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? what if, considering their job, how does it effect if they got their instructions from higher up? how does that affect chinese and u.s. relations? >> the woman right there, and 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. do you expect an overflow in the amount of cases to come out now that there are faces. if so, how would these cases be

divided? >> ohio state. is the united states government repair to guarantee that although it does spy on foreign businesses, none of the information gathered makes its hands into the -- makes it way 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. as a general matter, how is -- important is it in these cases

to make a showing of economic benefit 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. >> in terms of the testimony yesterday, i tend -- we are adjusting across the country. i hope that one consequence of

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. as a general 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 computer fraud and abuse act, it was for the core commercial advantage or private financial gain. we tried that the state secrets, which is nice -- is not required that you show a particular foreign company. we charge the crime of economic espionage for the benefit of another nation. >> we're out of time. please join me and thanking our guest for joining us. [laughter] [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] extend the house hearing on mexican security and trade issues. in aiding the nation's communication network. after that, opposition to the export import bank. >> some people in the movement decided to take the cause of marriage equality to the u.s. supreme court.

that is what i chose to write about. i'm really gratified that the new york times called as stunningly internet story. that is what i sent out to do. i was fascinated. what would it be like to be a plaintiff in a major civil rights litigation case? -- what did that feel like? out where they thinking as they considered the evidence. it is one of the many crazy twist in the story. what does it feel like? what i really wanted to say is what does it feel to want something that everybody else has to be told that you can't have it? jo becker a what some call the new civil rights movement. sunday night at 9 p.m. on "after words."

it is on c-span 2. online, our book club collection. join other leaders in the discussion at book tv.org. >> on tuesday, state department officials testified by security and trade between the u.s. and mexico before the house foreign affairs committee unity discussed the high numbers of weapons smuggled from the u.s. to mexico and drug trafficking, including increased -- this is just over two hours. >> i'll ask all of the members if they could take their seats at this time. if hearing is on the future of u.s.-mexico relations. the future look at of u.s.-mexico relations, we witnesses we'll hear from

shortly. i will make an opening statement . makemy colleague will their statement. this committee is working to change this. in december, the western hemisphere subcommittee held an important meeting in arizona on facilitating trade between the two countries. the ranking member has had a in theed interest western hemisphere, particularly in the u.s.-mexico relations. you will all be watching secretary kerry's trip with interest. this partnership is interest in to the standard of

living for people in this hemisphere. partner trade in goods and services with mexico. year.y join dollars a supporting millions of american jobs. with the structural reform underway in mexico, this could increase significantly. high-level economic dialogue should advanced order management and training efficiency. , the transpacific negotiations that includes both countries and canada tpphat partnership, that would spur economic growth across a region that represents 40% of the entire global trade.

of growingr area significance is energy. mexico is one of the 10 largest oil producers in the world. the united states will be number one. mexico is in the top 10. it is one of the largest sources of u.s. oil imports. last december, mexico announced historic energy reform ending the 75 year state monopoly. this committee will be watching closely as mexico finalizes these reforms, which are expected to result in a large, productive influx of private capital and of technology and expertise. right, this will allow mexico's energy sector to thrive , improving u.s. energy security by creating a more reliable source of oil from our close southern neighbor.