tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 31, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
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 employees or operations.
we will have adult conversations with you to tell you what we will do with information you give us. will make risk-benefit decisions that you give us. we will not allow you to be blindsided. we understand if we do that you won't talk to us anymore. what do we need you to do? we need you to talk to us, to get to know us, to understand what we are like and how we do this work. we need to make sure you understand how important it is to your competitive advantage to integrate the fbi into your risk assessment plan. you spend a lot of time no matter where your facility is making sure the fire department has a basic understanding of the layout of your building so in the event of a disaster they can save lives. i suggest you do the same with respect to cyberthreats and risk
assessment plans. we were able to respond to help sony investigate, attribute and mitigate because they had taken time before the fire to get to know us, not the details of their business plan, not any secret of their proprietary information. we knew the basics of their network, with the key people were, and the facilities and locations. armed with that in a situation with smoke all over the place, we went to the right place and got the work done quickly. it is in your competitive advantage to make sure we have the opportunity if a disaster hits your company. my suggestion to you, if you are in a private enterprise and you do not know someone, every single fbi officer has a significant presence, you are not doing your job well enough.
our people are waiting for those phone calls to build those relationships. journey wes to a went through with the fbi and the cia over the last 25 years. there was long a law on the books that allowed criminal prosecutors and agents to protect the equities in the event there was a criminal prosecution that touched on intelligence equities. the classified information procedures act was passed in the 1980's, and they thought they solved that problem, the friction between intelligence and law enforcement. nonsense. it required trust building, case-by-case, and person by person, so that the cia understood that the fbi would
not burn their equities. a great example occurred in the summer of 1998 with the attacks on the american embassies in kenya and tanzania. the investigation that followed that involved both agency people and federal bureau of investigation people. the way we did it was, the people went on searches together to do search warrants in east africa, we send people from both organizations. so if something was found that later would be useful in a criminal case, the fbi agents could testify about it. it never would be necessary to talk about the cia's activities or its presence. that was consistent with the law, but required trust-building to get there. three years later, fbi personnel testified about those searches in a federal courtroom in manhattan. and the cia did not have to be involved, consistent with law and discovery operations. those types of things build a culture of trust. it is not enough to say, these are the rules of the road.
we have to demonstrate a person by person, case-by-case. you will see that from us, trying to work with you place by place, enterprise by enterprise, incident by incident, to demonstrate that we know how to do this and do it well. a brief word, because i cannot resist to talk about encryption and going dark. the issue of going dark, the term we use to describe our increasing inability with a judicial authority to get access to information that fits on a device or is traveling in real time. the challenge we face is that the advent of default, ubiquitous, strong encryption is making more and more of the room we are charged to investigate dark. there was always a corner of the room that was dark. sophisticated actors could always get access to devices or live streams.
what has happened just since i have been director, post-snowden, especially through default encryption, that shadow is a spreading through more and more of the room. the conversation we have been trying to have has dipped below public consciousness him and that is fine. because we want to collect information this year so that next year, we can have an adult conversation in this country. here is why i think it requires an adult conversation. our nation's founders struck a bargain 240 years ago. in our great country, we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, in all of our private spaces. in our houses, cars, safe-deposit boxes, devices. and that is a very important part of being an american. the government cannot invade our private spaces without good reason. good reason that is reviewable in court.
but that also means that people of the u.s., through judges and law enforcement, can invade our private spaces. that bargain has been at the heart of our liberty since the nation was settled. to take the most common example. if law enforcement has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in some space you control, whether that is your bedroom, your car, we're safe deposit box, or your laptop, they can go to a judge, make a showing of probable cause, and get a war and that is consistent with the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution. and then, go through your stuff. they can search wherever the judge says they can search, your closet, your dresser drawers, under your bed. they can take whatever the judge says they can take. even our memories are not absolutely private in the united states. even our communications with our spouses, lawyers, clergy, medical professionals, are not absolutely private.
there is a judge in certain circumstances that can make those testify about what they saw or heard. there are really important constraints on that, but the general principle is one we have always accepted and has been at the core of our country. there is no such thing as absolute privacy in america. there is no place outside of judicial authority. that allowed us to achieve two things we all love dearly, privacy, and security. widespread default encryption changes that bargain. in my view, i think it shatters the bargain at the center of our country. there is something seductive about the notion of absolute privacy. even when i hear it, i love it. i have an instagram account with nine followers, they are all related to me. except for one serious
boyfriend. i do not want anyone looking at those pictures. it is nothing inappropriate, but it is private to me. it is seductive when i hear someone say that absolute privacy is a paramount value. our devices are made to support privacy. i stop and step back and realize, we have never lived that way. that is a different way to live. it changes something at the center of our country, that is really important. in our case, it affects our national security investigations and criminal investigations. we believe at the fbi that we have to talk about it. our role is limited. the fbi's role is not to tell the american people had to live or govern themselves, our role is to say those tools you are counting on us to use to find people in criminal cases and national security cases, they are less and less effective every day because of this challenge. it is also not the job of tech companies. as wonderful as they are, to
tell the american people have to live. their job is to innovate and sell us great equipment. the american people should decide, how do we want to live? how do you want to govern ourselves? and you have a conversation in a mature way, we need space and time and information. we need to understand in the fbi, how is this exactly affecting our work? and then, share that with folks. the challenges in this conversation is the intensity of emotion around the issue that makes it hard for people to avoid demonizing each other, and to have a thoughtful exchange. some like to say we are trying to weaken encryption, that we are trying to build backdoors into everybody's devices. to be clear, we believe the issue is not strong versus weak encryption. we love strong encryption at the fbi. it enables us to better protect
people from thieves, hackers, spies, terrorists. we love strong encryption. but we believe absolute control of data is not a requirement for encryption. a whole lot of organizations, including our own, issues personal electronic devices to employees, and so retain some control over those devices for security and business reasons. if those organizations, including my own, is served with a warrant, those organizations are able to access the information and comply with the warrant. the ability to do so by design does not require weak encryption. that is why i often describe this as a really hard problem, but not a technical problem so much as a business model problem. that does not make it easier to solve, but it is a fair description of the challenge we face. we believe in the fbi that we
need a conversation. if the american people say we are ok with that portion of the room being dark, then we are ok , to use an example, in the first 10 months of this year, we got devices from state and local law-enforcement and were requested to open them. and 650 devices we were unable to open. that is criminals not caught, evidence not found, sentences of far shorter for pedophiles and others because judges cannot see all their activity. we should not drift to a place where a wide swath of america is off-limits to the judicial authority. tech companies last year wrote a letter to the president that i found honestly, depressing and disheartening. it was a letter that wonderfully described the benefits of encryption. as i read it paragraph after paragraph i thought, absolutely, that is important.
the letter ended without any acknowledgment of the costs of widespread, ubiquitous, strong encryption, especially by default. my reaction to that was, either they do not see the costs, or they are not being fair-minded about technology and the costs, which will make the conversation even harder, and that is a bit depressing. so, we need a conversation. it needs to start from a place where we recognize that there are no evil people in this conversation. we share the same values, we all care deeply about the same things. privacy on the one hand, security and safety on the other. we may weigh them indifferently, i may see it differently from someone who lives in silicon valley, but we have the same values. that should allow us to have a thoughtful conversation, without demonizing anybody or trying to bumper sticker anybody.
i hope you will participate in that conversation, and we can have it next year, when we are not engaged in an election. to finish, i do not know where -- whether we can stay ahead of the cyber threat. we can reduce it, send messages that change behavior. in the face of a threat unlike any we have seen before, we need enough humility to be agile, enough humility to take feedback from our partners to figure out how we can be better. we definitely need each other. thank you for being part of that, thank you for the help you have already given to the fbi, for the advice, feedback, and assistance. i hope you will continue that together, we will make our world a safer place. i look forward to your questions. [applause]
>> we have time for one or two questions. we already have a couple people up. go ahead. >> you mentioned the sony hack several times. one of the reasons that was considered significant is that it was a foreign entity attacking a constitutionally protected speech. now we have confirmation that potentially foreign actors have conducted an intrusion on two state election systems. how would you characterize an incident like that? conducted an intrusion on two and also, as we head into the november elections, is this something that would require immediate action on behalf of the federal government, securely on dhs? mr. comey: that is an important question. it will not surprise you that a -- that i will not give an answer on a particular matter.
i can say this, we take very seriously any effort by any actor, including nationstates that moves beyond the collection of information about our country, and offers the prospect of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country. whether that is an election or something else, i do not want to comment on the particulars. but those kinds of things are something we take very seriously and work hard to understand so we can equip the rest of our government with options for how to deal with it. that is all i will say at this point. >> you talk about deterrence, and along the same lines, a year ago obama signed an agreement to try to work out how to not have intellectual property theft. what are you saying as far as what we have seen from the
chinese in the past year? it sounds like you're trying to change their behavior through an agreement like that. i was wondering what you had to say about that. also, how you think we should react to the russians in terms of interfering. have we done anything along those lines in the administration to react to that? mr. comey: i will only answer the first part of that for the reasons i said earlier. i will not comment on anything in the second part of your question. it is still early, but we see encouraging signs in the way our chinese counterparts are talking about and understanding the framework that i discussed that nationstates do not engage in theft for commercial purposes.
the talk is right, and there are early indications of efforts to cooperate with us in investigating and bringing to justice people who have done that. that said, it is early. and it is a process that takes a long time. and particularly because of the heart of it, we are trying to understand if people are stealing information for intelligence purposes to make money, and that is complicated, so i do not want to paint a picture that the problem is solved, but there are encouraging signs. >> i will have to cut this short. on behalf of all the attendees from our state and local government, talking about the collaboration and partnership, it is a very key one. thank you for your time and kicking off a great day for us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we will take you to a
discussion on tree speech on college campuses. several academics will take part . you will be able to watch that at 4:00 p.m. eastern. will detail his immigration plans during a speech in phoenix. visiting mexico today, meeting with that country's president. you can watch that tonight starting at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> with the house and senate returning next week, on thursday we will preview four issues facing congress this fall. federal funding to combat the zika virus. theymen want to make sure have the ability to not get pregnant because of the mosquitoes. >> today they turned down the very money they argued for last
may. they decided to gamble with the lives of children like this. >> the annual programs bill. >> all of these votes are very vital to the future of this andon in a time of turmoil the time of the greatest number of refugees since the end of world war ii. >> gun violence and criminal justice reform. >> every member of this body wants to see less gun violence. continue to work the work of nonviolence and demand an end two census killing everywhere. impeachhe resolution to john koskinen. >> commissioner of the internal revenue service for high crimes and misdemeanors. review the debate
with susan, senior correspondent for the washington examiner. join us thursday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span for congress this fall. this weekend, c-span's cities tour will explore the history of denver, colorado. bookstore, we visit a , founded in 1971 and considered the cornerstone of literary culture in denver. >> you will see in the store the green carpet. the dark wood. the original barnes & noble's stores were modeled after this. father,iving with his hunter temps and and his book "stories i tell myself.": >> he was born in 1936. growing up, he did not grow up involved withere
raising the kids. that was part of it. writing was the most important thing. family was secondary. of our citiest tour, some history of denver, colorado on american history tv. ranger on the transition into a wildlife refuge. that use thiselk area for cabing. out here.er are other common mammals. occasionally there is a bear in this area. >> and then kimberly fields, talks about how the mint changed to the city. >> by the 1880's, denver had
gotten rich from mining. it wanted to become the queen city of the planes, the center of commerce, the leader in the western united states. decided that as mint they could be proud of was going to be part of that process. >> the c-span cities tour of denver, decided that a colorado on book tv and sunday afternoon on american history tv on c-span3. visiting cities across the country. president obama began his trip to china today. the center for strategic and international studies hosted a preview of the trip earlier this week. this runs one hour and 15 minutes.
>> good morning, everyone, and discuss thee president's trip. please grab a snack and a coffee before we begin. i am the deputy director of strategic indications and i will be getting out of the way very shortly to interview these folks. mike green, our senior vice president for asia and to live -- to his left, matt goodman, senior advisor for asian economics. forher conley is the sep eurasia and the arctic and then amy joins us from the pentagon where she was deputy secretary of defense. she is now the senior director of our southeast asia program. just a point of order before we
begin, our panelists will give brief remarks and then we will open this up for questions. if you could use those microphones in front of you. we will record a transcript. you can find yourselves when you're looking for it afterwards. that is all for me. >> thank you and good morning. obama's lastdent trip to asia as president. week andeave next the third anda on he will have summits with the president, a series of meetings, discussions of economics. the thirdand in september 4 ann china, the chinese government will host the g20 meeting. on the evening of the fifth, he flies to laos, and then a
his finalobably speech on asia policy as resident. , with thesia summit leaders of the 10 members of the association, and then the full east asia summit. amy will talk about that. with will be bilaterals the president of turkey and other leaders, including leaders from europe, president putin. this being his last trip, i received a lot of questions already about how to think about president obama's legacy in asia. in a shameless self-promotion, i have a book coming out shortly on the history of your strategy in asia.
a good stocking stuffer. you will need a big stocking. i've been thinking a lot about ofre we are in the arc history with asia. let me start with some opening legacy. on the obama se most would say it is too early to make a judgment. the reality is there won't be a consensus anyway. stab at that first to provide some framing context. say,ain thing i would after seven years, there is far more continuity in president obama's asian policy. it is not a radical departure from what clinton and bush did. neither is it a bold new departure from what previous presidents did. the first president to declare
nixon,ves was richard who had served in the pacific. the had been governor in philippines. herbert hoover in china. john f. kennedy served in the pacific and so forth. many of the initiatives that have come to prominence began in and in thealignment clinton administrations. speaking, in a historical context, what obama has done is build on a set of broad policies started many decades earlier. every president since richard of their built part asia policy around engagement with china. that has not changed. every president since ronald complimented that
approach by building up a partnership to maintain a favorable balance of power and with an assertive china. administration, it was building up a u.s.-japan alliance. for the bush administration, it that,ilding on top of broadening our partnership with india. for president obama, the signature accomplishment is filling in southeast asia. very much building along those lines. on that, focus southeast asia. historians will say, if they look at the so-called pipit, the most significant legacy for the to beent is going
engagement of southeast asia. president obama had a lot to do with this. president bush decided not president obama, and maybe matt somepeak to this, after debate, decided to join east asia summit. secretaries clinton and kerry have attended every meeting of the foreign ministers meeting in asia. ther predecessors in clinton and bush administrations missed a number of them. this is probably the most deliberative and sustain engagement and southeast asia since the vietnam war. subsequent presidents have had spurts of energy, but no sustain comprehensive approach. i think the obama administration will observe some rightful credit for reconnecting to intheast asia and opening up
a sustained way and engagement strategy. i am sure that will be part of the celebration on this trip. the east asia summit and the u.s. all the in summit -- and the u.s. summit will show that. i think a speech in laos will show that. laos is sort of the last of those countries to really get this kind of hopigh profile attention from the u.s. its record on the micro c and human rights is not perfect. other aspects will be challenging on this trip. we will talk about the president protecting the philippines. basically, every country in southeast asia has improved relations with the u.s. the exception is thailand, which is complicated. i think where the president will get somewhat lower marks, not disastrous but below par compared to previous
presidents, is in the management of great power relations. japan, china. president obama inherited pretty stable relations with china and a strong relationship with japan, strong relationship with india. for a variety of reasons, he will hand off his successor a relationship with japan that has more pillars under it, the defense guidelines review, a successful visit to hiroshima, but a bit of a trust deficit, for reasons i cannot explain. and a relationship with china that is scratchy and really on the edge, unsettled. a lot of this has to do with facts out of the control of the united states, the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, suggesting that the u.s. was entering a time of secular decline. shooting in has turned up -- she's you clean -- the leader is
more nationalistic than his predecessor, who jintao. problem has been when the pivot was announced in 2011 and the rebalance, the bottom line was never clear. in 2009, president obama and president jintao enough they would respect china's core interest in asia. in 2011, when president jintao came to washington, they took the core interest out of the joint statement, and then there dimension. military it was badly received in china. in 2012, president xi proposed a new model of great power relations, and the administration embraced that in 2012 and 2013. it was badly received in japan, india, and elsewhere, because the new model, as particular by
beijing, says russia, china, and the u.s. a great powers, and india, australia are not. has back and forth exacerbated what was already a growing problem with a china that was in the context of the financial crisis. the chinese overplayed their hand here they played it too early. i think what you will see is support and encouragement for u.s. engagement because the chinese overplayed her hand but i do not think you will see a grand joint declaration, no celebration, perhaps some agreement on climate change, but a pretty scratchy relationship. we do not know whether china will reclaim more islands and build more airfields, as many expect, in response to the arbitration panel's ruling in
favor of the philippines. nobody expected china would take its next move before the g20, when every leader in the world is in china. but there is an open question of whether the next big move will happen after that. and we have great difficult these with china and the you went and great difficulties operationally with a steadily increasing show of force in the south china sea and east china sea. and then the tpp. i am certain that the president will say, publicly and privately, that he is committed duckssing tpp in the lame congress. most experts would say it is a long shot. i certainly hope he succeeds. i think the next president will have a very hard time getting back to tpp quickly. the good news is the agreement will probably be ratified in the fall and will hold in australia, vietnam, and elsewhere.
you would suffer a hit in terms of credibility and reputation without tpp, but i think we have a couple years to recover because the region generally wants it. the last one, north korea. all i can say about north korea is no president has handed to his successor a better situation with north korea. kim jong-un may not remain quiet while the world's attention is on the part of the world. let me turn it over to matt. goodman: ok, from the sublime to the ridiculous. i will do the g20. so the group of 20 summit will be held in china on september 4 and sent to her five, the 11th leaders summit since the g20 was elevated from a finance ministry for them to a leaders forum in
the middle of the global financial crisis in 2008. ofis president obama's tenth those 11 summits. it brings together about 80% of the global economy. the math in the g20 never works, so it is actually a g53. 19 individual countries plus the and nine invited guests, plus seven international financial institutions in the u.n. so that makes 63 by my count, a the table.le around from a white house perspective, and this is also kind of a legacy tour, because in january 2009 when the president came into office, the u.s. economy was crashing and burning, and the g20 was part of the effort to stabilize, sort of to right it, in part by bringing
passengers up front to help steer the plane, so through these regular summits, the effort to try to get cooperation on global growth, financial stability, and on reform of the international financial architecture so that these sorts of things do not happen again. i think the president and the white house are going to want to sell baby progress that has been some thingsilizing and getting some growth back on track and getting more financial stability, and avoiding protectionism is a big accomplishment of the g20. they did not slide into the 1930's style of protectionism. climate change is another part thate g20 broader agenda the president is going to want to highlight. but there are still major challenges of global growth. it is inadequate, insufficient. only the u.s. is really growing
at all, and even that is underwhelming. there will be concerns about trade, protectionism, and sort of a flip back into parochialism , so i think the president will want to sort of take that on. there is a particular concern about overcapacity, particularly other steel and commodities sectors, and i think that will be a major topic of conversation, certainly won the white house will want to emphasize. " even think the world "steel will be mentioned in the communiqué of the g20, which is pretty unusual. so that will be one of the headlines, including possibly establishing a global forum to talk about overcapacity or from a chinese perspective, it is really mostly about the show. china, when they host of these international events, aipac, the olympics, we all remember the show from those things. in a positive sense, china wants to be a good steward of this organization, which it helps to cofound. the first time it is chairing
it, it is a real milestone in china's participation in global economic governance. i think it is important for this to go well. china has it invite four themes, describejectives to the word growth that they are looking to support four i's. innovative, nvidia grade desk and vigor in of, interconnecting, inclusive. as of the four adjectives, and they all have a very particular meeting. inclusive is probably the most important for china. they want to show that they are kind of a leader of the world and the developing world. but innovation is important for them. of course, they're committed to a stronger growth story. interconnected gets to the issue of infrastructure and trade, connectivity they want to highlight. there will be some outcomes there. china also has an interest in seeing progress and climate change being highlighted.
honestly, i would say the big headlines from this trip, even the g20 portion, are going to be not in the communiqué of the g20, but more in what goes on in the margins and the hallways them including in the bilaterals, which is my way of handing it over to heather. ms. conley: good morning, everyone. i will focus on president obama's bilateral meeting with turkish president erdogan, and formal meeting with russian president region, and give a european context, particularly in light of this morning's announcement regarding apple. mike's thought about legacy, indeed, there will be a very interesting legacy discussion regarding president obama's turkey policy. as you recall, in 2009 in one of his first speeches, the president going abroad in
ankara, he called the u.s.-turkish relationship a model partnership, and certainly turkey to become a model partner for the middle east. and today, i think we see a very fundamentally changed relationship between the united states and turkey. have two descriptions right now of u.s. government officials, debbie the national security adviser describes the u.s.-turkish relationship in context of a broad and active agenda to the special envoy described of yesterday as turkish intervention in syria, unacceptable, at a source of deep concern, so usually do not have necessary agreement within the u.s. government about the shape and contoured of this relationship. i would describe it as one that is rapidly deteriorating. ofhas been a historic number u.s. senior visits to turkey following the july 15 coup.
you had general dunford, the first seen u.s. official arrive in turkey after the coup. you had vice president biden's visit last week, august 24. and now you have this bilateral meeting between president erdogan and president obama on september 4. clearly, syria will be a critical element of that agenda. a plan that the u.s. government had been formulating related to syria i think now no longer exists. and this meeting with president erdogan has to reconstitute a strategy for syria. the original plan was to close the turkish border where isis control, a gap between were syrian kurds control, the west and the east of the border, but the center is where the islamic state still rests. and with turkey's military
intervention, again, at the timing of vice president biden's visit to turkey, again, signals the great break in this relationship. so i hope we will see from the bilateral meeting a new understanding about the objectives of the syrian strategy. i think it is going to be extremely difficult to move the tyd, the syrian kurdish military east of the euphrates. that is the guarantee that the obama administration has made to turkey. that will be very difficult, and it is clear that turkey is continuing its intervention. this will be a huge element of this bilateral discussion. the second element is clearly centered around the status of the extradition of mr. gulen, which was also a very important part of the conversation during vice president's biden trip last
week. other than sending a justice department, state department, team last week to turkey, it is unclear whether the strategic u.s.-turkey relationship, it will absolutely rest on whether extradited or not. clearly, this relationship is near the breaking point, and it will be very interesting to see how president obama couches the future of that relationship. after that heavy lift, we're told there will be an informal meeting between president putin and president obama, and the discussion will also be syria, as well as ukraine. in syria, we haven't interesting development of the turkey-russia issue, and to see how that understanding works and whether russia will work to be a cooperative partner in syria, even after last week's marathon
meeting between secretary kerry and his counterpart, we see no productivity. we see lots of meetings but no outcomes. i think questions need to be raised about what this ongoing dialogue is producing. i think it has produced very little. on ukraine, although not certainly the headline that syria is grabbing, the cease-fire agreement is rapidly deteriorating in ukraine, as well. two publics ago, there was a very -- two weeks ago, there was a serious build up in crimea. russia did unannounced exercises on the craney and border -- on the ukrainian border. this is an unsolved issue that continues to deteriorate. it is unclear what the role of the u.s. will be and helping to shape that outcome or it we are not sure whether president putin will be meeting with french president françoise along and german chancellor angela merkel.
it is unclear. it has been canceled, put back on, canceled again. we will see if this normal format, minus ukraine, because it is unclear if the president of ukraine will be part of that discussion, so there is no clear solution and russia continues its military buildup, and the cease-fire violations continue. so this is the legacy of president obama's russian policy, which is a question mark. the european context, i hope another informal meeting that is scheduled on the margins of the g20 is president obama's meeting with british prime minister theresa may, her coming out party, her first major international event. prime minister may will be having a meeting with president putin. this is actually an important meeting, as well, as british-russian relations have been very rocky, to say the least, and there has been a
sense of seeking to normalize that relationship. the u.k. has been a stalwart force on maintaining robust eu sections against russia because of events in ukraine and crimea. withll also be interesting theresa may is a visit to china, is one of her first issues was to review a major chinese investment in the u.k., and nuclear power plant, which has created a little tension. certainly the chinese government is very upset by this decision being reviewed, and she will have to work very hard to put some minds at ease. we are also interested to see, of course, as brexit negotiations are ongoing, what impact that will have on the global economy. finally, i cannot end without a brief note on european relations with china, particularly in the european spectrum. very much overcapacity in steel
mat. minds ofl be on the european, very concerned about overcapacity, market economy status. there is growing unease about chinese investment in europe, i would say, on a larger trend. certainly, we will be looking, german chancellor was just in china in june, a tense visit the are he has been the one european leader seized with trying to create a robust economic relationship, and now german business leaders are increasingly speaking out about all the problems that american businesses have been having in china, and now certainly german companies and others are stressing very similar issues. as much as we're concerned about the status of tpp, i would argue that our european colleagues, both of german and french, are increasingly not happy with the transatlantic investment and trade investment partnership, so ttip is as strained as tpp.
isbal economy, free trade, not in good shape on both sides of these trading blocs. with that, amy, over to you. ms. searight: thank you. for the second half of the trip, to kind of return to some of the thanks mike laid out, this will be very much about president obama's signature foreign-policy initiative, the rebalance or the pivot. from the beginning, this has had south east asia at the center, and specifically, it has had a real embrace with the association of southeast asian nations as an organization and his support for oxion and the central role it plays as a convener and the region and is central player in the regional security architecture. also been about building up new cooperative relationships with emerging partners, new partners. laos is a good example of that.
year, whichr this is why it is hosting the main summits in the country. president obama will be the first sitting president to ever visit laos. we have been building up our relationship with laos, so the bilateral visit will serve to bilateralour relationships, particularly in the area of development assistance, where we have andrams in health agriculture and legacy of war issues, where we do a lot of work on unexploited ordinates and cooperation in finding remains of our missing in action. president obama will travel and hold a town hall with young toders of laos, very similar the use engagement, the town hall he did in malaysia last year. are those of you who may have seen this cover live on television, it is a great example of a free flowing
exchange of ideas with the president of the united states leaders and selfies asia, and it is very meaningful, especially for them, to be about a have that kind of exchange. and there will be a wide-ranging speech on asia the president obama will developer -- deliver in laos, and it will attempt to capture the progress of the obama administration has made under the rebalance and look forward to the future of our relationship. on the second day in laos, president obama will meet with .ll 10 of the leaders of asean this will be the ninth time that president obama has met with asean leaders, u.s.-asean summit, which is pretty remarkable. the last time was in february in sunny land, california. in this meeting in laos will be very much about building on the momentum that was achieved in sunnyland.
i think there will be a real focus on discussion around the south china sea and maritime security cooperation more broadly. there will also be a focused discussion on economic engagement, and the obama administration will announce some elaboration of its u.s.-asean connect issue two of that it initially announced in tonyland, an attempt to try bring together a number of different programs run on many different agencies, to bring it together into a common platform and promote engagement with the private sector around issues of infrastructure and entrepreneurship and innovation. discussion ona transnational issues, like counterterrorism and climate change. and i think the will be a real emphasis on youth engagement. there is the young leaders of southeast asia initiative. and women's leadership, as well.
finally, the main event, which is the east asia summit. this brings together all 10 leaders from asean, with their aid dialogue partners, which in addition to the u.s., includes china, japan, south korea, india, australia, new zealand, and russia. the east asian summit has really emerged. it celebrated its 10th anniversary last year in malaysia. it has emerged as a premier leader-let forum for discussion in the region on political and security issues. this will be the fifth time that president obama has participated in the east asian summit. i expect he will use this as an opportunity to advance the rules-based order in the context specific challenges, most notably perhaps the south china sea and recent developments related to the south china sea, including the ruling by the tribunalsed arbitral
panel and the case that the philippines brought against china on maritime issues in the south china sea. i am sure that president obama will reiterate the u.s. views that this ruling is a final and binding. but at the same time, we also see it as an opportunity, a turning point for using more diplomacy to try to resolve some of these disputes. another topic will be north korea and the need to enforce u.n. sanctions against north korea and its recent behavior. also, there will be more discussion than before on the issue of human trafficking and migration. finally, in addition to these summits, president obama will be meeting with the 10 asean leaders as a group, and there will be limited time to have other bilateral meetings with some asian leaders. i am told he will not have much
time, so i do not think there will be a lot of bilateral. of course, he has met with a lot of southeast asian leaders recently. he was in vietnam in may. a member late last year. the one southeast asian leader i'm pretty confident he will meet with is the new president of the philippines, elected in june. he is a very colorful figure, of course, and he has made some very controversial remarks and has taken very troubling steps and domestic policy and terms of dealing with drugs and crime that has caused real human rights concerns. and the larger context, the u.s.-philippine alliance has made great strides in recent years with the negotiation of the enhanced development cooperation agreement and the beginning of implementing that and a number of other things we have been doing to build capacity for the philippines in terms of its security, as well
as economic areas. so i think this will be a good opportunity for president obama to sit down with the new president attach days with all of our cooperation and build that relationship. i will stop there. ok, we are now going to open it up to questions. say your name and who you are with to help with the transcript. we have microphones for those in the back, as well. >> hi, i am from china daily. two questions. i mean, everyone is talking about the need to bolster global growth. u.s.,ou think china, maybe other major economies should do individually or maybe together in this regard? secondly, can you explain to average people with the g20 has a congress to years? thank you. >> good question.
on growth, the u.s. and china ,ill be aligned in wanting more a combination of more demand stimulus and structural reform. the u.s. grabs a little bit more accent on the former of stimulating demand through fiscal and monetary policy. china, a little more on the structural reform agenda. the challenge and the g20 is that not everybody agrees -- everybody agrees on structural reform, because everybody knows they have to fix their own economy. ands difficult politically, it is based on domestic policy discussions -- and decisions and political choices, so it is difficult for a group like this to do anything other than say structural reform is an important thing that we should all be doing. problem is that one country in particular, and i will not mention any names, its initials are germany, is very stimulus, any fiscal
and germany is the host of the g20 next year, so they are already part of the so-called .roika leaders so i do not think there will be any substantive progress on demand stimulus, so that is a real challenge. overall, as i said in my introductory remarks, what i would say and what i think president obama is going to say to the american people about the g20 is that the g20 has done three broad things. it has set an agenda for global economic cooperation, and that is important for talking about these issues of growth and financial stability, tax reform. there are other things were leaders have set a political agenda. second, solve problems, starting with intervening to prevent a deep and lasting crisis in the global economy and financial system.
it solvedfically, some specific smaller problems, like advancing the trade agenda or improving, cracking down on tax evasion. the third thing is it has helped to build packets of cooperation. it has brought together countries representing a group of economies, large and small, to talk about common interests,, and challenges, and that is a big deal. it is something that does not happen very often. as a group,he g20, can take credit, and the fact that china, largest emerging market, second largest economy in the world, is now chairing this group am a shows there has been tremendous progress in the cement.g national conn, journey.
just national journal of you talk about the strides the president made in southeast asia, but is there any reason to believe that anything on the pivot or southeast asia endures past january 20, that this will last? reasons.f is, if you look at the structure of international relations, with all respect to our european friends, the dominance of of both good and bad is shifting to the far east. the developments in the far east are now affecting the globe after centuries were the west basically influenced the far east. and americans know that you pretty consistently. there is one exception in a new people, but pretty consistently region of the world's most important to u.s. interests, and asia has been one
for the past five years. it was europe the decades before that. ,e did our own survey at csis our counterparts, think tankers, former government officials, and we asked about the goal of the rebalance -- do you supported? over 80% in asia said yes, outside of china. it was the reverse and china. only about 20% and china thought it was a good thing. the most interesting result was, in the u.s., over 90% said yes. and we sent this to hudson, heritage, aei. so i think beyond republican, democrat, right/left politics, at the elite level, if you will, there is a broader consensus. and precisely because it is not new -- tpp started at the end of bush. the japan policy started in
clinton. there is a lot more continuity. so i am pretty optimistic about it. one is,he wild card, do you get senior officials in the next administration who know asia? serving the top ranks of u.s. government right now, the literacy and experience within asia is not as strong. it is lower than it was in the first obama term or bush or clinton, i think. bewill the secretaries people that instinctively get asia? the other question is, what happens in the middle east and russia? how much bandwidth will the next president have to continue this work? but i pretty optimistic about this. >> briefly on the south asia part of it, i think it will be entering, although a lot will depend on the new leadership coming in with a new administration, as mike said, withinave seen
organizations, certainly with that the pentagon, a real shift in focus and priorities and programs, real frameworks an agreement towards southeast asia, in particular, compared to previous administrations. take defense, for example, first of all, you do have a knowledgeable and committed leader in carter. but over the last couple of years, it has not just been secretary carter's engagement or president obama's engagement on defense and security cooperation. it has been the whole of the department. paycom has shifted to focus more on southeast asia and asean, and we have developed new frameworks with particular countries. we have negotiated with the philippines and australia. more with asia, indonesia, and india appeared we have broken new ground in countries like vietnam in defense cooperation. so these are real gains that, of
course, the momentum needs to be maintained, and the energy and attention that will be needed to move those things forward, but i think the new administration is an herrity a much more robust -- is an herrity much more robust set across the region, and there is a real regional demand signal for maintaining those relationships and frameworks. i think the one real economiclity is on the side, because we have made a lot of real gains on the security side, and on the economic side, we have negotiated the very complex landmark agreement and the tpp, but it is now quite vulnerable. we will have to wait and see whether the u.s. can pass it. i am with bloomberg. one thing i did not hear you mention is cyber security. clearly, that is something of interest with some of the
bilateral relationships. there is a group of senators pressuring obama to try to make cyber crimes a priority with the g20 discussions here and where do you think that will play in, both at the g20 summit broadly, as well as in the bilaterals, especially with china and russia? cyber expert is jim lewis . the four of us somehow managed to make our iphones work. myself, i don't managed to make my iphone work. , russia is a very significant problem. with china, it is a significant problem, too. i think you will have some fact sheets. there are too many scratchy, negative, difficult places to be celebratory. the view on cyber is quite
divided between the state department and pentagon. the pentagon's view, would summarize this as being already in a state of cyber warfare with china and russia in no time for the state department will focus on cyber dialogues and efforts to talk about cyber. i think the reality lies more with the pentagon as far as china. i do not forget is very likely the administration will come out at the end with any kind of workable framework with china on cyber at all. part of that is because the deterrent side of it, the cost to china has not been established. i think russia is probably an even bigger problem. >> i certainly hope president obama raises the cyber question. clearly, the u.s. government is struggling over the dnc hacks, getting from attribution to cost and position.
very much as they struggled with the opm hacks, as well. it is deliberation upon deliberation. jim lewis said he believes the cost imposition should be swift, if it is attributable and understood. clearly a toolis of statecraft to influence, to shape, to coworkers, in fuse. ,e have seen this across europe in particular, whether it is information operations. it can also be critical infrastructure, as we have seen in december when a grid is taken down. these are great challenges, and they influence how our societies function. so getting our arms around this but being extremely clear, particularly with russia, that
these acts will have costs is vital. the question of how president obama will approach that, what decisions will be reached, i think in an informal meeting, there is not an them or miss -- not an enormous amount, but there will hopefully be strong messages privately. --administration in the last administrations in the last six month are low to impose costs. you risk creating a crisis for your successor. any responsible for policy does not want to do that. second, it could ruin your legacy is the other side retaliates in your final months of office. personally, i would be surprised if the kind of cost imposition we're talking about becomes a feature of our policy in the next nine months or so. hi, mr. goodman.
i am from cctv america. you have some experience working in the white house. can you share your expectation or prediction? obama travels to asia for g20. can he actually generate any legacies of his administration and terms of the u.s.-china relations? >> mike also worked in the white house, and both amy and have the worked in administrations and don't with some of these issues. i think mike laid it out nicely with the overall legacy is in asia, and i agree with him with everything he said. i think u.s.-china relations are what thispart of president and the last seven presidents have spent a lot of time focused on, and i think the president going to china -- i have lost count of how many
times, at least four are five think hepresident -- i is trying to leave a relationship in which we are tryging constructively to to both promote areas where we can cooperate, and there are a number of those. climate change is one of those, and that is one which i think the white house wants to emphasize. and in the g20 and working together in 2008-2009, to try to prevent this global meltdown, that was a signature a compliment. and the same time, this engagement has to be to manage competition, because we have competition in our relationship. as an economist, competition does not bother me. it is something you have to deal yourself stronger. honestly, of course, there are also aspects of this competition that are troubling and
problematic, and the president is going to want to be very clear to president xi into prime minister li when he sees him at the east asia summit that we have to find a way of resolving and managing them. i think there is going to be a very sharp message on the concerns about maritime issues about cyber security, about trade and investment challenges. it is all of that. heather?follow up with g20 is supposed to be the platform for economic cooperation and how important are the voices of the emerging markets in the current context? maybe matt is better for that. for me, it has been watching the evolution of, previously the
g-8, g7, to the g20. i think, in some ways, there is a focus on bringing in new voices to help in large this has been very important it what is interesting to me is watch the evolution of europe becoming much more active , and it needs to be more active .n asia in emerging economies this is what has been pursued in getting larger powers to work and engage in the institutional architecture, economic architecture, he could as we are seeing impacts in the emerging developing economies, vice versa. of that itn example we're struggling with our geometry, if you will, the right balance of voices that can shape it. i can almost argue in watching
of a7 that it was more political security body that talked about economics. i would not be suppressed if the into newstart going political areas, because it is a table of new voices to wrestle with these larger, more complications. >> two quick additions. one, in pittsburgh when the u.s. hosted the third summit in the agreed 2009, the g20 under u.s. leadership that the g20 would become the preeminent forum for our international economic cooperation. and that word "our" is important. the point is, that was a conscious decision by the obama administration to embrace the broader table setting with which emerging economies, including china, where very much empowered and equal partners. the second point is china is hosting.
china is the largest, fastest growing emerging market in the world, and it is hosting this forum. so that kind of speaks for itself that emerging countries have a lot more of a voice. i am from the christian science monitor. michael, i would like to ask you, you talked a lot about the scratchy state of u.s.-china relations. obviously, this is coming in the context of a presidential campaign. you go back to the primaries, and there is a lot of talk about need for a tougher stance with , both economically and in terms of security, the south china sea, and that this president has sort of paved the way and not done much to stand up to china. i am wondering if you expect to see that context, any messaging , to to the u.s. electorate
the american people to kind of address that characterization of the administration? we always say these summits, half of it is what is being messaged back to the domestic audience. in the end, china may dodge that bullet, because the quality of the rhetoric between the two leading presidential candidates has become so low that china may get a free pass in this election, who knows. do myel in asia a lot, as colleagues, and i don't mind saying that there is deep, deep anxiety about donald trump,
especially among our allies. even in vision, the views are mixed. some look at it as an opportunity, because donald trump never mentions human rights, criticizes our allies, and so forth. i think the view in beijing, and this has been since 1995, is that hillary clinton will be tougher on them than secretary kerry than president obama was 1995 that speech in was well received internationally but scratchy and uncomfortable and controversial .or the chinese chinese scholars and journalists attribute the troubles in u.s.-china relations to the rebalance, and they usually blame her. there wasn't op-ed -- there was kerryed about secretary being wise enough not to meddle in the u.s. like hillary clinton.
i think things will be tougher with china. an election that has unnerved everyone. secretary clinton's opposition than ihas gone deeper think the other partners veryted, and they are all nervous that she might enforce a renegotiation. i have heard her use the word renegotiation or did i am wrong. they are starting to realize that if it does not get through in the lame-duck, it will be very hard for her to pivot back to the position she had asked secretary of state. this election has unnerved friends and allies, and that is going to be sending president obama is going to have very much in mind. amongure it will come up friends, like those from singapore, japan, and australia, europeans, for sure. i do nothing he can reassure by
commenting on the election publicly very much. if i were advising him, i would say look at the polls about free trade and allies in asia. they have not been dented by this election. look at points of continuity. i think our tpp partners are not in forup on us and are the long haul. they do not have much of a choice. a is definitely going to be factor in this trip that the president is going to have to really think about and reassure about, you know, overstepping feelingming, sort of and even more destructive debate. >> tpp has come up a few times. i do not disagree with mike that our tpp partners will stick with us for a few years because everyone recognizes the tremendous potential, so if we have to stall, it is definitely
a suboptimal outcome, but i do not beginning when will walk away from the table right away. but i also want to underscore that for many of these countries, countries like vietnam, malaysia, and japan, their leadership have put some real things on the table in negotiations that have come with some real political costs and risks. so it will be tremendously damaging for u.s. credibility, the sense that the u.s. is a reliable partner, if we look like we're willing to walk away from the tpp. we need to bear that in mind. likely countries, vietnam, in a really difficult position. >> over here on this side of the room. >> good morning. euro news. i wonder what the you can comment on the apple case and the u.s. reaction to that and put it in some sort of broader perspective.
apple is not the most popular company in this town, as we know, but the reaction of the treasury department was very clear that also very muted. how do you see trade going forward? the german government has said it is just another death nail. i think the u.s. and eu has gotten into a negative cycle on trade, economic investment, and we need to stop and try to return to a more positive dynamic. last week,cretary lu they knew this was coming, and the u.s. has already registered its increasing concern about the direction, and clearly, i woke up to this shock of the 13 billion euro fine.
as an individual, equal shot at the level of taxes that apple paid them as well, and that gets back to the g20 agenda of tax evasion and how challenging this is in a globalized context for multinational firms where there is not a level playing field. we know irish corporate tax rates have been a concern within the eu for many years. i think the question is, is this the best way to address it? increasingly, it is not just in the apple case, but it has been a series of anti-competition measures, particularly for american i.t. firms here and we are struggling. we have always, the u.s. and europe has been friendly competitors in trying to bring our values to give great economic growth, and somehow that cycle began to change, and now we are seeing each other as increasing obstacles to this, and we have got to get out of
this dynamic quickly. i think the u.s. has to spend more time engaging your up in this conversation, a complex conversation at both the national and the european level. it is not easy, but i think we see now the stakes are enormous. --m increasingly concerned we are a year of from german parliament elections. the germans are acting a little more american like in their election campaign, starting to early. we are seeing a great division within the social democratic party and what the vice chancellor has been saying, not ip, but on russia, migration, and turkey. it is very important, and there are divisive dynamics occurring within the coalition government. the chancellor will be getting results while she is in asia. we will see how this dynamic works out. the fact of the matter is, the
electoral calendar has always worked against ttip. it is clear to me that there is untilsibility of movement the french presidential elections and the german parliament elections occur in 2017 year and, then in 2018, we get to our midterm elections. in 2019 european parliament. 2020, back to the general elections. so unless we change the dynamics among our public about trade, and any the german context, i think it is a deal for anti-americanism in general. in france, it is more protectionism. against.s., it is anger trade. we have to change the dynamic where everyone sees that there are benefits to trade, not just a small group. until we change that dynamic, i think it will get harder and harder for election cycles to sort of support and ratified
these important free-trade agreements. i will try to get in a few more questions. thank you. about the south china sea issue, china already declared they are not going to accept any international ruling. can the president get any positive reaction from president xi? if botht wondering leaders can have a positive conversation about the south china sea. thank you. >> my answer would be no. not operating with the same basic assumption about what is at stake in the south china sea. the chinese side will not yield
on its assertion that it has complete sovereignty. the u.s. and our allies will not yield on the jurisdiction of this decision and the binding nature of the decision or on ou r, frankly, much more important resistance to the use of coercion against smaller states to change the status quo, which is what china is doing. the operational tackle, the number of ships and planes, the caliber of weapons, the nature of the ships on the chinese side is all on a steady increase. chinag dramatic move by would be to do land reclamation and build an airfield. you will see it first on amti, our website. that would be a very big move before g20 for china, very
self-defeating. it could be before the presidential elections. you may not see that. we're moving and largely different directions. the administration, philippines, and others are remaining calm in the hope they can get some traction going to take what xi jingping will talk about is the idea that rising powers seem to always fight the status quo powers, and to avoid that, you need to agree to make some concessions to china. the president will not accept that. we will come out of this with essentially no resolution, in my view. it depends on how much risk xi wants to take and how firm we are about operations and continuing work with the philippines. i think despite what he says, his government is pretty much on the same track.
i am from nhk. i have a question on tpp. i think a lot of asian countries are wondering whether u.s., president obama, can pass tpp and the congress, and i think a lot of people are watching his speech in laos very closely. how can he really convince the make leaders that he can this case, make this tpp? record ofto be on the saying what everybody else has said, which is that tpp is absolutely essential to the civet, rebalance strategy, to the u.s. position in asia, essential to our economic strategy of the last 70 years of , aing to create, champion
rules-based order, and that is very important. self advertising, i am doing a piece today about that aspect of this, rulemaking and tpp. it is absolutely critical. the fact that it was agreed is a significant accomplishment. a lot of people thought that was not going to happen. i have always been an optimist about tpp, and the optimistic position has been the correct position. everything that was supposed to happen has happened is on his you did not pick a date. beelieve tpp will ultimately ratified by all 12 members of tpp, including the united states . i think the president will try to assure leaders in asia that that is his belief and his strong intention, and he is going to work as hard as he can before he leaves office to try to get this ratified. i personally think it is going to be a long shot to get it done and a lame duck, but i think it is possible. so i want to leave on an
optimistic note. politicians can decide and say things today that the decide and feel they field of really about on an other day. so not to politicians of what they are saying today, but what they say on november 9, the day after the election. >> at the very back there. you, i have a question about briggs it. -- about brexit. started saying that the highly integrated relationship between the uk and fors something that's best the economic society. but the interest among europe and the u.k. seen to be a little different. so i wonder how president obama is going to push this discussion
in the g-20 meeting or the bilateral meeting. and how we can expect accomplishment in that, you know, in the discussion. expect wonder if we can some statement or discussion about the monetary policy. or the exchange rate situation. ms. conley: i don't imagine brexit will be part of the formal conversations at the g20. thepect it would be less informal bilateral conversations. this week, she will sit down with her three key cabinet members to talk about the different options. what theseow discussions will look like because the government has not pronounced how it wishes to proceed. the european union is allowing the british government to help
understand that. but we won't know the full impact. the economic data will be delayed until we understand. as awful and catastrophic that some economists had predicted after the markets got over the initial shock of the decision. but this will be a different relationship, regardless of the process that they perceive. what i find interesting about the u.s. government comment, when president obama visited london a month before the u.k. a message, there was of punishment that the u.k. would go to the back of the queue if they decided to vote to leave the european union. after was the indispensable partner, the closest possible relationship. it's not just politicians that say one thing and then realize something else. our position has shifted. there will be questions about
what free trade arrangements will be made. now, for the g20, is trying to make sure the brexit doesn't have an immediate short-term impact on global stability. we have passed that marker but the question is, in the long term, if it gets too monetary policy. some decisions as well as the ecb -- i will sort of toss this. whether negative interest rates financeusly the german minister has been extremely concerned. that great current account forlus is being punished $13 trillion of value in negative interest rates. that will be discussed. mr. goodman: the brexit will still be talked about in the g20. there is the worry about it, the immediate impact has passed. but it is still a pretty big growth event.
by the imf forecast, it will shave something like almost 1% of a british growth. people forget that britain is still the fifth largest economy in the world. it is a large economy. my british friends say it is a small island nation but i was reminded it is a huge economy with economic impact. i think on the monetary issues, there is general agreement that monetary policy -- the people that criticize where we are with negative interest rates and the fed positions, there is broad agreement that monetary policy has gone as far as it can addressing the fundamental growth if not exhausted or gotten beyond where it should be. everybody has agreed on that. should the emphasis be put on more fiscal based stimulus. that is the u.s. germany debate to a large extent.
i think that is going to be the main focus of contention and the difference in the room at the g20. coming up on time so final questions? >> this question is for heather. the topic of cyber security and the russians. you said there was concern that these russian hacks were targeted towards the dnc or the democratic organizations. they are also targeting organizations like csis. is there a greater concern that russian hackers are attacking outside groups that are supplement -- or just political organizations? thank you. we take exception to the term that we are on the
periphery. certainly, the challenge for the u.s. government, i'm thinking of the dnc hacks. when it gets to the heart of democratic processes. the government has to make a andsion about attribution deciding if there are costs to that. cost and action. the longer we debate over what to do, whether it gets caught up in legacy, if it's an important -- if it's a difficult thing to do at the end of administrations. they keep pushing the envelope. keep pushing the boundaries. there is not that cost in position. that is the cycle we get into. hasome ways, the good news been that there is an enormous amount of investigative
journalism. putting more focus on it. aware that this type of behavior is going on. it is exposing that and finding the tools to address it. those tools we may be aware of publicly. but that there is that reaction. think tanks are not immune to these types of attacks. specifically when we talk about ourexpose our research -- research exposes these type of recommendations and how to stop it. we are really entering what i would call uncharted territory. you have state actors trying to shape and influence outcomes. we better get a quick handle on this. before it does significant damage.
than ever, americans are aware of the challenge. the decision has to be made of what to do about it. folks, we will leave it there. take a look at your inboxes later today and we will be sending you the transcript. we will follow-up with the transcript panel today. ,lease get in touch with myself brandon schwartz, andrew schwartz. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> we have more life programming coming up. we will take you to a discussion on free speech on college campuses and the constitution. including jeffrey rosen from the national constitution center. that will be at 4 p.m. eastern. trump willht, donald be tell his immigration policy and plans during a speech in phoenix. and meetingiting with that country's president. the phone calls and reactions tonight starting at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. >> with the house and senate returning from their summer break next week, we will preview for key issues facing congress this fall.
federal funding to combat the zika virus. >> women in america want to make sure they have the ability to not get pregnant because mosquitoes who pratt -- ravage pregnant women. >> they turn down the very money that they argued for last may. they decided to gamble with the lives of children like this. >> the annual defense policy and programs bill. >> all of these votes are vital to the future of this nation. , and the of turmoil greatest number of refugees since the end of world war ii. body.ry member of this every republican and democrat wants to see less gun violence. >> we must work the work of nonviolence.
demand in and to senseless killing everywhere. >> commissioner of the internal revenue service for high crimes and misdemeanors. >> join us thursday night for congress this fall. >> we will explore the literary life and history of denver, colorado. we visit the tattered cover bookstore. it is the cornerstone of literary culture of denver. see green carpets and grass fixtures. they were modeled on this.
>> and the author talks about living with his father hunter s thompson and stories i tell myself. >> he was born in 1936. eraid not grow up in an they were heavily involved in raising the kids. second, it was the most important thing. >> the history of denver colorado on american history tv. national fish and wildlife service ranger. have elk that uses this area. they use the drainages for capping. there may be some fonts.
in itself had gotten rich from mining. it became the queen city of the claims. the center of commerce. the leader in the western united states. that a meant they could be proud of was going to be part of that process. >> the c-span cities tour, saturday at noon eastern on tv.an two possible and sunday on american history tv on c-span. visiting cities across the country. >> a discussion on the security
of the nations voting system in the wake of reports of possible hacking into voter databases into states. from today's washington journal, this runs about 45 minutes and we will show you as much as we can until the program on free speech on college campuses begins now scheduled for 4 p.m. eastern time. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by michael isikoff of yahoo! news, and investigative correspondent. good morning to you. how did you find this out? caller: first -- guest: there have been a lot of concerns about potential for hacking the election. a lot of this arose over the summer with discussions that the democrat national committee had been hacked. officials said they believe that russian hackers did this. oft did raise the specter
russian tampering with the elections. crossing aussians line, not just gathering intelligence, but by dumping those e-mails actually trying to influence or disrupt our democratic process? the week of the democratic convention, there was a gathering of national security experts in aspen. it is an annual event. they put out a letter that week that raised concerns that if the reports were correct and the russians did this with the dnc, what else could they do? into they seek to hack elections themselves and tamper or disrupt the results? this has been an issue that
election security folks have been talking about for quite some time. it comes up every four years. what are the older abilities? -- vulnerabilities? that letter really raised the stakes. a couple weeks later on august 15, homeland security secretary jeh johnson had a conference call with state election officials in which he warned that this is something we are concerned about, and here are steps we would like you to take to protect your election systems , and also offering federal cyber security help if they wanted vulnerability scans, and also suggested that the department was looking at designating elections as part of the nation's critical infrastructure, which means that it could provide -- they could
provide federal protection. host: then the fbi got involved. guest: three days after that conference call, the fbi sent out this flash alert saying they had uncovered actual penetrations of two state election voter databases. website --it on our published it on our website. sources tell us is illinois. hackers got in and essentially stole data on up to 200,000 voters. this seemed to move the issue from the radical to the real -- theoretical to the real. we do not help who is behind this. there are indications that this is boring hackers. -- foreign hackers.
there are indications that ip addresses have past associations with russian hacks. the really ramped up concerns about this issue. host: we will continue our conversation. if you want to ask them questions, (202) 748-8000 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. you can tweak your questions, too. we will listen to the fbi director and get your response. [video clip] >> we take very seriously any effort by any act or, including nationstates that moves beyond the collection of information about our country and that offers the prospect of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country, whether
that is an election or something else. aree kinds of things something we take very, very seriously and work very hard to uiperstand so we can eq the rest of our government to deal with it. host: can you speculate what he means? guest: that seems to be a strong confirmation of everything i was saying. they are looking at this, the instances a possible of just what the director said. you have foreign governments le inng to metal -- medd our elections. this is not a partisan issue. this is something that should be of concern where you are on the spectrum. you were talking
about the two states, well put someone clean from those -- glean from those databases? guest: that's what makes this puzzling. on its face, this does not take you directly to tampering with election results. we can discuss the vulnerabilities there. these were what a registration databases. much what a registration is actually online. for one thing, there is personal information that goes beyond what you can get online. the last four digits of social security numbers, driver's license numbers. the kinds of things that hackers traditionally might want to get cyber crimemmon purposes, the kinds of things we have seen in so many other hacks. why this is being taken more
--iously than just that is into or part of a probe wheredversaries to see older abilities are, how they can get into the system? it is conceivable that if you get into the database, you could start the leading names. suddenlyow up and their names are not on the registration lists. in most cases, there are backups, you can file a provisional ballot. havocis a way to create at the polls. that may be all the goal is here. if it is a foreign adversary, just to sow confusion, raise doubt, undermined confidence. host: we will start with bonnie
in louisiana. republican line. caller: good morning. first off, i don't believe russia has anything to do this. i don't know why russia is getting blamed for all this. we have all these other corporations that are putting these machines out. if you watch the documentary, hacking democracy, you can tell within 30 seconds they can fix the vote. you can go to blackbox voting.com. they will tell you how to do it. we need to go to paper ballots. there is no way we can trust these computers. guest: a couple of things. the concern about russia is because u.s. intelligence officials have made it clear they have high confidence that the hack of the dnc came from russian state-sponsored hackers. they have not the treated that in a political way.
that in ated political way. there have been pretty consistent statements along those lines. the -- where the vulnerabilities are in the election, the caller is right. they are there. they use optical scan machines which are backed up by paper ballot. safe,are reasonably experts will tell you. you have the security of a backup. in six states and parts of water others, including some swing states, pennsylvania and electronicou have voting machines in which there are no paper ballots. those are computerized voting in which there is the potential for
mischief, for someone to get in. i think that is where -- one area where people are concerned. in addition, in about 33 states you have internet voting for overseas and military ballots. clearly, that is another point .f vulnerability in the system elections are conducted at the state and local level. each state is responsible for its own voting. it would be difficult for somebody to pull off a nationwide cyber attack on the election. could somebody do it in isolated instances in some of these days that use electronic voting machines -- states that use electronic voting machines, it
is not out of the question. host: voting machines, some that have paper records and somewhere purely electronic. pete is up next for our guest. he is on massachusetts on the republican line. guest: this is a subject that troubled me for some time. i read a report wall street journal but it could have been another publication a couple of years ago. it was reported that george soros, through an entity in voting machine entities in the united states, or soros is a dangerous man in my opinion. and he is reportedly
behind the black lives matter and other entities like that. and i would not call it mischief. he is trying to fix the vote. , this is a man who is visited the white house. hundreds of times in the obama residency and it is a very scary and. this is a man who is basically try to rig the financial system. he is brilliant and cunning but he is very dangerous to the constitutional functions of this country. guest: i am not familiar with -- heanish voting machine is a huge political donor to hillary clinton.
the actual results are flipped and the loser becomes the winner, but that there is confidence in the election results, is undermined. host: is there a role for home care -- homeland security to say perhaps, provide additional guidance, security -- michael: they have done that. jeh johnson had that conference call. he is offering federal forstance to the state securing their systems, to conduct a vulnerability scans on their computers. and the george washington university law school -- >>