coming up shortly on c-span, we will take you to the american legion national convention, a live look at cincinnati and hillary clinton will be speaking to the group shortly, talking about american exceptionalism, arguing that donald trump has rejected the concept. donald trump will speak to the group tomorrow beginning at 9:00 eastern on c-span two. we take you back live to cincinnati, when that gets underway. a look at a tweet from a political analyst for abc, talking about -- we spoke with new york times media columnist tim rutenberg about the issue of the campaign press and access to the candidates. plane rides and president of

transparency, the story available online by media columnist jim rutenberg who is joining us from new york. thank you very much for being with us. for those in the media, some alarming parallels between the access we are getting or not from the clinton and trump campaigns. what did you learn? >> the thing i found surprising is that neither candidate is having the press on his or her airplane. this surprised me with mrs. clinton because she is running a much more traditional campaign. mr. trump is flying his own plane, that either way, this robs the public of glimpses of these candidates and more importantly, because some people say we don't care, it is allstate, which i don't necessarily agree with, it is symbolic of their approach to the press, which can be very mr. trump hasnd

been a bit more accessible in terms of interviews and interacting, so this is kind of -- the onus of the column fell more on mrs. clinton. >> do you think this is more of what we can expect in a clinton or trump white house? >> absolutely. mrs.nk the signals from clinton's camp are even more alarming. mr. trump has done some horrible things in terms of things like media black or making it easier to sue reporters but again, you know what is happening in his campaign, you understand what he is thinking as much as you can follow his thinking. in mrs. clinton's case, she is very guarded and the e-mail server story that we have all been so closely following is not some very sensitive

national security documents, it started with an attempt to take certain e-mails out of the searchable public records, so that is more important or as important as the e-mail schedule -- scandal. >> one of the analogies you put into your piece, 1964, the campaign by barry goldwater. is that a fair comparison? >> here is a candidate who famously fought with the press and made them a talking point, yet he had them on his plane and came to like them. if you go back, and read the coverage of these campaigns and what thewho was -- atmosphere around the candidates were like and in mrs. clinton's case, this is a historic run, the first woman nominated by a major party, and we don't know

what the vibe is around her when she loses in michigan or any other challenges that come along. i think it robs the story of some important human details. >> you add in your column that this is about openness and accessibility. november 1963, the ap reporter on board air force one when vice president lyndon johnson was sworn in after the assassination of john of energy. more recently, when air force one became a flying bunker as president george w. bush traveled from florida to various parts of the country before returning to d.c. with reporters on board. what is your take away in all of this? >> some people taken issue with me, but you have two historic candidacies and moments when you want the press to be there. esu don't want to rely on aid in family, not to denigrate

them, that they have loyalties and are also paid, in some cases. you want some objective narrators. unfortunately, you have the accusation that the press can't the objective anymore -- can't be objective anymore. >> when you reach out to the trump or clinton campaigns, what do they tell you? campaignump communicated with me, but they did not have anything to say about the plane. the clinton campaign has told reporters that it will have them on the plane after labor day, very late in this process. otherwise, they don't provide a wide. -- a why.

they say she has been a lot of interviews, that part of this column is that she has not that a press conference in nine months. maybe some people would agree with her, but by historical standards, she is not out there as much as any other candidate before her. >> this is a story that we in the media talk about, do you sense that the public cares about this and if not, should they? don't,ink they probably and they see it as harping as see it as-- from -- harping from reporters, but what they will find is they will miss us when were gone, that it's not about us, it's about the information we get and you want to know that your presidential candidate is being transparent, that democracy is working.

whether you care about us is besides the point. why do you think that trump and the clinton campaigns both have been so reticent to allow reporters on the plane or also make a candidate available to the press? >> two things at play. in mr. trump's case, his airplane has probably been his own home for years. he probably does not want a ton of press traipsing in where he is used to having a private sais -- private space. i say too bad, get a traditional campaign plane. in mr. -- in mrs. clinton's case, there has been an arms length relationship with the press for some time and while that has always been the case, when she ran eight years ago, she had reporters on her plane and there was much more interaction. i think she has gotten hunkered in and sees some strategic and

if it that she hopes her run against mr. trump, when he is out there so much, kind of let him flail around, but that said, the public's right to know should not be second to and that imperative might apply more when she -- if and when she wins the item -- what if and when she wins the white house. thank you very much for being with us. we are alive now at the american legion national convention in cincinnati. hillary will be speaking very shortly. donald trump will address the group, tomorrow morning. we will have live coverage of that at 9:00 eastern on c-span two. here on c-span, live coverage of hillary clinton at the american legion.

will you press says she use her first appearance in days to portray horton -- her someone whoival as has explicitly rejected the idea of american exceptionalism. we will have live coverage on c-span. in the meantime, a 50 year look back at national security since 9/11 from today's washington journal. host: our weekly spotlight on i segment and we are looking at a recent these in the atlantic magazine, taking a look at the aftermath of september 11 and efforts to keep the united states safe, is america any safer? and the author joining us from new york, good morning. guest: good morning. what made you asked the question? guest: i had been a media event back inguest: 2003 and had gone on to writing about other subjects and doing in the things since then, and is the 15th

anniversary approached a year ago, i started to think i wonder what has happened and i wonder what we have done and how would you tally the score on how much money we have spent, did we spend it wisely, did we waste money, what are our vulnerabilities, still and i approached the atlantic with this idea for a massive project to take a real look, 15 years later at what we have done and where we are. host: how would you assess where we are, today? guest: we are a lot stronger. we did a tremendous amount sense, to change our security posture from what it was on september 10, 2001. we have done a lot to batten down the hatches. threat news is that the

multiplied and changed. while our defenses are stronger, the potential offenses are even stronger. in particular, we've gotten pretty good at being able to connect the dots intelligence wise and detect the kind of orchestrated carefully planned multiparty attack that was the september 11 attack. we are pretty good at finding out that kind of stuff. well that has been going on, as you know, we have suffered a new kind of threat from so called lone wolves or small groups and even homegrown terrorists who don't have to reach -- breach our borders to do us harm because they are already here. that is much harder to defense again -- defend against, especially in a country where pretty much anywhere can go into

a store and find attack rifle -- and by an attack rifle -- buy an attack rifle or come by the firepower that is reserved for police and military in other if you have lone wolves inspired by other terrorist groups or are so disappointed that they want to make their mark in the world, if you have the availability of weapons and if you have people who aren't deterred about the prospect of death, those kinds of threats are very difficult to prevent. if you want to ask our guest questions about the security of the united states, republicans,1 for (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8002 for

independents. the war in iraq was supposedly a response to the 9/11 attacks and a response to threats of terror, which it was not. overobably spent something $1 trillion. some of it was very well spent. basicallyon of it was poured down the sinkhole, wasted on technology the government contractors in washington promised would be infallible and never worked at all. we spent billions of dollars on a border security system that boeing sold the government, that had to be taken out because it just did not work. alarms and sensors on towers all across the southern border, and they sent out alarms when mosquitoes flew over the border.

the could not see downhill, whole thing was just a total fiasco, almost a comedy except it was very expensive. host: as far as money well spent, could you give us an example? we did a good job of preventing exactly the kind of attack that happened on 9/11. we have a much better trained security force at the airport, as much as we like to ridicule them. we fortified all the cockpits on airliners so even if somebody gets on a plane, they can't get access to the cockpit the way they did on september 11. we have installed a lot of good sohnology at our ports various potential threats such as radiological materials imports -- in ports can be detected.

we spent some very good money for homeland security in our major cities. on september 10, we were the kind of country where a natural gas pipeline was pretty much completely exposed on the west side of manhattan where it was running from the midwest of to new england, and it came up in this place on the west side of with minornd anybody explosives could upset the whole thing off. there are hundreds of thousands of incident -- instances of vulnerabilities like this that we spent money to really fix. the train tunnels running under the hudson river to take another thatle, were so exposed

basically somebody with a backpack bomb getting on a train could have caused much more depth and distraction under the hudson river then the hijackers the hijackersn on 9/11. of tens oftory thousands of real heroes in the department of homeland security and the fbi and our local law enforcement agencies, now working together to make us a lot safer than we were on september 10. it's also a story of a lot of wasted money and effort and political posturing. host: 15 years later, are we any safer? we are taking your calls on this topic. harry from missouri, independent line. hello.

are we safer? definitely not in the reason is because i have been fighting with the nra's 1976 over assault weapons with extended magazines. might only by those magazines give those an senate magazines to the military instead of buying them? we are wasting money, trying to throw dollars added to put band-aids on things. if you talk to law enforcement officials, homeland security officials, republicans and democrats, they pretty much agree that it is a suicide pact. it is insane to allow people, even people on a terrorist watch list do have access uniquely in this country, easy access to assault weapons.

were are lots of things that can't prevent, but one of the things we can do is if somebody is inspired by isis or is just plain crazy, and wants to go into a school or a shopping mall or church and shoot people, at only make it so that they kill six people before law enforcement gets there as opposed to 30 or 70 or 200. ohio, lead,olumbus, democrat line -- lee, democrats line. caller: a simple question. in your opinion, or would you comment on, with this be a safer country if we were able to institute, it would be a rebate program where folks can turn in weapons, couple that with

registration of weapons, focus on removing assault weapons from the hands of the population? is it in your opinion, doable? guest: australia did it to give you an example. various cities across the country have done it at various times, turning programs -- turn in programs. we are not the only country -- we are now the only country in this -- in the world that allows this kind of access to assault weapons. the nra has fought restrictions on armor piercing bullets, whose sole purpose is to penetrate bullet-proof vests one by police officers. what is the hunting value of an armor piercing bowling -- armor piercing bullet?

thing toelatively easy do compared to the other challenges of homeland security, such as dealing with dirty bombs, radiological weapons, bioterror. this is something we could do that does not cost much money and is fairly straightforward. host: one of the obvious things we saw stemming from 9/11 was the creation of the department of homeland security. how is it going now? guest: it was a logical thing to respects, to give you the most obvious example of the logic. it used to be that when you arrived at the airport, if you are flying into the united states, you are greeted and inspected at the airport by an immigration and nationalization service person to make sure that you as a person were allowed in and by a customs officer to make

sure the materials you were bringing into the united states were ok. merging immigration and customs at the airport into one agency, with one officer doing that makes sense. theade sense to take various agencies responsible for various aspects of homeland security, and also recovery from a disaster. it made sense to put them together. the bad thing is you created such a large agency that it has proven difficult if not person to for any one run that agency and manage it in a responsible, efficient way. we had a steady improvement. , my impression from all the reporting i did is that he is really focused on good

management, efficient management, and he seems to be having a good effect, but there is no mistaking the fact that this is a massive bureaucracy, there are all kinds of problems with a bureaucracy like this, but i think they have been making progress in the 13 years that it has existed. host: how many agencies are under dhs, now? or 23, which is indicative of how hard it is to manage this debate. maryland,ict heights, independent line. claim theyublicans want smaller government thing create the department of homeland security. what terrorist attacks have they stopped?

i will answer that, none. 13 of the 19 hijackers were in saudi arabia. this is why i think terrorism is a joke. 13 of the attackers were from saudi arabia and we have not dropped one bomb on them. i guess if you have oil, it's ok for you to have terrorist. if you have oil to give us, it's ok for you to have terrorists. we are only interested in countries we claim have terrorist that don't want to give us their oil. we have the audacity to be another sees labeling their citizens terrorists. the only country they can get away with doing something so stupid. this war on terrorism -- it is starting to spread internally. we have cops treating black people like we are isis. guest: i don't agree with a single person that caller said -- with a single caller -- a

single thing that caller said. i feel unsafe, especially against foreign and domestic. the only reason why, not too long ago, we had a shooting in new jersey at a wall law -- at a wawa. little girl from camden got shot in the head. you just feel unsafe. you are afraid to go anywhere. someone on twitter referenced something about a point you made earlier. how flexible is homeland security? can they quickly adapt? guest: it is a combination of agencies. homeland security is much more engaged in sort of the nitty-gritty work of seeing who is coming in at the airports,

the fbi is charged primarily with preventing an actual attack and as i go into great detail in the article, they have adapted really radically and quite successfully, since 9/11. once a 10th, 2010, the fbi went to the attorney general and said we need more money to fight terrorism and ashcroft turn them down. 10,fbi itself on september 2011, literally that day, briefed members of congress and said if the current prime was from animal rights activists. a turnaround in posture and positioning since 9/11 has been

absolute. they have radically increased the size of the fbi and more important, devoted lots of people and resources to intelligence analysis, to connecting dots, the fbi, the cia and the department of homeland security, constantly sharing intelligence information sharinglly important, and exchanging with local law enforcement. adaptability and flexibility is there, having said that, there is a natural inclination among homeland security people and politicians to fight the last war. in other words, whatever is currently in the headlines is what the politicians and members

of congress put pressure on the home and security people to worry about. the example a given the article is right after 9/11, the week after, there were the amtrak attacks were someone mailed anthrax in an envelope to several media offices and members of the senate. several people died. at that moment, bioterrorism was the watchword of the day. we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on biosensors to deploy in cities around the country. we never perfected the technology. it does not work. down, weheadlines died kept the biosensors. they are still out there in washington and new york and across the country. the consensus is that they don't work, but 15 years later, we've

done nothing to improve the technology, even as we continue to spend $100 million a year maintaining the stuff that does not work and we don't hear anything about the threat of a bioterror attack because it is not in vogue. the department of homeland therity as i mentioned, officials were asked at a congressional hearing, which not a single member of the press attended. if that meeting had happened in 2001, it would have been standing room only. secretary of homeland security, they said how are you doing with this new technology that will actually work and you can detect the bio threat, and they said we are three to eight years away from a fix. this is 15 years later, saying we are eight years away from a fix because it is not in the headlines. if someone mails another anthrax

envelope to someone, today or someone sprinkles it on the we will somewhere, spend billions more to have that fixed by tomorrow. that is a real problem, so there is flexibility, responsiveness, but there is also a tendency to run after the next headline. soccer players who are untrained, everybody just runs at the ball and forgets the overall strategy and the overall game. host: stephen from connecticut, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. so much to talk about. i want to talk about a couple of examples. overclassification, and then the disconnect between domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence.

let's take on stuff like some of the newer stuff, the cell phone raids in paris, organized that took place in paris. an example of a+ work would be the osama bin laden raid. the why don't the academics have it? more domestic stuff, the a+ side is the response to boston, the lone wolf attack. i still do not see enough communication between these extreme ends of the u.s. intelligence. nobody is talking about the cell phone recordings. host: thanks. mr. brill? guest: yeah, i do not understand

the question. little bitlked a about information-sharing. after 9/11, there was a term called stove piping. lot towe have done a share information, and we have also done a lot to deal with the reality of the fact that terrorism is going to happen. and this is where the politics comes in. the republican party has attacked president obama for admitting that some terrorist attacks are going to happen, and therefore, as a responsible president, he has got to spend money and effort on mitigation, lessening the damage from an .ttack, and recovery so the department of homeland security, in recent years, has paid for a series of drills all

around the country, in various cities, to get all the local first responders, state, federal, city people, the fire department, police departments, ambulance drivers, to get them to have a coordinated plan in the event of a disaster. and they practice the plan. monthsappened, about six before the boston marathon bombing, the department of homeland security paid for exactly that kind of drill in boston. as a result of that, because they had worked out in advance what method they would use to disperse injured victims to various hospitals around boston, how they would deal with that and communicate with each other, they were able to get the injured from that bombing to hospitals so efficiently and so quickly when it actually happened, that miraculously

nobody died who did not die at the scene of the bombing. so that planning, that mitigation, is sort of unsung and does not make a lot of headlines. there are efforts like that being financed and practiced all over the country. but president obama has been attacked by republicans who say, well, if you talk about mitigation, you are throwing in the towel. the fact is that we have to talk about mitigation recovery, because the real reality is that president bush, who said right after 9/11, you know, never again, this will never happen in this country again, that is just not realistic. it is especially not realistic oran age with lone wolves small groups with access to weapons that can be inspired,

rather than diploid, from all over the world. -- rather than deployed. if we remember that the goal of terrorists is to scare us, scare is out of our way of life and to scare us into being against each other, to the extent that we are resilient when there is an attack, it foils their goal. host: louisville, kentucky, republican line. ann is up next for our guest. caller: hello, thank you. she said when i called, do you feel secure, and i said no. i don't. i think the united states is in terrible shape, and that is why i kind of want to go with trump, because he is going to try to beingome of this violence

brought into this country, and i think that is what is causing all the crime, so much drugs. it is even now starting in kentucky. i heard they were shipping truckloads in here. on the news, hearing that so many have died. it is terrible. going that clinton is not to do anything about it. at least trump said he would try. haven, you have got to faith in somebody, and at least he is going to try. and i hope he does. guest: let me just say, with all respect to the caller, if the topic is terrorism, in the article i wrote, i praise much of what president bush and his team did, the first secretary of homeland security, and i praised much of what president obama and his team have done.

but i must tell you that one of the areas in which both president bush and president obama deserve praise is they refused to take the bait and call terrorism a war against islam. they refused to call it that, and the reason they did was the terrorist's major goals, in their warped minds, with a -- what they want most of all is the great battle of civilization, of western so visually -- civilization fighting a crusade against the muslim world. that is the way they try to inspire people to join them. president bush never took that bait, and president obama never took that bait. but donald trump takes that bait a warday and makes this between us and the muslim world. mind, and i do not want to

get involved in presidential politics, but in my mind, he would be a great victory -- his victory would be a victory for the goals of isis, which is to have someone who is president of the united states that declares war against islam and insights more people to their side. host: you speak about a program in your piece called countering violent extremism. program and its proactive nature on these issues. guest: well, what the program is trying to do, it is nothing more and nothing less than trying to sort of get to people, particularly youngish people, before they sort of go over to the other side. to reach people who might be disillusioned, disaffected, might be tempted to yield to,

you know, the isis kind of thoseanda online, to find people with online messages of and to go into communities where those people might be and talk to their friends, their neighbors, their loved ones. say, you know, here is a way to reach these people. it sounds really squishy soft, and it is. it is the kind of thing where you cannot really gauge results, because you cannot tell what you have prevented. programll leave this now and take you to cincinnati. hillary clinton will be addressing the national convention of the american legion. ♪ afternoon.n: good

i am delighted to have this great honor of being here and having this opportunity to address you. i want to thank the national commander. thank you, commander barnett. i want to thank your executive director. i want to thank a longtime friend and advisor to me, someone whom i am very grateful to, and that is your national treasure. most of all, thanks to you, all the legionnaires here and across america. ourks for your service in armed services. you wore a uniform, took an

oath, put your life on the line to protect the greatest country on earth. [applause] clinton: some may argue with that, but not around me. joinedu came home, you the american legion, and by doing so, you kept serving. just look at what the legion does. you care for wounded warriors. the nextraise generation of american patriots. i want to give a special shout 's nation, which meant to so much to my husband when he was growing up. when i told him i was coming year today, he said, you have nation.ention boy's i told him i would, but i would also have to mention girl's nation, too. [applause]

mrs. clinton: i want to thank your auxiliary, the world's largest women's patriotic service organization. [cheers and applause] clinton: i was honored to receive the auxiliary's public and i award in 1987, have great admiration for the work you do. as the daughter of a veteran, as a proud american, i am grateful to you all. now i am not going to talk a lot about politics today, that i do want to say this -- whoever won'ta elects this fall just be our next president, that person will be our next commander-in-chief. and every person in this room understands how great a responsibility that is.

now i know some of you are democrats and some of you are republicans and some of you are -- i suppose there are some of you who have never voted for a democrat before. i get that. my dad was a rock ribbed republican, but i learned at our dinner table that we can disagree without being disagreeable. and -- [applause] mrs. clinton: i want you to know, if i am fortunate enough to win this election, i will be a president for democrats, republicans, independents, for people who vote for me, for people who don't, for all americans. that is what i think we need. we need to unify our country and go forward into the future with confidence and optimism. [applause]

today, i want you to know a little bit about where i stand and how i see the world and america's place in it. i spent four years as your secretary of state, eight years before that as senator from the , six state of new york years on the senate armed services committee. belief thatone core has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it is this -- united states is an exceptional nation. i believe we are still lincoln's of earth, still reagan's shining city on a hill, still robert kennedy's great, un

selfish, compassionate country. and it is not just that we have the greatest military or that our economy is larger than any on earth, it is also the strength of our values, the strength of the american people. everyone who works harder, dreams bigger, and never, ever stops trying to make our country and the world a better place. and part of what makes america an exceptional nation is that we are also an indispensable nation. in fact, we are the indispensable nation. people all over the world look to us and follow our lead. my friends, we are so lucky to be americans. it is an extraordinary blessing. it is why so many people from so many places want to be

americans, too. but it is also a serious responsibility. the decisions we make and the actions we take, even the actions we don't take, affect millions, even billions, of lives. you know that. you have seen it. now all of this may seem evident, especially to men and women who have worn the uniform. you may wonder how anyone could disagree. fact, my opponent in this race has said very clearly that he thinks american exceptionalism is insulting to the rest of the world. in fact, when vladimir putin, of all people, criticized american exceptionalism, my opponent agreed with him, saying,

areuring russia -- if you in russia, you do not want to hear that america is exceptional ." well, maybe you do not want to hear it, but that does not mean it is not true. my opponent misses something important. when we say america is exceptional, it does not mean that people from other places don't feel deep national pride, just like we do. it means that we recognize america's unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress, a champion for freedom and opportunity. our power comes with a responsibility to lead humbly, a fiercelly, and with commitment to our values. toause when america fails

lead, we leave a vacuum that either causes chaos for other countries -- or other countries or networks to fill the void. gets, no how hard it matter how great the challenge, america must lead. the question is how we lead, what kind of ideas, strategies, and tactics we bring to our leadership. american leadership means standing with our allies because our network of allies is part of what makes us exceptional. no other country in the world has alliances like ours. russia and china have nothing close. because with our allies generations of american troops fought and died to secure those bonds and because they deliver

for us everyday. our allies share intelligence on terrorists. they provide staging areas for respondtary so we can quickly to events on the other side of the world. other nations' soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines often fight side-by-side with ours. some of you may have served and fought alongside men and women from other countries. you saw them in action. you know how important these bonds are to our security. threatening to walk away from ignoring the, importance that they still are to us, is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

if i am your president, our ,riends will always know america will have your backs, and we expect you to have hours. american leadership means bringing the world together to solve global problems as only we can. united states build of international coalition against isis. now we are working with partners to take back territory and to feed them without getting drawn into a ground war. we brought the world together to oppose sanctions on iran and secure a deal that puts a lid on iran's nuclear program without firing a single shot. you don't build a coalition by insulting our friends or acting like a loose cannon. slowo it by putting in the hard work of building getting countries

working together was my job every day as your secretary of state. more than a photo op. it takes consistency and reliability. actually, it is just like building personal relationships. people have to get to know that they can count on you, that you won't say one thing one day and sending totally different the next, and it certainly takes more than trying to make up for a year of insults and insinuations by dropping in on our neighbors for a few hours and then flying home again. that is not how it works. american leadership means leading with our values, pursuant of our interests, and protection of our security. at our best, united states is the global force for freedom, justice, and human dignity.

we celebrate our diversity -- [applause] mrs. clinton: as a source of national strength. just look at our armed forces, which represents all races, and yes,, ethnicities, immigrants from other countries, all fighting for the red, white, and blue. we stand up to regimes that abuse human rights. we stand up for religious and ethnic minorities, for women, for people with disabilities. act with honor. there is no better proof of that than what our navy seals did during the raid that killed osama bin laden. [applause] clinton: i was deeply honored to be part of that small

group advising the president. i brought to those discussions my experience. as a senator from new york on 9/11 and my commitment to do whatever i could in whatever role i had to bring bin laden to justice. you have all seen the picture of us crowded into the smaller situation room watching a video screen. every second counted. copters ms. gauged gauged how high the wall was around the courtyard, clint the tales, getting disabled. it did not stop the seals from rushing out, getting into the compound, returning fire against bin laden's bodyguards, taking on his adult son, and finally bin laden himself. they hadeals knew that

to destroy the helicopter before they left. i was holding my breath through the entire operation. because at any time, pakistani soldiers could have arrived. this compound was in a military garrison city, actually the home of their military academy. so yes, every second counted. took the, our seals time to move the women and laden's family members, to safety before destroying the helicopter. .hat is what honor looks like that is america at our best. [applause] mrs. clinton: maybe the soldiers

of other nations would not have bothered or maybe they would h ave taken revenge on those family members of terrorists. but that is not who we are. and anyone who does not understand that does not understand what makes our nation great. and let me say something else about american greatness -- there is no question, we face real threats and real enemies that we need to confront and defeat. when hepponent is wrong says america is no longer great. consider the record of the past eight years. in 2009, our global economy was collapsing. osama bin laden was fronting.

we had more than 180,000 troops fighting two wars. iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon. allies were less supportive of american leadership than they had been in decades. look where we are now. we have pulled the global economy out of freefall thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the american people. we have redeployed well over 100,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan so they can go home, rest, and train for future contingencies. we cut off iran's path to a nuclear weapon. we convinced russia to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenal. israel,cted our ally

and we brought osama bin laden to justice. we americans did all of that, working together across party lines. and there is no question we have more work to do, but let's be clear -- we are stronger together, and it will be my goal, if i am fortunate enough to be your president, to bring tople back together again, set our goals and move forward to achieve them. [cheers and applause] know that we i cannot close yet to dictators. we have to stand up to them here at we cannot contain isis. we must defeat them, and we will . we will do whatever is necessary for as long as it takes to bring them to justice and end their r eign of terror once and for all. this election is about how to

make things better. make no mistake, i believe we do have better days ahead. but things could also get worse. if more countries get nuclear weapons, if we abandon our allies, if our commander-in-chief orders our military to break the laws and commit torture or murder terrorists' family members. that is why it is so critical we get this right. and let me underscore what i have said throughout this campaign -- we must only send our troops into harm's way as a last resort, not a first choice. that must be our bedrock principle. [applause] mrs. clinton: but we must be able to act decisively on our own when we need to.

i completely reject anyone, including my opponent, who calls the american military, and i quote, " a disaster." that is an insult to the men and women serving today and all who have served before and put their lives on the line. it is just not true. we do have more work to do to continue to have the strongest, most effective military in the world. i know this is something that matters a great deal to everyone in this room. and here is what we have to do. we cannot lose our military edge. that means giving the pentagon the stable, predictable funding it needs to make smart investments. you have heard -- [applause] mrs. clinton: you have heard of the sequester, the arbitrary caps congress has imposed on our

entire government for the past several years. cutting thell for fat out of the budget and making sure we stretch our dollars. i am proud of the fact that when my husband left office, we had a balanced budget and a surplus, and i hope that someday we can get back to doing that. but we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our military. that makes no sense at all. sequester makes our country less secure. budgetnd it and get a deal that supports america's military, our families, and our country. and let's make reform a priority so that the defense department spends its budget on the right things. and by the way, the last thing we need is a president who brings more name-calling and temper tantrums to washington. getting both parties actually to work together.

let's modernize our army, marines, navy, air force, coast guard. we need to respond to evolving threats from states like russia, .hina, iran, and north korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like isis. we need a military that is ready and agile to meet the full range of threats and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace area we will invest in new technologies, new breakthroughs that will transform our military. just as stealthy, precision weapons and advanced medications like they did in the past. towill make a renewed push reduce nuclear weapons because that does make us all safer, and towill step up efforts secure nuclear material around the world and stop terrorists from acquiring or using weapons

of mass destruction. one of the first things i will do as president is to call for a new nuclear posture with you -- review. we have to make sure that american arsenal is prepared to meet future threats. we will invest in the next ,rontier of military engagement protecting u.s. interest in outer space and cyberspace. have seen reports, russia has hacked into a lot of things, russia even hacked into the democratic national committee. maybe even some state elections systems, so we have to step up our game, make sure we are well defended and able to take the .ight to those to go back or us as president, i will make it clear that the united states will treat cyber attacks just like any other attacks carried we will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses, and we are

going to invest in protecting our governmental network and our national infrastructure. i want us to leave the world in setting the rules of cyberspace. if america does not, others will. in short, we have to be ready to win today's fights and tomorrow's. but you know that the most important thing is not the size of our military or the sophistication of our weapons, the most important thing is our people, the men and women who put on the uniform and serve. [applause] we need to take a hard look at our military personnel policy to make sure we are doing everything to attract and keep the best and the brightest to volunteer. we need to support not only them but also their families.

as president, i will never forget the debt wheel to our -- we go to our veterans and your families, who also served. disrespectr, ever gold star family's coup have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. [applause] mrs. clinton: or prisoners of war who endured so much in our name. [applause] to insult them is just so wrong. and it says a lot about the person doing the insulting. in the senate, i worked with republicans to increase the benefit paid to gold star family's, to expand access to military health insurance, to make sure all members of the guard and reserve and their families have access to health benefits whether they are

deployed or training at home. i fought successfully to amend the 2007 defense appropriations establish a training program for family caregivers helping loved ones with traumatic brain injuries. senator john mccain and i joined forces to personally raise money for state of the art rehab facility in san antonio. to help seriously wounded servicemembers coming home from iraq and afghanistan. like you, i was outraged by the scandal at the ba hospitals, p hospitals, people waiting for months for basic medications, wheelchairs, and some died while waiting for an appointment. i know you heard from secretary mcdonald and i know how hard he and his team are working. we are to build a 21st century department of veterans affairs

that delivers world-class care, and we're not going to let v.a. privatize the we are going to reform and strengthen it, not privatize it. [applause] we will ensure access to ask -- to timely quality care to all veterans, improve care for women who were often underserved, identify and treat all wounds of war, visible and invisible, including age and origin, gulf war syndrome, and traumatic brain injury and ptsd. we will end epidemic of veteran suicides by expanding access to mental health care and fighting the stigma that isolates too many of our veterans from getting the care that they need. [applause] i feel passionately about this

because i have looked into the eyes of too many family members who have lost their loved ones to suicide. ago,is why just two days when i released my plan to improve mental health services included aricans, i specific section about more help for veterans on the families because we know too many are not getting the help they need right now. be have got to serve them just as they had served us. we are also going to help more veterans looking for jobs with expanded tax credits, for businesses that hire veterans. more support to veterans who own to start their businesses and making it easier for veterans to get credit for this goes they learned while serving. [applause]

and we will crack down on thatls and companies disseminate against service members, veterans or military families. they should be ashamed of themselves. will themng to accountable. we will also work closely with the american legion the cleanup and expedite the appeals process . benefits should be delivered as quickly as possible and appeals should be decided as expeditiously as possible. i thank you for the work you are doing on that. a lot of what i have mentioned has support from democrats and .epublicans maintaining our military and caring for veterans should never be a partisan issue. defending american exceptionalism should always be above politics. but this is not a normal election. not the normal

disagreements between republicans and democrats, so i hope you will listen carefully .o what my opponent i propose consider our plans in the values behind them and after you have given us both a fair hearing, i hope you will join the growing number of americans, democrats, republicans and independents who are supporting our vision for the kind of future that we want for our country. the selection should not be about ideology. it is not just about differences over policies. it truly is about who has the experience and the temperament to serve as president and commander-in-chief. , 50 three weeks ago republican national security in priorwho served

republican administrations, wrote a letter, saying they will not vote for donald trump because he would be in their words -- the most reckless president in american history. by contrast, i am deeply honored retiredso many military leaders backing me, along with these republican experts. i am supported by people on both sides of the aisle. and both sides of the debates that have defined their foreign-policy for the last 30 years, they know i believe in .he bipartisan foreign-policy they know i should believe in finding ways to bring our country together around national the world,ur role in our values. they know they can count on me to do that.

and what matters to them is that we make the right choice in november. the stakes this fall rsis and the in our election, so i keep raising these issues, keep telling people where i stand, laying out plans for what i do if i'm elected. pack have to tell you it is a little funny to get criticized so many plans. people say, there she goes about another plan about mental health and veterans. i have an old-fashioned idea that if i ask for your vote for president, i should tell you what i will do as your president, so, yes, i have laid out plans and i will work hard out to implement the plans. -- i will work my heart out to implement the plans. work hardere will than our troops, veterans and military families. this is personal to me, starting with my dad.

his name was hugh brought him r -- rodham. he became a chief petty officer at great lakes, north of chicago . responsible for training thousands of young sailors before they shipped out to se as, mostly to the pacific the beer. after my dad died, i received letters from men who had served under him and i treasure them to this day. my father told me how emotional he got when he accompanied his trainees to the west coast and saw those young sailors get on board their ships. he knew some of them are not survive. but he believed in their cause, he believed in them, and they went to serve to protect our

country. they knew the country needed them. over the course of the last years, i have also had the privilege of working with, helping and supporting so many active-duty and retired military asembers and family, first, first lady, then as senator, then as secretary of state. anywherei would go representing you and be privileged to meet with the men and women who serve our country, i would sit down if we had a chance and hear what was on hands, takeshake pictures, sometimes bring messages back to their loved ones. those, knew that some of

young men and women would not be coming home either. courage andind of honor that our men and women in demonstrate every single day. [applause] i will never forget that. and i would expect the american to be my partner in the white house to make sure i never do. you and all our veterans deserve nothing less, i respect, i but you also deserve a country that honors your service, not just with words but with deeds. that is why the american legion working every,

day to make sure america lives up to that standard. i will be doing that work right alongside you if i am given the great honor to serve as your president and commander-in-chief . thank you, all. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. you are. -- thank you. [applause] ♪ , i wouldary clinton like to give you one of our medallions inscribe it the words for god and the country. thank you for your kind words to our veterans, is supported veterans and we wish you the very best. [applause] looks youon: it default. do you want to show it? ♪

♪ a grand old flag"]

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

> the american legion holding its national convention in cincinnati, ohio. they will hear from donald trump tomorrow morning at 9:00 eastern. you will have that live on c-span2. hillary clinton talked about donald trump's visit to mexico city, meeting with the mexican president, almost at this hour. after that brief visit to mexico, donald trump will return to the u.s. for a speech in phoenix, arizona, tonight, laying on his immigration

policy. we will have that live tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern and we will follow that with your phone calls and comments. we have a preview of that speech this morning on "washington journal." isas of now, we know that he going late last night, he tweeted that he would be going up to me with the president of mexico before the speech, so there could always be some changes to that policy after meeting, which you could talk about in terms of compromise. we know that he is going to really double down on stronger reinforcement and getting criminals out of the country.

host: talk about arizona. why there? and what has been the reaction may be from folks in arizona about the speech? is a republican state. ton, but ay buy a recent poll had them up about five points, so the comfortable state to be in. he has the endorsement of the sheriff who is very, very strong on stopping illegal immigration and taps into that base. arizona also has a growing hispanic population, and so mr. trump is kind of going back and forth over there with people who are do not like his policies at all, and the democrats have tried to tap into that kind of thing, so there is a mixed message, but overall, a republican state, and endorsement of the sheriff who is very strong on illegal

immigration. host: there have been stories leading up to this speech about you had mentioned the changing positions and possibly that mr. trump is taking when it comes to illegal immigration. howard those most interested in that watching this speech? guest: what we are watching for is if there is any "softening" from him. his team has said that that will definitely not happen, but the reason we are looking for that is because last week, he met with the hispanic advisory board, and coming out of that meeting, he said two things. at one point, he would -- he said he would be open to softening his at one point, he said he would be open to softening on his stance, which we know this has been his signature campaign issue throughout. he is very strong on it. softening would be a big deal. the other thing he said is he would be willing to work with law-abiding, undocumented immigrants who are willing to pay back taxes.

he came a couple days after that and said that is not true, and said he was just soliciting opinions from people. if any of those things come through, that is actually a change in his stance. host: what about the meeting with the mexican president today? was it just donald trump who was invited? i imagine immigration issues will be at the top of that agenda. what else might be discussed? guest: we don't know much. hillary clinton was also invited. apparently the president of mexico invited them both on friday. we did not hear anything until late last night. it is a strategic scheduling, not just travel wise, and although mexico city is closer to arizona than new york. he can go into the speech saying he met with the president of mexico, and we discussed this and came out with these plans. it is definitely a presidential move. it was not by any means just

directed by donald trump. we do not know anything besides that. we do know that leading up to the election, the countries are connected, let's talk about things, assuming immigration will come up. host: anything else for our viewers to watch for? guest: we are really looking for details. you can talk about the law and getting criminals out. what about these 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country right now? we are looking at what will happen to them. he previously said get them all out. we are curious about how he will do that, or if he is willing to let some of them state. host: talking about that speech by donald trump tonight. ms. collins, thank you. guest: thank you.

>> the speech tonight is at 9:00 here on c-span. whosessman castro district is right on the border tweeted this this afternoon -- another issue we are seeing a number of tweets from republican congressman this afternoon, it deals with the clinton foundation, david of virginia with his sweet -- we will hear some speeches about that when congress returns next tuesday and we will give you a preview of key issues ahead this fall in congress including zika defense authorization bill, gun violence legislation, and the potential impeachment of

the irs commissioner. we will also be joined by susan of the washington examiner, a congressional responded for a look ahead tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern here on his pen. -- on c-span. fbi director james comey addressed a specific issue of attempts by russian hackers to gain access to voter databases in a couple states in the u.s. cyberoader issue a security threats in america. he spoke at the government symposium in the nation's capital. 45 minutes. [applause] ♪ >> thank you. he had dire straits for his walk-up song. thank you for the introduction and the opportunity to share some thoughts with you. let me start by thanking symantec for putting this event on and for the work you do and the attendees to keep so many of us safe from the threats we

worry about every day. i want to give you a sense of how the fbi is thinking about those threats. sums ends from our perspective as to what we think all of us can do together and how we're trying to contribute to reducing the threats across a variety of bad actors. i want to share because they can get on the stage without talking a little bit about the problem we call going dark, which is encryption. then i would like to take your questions. i hope you think of a question that has something to do other than secretary clinton e-mails. [laughter] let me start with the threat. how do we slice up the stack of actors that all of us in this world have to worry about? we start at the top of the stack with the nation-states. think china, russia, iran, north

korea, entities that are getting much more sophisticated, much more aggressive in state-sponsored intrusion activity which i will say more about in a minute. next level down the stack we would put the multinational criminal syndicates that are getting increasingly specialized in their roles and increasingly sophisticated. people are interested in stealing information is to make money, to sell it to the highest bidder the way criminals have always been the next level down in the stack would be the purveyors of rent somewhere which is spreading from our object like a virus all across this country and all across the world. where for people running a business it becomes a challenge between choosing paying to get on with your business or resisting the spread of the virus and helping us fight it and rooted out the next level down we put the hacktivists which is a motley crew of people with all men and motivation, political, personal, philosophical, some that are

hard to figure out at all who are interested in information to embarrass, to expose in their view, to send messages and it's not about money for the. at the bottom of the stack which may surprise you, we would put terrorists. the reason there at the bottom of our stack is terrorist organizations around the world, especially the group that called itself the islamic state, are proficient at using the internet to spread their message of hate, to recruit, to connecticut for operational purposes. they are literally able to buzz in the pockets of fellow travelers or would be terrorists 24 hours a day, and that has an enormous impact on the fbi's counterterrorism work. but what we don't see them doing yet, and i underline yet, is moving towards and developing the capability for computer intrusions. logic tells us that that has to

be the future of terrorism, as we make it harder and harder for them to get physically into this country to kill people and to do damage. surely they are going to turn to try to come in as a photon and doing damage to the internet. so that's our stack of actors that we worry about. let me say a few words about how we see them operating. over arching theme is increasingly sophisticated, large-scale attacks from all of those actors. combining multiple techniques and especially combining inside knowledge that's harvested through social media, that's harvested through all the ways to come to understand the potential human factors that they might use to get into our organizations. all of you in this room know this. as we make our systems harder and harder for people to get in from the outside, the weakling always remains our people. the threat actors know that is so they spend a tremendous

amount of time trying to understand how they might get in through human beings, through spoofing, the existence of a particular human being or actually recruiting someone who is disgruntled, he was unhappy, who's looking to damage an employer or maybe to make extra dough on the side. what is this stack after? that's obvious but they are after information, access, advantage whether that is political or economic or ideological. and we are worried of course not just about the loss of data in pursuit of those goals, but we worry every day about the potential for the manipulation of data to accomplish the same illicit ends. and impact the attacks, your industry because you understand the impact of these attacks level spent a lot of time on this. they are more than just attacks on our infrastructure. they are attacks on our employees and our customers.

they are attacks on our reputation, on our economy, on our security, on our basic freedom. the sony attack was an attack aimed at free expression to it was the act of a bully looking to silence speech in the united states and around the world by intimidation and harassment, in that case, of sony pictures. so what can we do? we can't possibly prevent every attack. especially the more sophisticated actors, but we believe that this behavior, no matter where it comes from and the threat stack, is deterrable. these are not people who are committing computer intrusions high on crack or inflame by having found their significant other in the arms of a stranger. these are people who are thinking coldly and dispassionately at a keyboard as the act. and it offers us an opportunity to change behavior. that is an audience that is potentially deterrable because they're not drug addicted or desperate in a way that a bank robber might be or a mugger

might be. to do that, we need to be more predictive, less reactive. and we as a government need to recognize that the answer is not just us, it's the government at all of our private sector partners. we think there are 3 joint goals that all of us have in this regard, three things we all must do together, and then want to talk to about how i think the fbi in particular can contribute. all of us together can do three things. we can reduce vulnerabilities. we in the government can equip you and the private sector to understand hackers and cyber criminals and their techniques, their tactics and procedures. you in the private sector can help those of us in the government understand the same thing. together we can use that information to harden our targets. we can make with that information i decisions of cybersecurity be a priority at all levels in our organizations.

there is a risk that leaders sometimes will think of cybersecurity as something that is i want among other risk factors. it's kind of off to the site side and we turn and have a conversation about it at our quarterly meetings. folks need to understand that cybersecurity must be an integral part of everything we do come in any kind of enterprise whether it's government or private. no matter what type of work we do, because we are living our lives in the digital space. cybersecurity affects every aspect of an enterprise. it is not just about our systemsit's about our people, about our processes, about our technology, about the way in which we interact with world. cybersecurity has to be part of every single thing we do and should be part of nearly every conversation in an enterprise. that's the first thing we can all do together is try to share

information to raise the focus and reduce our vulnerabilities. second, we think we can all work together to do a better job of reducing the threat of the reasons i said. we think this is behavior that is deterrable, that we can, by together, holding people accountable in a way that will change behavior. i was a more in the second of the fbi's time to do that. we think we can do a better job at mitigating the damage. we in the government and in the private sector can help people understand better quickly what just happened, what's the path back to restore our processes and our business. so that's what we think everybody can share in terms of goals. the pieces that we in the fbi can uniquely contribute, we break down into 5 parts of our strategy and i want to share that with you now. the first thing we're trying to do is focus better on people. we mean this in two different respects. focus better and deploy a smarter way to people who already work for the fbi can do a better job of stealing your talents to work at the fbi.

first, focusing better inside the fbi. the way in which the fbi has is physical focus. we ask ourselves, so where did it happen, and wherever it happen, whether that's a bank robbery or a fraud or a drug deal for a payoff to a corrupt official, that's where we do the work. the bank robbery happened in the chicago suburbs, and so the chicago field office will be responsible for the bank robbery, and that makes good sense and has made good sense for a century. the challenge we face today with the threat that comes at us at the speed of light from anywhere

in the world is that physical place isn't such a meaningful way to assign work any longer. so where does it happen when you're talking about an intrusion that's coming out of some other side of the globe into multiple enterprises either simultaneously or in sequence? that it is different than it ever was before. so we changed the way we are signing work. we have now created a cyberthreat teen model where we assigned the work in the fbi based on the ability. which field office has shown the chop to go after which slice of the threat we face, that stack. and then assign it there. and this is two things for us. it allows us to put the work with the expertise is, integrates a healthy competition inside the fbi. because everybody wants to be at the front of the list to a important threats that come at us. and so we assign in a cyberthreat teen model a particular threat, let's imagine it's a particular threat that comes at us from a certain nation-state actor. we assign that to the little rock division because the little rock division has demonstrated tremendous ability against that threat. but we are not fools about

important physical manifestations. because that the threat is what it does particular enterprises around the country, and the ceos of both enterprise and the boards are going to want to know as the fbi be new to talk to us, and what's the nature of the investigation and how is it going? so to make sure we accommodate that need we are going to allow up to four other officers to help the team that is assigned to the threat in little rock. so if a company based in indianapolis and one is in seattle and one in miami, those few officers will also be able to assist in the investigation, but the lead will be in little rock. in the air traffic control from all that to make sure we're not duplicating efforts or sending confusing messages will come from the cyber division at headquarters. we are trying to dig we've been doing it now for about a year and a half. seems to be working pretty well. it is set up very, very healthy

competition inside the fbi which is good for us. but we are confronting a challenge and i went to work with have never seen before. so we are eager to get feedback, and in it a rate. we are not, iterate. we want to be humble enough to understand that just as our world has been canceled in our lifetimes, the way in which we do our work is being transformed. we have to be open to changing when it makes sense. so the cyberthreat teen model is at the core of our response. also at the core of our response is a team of experts with the because the recall the captain to the cyber action team. just as in terrorism, we have preassigned fools of expertise that can jump on airplane and go -- tools of expertise that can jump on airplane and go anywhere in the world in response to a terrorism threat. we believe that an adult that same typical with respect to cyber. so that if there is a particular

intrusion, let's say sony in los angeles, we have the talent, the agent an who attempted and the talent, the technical talent that's already assigned to the cyber action team that is agreed and is ready to deploy in a moment's notice to literally fly to los angeles to support the investigation. second, we are focusing on trying to skew people. you were trying to hire. to be able to staff those cyber action teams and the cyberthreat the market a good way we used out there this is enormous challenge for us because we don't have the dough. we cannot compete on go pick a good is if we can compete on nation. we tried to portray our private sector colleagues as soulless and exercise, and then convince their taliban to come to good for a living. we are seeing how that's going. we've met with limited success so far but the good news is, the more we show people the nature of our mission, and just how fun it is and how rewarding it is, to have your mission as the fbi does protecting the american people and uphold the constitution of the united states, that attracts a lot of

talent there one of my children describes me what our problem is in recruiting. she said the problem is you are the man. i thought that was the consummate so i said thank you, i really appreciate that. she said i don't mean that in a good way. i mean you are the man. who would want to work for the man? i think she's right but i said to her, if people saw what this man and woman of the fbi was like, and what we do and the challenges we face, i think they would want to come work for us. so i don't want to share too much about our recruiting strategy because our interests are not fully aligned, was the work for the government or for a private entity in this room, but we are working much harder to make sure people understand what it might be like to work for

this man and this woman, ma and do this for a living. then we are working very hard inside the fbi when we get that kind of talent to demonstrate more agility than we have, that we might not to demonstrate when you're 108-years-old. there is a challenge when you're 108, when a smart young kid comes in with a wonderful way of approaching a problem or approaching no problem in any way, you might try to crush a person spirit by saying no, we have never done it that way. we are working very hard to work a whole lot cooler than you may think we are. we are not the bean bags and for no and a lot of whiteboards yet we are working very hard in marching in that direction so that when this content into our organization, we are open to having them make us better. and a way that connects us and them to our mission more closely. we are also doing things like, the we've never done before. we will hire a senior level data such as. someone who knows how to think deeply about the technical challenges we face together, and

the talent, technology, process but we're looking to hire that person, bring them in at the shoulder of the assistant director of our cyber division. obviously, we're trying to higher lots more cyber talent in our special agents. here's our challenge. to have a cyber special agent unique three buckets that you beat. you need integrity which is nonnegotiable. you need physicality. wewe're going to give you a gun on behalf of the united states of america. you need to be able to run, fight and shoot. so there's a physicality required. obviously, there's an intelligence we need for any special agent, but to be a cyber special agent we need a highly sophisticated specialized technical expertise. those three buckets are rare to find innocent human being in nature. we will find people of great integrity who of technical talent and can't squeeze out more than two or three push-ups. we may find people of great technical talent who want to smoke weed on the way to the interview. and so we are staring at that asking ourselves are there other ways to find this talent, to equip this talent, to go discover?

if we find people of integrity and physicality and it intelligence, can we grow our own cyber expertise inside the organization? or can we change speed we are leaving fbi director comes remarks not for a moment for a quick pro forma session of the u.s. senate. the senate finishing a brief pro you may have read the president usually issued presidential policy 41, which is fabulous mostly for people outside the government because it makes clear to you all outside the government what he wills of the road are so you understand and the president has said he will have to lead through the fbi and the national cyber investigative joint task force in responding to threats and investigating threats. dhs given your incredible capability with respect to threats you will be responsible for threat mitigation. he will work to reduce impact, mitigate vulnerability, intensify and assess risks,

some aspect of the threat, whether it is detection or response or mitigation, that we are working much closely together. issuedsident recently presidential policy 41, which is fabulous mostly for people outside the government because it makes clear to you all outside the government what he wills of the road are so you understand and the president has said he will have to lead through the fbi and the national cyber investigative joint task force in responding to threats and investigating threats. dhs given your incredible capability with respect to threats you will be responsible for threat mitigation. he will work to reduce impact, mitigate vulnerability, intensify and assess risks, director of national intelligence, your job, you will be the lead for intelligence support, making sure the best thinking is pushed into threat response and mitigation efforts.

this is the most important message. it shouldn't matter to anybody outside the government who you call when you have a problem. our job should be to figure out who should do what and this clarifies for us exactly what the lames of the road are and we evolved over the last several years on our own. the second point we are trying to shrink the world, trying to forward deployed far more cyberagent that cyber analysts and have them sit with foreign partners so though we face a digital threat moving at the speed of light, the human connection between investigators, shrinking the world so we can detect and incapacitate bad guys better,

the core of our strategy. third thing we are trying to do is impose costs, we think this behavior, this intrusion activity by nationstates or activists or thugs and criminals is deterrable. we want to lock people up to send a message that it is not a freebie to kick in the door of an american company or private citizen and steel what matters to them. if we can't lock people up, we want to call out, name and shame through indictment or sanctions or public relations campaign, who is doing this and exactly what we are doing. the department of justice first indicted chinese actors, and that seems like an empty gesture. i think we have managed to send an important wind through that. a lot of people -- people said

you are just shouting into the wind. that seems like an empty gesture. looking back, i do not think so. i think we have managed to send an important wind through that. you might have to go abroad yourself, spending your kids to be educated, and see those kids. and you know those people from the fbi, they may not be that smart, but boy are they done it. it took them 50 years to give up on db cooper who jumped out of an airplane on washington state. the long arm of the law is very patient. trying to send that chilly wind is the same reason against iranian actor, and, all of this helps us grapple with a set of norms, it is the way we understand the framework. there are people who were series

people with whom we have a series framework, nationstates gather intelligence, they always have. we are trying to get information about other countries and others about us, we try to detect it and stop it. especially with the chinese where we have seen progress in the way in which we understand the framework. nationstates gather intelligence, they always have. what nationstates must not do, cannot do to be community of nations to steal stuff to make money. that is outside the framework of acceptable nationstate activity and we are making progress making people understand that is a framework that makes sense is whether through indictment or sanctionable publicity we are working hard to make people at keyboard feel our breath on their neck to change that behavior.

we got to get to a point where we can reach them as easily as they can reach us and change behavior by that reach out. we must help state and local partners be more effective to and responding to all manner of complaints to citizens about fibercrime, and and training and equipment and task forces, responding to the cry for criticisms for help. people every day are asking about money in nigeria. i am not the president of the federal bureau of investigation, i am not in nigeria, do not wire me money but there are citizens every day scanned in similar ways, we have to help our partners give them justice. the last thing we need to do should be obvious to you. we have to work better with the private sector to address these things. all the information and evidence

we need sits in private hands in the united states and that is a wonderful thing but an enormous challenge. we have discovered the majority of our private partners do not turn to law enforcement when they face in intrusion so that is a big problem. it is fine to turn to be excellent private-sector entities and with remediation, that is good but we have to get to the point where it is routine for people who are victimized to turn to our assistance. we know your primary concern is getting back to normal, when you run any kind of enterprise, for profit business but we need to figure out who is behind that attack and it is in your interests.

people sometimes think my interests are not aligned with the federal government, i need to get this over with and get on with my business. people think even if it involves paying ransom, our long-term interests are the same. you are kidding yourself if you think that problem will go away and not return to victimize you. we must work together to defeat these threats. what is our strategy for getting you, the private sector, to talk to talk to us in the private sector more? we are going to hound you and explain to you over and over again why it is in your interests as a matter of practice we can work well together. we are going to convince you we will not re-victimize you if you contact us and seek help and we will treat you as we have for a century as victims of crime. in working with all victims, our paramount goal is not to re-victimize this poor person whether it is a victim of sexual

assault of a robbery victim or a company that suffered in intrusion. we also understand concerns about competitive advantage. we know you are trying to get out from under the burden that disrupted operations that affected the supply chain and risks affecting your reputation, and employees and customers. we understand, i understand your concerns about liability given i was general counsel of two countries before coming back to this work which is better than private-sector work. we have been at this a long time. we strive to be humble and we have gotten good at it was we are good at minimizing your disruption and pain to your employees and protecting your privacy and legitimate concerns about competitive advantage. we do not share your data about