that quite obviously implicates somewhat more than a criminal case. consequently, the impact on international relations -- it is implicated in terms of what we do, and consequently, there is an exchange and understanding of what is going to happen, although the justice department and ourselves will do what we believe is best, regardless of that. nonetheless, there has to be a dialogue on the implications and impact of a case such as that. the relationship has evolved -- evolved over time. it goes without saying that the president and others should not, have not interfered with investigations that have to be handled independently. so that stricture is still there and adhered to, but on the other hand, because of the, again, globalization, the seeping across or leaking across of information and impact of cases, there has to be a different

dialogue now than there was prior to september 11. >> very interesting issues for you and for me. i should note that, of course, part of what makes it so challenging to live through and to teach is that history shows us, going back 30, 40 years, the sometimes folks in the white house are in positions where they take points of view and argue for actions that may not always be completely -- >> i will not always say they are always happy with us. not at all. am i going back for a moment to the issue of the many balls that the fbi keeps in the air at the same time, we have a number of questions about the investigation of financial fraud. this is certainly a challenging time in which to work in that space, so can you tell us about what priority the fbi is placing on financial fraud, mortgage- backed securities, or anything of that nature. >> that is one of our main

priorities. it has been since 2001, and it was before then, but what you find is financial fraud goes up and down in ways. in the wake of 2001, 2002, 2003, we had a wave of cases, as i alluded to. a number of large corporations where billions were lost in terms of shareholder value with a cooking of the books. we had a very large inventory back in 2002. we worked that off. then comes the mortgage fraud crisis. we have close to thousand -- close to 2000 investigations across the country. we have a number of investigations. many of you have seen them on wall street and new york. it may not be an obvious one, but also those relating to insider trading that we continue to handle. we will get through this surge in cases in the next two or

three years, but i can guarantee you, four or five years down the road, there will be another scheme that we hope to anticipate, but another way of making money illegally in what you would call white collar. we beef up to address the wave as it comes, but we hope to do a better job down the road with intelligence to anticipate the next wave and hopefully address it before it really gets going. >> we have a number of questions about what advice you may have for people entering public service, just beginning their careers, but i want to broaden that question end of the all of us who have worked in government have come across extraordinary individuals who are public servants who work very hard to take personal risks in some cases, who go beyond the call of duty, and that is a great credit to our country, but it is also true that attracting and retaining wonderful people is difficult. wanted to hear a little bit about how you approach the challenge of attracting and retaining excellent people at the fbi and how that has changed during your time as director.

>> people do ask me what it in my career. i had a high school didn't come to me at one point asking -- a high-school student come to me at one point asking if i could get him into princeton. i told him i could get him into the marine corps, which would be better for him in the long run. one of the interesting things in the dialogue i have had with myself over time is the average age of starting at the i agents is 30. when i first came on, i thought you do your 20 years, retire at 50, and it really precludes us from doing the type of recruiting on campus the other agencies do. over time, i came to find out that for us, we need the experience that we get.

having people come in from other careers -- for instance, we have a number of persons who have done fairly well legitimately and honestly on wall street who have come with us who are now doing the investigations of the securities fraud. we had back in the anthrax attacks of 2002, approximately 1000 individuals throughout the united states who had in some way, shape, or form address anthrax in the course of their studies. if you are going to do an interview with someone handling anthrax, you want either a biochemist or someone who has both the background as well as someone who has the investigative capabilities and techniques to do that questioning. we brought in chemists, biologists, persons with area studies, language skills, engineers, and they all had a career before hand, which has been important to giving us the bretts -- breadth we need to

address the threats we talked about today appeared more than anything else, i have come to believe that the power you give a special agent is substantial. what you want primarily is persons with judgment and a good decision-making ability. and the persons who have had another career, persons who are a little bit older tend to, we believe, exercise an exhibit that judgment, which is so necessary to what we do. one last thing in terms of public service. everybody sitting at the table, i have a number of united states attorneys. almost all of them have been in the u.s. attorney's office before. some of them are still in private practice. good luck to them. but a number of us have bounced back and forth. i think a number of us would say the most rewarding time we have had has been the time when we

were in public service. you are given the opportunity to contribute. it really is a gift. the biggest gift i have had the opportunity to do this kind of work. and if the challenge of attracting and retaining great people is one that cuts across administration's where you serve, another is responding to concerns about the patriot acts. i wanted to give you a chance about what the fbi has learned in your view about the patriot act since it passed. >> the greatest benefit of the patriot act was a breakdown of the statutory walls between the fbi and cia. those walls were erected some time ago where what you did internationally had very little bearing on what was done domestically and vice versa. you cannot get a picture of a threat, whether it be a cyber threat or narcotics or trafficking in prison or child pornography, terrorism, espionage, by looking solely on the one hand from the domestic perspective and on the other

hand from the international perspective. you absolutely have to integrate that knowledge and intelligence in order to be effective in this day and age. the great benefit of the patriot act as it broke down those walls. prior to the patriot acts, within the bureau, those who were doing the national security work could not talk to criminal agents and vice versa, much less have persons in the fbi talked to the cia or nsa or others. the great benefit of the patriot act is it did away with that and enabled us to build those relationships, change that culture, and understand that in order for us to be successful, we had to work closely together on any number of these threats. >> is there anything you would >> what about national security letters? >> national security letters was the device given to us to gather information on the

existence of the telephone call. we had a procedure we needed to follow. in most cases, we did. in a number of cases, we did not have the procedures. we move ahead quickly and did not put in place procedures to assure we have the proper paperwork and foundation in requesting those letters. we have put into place a software program that insures you have the appropriate foundation before a new issue a national security letter. we have had training. we have had continuous oversight on that issue. in the overall context of things, it was not that we were getting information to which we were not entitled. we did not put in place the predicates we should have to ensure to those looking at it that we did have the appropriate predicate. we resolved that issue. >> we have a number of questions that want to understand what your life is like today.

share a typical day in the life of an fbi director. >> at 7:00 in the morning or so, i will get the first briefing at 7:45. i will have a briefing about a cop 30 with the attorney general -- about 8:30 with the attorney general. the rest of the day will be spent in the field visiting offices. there are a number of issues that you have to address in washington, national security issues that come up. it is generally a series of meetings. what has driven us in the last 10 years is the threat of terrorism. that is why we spend the first hour or two everyday addressing terrorism. people ask about how we manage

it. occasionally say, not very well. there are those who think i should not be micro-managing. management books will tell you that shyou should be on the balcony and of the dance floor. i agree with that generally. the two areas where if you spin attention on that you hope we will not mess up too badly, one of them is terrorism. i have to be knowledgeable to respond to questions that president obama has, as i did for president bush. that means making certain my organization puts me in a position to respond to that. the other area i have not done as good a job is on bringing in information technology. early on, we were putting in new case management system in. i did not ask the hard questions.

i was told we had a system that would go in july. we would flip a switch. in the back of my mind, i wondered how that would happen. on the one hand, you have technologists or geeks who know how to do this. then you have the people know and understand the business practices. the challenge is to approve the business practice, bring on new technology, utilize people who know the technology but not the business practices. i realized i have to be much more involved. they have to convince me that what is happening is right for it to go forward. the two areas where i spend substantial time during the day are terrorism and information technology. >> you mentioned briefing two presidents you have worked closely with. we do have questions that asked

about how you might assess the similarities and differences between president obama and president bush. [laughter] >> it is not that different. both individuals and the persons around and care about one thing, that is protecting the american public. everything else is secondary. both presidents have the same desire to assure the american public is kept safe. there may be a difference in nuanced ways in terms of how they ask questions. in terms of a desire to protect the american public, there is no difference whatsoever. >> washington is a famously complicated place when it comes to agencies working together. you have set a little bit about the fbi and cia and their improved relationship. what would you say about the current state of the inter-

agency process? >> out in the field, those differences disappear. it is back in washington where you have much more butting of heads or issues relating to agencies. we used to butt heads with the a -- dea. now it is no longer a priority, we do not but heads with them. the biggest thing has been with the international intelligence agencies, national security agency. the willingness to sit down and exchange of information, understanding that we collect and different authorities. the cia and nsa collected overseas under looser

authorities because they're not affecting united states citizens. we have the responsibility of doing the intelligence gathering in the united states, understanding is american citizens we are attempting to protect. we have to do it under the constitution and applicable statutes. the sharing of that information and working together has gone light years since september 11. having been through a number of battles over the years, the focus on the mission trump's just about everything else. what is difficult is coming up with an organizational structure to address cyber in all of its manifestations. fraud schemes are now on the internet. the dissemination of child pornography and the like have integrated to the internet and

the field of cyber. cyber intrusion, the exploitation of information is in the cyber arena. how we address that is going to be a huge challenge in the years to come. " we are about to run out of time. i am going to ask you three brief questions. you can address any piece of this that you like. you have such a serious job. what do you do for fun or to relax? that seems to make an assumption about time to relax. have you seen the movie "j. edgar"? when the movie "mueller" comes out, who should play you? >> i have not seen that movie. i ride bicycles, play golf, and

read. >> our thanks to fbi director robert mullueller. please remain seated at the conclusion of the program until the director has left the room. i am a former special assistant to the president. this meeting of the commonwealth of california is adjourned. [applause]

[applause] >> good evening. welcome to the meeting of the commonwealth club and forum, connect your intellect. you can find us online. you can follow the best of our conversations on twitter. i am the author of the "this is your brain on music. " i am a professor of psychology and behavioral neuroscience. i am delighted to introduce you to my friend, one of my famous -- favorite guitarists and musicians. he discovered the guitar at a young age. he has played at notable vilnius such as the -- notable

venues such as montrose and carnegie hall. >> i would like to start by saying that in the last 15 or 20 years of my research, one thing i found most surprising as a musician myself in exploring music and the brain is how -- discovering where it is that music is. i always imagined as a player that the music was in my fingers. now i know is in the brain. it is a neuro-representation of the figures. music is in every part of the brain that we have mapped. there is no part of the brain that does not have something to do with music. i found that very surprising. i wondered if you find that surprising as a player and what your own intuitions were coming into it. >> i think my intuition is that

music is something that gets received in some sense or another, like radio, like something you pick up. it is a vibration. when i have written my own music for the guitar, a lot of times it is the result of having experienced something and having to absorb it like you might absorb a vibration or light our experience something rhythmic like walking down the street. >> a lot of composers say they feel like they are not really creating the music. they're channeling it. roseanne cash talks about holding up her catcher's mitt and catching one as it goes by. someone else talks about how the music is everywhere for anyone

to take, that you just have to tune into it. >> driving down here today, there was a rough patch of road because there was construction. you are feeling the road. it makes you aware that no matter where you are or what you are doing, you could be some ki, and you hear something may be rise out of that rhythm. for me, personally, a lot of times the idea for writing a piece of music or making arrangement comes from some sort of rhythm. a lot of people would say, do you get the melody first or the rhythm? i always say i get the rhythm first and the melody comes out of it. >> could you play us an example of may be something where the rhythm came first? and maybe just play the rhythm. >> i will try. this is a piece called "cumulus

rising." this is from a piece that i did in 1998, on the theme of water. this is sort of the theme of water rising through a team less clout. it does not have to be, but that is the sensation that gave me the idea. -- cumulus cloud. >> if you could play the rhythm first. >> i will tap it. [tapping] pretty simple. then i will play a little bit of it.

♪ >> i will leave it there. [applause] >> one of the things that people

often ask is what is happening in our brains when we hear a piece of music. it is extraordinarily complicated. a sound enters the years and there is a cascade of their rick complicated processes that turn the changes in air pressure to an electrical signal which gets transmitted from the year to the brain. once it hits the brain, it gets even more complicated. it turns out there are distinct regions of the brain that process different aspects of the sound. one part of the brain, you can think of it as a special purpose circuit, attending to and processing their read them. then there is a separate part processing the pitch, a separate part combining the pitches and duration into melodies, a part separate from that attending to how loud or soft it is, and it

all comes together later and get this seamless impression of this beautiful melody and harmony, yet, it is processed piecemeal. one of the sources of information of this is we have patients who are damaged in one focal portion of the brain and they lose one of those elements while retaining the others. they may lose rhythm or they will have to pitch and harmony. >> is it processed in real time? simultaneously? >> yes, but quickly. when i say later, later in brain time means maybe 1/30 of a second later. any second, it can be disrupted , and you to organic brain injury or trauma, it can be disrupted. it is remarkable. the player, at some level, perhaps unconsciously, are

having to think about the elements unconsciously. >> i teach a lot of workshops and a lot of people come to play our master classes, they come with their own performance, arrangement. they are looking for feedback. one of the things that i always say, because, as a musician, we try to get everything at once. all of the elements. we tried to simultaneously get the rhythm, melody, the subtleties, dynamics, accent, all those things that make music interesting. but a lot of times, it is good practice to tear them apart. solo guitar playing, for example, polyphonic music, you have a melody and a baseline, maybe an accompaniment, 3rd voice or harmonic accompaniment. i always suggest people to tear

them apart, work on the melody, just work on the base, rhythm, accompaniment. that provides an important process to understanding how these elements have to happen simultaneously. >> when you are writing, as a fan of yours, for decades now -- i think your first record came out in the 1970's. >> 1978. >> that is right. as a fan, one of the things that struck me is you did not sound like anyone else i had heard, and you still do not. when i listen to any other guitarist,, composer, you can hear their influence, who they took this idea or technique from.