was a battle royale between both groups, showing off each right now what we see is more of a competition. if you look at the establishment of al qaeda in the indian subcontinent, which was announced last fall -- this was probably an effort to directly compete with the message that was coming from isis. noticed that around 121 aqis -- i noticed that around 121 aqis were arrested this week. i would like panelists to address isis inroads into south asia. i think what sara said is really important. even though right now they are competing, the taliban is clearly not happy with isis trying to set up camp in

afghanistan, a taliban leader basically issued a letter asking them to back off. i think isis realizes it cannot replace the taliban as a major fighting force in afghanistan right now. the taliban is too established in the region. but, will they try to make common cause with the taliban? i think this is what sara was getting at. will we see a merging together of the two? this would be very dangerous for the u.s. if the speakers could address that issue, because i think what we heard from dr. gorka was that isis is the graduate level. but does this hold up when you're looking at afghanistan? the taliban has been able to continue to fight there after 14 years. the taliban still has sway in that region. i don't think it will be so easy for isis to make inroads

despite it trying. if you look at how the idea of peace talks plays into this -- just on tuesday, the taliban engaged in peace talks with the afghan leadership in pakistan. this is quite significant. but what is their calculation? because on the one hand, maybe the taliban would favor peace talks so that the afghan security and nato forces turned their guns on the isis camps in afghanistan. on the other hand, this could cause greater dissension in the taliban. those taliban leaders who do not support talks will have more of a reason to defect to isis. we are in a state of flux with regard to isis and the taliban. i would like to hear the panelists comment, what they think, how they see this moving in the future. mr. gorka: the ladies are the real experts on the ground on

these issues but let me share a macro perspective. it is an analogy my wife hates but my viewers love it, so i am going to use it anyway. think of soft drinks for the -- for a second. for 14 years, al qaeda was that red can with the white logo. right? it was coca-cola. it dominated the jihadi brand. and then two years ago this little upstart breaks out, and it is a kind of tab cola. most of you are too young to even know what to have -- what tab cola is, but it is a very junior coke. in the space of less than two years, it is isis that has become coca-cola. that is what we are talking about. do not focus on individual groups. focus on who has successfully

become the ideological brand leader, because today it is the islamic state that dominates the narrative. i hate the word, but let's use it -- it dominates the international narrative. today al qaeda is relegated to being the rc coke of coca-cola. now they have the question of can they swallow the bigger pill of seeing their upstart cousin now being the brand leader -- and say i am going to stay outside or try to find my way back because i was here first? i do not have the social media capabilities, but i will do it anyway. will they say one day, ok, if you cannot beat them, join in. that is the decision we are hearing them make. on the ground there will be competition, but right now the brand leader with that shiny red can is isis.

>> i think you brought up a point. but if you look at baghdadi, his relationship with osama bin blondin was -- -- osama bin laden was -- he respected him. he exalted him. it was not that he looked at bin laden as a threat to what he was creating. they had disagreements on how they were going to achieve kind of the same goal. it was really just in the first phase of the war against the west. i mean, everybody knows this line. zarkawi, the reason he never fully fledged to al qaeda was because he believed that they got to take down the nation states -- those countries like saudi arabia and jordan -- who

were working diligently with the west, and with israelis, and who have these relationships that were anti-muslim, that they were not connected. baghdadi would say himself, why do you need a passport to travel to egypt if you are a muslim? we should be one state. so then, and you had bin laden who was, ok, this guy, i respect him, he and i can work together. for some time until the passing, and when the baton was passed, to zawahiri, i think and from what i have been reading and learning bag daddy -- baghdadi was like, this guy is completely different. we do not need to deal with him. he does not allow us to go out to the shia.

they use the word heretic. it's like they it's like they do not even exist. -- it's like they don't even exist. all of their writings already seemed like they won. they talk about this grand future in the sense in the present tense. not in the past, not any hopeful sense. so when you think about the message that he is delivering inside south asia, he is saying, look, i am not opposed -- in fact, he respected the taliban. if you really delves -- delve into baghdadi, he thought that taliban to the most marvelous job. they stood up against the west the united states. the u.s. came in. osama fled from tora bora. and the taliban never back down, -- never backed down, not even to pakistan. so he delivered the message that is appealing to them. they do not want to give up their power. but i believe, like lisa said, the possibility of saying ok let us sustain our kingdom here.

and then maybe we can work together. the common purpose being to push the west out, to push nato out to reestablish an emirate in afghanistan and basically go after the peace talks, the pakistani government, which the taliban really has no time for. these peace talks are just to fill in a void, in my opinion, for them and to buy time. that is my opinion on this. ms. curtis: thank you. i would like to open the floor to our audience. if you have a question, please raise your hand. somebody will bring a microphone to you, and if you could state your name and affiliation and then ask your question. we have somebody right here in the middle. >> hi.

i am with in defense of christians. my question for dr. gorka, you mentioned that the airstrikes are really doing nothing. so in your opinion, how should the united states look to address the kurds, who are actually be -- the most effective in fighting isis? mr. gorka: i am impressed with the kurds. they are not as impressive as they would like to think they are, but very impressive. they are not going to defeat isis. you are a lot of -- how should i say this politely -- there is a lot of clamoring on the hill to make the kurds the silver bullet. i have even heard people tell me

it is 100% sure that kurds will wipe out isis in non-kurdish territory. that is a fantasy, and utter pipedream. the kurds will fight to the death on kurdish territory or territory they think is kurdish. they are part of the solution, but not the solution. the only solution is that the various constituent elements of iraq, the day whoever, -- be they whoever, have to really buy into the idea of iraq. it is a political challenge. it is an attachment to their country -- a little bit they stuck on the edge of the house. so we have to be part of the political solution that convinces them that iraq has a future, and i do not think

-- despite the sectarian history and the blood feud or revenge, i do not think that is a hard argument to make on one foundation -- if you really take emotion out of the equation, there is not one actor in iraq who by themselves can defeat isis. it is just a fact. i do not care who you are, whether you are a good sunni, a shia. by yourselves you will not defeat isis. and only by coming together and -- can that happen, but it has to happen without troops embedded as advisors, because that is the reason that mosul fell. the iraqi army was 900,000 men in uniform on paper. a couple of thousand guys took mosul. that's absurd. why? because we had no embeds. all the tribes could run home to

mama because we were there to shame them. the culture revolves around shame and honor. if there is nobody there to be embarrassed about you running home, then you will run home to your tribe because that is the entity that has protected you best the last 200 years. we have to sell the concept of a functioning iraq. we have to jettison once and for all -- i know it is apocryphally an arab saying, but the idea that to the enemy of my enemy is my friend is complete hogwash when it comes to iraq. -- ironic. -- iran. the idea that iran, because they are killing sunni extremists are our friends, you have to be smoking something, and is not tobacco to believe that.

lisa: thank you. ok, we have a question over here. >> yes. i am matt with the 21st century wilberforce initiative. i am wondering if the panel could speak to understanding this ideology. dr. gorka, you mentioned how the narrative of information warfare that the west is putting out is completely insufficient to combat what isis is doing on social media. how can the narrative be better influenced to counteract that? is it going to require educating people in a very secure context that cosmology, teleology, and eschatology are still important and they are important in this situation? mr. gorka: buy the book. [laughter] mr. gorka: how many theologians does the pentagon have? i do not mean chaplains. i mean theologians who understand the enemy threat doctrine of groups like isis. i would say it is about the same

number of the number of insurgents defeated by our power alone. how do we address it? you really hit a crucial question. with the political elite on both aisles, both sides of the house, that sees itself as modern postmodern, secular, and sophisticated, it is hard to take religion seriously. and one thing i have learned working with people who have had multiple tours in theater, is if you do not have religion, i do not care what it is, i do not i do not care if you are a seventh-day adventists, if you do not have religion, you will never understand this enemy. ever. you will not be able to absorb the concept of suicide bombing the logic of suicide bombing. we have to take political distortion out of the intelligence cycle, tug about -- talk about the enemy as they talk about themselves.

you cannot win a war of ideas of as you begin to understand how the enemy thinks about themselves. and if they say i am a holy warrior, realizing the sovereignty of my creator on this earth, if you say he is a disenfranchised person who needs a job -- [laughter] dr. gorka: you will never get a strategy out of it. let's start by reading what the enemy says. the most important writer in the muslim brotherhood -- more important -- read abdullah azzam, the real creator of al qaeda, the man who issued a a fatwa in 1979 that stated jihad is an obligation of all believers, because we have no longer a caliphate, you must be

a holy warrior. if we do not read these things we will not win this war. and allowing politics to get interact understanding of the into ourget into our understanding of the enemy is akin to in 1944, as we were about to deploy on omaha beach, the normandy invasions, the generals in england having the troops getting on the transports -- do not say the word nazi. you will be fired. you must understand what mobilizes the enemy. let's take politics out of it. let's talk about religion. we do not have to go declare war against islam. we have to be honest. who are the majority of victims of isis? it is not christians and jews. in many theaters, it is sunnis. what religion was moaz

al-kasasbeh? he was a sunni, burnt to death. let's start about -- and i will close -- the most amazing chapter in this book is by my friend -- ulph, a walking genius on ideology. it is a tough chapter to read. he identified what is the key vulnerability of everybody we face today. it is not matter whether it is hamas, isis. the key vulnerability of these actors is their claim to authenticity. their statement that they are the best muslims and they are fighting to protect islam. if they are the best muslims you do not emulate jordanian fighter pilots. on what basis? -- on what basis are you the best muslim? we have to destroy that narrative -- i mean the local , sunnis have to destroy it with our assistance, but we have to start. i think the 15th year of the war

might be a good time to start. ms. curtis: thank you. right down here in the front. >> i would like to draw my question out of three books, "rulers of evil," "operation --" , and a very authoritative comic book that speaks about the history of islam. to draw on your analogy of coca-cola and pepsi, if we look at a broad historical context, leaving christianity aside, the roman church and islam is equivalent to coke and pepsi, it is good to have an enemy. the argument can be made that the papacy was very much involved in the creation of islam and the drawing of arabs to mohammed 1500 years ago, it

was good for each side to have an enemy -- everyone gravitates toward one side or the other. ms. curtis: question? >> can anyone speak to the relationship between the papacy and the development of islam expansion and contraction and the entering into of -- between the vatican and islamic interests? ms. curtis: i will take the privilege. one of the things that both al qaeda and isis is trying to do is make this into a religious war. i think the best thing we can do to counter that narrative is make sure we are not blaming the entire religion of islam for what is happening. i think what is happening in terms of the violence and terrorism we are seeing, these people see themselves as muslims

and they are using religion of islam. i think it would be a mistake if we would equate the one billion-plus muslims in the world as equivalent as to what is being represented by ounces -- isis and al qaeda. i will stop. does anyone want to comment? mr. gorka: i have heard these conspiracy theories before, so i will not address them. lisa: do we have another question? right in the back. >> i want to take a moment to thank our great panel speakers. i specialize in terrorist radicalization and the radicalization -- d e-radicalization and looking at what other

countries have been successfully or not so successfully. overall, our penalty stressed issues ideology and strategy. if you could serve as an advisor, what are three points you would suggest for u.s. strategic responses when it comes to u.s. ideology and threats? when we look at other countries, have addressed issues of extremism, countering violent extremism, radicalization, where countries have used countering terrorism and counterinsurgency methods successfully. thank you. ms. curtis: katherine, you have anything to say in terms of what is happening in africa, whether african governments are engaged and if the u.s. is supporting them in terms of radicalization efforts? ms. zimmerman: we have outsourced our decision-making on a lot of these issues to partners who may not have the same of vision as to what a successful outcome is. here i am thinking about the case in somalia where we rely heavily on ethiopia and kenya who actually disagree on what

the future of somalia should look like. saudi arabia, whose actions in yemen could be said to be in -- inflaming the conflicts there. and algeria, who's interested in protecting its borders and only its borders and the terrorist threat that resides inside its borders to fight al qaeda. that is the first challenge -- taking ownership of the problems these countries face and helping them understand their actions are driving the issues. the second is recognizing the al qaeda threat, isis threat, they are insurgencies. we hear them described as terrorist groups in the news. terrorism is simply a tactic that these groups use. they have long-standing grievances with in the country that generally come from the federal state itself. the american partnership directly with the central state, which is sometimes driving the grievances, is not exactly the most beneficial one. it is hard to workaround, i understand.

we cannot simply be going around a governing state within a sovereign territory. it is something we need to become cognizant of as we pursue our partners and pursue that counterterrorism counterinsurgency relationship. third, i think we need to recognize our action inside and outside different theaters play very concretely to these individuals. how did the sunnis feel as we are negotiating an iranian nuclear deal? we have set ourselves up to say we are trying to fight isis on behalf of the muslim world, and yet we are only coming to the rescue of certain individuals. that is not playing well in a sight that is sectarian in the middle east, and we are seen as fighting only the sunni and not protecting the moderate sunni

s that would otherwise look to the united states for support. those are the three major changes i would like to see come out of the discussions we have seen going on for the past couple months. ms. carter: i think katherine has such a great point there. if you state the issue of the radicalization, or the ideology that you could turn into coca-cola right before your eyes. nobody is focused what is happening on the ground, nobody has been able to exploit what baghdadi is doing, because in all honesty we ignored it. in all honesty, nobody knew who to talk with in syria, who are the right players. we were fumbling around, trying to figure things out, as baghdadi was on the rise. as out nusra -- al-nousra

was building momentum. and then you see the disenfranchised sunni reaching across their hearts, it grabbed them, and we ignored it. just cannot happen again, you know? they were the j.v. team. nobody wanted to pay attention to what was happening on the ground. and u.s. intelligence, as well as european intelligence officials, as well as iraqis who were on the ground, were warning over and over again that something was coming, and nobody wanted to listen. because it did not fit the narrative. because most of us were exhausted of war. because most of us to not want to see another 10 years in the region. and i think you cannot ignore that narrative anymore. the reality is that we are in --

just from my own experience on the ground and from what i am seeing -- we are going to be stuck in a long, drawn out battle, and it is not just one that is going to be a military battle. it is an ideological war, that is going to require us reaching out to not just specific players, not just hoping we can find a quick solution to wrap this up, but reaching out to everyone, including sunnis. so the people like baghdadi, and leaders that will follow him -- there will be something else -- someone else who will rise who will not have the kind of power to do what he has already done again. mr. gorka: i am a child of the cold war, so that is my socialization, and i miss it immensely. and i think we can learn a lot

from the cold war. the first thing we have to do is we have to really aggressively support all those very brave sunni reformers that we are not helping at all. there are some very brave people in the middle east and north africa who dey and -- day in and day out are writing they are distorting muslims, how democracy and jihadi cannot function together. these are the people that america does not touch because we do not deal with this because it is not a religious war. in the cold war, we supported the dissidents aggressively. we have to do this now because we are on the frontlines, and it is their lives as well. second, we need to push back on the strategic level against the propaganda. right now, the state department

has 11,000 followers on its twitter feed for look back, turn away. there is one turkish woman who has 1.3 million followers. that is one woman. so we have to be strategic about our response. i recommend an incredible model from the end of the cold war called the active users working groups, a tiny organization with congressional staff, the active measures working group that targeted soviet propaganda and blew it out of the water. national defense university has a good online study. targeted soviet propaganda and lastly, we need to ditch complete irrelevant concepts such as counterradicalization. it is a band-aid on a chest

wound. counterradicalization is the equivalent to denazification. when can you do that? when we won. counterradicalization is a small activity that does not address the ideological force of the enemy you are facing. we need to support people like king abdullah ii, president sisi. president sisi is the number one target. for isis, for al qaeda. how many people in this room know on january 1 this man walked into the vatican of sunni islam. sunni islam does not have a pope -- it has a back in. -- a vatican. he walked in there with all the important leaders of islam in there, and he said, gentlemen, you have got to help me execute a religious revolution to take down the jihadis, because they are stealing our religion. we have been waiting 14 years

for an arab leader to say that. what happened in d.c. when he said that? crickets. nothing on cnn or the new york times. that is the only way we will win -- by supporting local reformers at the grassroots level and national level and not treat them like pariahs because they used to wear uniform. ms. curtis: i hope what sarah has said about iraq and how we were not paying attention, i can only hope it is a lesson for afghanistan and that the white house will get away from this idea that we have to put timelines on withdrawal and drop

-- a question in the back? >> i have a point that coming from afghanistan and being a witness with what is happening i just believe that there is a big difference between two generations -- the generation -- the young generations that are coming right now. it is said that american people are exhausted of ongoing wars.

there are many social activists and couple -- in couple -- kab ul who are democratic. we need to find the right people to build strong relationships so that we can defend against terrorist groups that are rising. there are so many people who will work toward supporting democracy and human rights and workers rights. my question is, how can the united states and the international community in general can cope with the right people in the local level to fight or to stand against the growing extremists? ms. carter: i am so happy you are here. she is an example of a strong afghan woman which we never see in the united states.

we see the stories that afghan women who have been maimed or harmed or forced into their -- to never see the outside world. she stood up and fought for the rights of afghan women during karzai's passage of the sharia laws, and she is quite someone. she is an example -- she is not an anomaly. she is an example of muslim women and muslim men all across the world that i have met who i believe we have ignored and we've not reached out to and who can make the greatest difference for our nation and who can help find and establish peace. and i think her point -- i think you are right -- you asked a question -- what do we do? i think we need to make valiant

efforts as people -- to make valiant efforts as people, academics, to reach out to our muslim friends overseas, the families, the people, especially the women and children, and build those relationships so we don't end up the way we have ended up today, in battles and the kind of slaughter that she has had to witness and many people around the world are dealing with every day. ms. curtis: i think the u.s. is going to have to engage with the civil societies of these nations. that is the key for moving forward. any more? ok, over here. >> i was a student in the soviet union, and i recalled one of the soviet students once praising stalin. i asked her, didn't he also kill a lot of people? she replied, what do you do with people who are opposed to revolution? of course, you kill them.

i objected to british students who had not been exposed to that alternative idea. i can understand the ideological struggle -- presenting an alternative idea, where people have not been exposed to the other idea. but with regard to the islamic state, even zawahiri denounced the islamic state. yet people are joining -- they have been exposed to the other idea -- they are choosing to go with the more savage. you mentioned the book "the mastery of savagery." they are choosing to go, even though they know the alternative. that is what i have difficulty understanding. mr. gorka: we have to be careful. one of our biggest sins should tediously is when we mirror image. i was asked by an audience recently, how can this be going on? how can the people who are putting up with decapitation

because they are shot in the head because they are not wearing a face veil? to us it is shocking. do not impose your categories upon the population that may not share those categories. remember to say i would love to live a thousand years under dictatorship instead of a year under the chaos of a democracy. that is a phrase i heard in afghanistan while i was there. it may make us qualified, but we have to understand what is the context of that savagery? is it like the person you met in the soviet union? that person who died is not a human being. they are a capitalist. they do not count. that is the only way you can kill 8 million ukrainians, by saying they are not human. we have to start with the very essentials. what are the categories of that culture? what are they used to?

what are the motivations? we get annoyed if the wifi in our hotel is not fast. that is not really the definition of governance in the fatah region, and we think it should be. maybe an hour a day would be impressive. it is shocking to us, but let's step back, take off our skins, try to understand it in their contacts, and then we will see why savaging worse, because not to be human, if i would not even use the word shia, anything is possible, but that does not we cannot degrade their message. what gives baghdadi the right to be a caliph? we do not know if he is a kalifah. it is a requirement to be a caliph.

what only have a propaganda cup -- propaganda campaign ribbing that he is not one? that would hurt him a lot. you are not a kalifah. you have declared yourself a caliph? most people do not know that they have to be a kalifah. i'm not a social scientist. ms. curtis: we have time for one more question. let's see here. this is your first question, right? right here in the middle. i am sorry, the rest of you can ask afterwards. >> i am from george washington university. to continue the discussion on ideology -- there was an interesting article in the washington post discussing ideational balancing. balancing. -- discussing ideological balancing. the author writes the islamic state's effort to project this

power triggered defensive reactions from threatened regimes that play out in the religious public space. the risk is that you are attending to out-islam islamists. these regimes will move the terms of combat further and more deeply into the islamic state's preferred battlefield. if you look at places like saudi arabia, where they have an extreme form of islam that is essential to the identity of the regime. if you look at sisi trying to revolutionize islam, places like jordan where they are changing their flag. how do you win the battle of ideas without moving the terms of debate on the battlefield but that is preferred by the islamic state? thank you. mr. gorka: a superb question. you cannot win this war on bad terms. why? because the ideologically -- the

ideology of global jihadist them is tied to the texts and tied to the preble -- the islamic principle of application. the violent passages of the koran, from the later periods -- from -- come from the later periods that were revealed by mohamed. it is a contradiction in the koran must abrogate the earlier ones. this plays into the jihadi hands. what do we know about mohammed's life? it was violent at the end. that is when he came back and decimated mecca and became a caliph. the principle of application will always benefit the jihadis. that is why i mentioned sisi and abdullah. you have to take this out of the realm of theologians. it has got to be a politically different thing.

we need the ataturk model. whatever you think of turkey today, the turkish state was muslim and stable and functional the way we understand this for turks. i am your president and i will secularize politics. i will segregate, like the founding fathers segregated america. that is the only way it is going to win. it is a battle that has to be fought in a political arena saying islam is compatible with modern, but you have got to separate religion from politics as the west has done. that is the only way we are going to win. a theological debate will always stay with the bad guys. ms. carter: that will focus on each individual nation-state. it couldn't be something that we could do at all, it would be each individual nation. ms. curtis: i think that is a great note to add on, and i hope

you'll join me and in applauding a very excellent panel. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> republican presidential candidate carly fiorina had an event in new hampshire, followed by a new hampshire politics event with republican presidential candidate dr. ben carson.

>> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. with the upcoming release of harper lee's new novel c-span2's book tv focuses on the pulitzer prize winning novelist starting saturday night at 7:45 easter. we talk about the impact of to kill a mockingbird and the events that led to the discovery and publication of her new oppel -- her new novel. we will re-air these programs sunday evening. also sunday night at 10:00, hugh hewitt on hillary clinton second run for president.

>> good afternoon everybody. tgif. [laughter] josh: this is the fifth of five briefings this week. looking forward to completing this one. >> that's an edtorial -- josh: i'm sure there are some that share that view. jim, i think this is a milestone today. >> it is. josh: congratulations on your many years of service. [applause] josh: jim, you're a true professional man, we're going to miss you. we wish you and your family the best. >> thank you and your staff and to all my hardworking colleagues here, it's been an honor to work with you guys. anyway, we got news today.

josh: yes, we do. >> just yesterday, director archuleta was insisting she would remain in the job. what changed? josh: i can tell you that director archuleta did offer her resignation today. she did so of her own volition. she recognizes, as the white house does, that the urgent challenges currently facing the office of personnel management require a manager with a specialized set of skills and experiences. that's precisely why the president has accepted her resignation and assigned beth culvert to take on the responsibilities of the o.p.m. director on an acting basis. some of you had the opportunity to interact with ms. culvert she's been serving the administration for a few years but prior to that spent three decades working as a management expert at mckenzie.

she had experience working with a wide variety of public private, and nonprofit entities to make significant improvements and enhance the broad deployment of new technology. while serving at o.m.b. in the senior role as chief performance officer and deputy director of management at o.m.b. she led the implementation of the president's management agenda to improve how government functions. this involved overseeing offices of government performance, government procurement, and financial management. the president believes she is, at least on an acting basis, the right person for the job while we search for a permanent replacement for director archuleta. >> does the president think there was actual failure under director archuleta's leadership? josh: i think what the president thinks is that it's quite clear that new leadership with a set

of skills and experiences that are unique to the urgent challenges that o.p.m. faces are badly needed, and that accounts for the acting director that the president has appointed. it certainly doesn't take away from, or diminish, director archuleta's service to the office of personnel management. while she was there, she strengthened the use of evidence-based practices in data to drive human capital. she worked to allow federal employees to balance their responsibilities in workplace with their responsibilities at home. she helped keep cost low and expand coverage and also understood that cybersecurity at o.p.m. needed to be a priority. it's precisely because of some of the reform she initiated that

this particular cyber breach was detected in the first place. but given the urgent and significant challenges that are facing o.p.m. right now, a new manager with a specialized set of skills and experiences is needed. >> when did the white house become aware of the 21 million people affected by this breach? josh: as you know, the investigations into the scope of these kinds of incidents are extraordinarily complicated, particularly when you're talking about data that involves tens of millions of individuals, and it is only in the last couple of days that those who are responsible for leading this investigation reached this final conclusion about the scope of the intrusion. and consistent with the president's directive, as much information as possible should be shared with the public.

that is why the decision was made just yesterday by the office of personnel management to release some more of this information. now we also recognize that the public is due additional information, and when i refer to the public, i'm talking about those individuals that were -- that had data that was compromised. and so there is a responsibility that o.p.m. recognizes to follow up with those individuals and ensure they're given advice, that they're informed about what exactly happened, and o.p.m. has already committed to ensuring that those individuals will receive a comprehensive sweep of credit reporting and identity theft prevention tools. this would be on top of the suite of services provided to those individuals whose data was compromised in the first reported breach. >> does the administration have any sense of what whoever is responsible for this breach might be doing with this data? is it possible they could sit on

this data while these protections that you're talking about take effect and then strike later? what securities are you taking into account for the long-term? josh: i don't have an analysis to share with you in terms of what we suspect this actor, what the true intent of this actor may have been. but you know, obviously we want to make sure that those who may be affected by this breach get as much protection and support that we can offer them, and that's a promise o.p.m. is committed to fulfilling. >> are you willing to confirm that the breach, that the chinese were responsible for the breach? josh: i don't have anything to say publicly about the attribution of this activity. >> what does the president think of the conclusion that 21 people were affected? josh: the conclusion was only reached in the last few days and the president was briefed

shortly after the conclusion was reached. >> what was his reaction? josh: i wasn't there when he was briefed. i can tell you that the president believes this is significant and this needs to continue to be a priority of his administration, not just at o.p.m., but across the federal government to make sure that all the agencies in the administration are focused on this priority. that it is critical to their mission to safeguard their computer networks and safeguard their data, and you'll recall that i pointed out on a couple of previous occasions that the last cabinet meeting that the president convened a month or two ago, prior to this news about o.p.m. having been publicly reported, that cybersecurity and the effective and prompt implementation of cybersecurity measures at government agencies was an item on the agenda. i think that should be an

indication to you that this administration, including the president, is focusing on this priority even when it's not on the front page of the newspaper. >> would you describe him as being angry? there's been so many different technical snafus, issues, that have come up for his administration, is he angry that -- josh: i'm not sure i'm willing to agree with the premise of the question, but let me try to answer it. i think the president realizes that this needs to be a priority. it's a priority that many private sector leaders acknowledge exists as well. the private sector has experienced breaches that affected significantly more people than this significant breach here in the federal government computer network. obviously this is something that, you know, both public and private entities are dealing with and the president is

determined to ensure that all of his leaders of government agencies understand that this needs to be a priority because it goes to the core effectiveness of each of these agencies. >> with o.p.m. affected in the security clearances, how long will it take to fix that, and how long before that's fully operational again? josh: i don't have an update on those details, i refer you to o.p.m. >> how do we know, yesterday during the conference call o.p.m., then o.p.m. director archuleta was going to be director. josh: as our investigators have

information to share, they'll share it. i don't have new information. >> last week, the director of national intelligence said china was a leading suspect in the o.p.m. hack. you're not going to suggest that the d.n.i. director was, i guess, talking out of school? josh: what i'm going to suggest -- i didn't refer to -- i'd refer to his office for an explanation of his particular comments. i don't have any information on who is responsible for that information. >> you're not say that's wrong -- josh: i'm saying for explanation of director clapper's comments look to his office. >> you said on one of the briefings here that your personal data may have been swept up in the hack. do we know if the president's personal data has been swept up in this? is it involved in any way? josh: i don't have any

information about the president's personal data, but even if i did, i'm not sure i'd share it. >> it's every federal employee since 2000, that would include the president. josh: i don't have any information about the president's personal data. >> they say the federal database failed in preventing dylann roof from buying a firearm. what can you say about the state of background checks? josh: the f.b.i. is continuing to investigate what happened when it came to the purchase of a firearm by the suspect in the charleston shooting. so i don't have any additional information beyond what the f.b.i. has already shared. i'm going to decline much comment because there is an ongoing investigation to

determine what exactly happened. >> i know the president tweeted about the confederate flag coming down in south carolina, did he watch it? were officials watching it? josh: i don't know if the president watched the flag come down or not, but obviously his message on twitter is a pretty good indication of his reaction to it. >> just to get back to o.p.m., what do you say to these 21 million people whose data has been potentially compromised, i guess it hasn't been violated yet, but they are now in this vulnerable position? that's a lot of people. what is the white house message to those people, 21 million people? josh: the administration feels a responsibility to communicate with them as best we can about what has happened. that's why o.p.m. established a website with as much information as they could compile about this particular incident.

they're in the process of building structures as well as a mechanism for providing a whole suite of credit monitoring and identity theft protection tools. this would be a first step in trying to provide them the support and protection they need. obviously we recognize the significance of this incident, and protecting the data of the federal government and the federal employees is a top priority. i think that's why you've seen the office of personnel management take a number of concrete steps to address this. >> before i let you go katherine archuleta said on the conference call yesterday that she wanted to stay on to deal with this. was there a subsequent conversation that changed that or did she just decide later on last night or this morning that she -- that she wanted to go? >> i'm not aware of any subsequent conversation, but for

questions on her decision to offer her resignation today, i refer you to her office. julie. >> yesterday on the call >> yesterday on the call, someone said the breach occurred and it shouldn't happen when there's two forms of identification. that's standard practice. how is it that that's not standard practice for the federal government? how long do you think that will take -- it will take for that to happen? short of that, i think it could happen many times over. some agencies have it 100% but most agencies don't. josh: there is an ongoing effort by the office of management and budget to conduct a rapid reassessment of the state of cybersecurity measures and accelerate the implementation of reforms that need to be adopted. one of those is two-factor authentication. and there are a number of

offices that have fully adopted those security measures. these are -- this two-factor authentication is a security measure that's becoming more and more common because of the risks that exist in cyberspace and so implementing these reforms is something that the office of management and budget is trying to accelerate all across the federal government. there's one other aspect of this that is important and is a relevant security-related reform. and that is -- that relates to the conduct of privileged users. there's some indication that once the system was breached that by using privileged access, that's what allowed these hackers to do exactly what they did. so one of the things our experts tell us is that it's important to limit the number of

privileged users in the computer system and i think this is something that's becoming more common across computer networks both inside government and outside government. it's also important to think carefully about the capability given to those privileged users and if their activity or capability can be limited in some way that can often be a wise thing to do. the other thing is that it's possible and important to closely monitor the activity of privileged users, that maintaining logs about how often or how frequently they log in and log out and what -- maintaining a log of their activities is also another way to try to counter or at least limit this particular vulnerability. these policies around privileged users is also something that the federal government across agencies is seeking to implement. again because privileged users do pose a vulnerability.

>> do you have any estimate of how much it's going to cost to provide credit monitoring and identity protection and any potential liability the government might bear for the loss of information? josh: i don't have those numbers in front of me, i'm not sure those numbers are available at this point. once we're in a position to announce more details about the suite of services that can be provided to those whose data may have been compromised, we'll have more information about the potential costs involved. >> on iran. it's been announced that they're going to extend the joint plan of action through the weekend, through monday. to give more time for the talks. is there any scenario where, short of a deal, they will meet? will you give us an update of the president's thinking? are there very, very close or is he in the mode of however long

it takes, and they could be there through the summer. josh: i think the way we described this before is an apt description of where we stand now. the united states, our p-5 plus one partners and iran have never been closer to an agreement. important progress has been made other the last couple of weeks since the negotiators have been in vienna to try to complete an agreement. that said, there continue to be significant sticking points that remain. and that's the essence of the ongoing negotiation. the president has indicated to his negotiating team that they should remain in vienna and continue to negotiate as long as the talks continue to be useful. if it becomes clear that iran is not interested in engaging in a constructive way to try to resolve the remaining sticking points the negotiators should come home. that's essentially what's driving the timetable here. it's not the deadline, it's the

usefulness of ongoing negotiations. >> what happens, is there something in place that if personal information is accessed, you said it wasn't at this point, but if it is accessed, what happens? josh: for those individuals whose data was compromised we're offering a suite of credit protection and monitoring tools to protect them from the improper use of their personal information. this is a suite of tools that's not been provided yet but they are working hard to arrange that and contact those individuals whose data may have been compromised. >> but if they break into the system, they may be able to

break into someone's information. what happens? is there a fingerprint you can find to find who did this? josh: there's an ongoing investigation to learn more about precisely who may have been responsible for this breach. i don't have any information about the -- about those investigative tools being used. but rest assured that is something that continues to consume the time and attention of a lot of cybersecurity experts. >> many people, including the president, noted the significance of the confederate flag coming down today but sources on the hill say it's not over. what happened, you talked about yesterday how republicans are still trying to make efforts to keep it on national park grounds. is there a concern at the white house that this could come back

up? josh: i think as a general matter, april, the president was pretty direct when he talked about this in charleston just two weeks ago. that he's hopeful that the debate would not stop at the confederate flag but would continue into a debate and discussion about policies to make our country more fair. that's where the president hopes the debate will continue to move. >> there was a statement yesterday condemning republicans on the hill about trying to reverse the amendment about the national park service. again, there's concern on the hill from democrats that republicans are still wanting to do this and trying to make it happen. is there concern in the white house that they're going to do that? he spoke so eloquently and

strongly yesterday on -- i'm asking today about concerns? josh: again, i think this will be a decision for republicans to make. i do think the decision they make will give the country a lot of insight into the values and priorities and agenda that that party promotes. olivier? >> there's a security component here, too, has the president ordered a special review to understand the extent of damage to american security and hoping against hope you might give us a sense of how many current or former intelligence or military officials have been compromised. josh: i think, for obvious reasons, that's not information i'm willing to share here. i'm not aware of any specific national security review that is

being conducted. obviously there are assessments done all the time about the safety and security of the country and those individuals who put themselves in harm's way to try to protect the country. at the same time there is an interagency 90-day review the president has ordered. this is a a review by the office of management and budget. it includes the office of personnel management as well as the director of national intelligence and a wide range of national security and law enforcement agencies. the goal of the 90-day review is to take a look at policy questions that related to cybersecurity and the defenses that are erected to protect the federal government's computer network. there obviously are significant national security implications for doing that. that is a review that's under way and we'll ask for another 90 days and we'll -- it will be

something that will be considered carefully for its impact on the country's national security. there's a review, i don't know when it started, we can get you the start of the 90-day clock if you want. >> i want to try this a little differently. o.p.m. and the federal government were broadly offering all these remedies, identity theft protection there is credit counseling being offered to people whose information was affected. what's the price tag on that? wouldn't we have been better off spending the money on cybersecurity before this all happened than on this remedy? josh: again, as i mentioned to julie, at this point, i don't have a price tag to share with you. i will say that when it comes to the effective and judicious use of taxpayer dollar the

administration has long advocated to make sure our agencies are properly funded so the priorities they have can be met. right now there is a vigorous debate on capitol hill among republicans who want to slash government funding and slash funding for agencies that will necessarily have an impact on a wide variety of priorities that these agencies confront including basic cybersecurity. so this will be -- i would anticipate that this will be part of that budget debate that is already occurring up in congress right now. >> one last one, nowhere near the top of the agenda when it comes to the o.p.m. hack, but under personal curiosity, i underwent a background check to get my hard pass to get into the white house, am i going to get one of those letters? josh: that's a good question. i don't know the answer to that. obviously you'll find out at some point. susan.

>> my question is, when will the people who had their information hacked find out? and when will former military, how do you locate these people? is there a timeline on when they'll find out if their information has been breached or not? josh: they're working very diligently. we're talking about a large number and this is a complex investigation. they are working diligently to determine whose data may have been compromised. there will be an effort after that to locate those individuals and communicate to them the risks that they face and communicate to them the kind of assistance and protection that the federal government can provide to mitigate that risk. >> do you have any idea when that would occur right now? josh: at this point i don't have a deadline. obviously we're working very aggressively to meet. let me just say it this way. there is an understanding that promptly notifying those

individuals whose data may have been compromised is a top priority of the investigation. that is something they're very focused on. once we begin notifying people then we'll let you all know as well. >> you have been criticized for not reacting, saying it was -- not even say it was a tragedy before referring to d.h.s. josh: i didn't catch the beginning of that. >> in san francisco. we're wondering if the white house feels that this tragedy, there needs to be a call to action on this and whether there needs to be something done. you had characterized it as, at one point, reporters interpreted that you characterized it as house republicans were just killing immigration reform and you were blaming that death on house republicans.

first of all, you still think this is a tragedy that needs a call to action and is that a right characterization? did you blame her death on house republicans? josh: i did not. and that's not the first time my remarks have been unfairly characterized, but i don't lose a lot of sleep over that. the president has spoken in compelling terms about gun violence and spoken out, i think, quite persuasively about the need for action to be taken in this country to reduce gun violence. there are some steps that can be taken to reduce gun violence and the fact is, there are some steps that congress could take right now that have strong support of the american people. that even have the strong support of gun owners in this country. but congress has resisted taking some of those steps that would not undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans but could have the positive impact of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or others who shouldn't be able to get their hands on them.

>> a lot of people are saying it's a call to action on immigration. there's -- josh: the president did act on immigration reform. something that republicans didn't do. that is also a fact. >> an i.c.e. official testified earlier this week that it was not just that he blames states for lack of abiding by the laws but said their policy advice is to go after all the criminal warrants they can against illegal immigrants before they act to deport him or her. i'm wondering, is that a bureaucratic crack that can be fixed? is that something that the administration can do something about right now? josh: i haven't seen the claims of that particular i.c.e. official. i can tell you what the policy is that the president put in place back in november. that policy that ensures that our limited government resources, our limited law enforcement resources, these law enforcement resources are even further limited because

republicans failed to take action on comprehensive immigration reform in the congress that would have made historic investment in border security. that being said, the president's policy is to make sure we're focusing our limited law enforcement resources on criminals, those who pose a public safety threat, those who pose a national security threat, that those should be the priority for deportation ahead of focusing on splitting up families. >> but this case is there something that needs to be done in light of this case? obviously this -- who is to blame for this case? josh: there are a lot of people eager to assign blame. i think we're eager to try to find some solutions. unfortunately, those solutions will -- well certainly one thing that would help would be comprehensive immigration reform legislation. we have comprehensive immigration reform legislation that passed the senate, it was blocked by republicans in the house for purely political reasons. and that does not represent

blaming them for a tragic death that obviously occurred. but it is blaming them for putting their own political interests and ambitions ahead of the public safety and national security of the united states. they do it frequently and it is appalling and offensive. >> what about sang ware cities? -- sanctuary cities? josh: again, i've said this before too but the fact is, as a part of the package of executive actions that the president announced back in november, was the creation of the priority enforcement program. and this does significantly improve the ability of the federal government and federal law enforcement agencies to cooperate with local law enforcement agencies to make sure that we are focusing our investigative and law enforcement resources on criminals. and on those who pose a threat to communities. and again that is something that the president had to do because

commonsense reforms were blocked by republicans in the house of representatives. so again, that's where the president's priority lies. and we're going to continue to urge congress to take that commonsense step as that is clearly in the best interest of our economy, it would reduce the deficit, it would have a positive impact on public safety. but in the minds of house republicans, i guess their own political and personal interests trumps all that. >> for possible bipartisanship treasury secretary lew was talking about working with paul ryan on international tax reform to help pay for highway funding. are those new negotiations or have they been going on for a while? and does the white house put a timeline or any direction on those talks? josh: the white house officials and the secretary, principally have been engaged in conversation for quite some time

with house republicans about the possibility of pursuing tax reform. the idea that the administration has focused on is that -- is the idea of using some element of tax reform to close loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and well connected an -- and use the revenue generated by those loophole closings to invest in things that benefit us all. it would have a positive impact on economic growth and job creation that is a principle that this administration has strongly advocated for. we've also put forward a detailed proposal for making progress in that area. republicans have not signed on to that proposal unsurprisingly. but there has been an indication from some republicans that at least in principle, at least the concept of closing some tax loopholes and using revenue to invest in infrastructure is something they have indicated an openness to at least considering. that's been the foundation of conversations between democrats

and republicans on capitol hill but also between republican leaders in congress and senior economic officials in the administration. >> then you're not seeing like a breakthrough today by any stretch? josh: unfortunately, no breakthroughs to announce today. if i did, i would be doing it. margaret. >> we know the iran deadline july 13. is there any expectation on the president's part that anything could happen between now and july 13 and how is that shaping his weekend? in other words, can you give us any readout on how he'll be checking in on iran? is he getting calls from foreign leaders or is he leaving everyone alone until something jells? josh: i'm not aware of any calls with foreign leaders related to this particular matter that are already on the president's schedule for the weekend.

i would anticipate that over the course of the weekend, the president will continue to be regularly updated by his national security team and possibly even directly by the team that's leading the negotiations out in vienna. but that's the way that this process has been functions -- functioning over the last several days and will continue into the weekend. >> will he get a daily update or what? josh: he'll get at least a daily update, i don't know if it will require him stepping into the situation room or not. >> is there any doubt in the president's mind that hillary clinton will be a strong supporter of the iran deal? is it a situation like trade where she had the political breathing room to say nothing, or do you think because it's foreign policy and was secretary of state that she is firmly in the public support camp, and do you consider her a validator? josh: i'd point you to her

public comments after the lausanne agreement was announced, when she spoke supportively of ongoing diplomatic efforts. i think like everyone else secretary clinton will have an opportunity to evaluate a final agreement if one is reached and will make a final decision about whether or not to support it. >> on the national monuments was senator harry reid the driving force behind the national monument being named in nevada? josh: senator reid has spoken publicly about his affinity for this particular area of the nevada desert. he's been an important advocate for that particular piece of property. and the president was pleased that he was able to use his executive authority to ensure that that important space could be preserved for future

generations of americans to enjoy. >> is there politics at play in this? josh: i recognize the instinct to conclude that everything that happens within the capital beltway is influenced by politics in one way or another but i think in this case, both senator reid and president obama recognize the significance of this piece of land and recognized how important it would be to ensure it could be protected and preserved for future generations of americans to enjoy. >> i know you haven't been able to discuss specifically how much the o.p.m. hack will cost but when director archuleta was before the hill, she talked about the need this year for a supplemental to cover a couple of costs. new software and whatever it would take to pay for some of the things raised in this breach. to what degree did the reaction on capitol hill yesterday which included many republicans and at least one prominent democrat calling for her to be fired influence the administration's calculations about the ability

to get the money you're going to need to address this problem and director archuleta's ability to get that as an advocate for the administration? josh: major, i guess you raise an interesting point. i guess we can all sit here and hope that the passion and zeal on display by some member of congress, mostly republicans, as it relates to the livelihood of the director of office of personnel and management, will be on display when it comes to protecting the identity of about 22 million americans. and if that requires additional resources, both to protect the system or to ensure that these individuals can be afforded the identity theft protection and credit monitoring that they should get, then we'll certainly look forward to the strong bipartisan support it should have. >> would the president or director come to the conclusion that it would be much harder if

not impossible to have those conversations if she remained at the head of the o.p.m.? josh: i'm not aware of discussion along those lines. >> the president is expected to deliver a speech on tuesday in philadelphia to the naacp. considering the context of the moment, can you suggest to us what the president, will he have a new message in a same way? josh: the president will focus on the need to reform and improve america's criminal justice system. at the naacp convention in philadelphia, he'll outline the unfairness in much of our criminal justice system, highlight bipartisan ideas for reform and lay out his ideas to make our country fairer, smarter and more cost effective. on wednesday, the president will

travel to the choctaw nation of oklahoma to deliver remarks about expanding economic opportunity for everybody. the president will continue his focus on criminal justice reform on thursday by making the first visit by a sitting u.s. president to a federal prison, the el reno prison outside of oklahoma city. while there, the president will meet with law enforcement officials and inmates and conduct an interview with vice for a documentary that will air in fall about the realities of the criminal justice system. that will be the focus of the president's public events next week and the speech at the naacp will be a focal point. >> that will be less about racial issues in the country the last two or three years and much more about the specific issue this policy issue of criminal justice? josh: criminal justice reform will be the focus. >> what are the administration's attitudes so far based on what it's heard in the last 48 hours

between the european union and greece? you indicated earlier this week you thought there might be a landing spot. what's the assessment? josh: at this point we have seen and welcomed the proposal that was put on the table by greece. it is something that's currently being considered by their creditors. we have said for quite some time now that the solution or the resolution to greece's financial challenges is a package of reforms and financing that will put greece back on the path of economic growth and sustainability. doing so would allow greece to remain part of europe's currency union and that's something we believe is -- or that the greek's have articulated -- >> i'm just trying to get your sense of what you think? josh: this will be something for greece and their creditors to evaluate. and we are just pleased to see

that -- we're pleased to see that greece has take the step of putting forward a specific proposal. it's one their creditors have to evaluate. >> on your discussion of the president's appearance, "the washington post" is reporting on thursday the president will commute the sentences of dozens of nonviolent offenders to call attention to his desire to see those with drug convictions and others be part of criminal justice reform. can you confirm he'll do that on thursday and how that decision will help get the reforms out of congress that he seeks rather than his critics saying he's doing something under his own authority without consulting them? josh: i don't have the additional information about next week to share at this point. i can say as a general matter,

the president has used his executive authority previously to commute the sentences of nonviolent offenders and i certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that he would use that kind of authority in the future. but i guess -- let me finish by saying that that is certainly not a replacement for the kind of broad-based criminal justice reform that the president believes is necessary and that enjoys some bipartisan support on capitol hill. and the president is committed to working in bipartisan fashion to make progress on legislation that would do far more to bring fairness, more fairness and more justice to our criminal justice system than the president can do on his own. >> can you comment on the response to this, it's been reported they have lots of details. you can't comment on this? you know the answers. josh: well, i'm certainly not

going to make any announcements about the exercise of presidential authority prior to the president making a decision to exercise that authority. >> that's never happened before? josh: i don't know if it's happened before but it's not going to happen in this instance. >> josh, let me -- even on my colleague's last day you didn't really answer his question. [laughter] >> use me however you want. [laughter] >> let me try one more time. with 22 million people who have had their identities compromised and some of the other americans who are interested in this, that the white house tell them whether or not they believe this was a failure in management. josh: jim, i think what it exposes is that there are

significant challenges that are faced, not just by the federal government but by private sector entities as well. this is something that large organizations that maintain large computer networks are continually trying to address to and that is the ever evolvingthat is the ever evolving threat in cyberspace. this is a priority the president has discussed as a priority even on those occasions when it is not landing on the front page of every newspaper. that is an indication the president recognizes how important it is and recognizes that this is a challenge. >> as this has not happened would you still be the director of opm? this is in reaction to a failure in management. josh: the office of personnel management is facing a set of

urgent challenges that require a manager with a specialized set of skills and experiences. there is no doubt about that. at the same time, one of the first things the director archul eta did as they -- the office of personal management is start up grading. it is a result of those reforms that she put in place that this breach was detected in the first place. again, given the urgent challenges they are facing right now, it is clear that a manager with a specialized set of skills and experiences is needed. those are conveniently enough, the skills and experiences that she brings to the job. we will need a permanent replacement and that is something we will start working on today. >> on iran, the iranians seem to be saying --

josh: [inaudible] >> the iranians seem to be saying that the allies p-5 plus one are not united in their request to iran;. i know you do not want to get into details but can you tell us if there is one message coming from this group to the iranians or are there different contingencies and constituencies in this negotiating group? josh: let me answer that in a couple of ways. i do not think we are talking about when it comes to the i-5 plus one, we are talking about six different entities. the european union and several other countries. these are sovereign countries that are in view. i will point out that these negotiations would not have reached this point whether not

solid unity among the u.s. and our international partners. this is the kind of unity and unanimity of opinion that did not exist when president obama took office. you recall in early 2009, iran was on the march and making significant progress toward developing a nuclear weapon and the international community was fractured in their response, was flummoxed in terms of how to confront this urgent challenge. it is because of the leadership of the president that the international community has been united, united in imposing sanctions against iran that compelled them to the negotiating table, that halted iran's nuclear program and rolled it back in some key areas and had made significant progress in trying to reach a diplomatic agreement that would shut down every single pathway

that iran has to a nuclear weapon and get iran to cooperate with a set of inspections that would verify their comply meant -- compliance with the agreement. that is an indication of how far we have come. and a lot of that progress, not all of it is attributable to the leadership of the president of the united states. >> back to opm for a minute. who is in charge of making sure this does not happen? josh: there are a couple of omb initiatives that are charged with doing that. the first is what i think they are calling their cyber-sprint. this is the effort to rapidly reassess the cyber security at federal agencies across the administration. this is where they are considering offering -- authentication verification.

this is where they're considering the privileged user thing i was talking about with julie, making sure they're limiting the number of privileged users and limiting the capability of those users where appropriate, monitoring activities of those privileged users to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. those kinds of commonsense steps are the kinds of things the o.m.b. is leading a review to determine where those kinds of steps have not yet been implemented and holding agencies accountable for implementing them in short order. there's also a broader, 90-day report being convened by o.m.b. again the department -- the director of national and -- intelligence and the office of personnel management are involved in the broader, 90-kay review. they're being aided by a range of law enforcement agencies to take a broader look at a range of key policy questions that relate to information security and cybersecurity. again, that's an indication that this is a priority. the other indication i can give you is the fact that, or one example, one illustration of how

this is a priority is that at the previous cabinet meeting convened by the president of the united states, cybersecurity was at the top of the agenda. this is an issue that was extensively discussed where o.m.b. talked about how they would work with d.h.s. to make sure that all the cabinet agencies were meeting their goals and were meeting deadlines when it came to, or when it comes to implementing these commonsense reforms that are critical to securing the federal, the computer networks of the federal government. >> all these things you talk about are just in process which isn't very comforting to people who work with the federal government and see what happens to these employees, so why should they be assured? josh: because i think the other thing that we have to acknowledge and the other thing that has to be recognized here is that the technology that we're talking about is ever-evolving. it actually evolves really quickly. we need to make sure our defenses are always adapting to

those challenges. that's why there's never going to be a time when anybody is going to come up here and stand at the podium and say our work on cybersecurity is finished. the day we do that we'll probably be the most vulnerable federal government networks would be. because we know our adversaries are determined, they're create i, they're innovating and capitalizing on developments to seek out and exploit new vulnerabilities. >> it almost sounds leek you feel we can't keep up? josh: no, what i'm suggesting is we have to work hard to keep up. right now there's plenty of evidence to indicate that there's a lot more work to be done to keep up. >> there are a lot of proposals out there by the federal government but the region senators, virginia, maryland eleanor holmes norton is here are proposing far beyond what was proposed yesterday, three years of monitoring that there be a lifetime of honor -- of monitoring of identity protection, and $5 million in identity theft insurance. is that something the president would get behind?

josh: we have not taken a close look at that proposal as of yet. obviously at o.p.m. they are developing the suite of identity theft protection and credit monitoring services that could be provided to those individuals whose information may have been breached. or compromised. but at this point, that's something they're still working to develop. we'll obviously consider the proposal that has been put forward to congress. >> the president of the national federation of federal employees has expressed concern that the original breach, which was 4.2 million people, that the government was already struggling to keep up with that and expressed his worries that how could they possibly then keep up with something that's nearly five times as big? will there be anything that goes out officially between now and the time you're able to identify exactly who all the people are and get those letters out advising federal workers what's going on, what you're doing, how

this will all unfold? josh: there is a website that's already been established. i believe it's at opm.gov/cybersecurity. this is where individuals who believe they may have had their data compromised, individuals who may have applied far background check. these -- that information about what steps they can take right now is information that o.p.m. has made available. but there will be additional communications that will be shared with those individuals once we have more information at our fingertips and have more granular knowledge we can then use to determine who exactly is at risk and make sure they get the information and protection they need. >> finally, given what's happened, i realize it's very soon after this was announced, it's only be been a few days the president has had this, but has there been any discussion of something beyond o.m.b.,

something that's a particular person, like the buck stops here, who is in charge of federal government cybersecurity? josh: this has been a challenge in a lot of ways. this is the essence of another debate that is on going and not moving fast enough in congress. one of the challenges in confronting cybersecurity vulnerabilities is the seam that exists between private sector computer security professionals and law enforcement and national security professionals in the public sector. one of the most important things we can do to improve cybersecurity both in the public and private sector is to streamline communication between law enforcement and national security officials and leaders in the private sector. the president put forward very specific legislation to congress more than six months ago that the congress hasn't passed yet.

this should not be something that gets bogged down in partisan politics. this should be a place where democrats and republicans should be able to work together and we haven't seen congress do that yet in a way that's brought a bill to the president's desk. so that's certainly one way we could address one of the themes you've identified. the other thing the administration has sought to do is to try to benefit from the extensive capabilities and knowledge that exists in the private sector. and we have seen a number of computer security experts join the federal government to try to lend a hand not just to this effort that's under way at o.p.m. but also to address some of the broader policy challenges that exist across the federal government and we certainly are going to do everything we can to continue to ebb sure that those individuals have an opportunity to serve their country and serve in the federal government and help us confront this very significant challenge. >> since you brought up congress, let me ask a react i question, i was looking at the o.p.m. i.c. report from last month, there are a lot of things

they're develop, they're in process of. among the findings, o.p.m. didn't maintain a comprehensive inventory of servers. how did it get to this point? josh: i guess for an update in terms of where they are, i'd refer you to o.p.m. the other challenge that director archuleta acknowledged at the beginning of her service is that the office of personnel management had to maintain a lot of legacy systems. these in some cases were even outdated computer networks. and securing them against modern threats is a significant challenge. and i do think it raises questions about proper levels of funding. it raises questions about something we've discussed in this room before, which is the procurement system that's in place when the government purchases information technology.

that sometimes the cumbersome system of government i.t. procurement leads to such a protected process that by the time the purchase is made the software being purchased is, if not obsolete, at least out of date. and trying to reform and improve those systems and make them more efficient is something that beth culvert has been working on at o.m.b. i think that makes her a good choice to be acting direct or of -- director of o.p.m. but it's clear there are significant challenges and despite the intense focus and expertise being leveraged to address the situation, i don't expect that this is a situation that will be resolved -- resolved next week or next month. these are longer-term challenges that require sustained focus and we're certainly mindful of not just how big the challenge is right now but also as i was saying earlier, we're mindful of how this is a threat that's continually evolving. it's going to require an adaptive process to make sure

we're doing everything necessity -- necessity to safeguard our computer system. >> staying on opm for second. is it apple store just to come here culvert to archuleta question? did archuleta lack a specific set of skills and experiences and if she did, why was she in the jump to begin with especially if culvert seems to have the skills and experiences? josh: there are significant and urgent challenges that require a manager with a set of specialized skills and experiences like those skills and experiences that ms. culvert has. the fact that director archuleta was an effective director of opm

because she did strengthen the use of evidence-based practices and data to drive human capital strategies, she led development of place looks ability programs, she prioritized their health care of federal government employees, she developed and fermented strategies to include -- increased diversity and even though she does not have a particular expertise when it comes to cyber security, she did commence a review of cyber security and the publication of cyber security reforms that opm that led to the eventual detection of the intrusion that we are now discussing. again, the president accepted the directors resignation today and decided that ms. colbert -- culvert is the person to lead the office of personnel management. that should not diminish the service of director archuleta.

she came to the white house and offered her resignation in person this morning. >> is there a mechanism for a country or group of actors that did reach the opm? josh: for a long time, this is a significant policy question. there were concerns that had been raised that there was not an effective mechanism for responding to these kinds of incidents. because the executive action the president announced he designated authority to the secretary of treasury to impose financial sanctions against individuals or entities that carry out nefarious cyber activity or benefit from it. that does mean the president and the secretary of treasury do have new tools they can use to either respond to these incidents and to make clear how seriously the u.s. considers these kinds of breaches.

that said, i do not want to suggest that there is anything in the works to prepare that kind of response to this particular situation. as we talked about in this room as it relates to other situations, we also often do not talk about in advance about the possible use of financial sanctions. principally because it could allow the individuals or entities that are being sanctioned to take steps that would allow them to evade that county. i do not want to speculate possible responses but it is true that the president and the secretary of the treasury now have new authorities they can use to respond to these kinds of situations because of the executive actions the president announced. >> on the naacp speech, is the president of the opinion that restoring voting rights for felons is a good idea? josh: this is something that will be discussed in the context

of criminal justice reform and there is a strong argument that some have made about how once an individual has paid their debt to society that those voting rights should be restored. i know there are -- there is bipartisan support for policy like that. >> that is something the president would -- support? josh: we cancer only get an answer on that. >> russia is the biggest threat to the u.s. and -- in his opinion and this is a man who you said yesterday obviously spent a lot of time thinking about these issues. he also said it is not necessarily conclusive among national six became that they feel the same way but i am curious even his experience and given the trust the president has placed in him and the belief in his skill set, doesn't not make sense that his opinion carries a great deal of weight and the president should consider it strongly. josh: the president certainly

will. we're hopeful that placed -- taste on general dunford's years of experience and his extensive experience that he will be confirmed in bipartisan fashion by the u.s. senate and once general dunford joins the team if he is confirmed i am confident that his views and opinions and insight inexperience will factor heavily in the president's decision making when it comes to national security. the president has other distinguished members that have opinions that are worth listening to. >> you knew that mitt romney agreed that russia is the number one threat. was mitt right, or was the general wrong? josh: you would have to ask them. as i mentioned yesterday, i am not aware of any sort of specific or comprehensive

analysis that has been done by the president's national security team that arrived at that conclusion but obviously, when dealing with russia particularly in the last couple of years since the election when we have seen russia start to ramp up destabilizing activities in ukraine, we have been mindful about the threat and the president has laid an important leading role in presenting a united up front in confronting russia for their destabilizing activities. >> following up on kevin's question on opm, when do you expect ms. culvert will accomplish your goal? josh: she will be responsible for implementing many of the reforms that opm has announced in the last couple of days. i referred to opm for a more apprehensive set of those reforms. there is an effort underway at opm to draw on experts inside

the federal government but also security experts outside the federal government. as a management expert, i would expect she would be well-positioned to bring that expertise from a variety of sources together. to focus it on the significant challenges that are being a spy opm right now and trying to move out quickly to implement many of the reforms that they suggest. >> the press secretary said opm does not have a contractor -- [indiscernible] that they promised to the individual [indiscernible] have they found one yet? josh: the information i have this morning is the latest as well. once they have entered into a

contract this they will begin the steps of notifying individuals of the protections that are available to them. i am sure will have conversation with all of you about that as well. >> is the white house concerned they do not yet have a contractor for these 21 million people are smart -- 21 million people? josh: i will give you the last one and we will go to the week ahead. >> can you tell us what is the president thinking at this time on what does he believe the consequences will be of no final deal is reached at this stage estimate him-- -- this stage? josh: as it relates to the iran talks, i will not speculate about possible outcomes at this point. one thing i will remind you is the administration has indicated that all the options remain on the table for ensuring that iran is not a attaining a nuclear

weapon. what we are pursuing is a diplomatic opportunity that exists. i do not have any scheduling announcements as it relates to the president's travel. i believe the embassy opening is scheduled for the third week in july. i do not have any scheduled updates. let's go to the week ahead and you can get sorted on your weekend. on monday, the president will deliver remarks on the conference on aging. the white house has held a conference on aging each decade to identify advance actions to improve the quality of life for older americans. this year marks the 50th anniversary of medicare, medicaid, and the older americans act as well as the 80th anniversary of social security. the conference is an opportunity to recognize the importance of

these key programs while bringing together older americans, caregivers government officials, members of the public, business leaders and community leaders to discuss the issues that will help escape -- shape the landscape for the older americans and explore policy solutions to address them. on tuesday the president will travel to philadelphia to deliver remarks at the naacp's 106th anniversary. and he will deliver the choctaw nation and deliver remarks on economic opportunity. he will spend the night in oklahoma. the president on thursday will continue his focus on criminal justice reform by making the first visit by a sitting president to a federal present. the el reno federal correctional institution located just outside oklahoma city. as i mentioned earlier, the

president will meet with law enforcement issues and inmates and conduct an interview for a vice documentary that will interview in the fall about the realities of the prison system. i would expect the president will return to washington on thursday night. the schedule is up in the air for friday but we will get you details by that -- on that by next week. >> [indiscernible] josh: have a great weekend. >> [indiscernible] josh: this friday and saturday? i do not have anything at this point. thank. have a good weekend. -- thanks. have a good weekend.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, a politics and eggs event. then today's ceremony in south carolina removing the confederate flag from the statehouse grounds. >> conservative poster and author of the [no audio] on the trends in technology, the millennial generation, and how the article parties are buying for this increasingly crucial voting block area >> when you take a look at where people's eyeballs are going these days, it used to be folks were focused on the television. advertising -- the technology has changed so now if you walk into a room not just of 20 euro -- 20 euros, but at 60 euros

they are looking at their phone. for folks in the political world who want to reach the next generation or reach into the future, understand with the future of political advertising will look like, things like candy crush or whatever the latest game is, candy crush may be fading in popularity but there is always something new that is popping up. finding ways to get your message in front of people where they are paying attention is really important. >> sunday night at eight eastern and specific on c-span's "q&a." >> former hewlett packard ceo and current gop presidential candidate carly fiorina spoke monday at a town hall at turbo jam international and barrington, new hampshire. the event was announced by the stafford county republican committee. she made her marks before taking questions from the audience. this is about 45 minutes. [applause]

ms. fiorina: thank you so much. thank you for that warm welcome. thank you so much for that warm welcome. it is great to be back in new hampshire. did everybody have a great fourth of july holiday? great. it is always good to pause and think about the truly extraordinary nature of this great nation which is why you are all here. it is why i am running for president. i got a little bit of time off with my family on the beach which was wonderful. so we spent it, my husband with my daughter and son-in-law and two granddaughters. every, look at the two of them i -- he reminds me why i am doing this. before i get into all of that, i want to tell you some think special about the young woman who introduced me.

how wonderful to have a young woman like that say that she admires and respects me, that gives me a lot of energy and motivation. one of the things may be that this community should know about abigail is she lost her mother last night from pancreatic cancer. so please keep her and her mother in your prayers. but how extraordinary that this young woman would be out here today and when she came up to me to have her photo taken, she said, i'm going to help you, so god bless you, abigail. [applause] i lost my mother -- 17 years ago now. but there is not a day that goes by that i do not think about my mom. i think about what she said to

me when i was a years old. one sunday morning, she looked at me with that look that mothers sometimes get and she said, what you are is god's gift to you. what you make of yourself is your gift to god. those words have stayed with me every day of my life since. they seemed at that young age like a promise because i did not feel very gifted. as a young girl or a young woman. everyone else seemed more together more just with it than i was. but they also seem like a challenge to me that i needed to find my god-given gifts and i needed to use them. no matter where i have been in the world, i have learned over and over and over again whether it was in my business work or my charitable work or even my policy or political work, i have learned over and over again that everyone has god-given gifts. everyone has potential