Good morning and welcome to CSIS. Thanks very much for coming out, and I hope you all had a good three-day weekend. We're very fortunate today to have Congressman Mac Thornberry, who led the House cybersecurity effort that has just recently put out its report. I was telling the congressman before we came in that the betting was against him when he started this, and we're all, I think, really impressed with what he and his fellow members had been able to do. Congressman Thornberry, at least from the CSIS perspective, is one of the true experts on the Hill when it comes to national security with his assignments to both armed services and intelligence committee, and he's perfectly placed in some ways to think about cybersecurity. So the report will hopefully lead to some good legislation. I'm sure the congressman will tell us about that. We're grateful for all your efforts over the years on national security. You've been one of the real leaders, and we're grateful that you came today to speak. Thank you. Well, I do appreciate the opportunity and the invitation to be here that Jim extended, partly because I believe CSIS is tremendously respected across the political spectrum, and so that enables CSIS to continue to play a key role in actually getting things done. But in addition to that, in this area in particular of cybersecurity, a lot of what we did in the task force drew on work that Jim and colleagues have done here at CSIS over some years, going back at least to the 2008 report that CSIS did, and then followed up by one earlier this year, a lot, you will find a lot of similarities. And so one could even say, we copied the chance to be here. I'm not gonna spend a lot of time talking about the problem or the urgency of dealing with the problem because I suspect everybody here is well aware of that. I will just say that the number one issue in the country, certainly on Capitol Hill, is jobs.  And that is happening with businesses large and small and of all variations. So what we're talking about today is related to the number one issue facing the country, but of course it's broader than that because as you know, not only are people reaching into steal information, it is possible to reach in and destroy information. And if we follow the Stuxnet reporting, it is possible to reach in and manipulate data in a way that has physical consequences in the real world which is disturbing for a lot of people when you think about the ramifications of that. So the way I summarize it is Speaker Boehner had had enough intelligence and administrations, both the previous one and this one have done some things, but it has been very difficult for Congress to act. Partly because it's a complex issue, partly because it has so many cross jurisdictional aspects to it both in the legislative and executive branches of government. So what we've had largely in recent years has been gridlock when it comes to Congress taking action to be taken. So Speaker Boehner's decision was to create a task force and he picked the nine committees of the House that had the most jurisdiction and it could have been more because it doesn't take too much of a stretch to add in some that were not chosen, but he chose the nine committees with the primary jurisdiction and asked each of those chairman to pick a representative to be on the task force. And in addition, he chose three at-large members who were also members of the most relevant committees. And so the task force consisted of 12 of us who were put together by the Speaker and the majority leader. And our charge was to try to develop a framework from which the committees could write specific legislation. And I would say that probably the hardest part was how detailed to get because you couldn't be so vague as to not really say anything, but we didn't have the resources or the charge or the inclination to write detailed legislation. As a matter of fact, we say in the report that the committees of jurisdiction are in the best place to write the details of the regulation and to get those details right, which is particularly important in this case. So our charge was not to write the bills, it also was not to be so general as to not say anything, but it was to kind of find that sweet spot in between that would provide recommendations that helped provide a framework from which the committees of jurisdiction could do their work. And the decision was made to make it a majority only. There was some concern about that at the beginning, but the speaker's view was we needed to get our own act together, the majority party in the house, understanding that when the legislation is written, it will be done by the committees with full participation of all members. And certainly cybersecurity is not one of those issues that has been partisan in the past and there's no reason for it to be in the future. But the idea was we needed to kind of develop this framework to see how the pieces fit together ourselves and then allow the committees to go forth in that, under that framework. So that was kind of the charge we were given, not to solve all the problems in cyber, not to try to develop all the long range recommendations that are really needed in this area. It was what can the Congress pass this Congress that will make a real difference now in cybersecurity. So it will be possible to make a criticism that you didn't answer this question or you didn't resolve this issue or so forth. You know, all of that's true in many respects, but what we were trying to do was to say, what can we pass now in this Congress? Some issues are gonna be controversial and difficult to pass. It didn't mean we stayed away from all the controversy, but again, the charge is what can we pass this Congress as the way it's formulated now that will make a significant difference in cybersecurity in the short run. And so that's what we set about to do. Each of the members of the task force came not only from their committee, but with some real experience and background. Each of us, I know, spent a fair amount of time individually talking with experts, people who could help us to understand what was happening, what needed to happen. As a group, we just met with a handful of people that we could bounce ideas off of. But I will say that one of the most helpful things for us was to sit around the table and just talk and see the different perspectives. Because you would have one committee that had a very different perspective than one would expect. And you really got a better sense for why it has been so difficult to legislate in this area by having that exchange of views. So last week, we submitted our recommendations to the Speaker Majority Leader on time, on budget, which wasn't much. And then we released also last week our recommendations to the public. In essence, what we say is that we believe Congress should enact a menu of incentives to encourage cybersecurity to be a higher priority by private industry around the country. We listed some possible incentives that the committees could look at, not trying to be exclusive, and understanding that one size is not going to fit all for every size business and every kind of industry. But we believe that some encouragement is better than mandates, by and large, although we do recognize that there are some industries that are already pretty heavily regulated. Nuclear power plants would be one example. And we encourage their regulators to make sure that cybersecurity is a high priority in dealing with the range of issues that they deal with, with those industries. But generally, we believe that there should be this menu of incentives to help elevate this issue in the consciousness of CEOs and businesses all around the country. Secondly, we suggest that there should be a new entity created to facilitate information sharing. Now, information sharing is something that's been talked about ever since I've been watching cybersecurity, which goes back to at least 2003. And there was some discussion about whether you really needed to create something new, or whether the existing organizations, ISACs, and so forth, were sufficient. But the conclusion, as a group, we came to, was that we should have a new entity that would facilitate information sharing, where competitors in the same industry could bring their information about the threats that they are facing, where people in different industries could bring and share information about those topics, and where the government could bring in its information. Because a lot of people believe that some of the best capability our nation has to defend against cyber threats is on the sidelines for everything except the dot mill spectrum. And so the idea is if we can create a new entity where not only businesses can share information with each other, but businesses and government can share, that that will facilitate better situational awareness, but also it will assist the internet service providers in having the information they need to take action on their own networks to help deal with malicious attacks. To do that, you're going to have to change some laws. And our view was that you can best get those narrow exceptions or changes to the laws that are necessary if you have a single entity where that information filters into, rather than more general changes that would cover all ISACs. We also have the view that you're more likely to get government to share information with a single entity, rather than government share information with the financial services ISAC and the this ISAC and the that ISAC and different kinds of organizations. So our hope, again, thinking about what is the most likely to get passed, what can we accomplish, is that this single entity to facilitate information sharing would be a major step in the right direction. Third, we recommend that a host of laws be modernized, updated, and going back, of course, to the CSIS report, to the cyber review that was conducted in 2009 in the Obama administration, something like 50-something laws have been identified that need to be seriously looked at to be that are out of date because they were written before the internet and technology had evolved to the point where it is today. Some of those are more pressing than others. Some of them will be more controversial than others. But we list some in the report, and then we have an appendix with about 20-something more of laws that we suggest the committees need to look at and update. Again, some of those updates are going to be absolutely essential to allow information sharing, which I think nearly everybody agrees has to happen to take action on cybersecurity. Fourth, in the area of authorities, we mention a couple of areas where we think some additional clarification is needed. But then we list a lot of questions. And I don't think our country has come to the point where we can answer a lot of those questions yet, such as, what's the role of the military to defend the private sector in cyberspace? What does deterrence mean in cyberspace? And a variety of issues that kind of think about the cyber domain as a new domain of warfare, if you will, with all the attribution problems and so forth that come with that. There's a whole range of issues that we could not answer. And I don't know that anybody can answer. And so we suggest that a lot of further action needs to be done by the Congress to explore those answers. And this takes me back to another CSIS report several years ago. It was called Beyond Goldwater Nichols. And one of the points was made that Congress has got to be involved in as much as possible a public discussion of some of the big challenges facing our country. Because if not, you have the Bush administration for this, the Clinton administration position for that, the Obama administration position for that, you don't have a national position on some of these big complicated issues. And unless until you get Congress asking the big questions and having a variety of witnesses and discussions in that whole messy legislative process out in the open, we're going to be less likely to have a national answer, a national position on some of these big national security issues. It was a point that was made in a somewhat different context, but it really was brought home to me as we grappled with some of these issues involving privacy and what role the military is going to play in protecting domestic networks or domestic businesses and so forth. I think that a lot of the responsibility falls to Congress to help work through those issues. Now, the report also has a number of other recommendations on issues, some of which are longer term. Everybody agrees we got to do more about education and training and so forth that we identify. The importance of working internationally is obvious in a domain that has no borders. So there are a number of other things that were listed there where we have suggestions or at least issues that Congress needs to continue to pursue. Frankly, I've been pretty pleased with the reaction from Democrats, Republicans, interested groups, experts, have had to our report. As long as people keep in mind it's not supposed to be the end all be all, it's supposed to be what can we do now that will matter. Understanding that cybersecurity is going to continue to be a challenge for our country and for other nations as long as we all shall live, we will have to continue to work on this issue. But if we could do at least this much, then our view is that it would be a good start. So the next steps are that the committees now have this framework from which to operate. I think in the next few days you will see a number of additional bills being introduced because people have been drafting on legislation but wanted to wait until the task force recommendations came out before they introduced their bills or pursued them. And so I think you'll have more legislation coming out. The Speaker's Office is going to be coordinating among committees but believes that the normal legislative process with amendments and again, all the messiness that is attendant to that is the best way to proceed. How's it going to go from there? I don't know. As you all know, the Senate majority leader has been working to assemble a bill for some years, more of a centralized sort of approach. If the House is able to pass different pieces of legislation, the Senate is working to put this single bill together. How are the two going to mesh together? I can't answer that. Obviously, the leadership is going to have to sort through legislative vehicles once you get to that point. But again, I think that the strong preference in the House is to work through the regular committee process, try to get the details right, and then hope that working with the Senate and the White House, of course, that we can actually do something and not continue the sort of legislative gridlock that has come with this issue for far too long. So I'm hopeful. I am very grateful not only to the members of our task force but to the staffs on the personal offices and the committee offices, but also a number of people who have contributed to our thinking and provided expertise, which has made our job much easier, including the institution where we all are now. The challenge now is to take all of this good work and actually do something with it. Don't let it just sit on a shelf, and that's going to be our goal. Thank you. Thank you very much, Congressman. And thanks for coming. We have time for a few questions. So if you would want, I think we have a microphone, so it'll be roaming around. If you can hold your hand up, please identify yourself and then ask your question. So we have one right up here in the front, right off the bat. Thanks. That saves me from having to. Thank you, Congressman. It's Paul Scully-Power from the American Registry of Internet Numbers, commonly known as Aaron. I think it's a very good move in the right direction. However, I'd just like to point out what I think is one of the big Achilles for the legislation. And that is it's becoming harder and harder now for people to relate the internet addresses. As you know, when you go online, you get an internet address. It's becoming harder and harder to relate that to the person using that address. And the reason for that is that for many years, as you probably know, the internet has been self-regulated by industry. And we do have registries. But there's no legislation to enforce that they be kept up to date. And so more and more they're not being kept up to date. What this means is for the folks who have to deal with crime on the internet is even though they can trace to a certain internet number, they cannot align that to a person and therefore they can't prosecute. So I think one of the key issues for Congress, it's fine to have all these framework, but at the end of the day, you know, as I say, the crooks go where the money is. And so I think we need some folks to sort of focus on that issue of ensuring that we do have a direct link between what an IP address is and who's using it. Well, I appreciate the suggestion. Certainly one of the things we specifically talk about is updating criminal laws so that they can more easily be used to address real criminal behavior that is occur on the internet. But as you know, part of the challenge that we all face is as you mentioned, the internet has largely been unregulated, self-regulated. And that is part of the attraction that it has, but also part of the resilience that it has. And so I think those are the sorts of issues that certainly ought to be discussed on an international basis, how you can tighten down and prevent and make it easier to trace back to criminal behavior, but it's gonna be a challenge to tighten down in a specific kind of regulation in the way you talk about. Oh, we had one in the front. Hi guys, it's Ron Marks from George Washington University at the New Orleans Homeland Institute. Quick question for you from a business standpoint, there's been some concern in the community chamber of commerce and others over whether or not we're heading towards some kind of Sarbanes-Oxley in the sense of you're gonna have a minimum standard that if these corporations don't meet it, we have a federal standard, excuse me, that these corporations need to meet. And you know all the business in terms of the financial obligations, et cetera. I wonder if you could comment on that just a little bit. Some sort of amendment to Sarbanes-Oxley, was one of the suggestions that was made to us. In other words, the question is what can be done to elevate cybersecurity in the eyes of the CEOs and the people running these corporations? And if you've got to make a filing with the SEC or you've got to have some other sort of thing that really does affect your bottom line or your public perception, then that's the kind of thing that does elevate the issue. Now, we didn't say, yeah, we did not recommend yes, there should be an amendment to Sarbanes-Oxley that puts in this word. But it is among the incentives, if you will, carrots and sticks that we think needs to be considered. Now, you can get pretty quickly when you're talking about Sarbanes-Oxley from an incentive to a mandate. And our view is that except for the highly regulated, limited circumstances that we mentioned, that things work better when you got government and business working in the same direction with the same sort of incentives and encouragement to achieve a common goal. And it's also our view that it is really hard to regulate in this area because it changes so fast. So what can government ever mandate that would be applicable a week from now? That's part of the challenge. But we do believe that there ought to be a whole menu of incentives looked at, but they ought to be incentives. Emily Rutherford, Defense Daily. You said in the next few days that some bills will be introduced. And I'm wondering if you can share anything about how they would be broken down by the recommendations in the report or by sort of the obvious jurisdiction of the committees and what might be expect from the House Armed Services Committee? And let me clarify. I'm not planning on introducing a specific bill, but I do know of members of the Task Force and others that have been working to draft legislation that are consistent with some of the recommendations that we have. I don't know of anybody that's trying to do it all, but some of it. And I think you're right. To deal with, to implement some of these recommendations, you're gonna have a bill referred to more than one committee and sequentially, probably, but that's the reason, I think, that you're gonna see the Speaker's Office very involved in trying to coordinate with committees as far as the steps ahead.  They didn't want to be a month down the road and somebody put up a red flag and say, oh, we're not for that. So some of the negotiation was rather painstaking, but where we are is at least consistent with this framework, every one of the nine committees has signed off and agreed to it. You still could have trouble with the details, I understand, but I think it's kind of on that basis that things will move ahead. Speaker's Office will help coordinate timing and so forth, but I'm reasonably optimistic that something along this line can really happen. Hello, Congressman, thank you for your remarks about the complexity of this problem on the legislative side. I'd like to ask a sense of the Congress question because you are obviously sitting across all of the committees in the Task Force. We're facing some pretty steep budgetary cuts in intelligence, in defense, in homeland security. Is there any possibility that due to the urgency of the cybersecurity problem, the Congress would consider a fencing of initiatives here? A couple of things. One is it's good to have an appropriator on your Task Force because anytime somebody comes up with an idea, he'll raise his hand and say, how are you gonna pay for that? And there's lots of ideas that cost money, so that was an element in our discussion. One thing that we strongly recommend is increase education and awareness starting with members of Congress. So in this Task Force, we were able to have some classified briefings. Most members of Congress have not and it would be important, I think, as people make decisions about how to spend money and what the issues facing the country are to have a fuller sense of what we face every day in cyberspace. Having said that, it's also true that there are trends that go through national security and lots of labels get stuck on stuff just to try to attract more money. So I don't know that you would see a fence on anything that is labeled cybersecurity because as I've watched the budgets of the services and other organizations in recent years, lots of things get put with that label. So part of our job is to look beyond the label and see, but I am hopeful to get to the bottom line is that whatever, and I'm not for cutting a lot more money out of defense, but I do hope that we can make sure that we put enough priority on getting this right. And partly for this reason, I've been struck several senior military officers, just ask them out of the blue. What's the thing that worries you the most? National security, you know? And several of them have identified cyber not necessarily because it is the most dangerous, but because they believe that the state of the threat is so far advanced from where our policies and thinking is that the gap between the two is so great. So it is, I think, a serious national security issue that we have a lot of catching up to do. Part of that's money, a lot of it, as I mentioned, is intellectual policy making. Why is this side of the room so quiet? Good morning and thank you, Congressman Terry Morgan. The question comes from the end of your report when you talk about the FAR and the DFAR being used to leverage the direction of technology yet in the previous paragraph, which is supply chain management, you're talking about the international supply chain and working internationally. And just would like to hear your thoughts because you can almost see a contradiction of capability versus technology. Are we going to force the FAR and the DFAR into driving the direction of technology? And I think there's a lot of concern about how that plays out. Yeah, and I've heard some of those concerns, but just to step back for a second, federal government buys a lot of stuff. The federal government ought to use its buying power to elevate the level of cybersecurity across the country. Now, that does not necessarily mean that if the federal government sets a standard, Microsoft will respond like that with everything that it produces to that standard. I don't mean we're that big, but still there's some buying power there that ought to be used. And my personal view is, by the way, that anybody who gets a federal grant ought to have some sort of minimum level of cybersecurity. We got to look for a whole variety of ways to elevate the awareness, but also the reality of security around the country. A variety of people have told us that you could get rid of a majority, I will say, of the malware out there with just basic hygiene stuff. So part of what we grapple with is, okay, what can we do to improve the basic hygiene and thereby reduce the clutter that some of the more sophisticated actors hide in? So using the federal government's buying power to elevate security is one of the things that we believe needs to be included. But I fully acknowledge supply chain is a big, complicated, difficult issue where we will be cutting off our nose to spot our face if we make it where our companies cannot compete internationally. And so there's a lot of work to be done in the whole supply chain area. Again, we couldn't come up with all the answers on how to thread that needle, but we did identify it as a significant concern. Joe Mazafro, I'm curious about the single sharing entity. And I'm thinking, as you said that about in the U.S. law in 2004 with the establishment of the ODNI and all that, that we had a PM for information sharing in the government. And are you essentially, is the task force's view that that's a failed effort and something new needs to be done? The idea of sharing, as you said, is certainly not new. And the only place it seems to have worked in the post-911 era is at a place like NCTC, which is all governments. Curious, I get the idea that it's a framework and it's in the details, but... Yeah, that's true, but I'll say that, remember what we're talking about is not only sharing information with government but with private sector and bringing it all together. And our view was that you needed a new place to do that. And partly you needed a new place to do that that was away from government. But because of the privacy concerns of government looking at your stuff coming across. So having an entity that is not a government entity where now government may have to pay part of the bill or there may be some funding deal. But something that is separated from government and yet secure enough so that government would feel confident to bring its information there as well as the legal protections that are needed for business to bring its information there. We felt that was the best way to go. Now, there are different models for this. And as you know, for example, the White House would have much more centralization in the Department of Homeland Security, much more kind of reviewing of an industry or businesses cyber security plans saying whether that passed muster or not. We have concerns about that and think that, again, what can we pass in this Congress given all of the concerns associated with this issue? We have a better shot of having a new entity separated from government with the legal protections necessary to make that information sharing possible. I know up here in the middle. Nona de Borger of CSIS, the prosecution of two wars, namely Iraq and Afghanistan, was almost entirely dependent on cyberspace. And I was wondering from what you've learned whether a potential enemy could really disrupt what we're doing today through cyberspace. Sure. I can't quote you the exact figures, you've probably seen them. Virtually all of our military communication runs in the same pipes, if you will, as the commercial internet traffic. And our military, as you point out, is very dependent upon cyberspace. And then you have people even bringing up issues of if our electric grid is vulnerable, what could not somebody shut off power going into a military facility of some sort. And so the vulnerabilities also extend to our critical infrastructure upon which our military is also dependent. There are clearly very sophisticated, very dangerous threats that are out there. I will not say that if our recommendations are completely implemented that all of those threats are solved, they're not. But at the same time, we have to take some steps in the right direction. And if we can do, as I mentioned, reduce the clutter with all of the kind of more easily handled stuff, have the sort of information sharing, including about some of the more sophisticated threats that are coming about, and thereby get some of this government capability engaged in defending the broader country, I think that's a step in the right direction. But as I mentioned, we still have tough issues to deal with in the future, including the role of our military in defending something other than the dot mill sort of space. And we haven't really gotten those answers yet. What in the back? Hi, Mr. Thornberry, it's Jennifer Martinez from Politico. Going back to the information sharing clearinghouse, I guess, how would, since government may pay part of the bill for this clearinghouse, and I'm sure industry will likely be paying for the other portion of it, I guess, how would you encourage industry to buy into this organization when it's kind of uncertain, it may work, it may not, may fizzle out a couple years down the line if they think it's not working for them? So yeah, how would you address that? Number one is we would change the laws to allow this sort of information sharing to take place. And one thing that came very clear is that existing liability laws, privacy laws, maybe even antitrust laws make the sort of information sharing that we think is essential impossible now. So, you know, we change the laws, it's showing we're serious about it. And so I think that's step one. Secondly, if you talk to the internet service providers, they are already doing a fair amount to try to limit the malicious traffic on their networks. And many of them, by the way, don't feel like they're getting enough credit for what they're already doing. But they are limited by the information that they have and by probably some potential liability concerns. So it, you know, me consumer at home, I am attracted to the idea that if I go to internet service provider A and they can reduce the malware that is coming to my computer, that's a value to me. And that is a value to the internet service providers. It is something more they can offer their customers. And particularly if you're talking in the business context, if you're company A and you can, and one internet provider offers this sort of more active defense and another internet provider does not offer it, I'm probably gonna go with the one that helps defend me better. Because particularly as I understand more and more the threat to my intellectual property being stolen or some malicious activity on my network. So I think my point is it is a value for the internet service providers to offer this sort of service, but they're gonna have to have better information in order to do it. Hi, Greg Nojian from Center for Democracy and Technology. I think that a lot of people in the privacy community are gonna welcome the report when they contrast it to the White House approach. It doesn't have a lot of information flowing into a central government hub. There's nothing about giving the government shut down authority over some communications. But they will ask one question. And that is how do you protect privacy in this new information sharing entity when the government isn't at the driver's seat? How do you go about ensuring that the rules that are adopted are protected of privacy and that they're enforced? Yeah, one of the suggestions we have is that there should be a privacy board, privacy associated with it, looking after that particular concern. So step one is this is not the government directly, this is separated from the government. Number two, you got these privacy overseers that are there watching what information is shared, what use is made of it, whether it is sanitized or aggregated in some way before it goes to the next step. So hopefully you can build some trust but because if an internet service provider wants to participate there, there are reputations on the line. And so again, part of their self-interest, the self-interest of the market will be that this information is not abused or used improperly. But I think we would be very interested in working with the privacy community to see how to set up those safeguards in the way that people feel reasonably comfortable so that the entity can still operate but that you still have those safeguards that are watching how it operates regularly, not just at the beginning, but regularly monitoring it. Ellen. Ellen Nakashima from The Washington Post. The Pentagon has the information sharing pilot going on now with the defense industrial base, you're well aware of it and they are saying that anecdotally it's quite successful and defense firms are reporting good results. How do you all view that model? Do you see it as having potential to be expanded to other non-defense sectors and how do you view that vis-a-vis the clearing house model that you just spoke about? I think that they are very similar. As a matter of fact, one could look at what we suggest as a way to expand the defense industrial base pilot program to cover critical infrastructure and others because what happens in the dib pilot is that the companies voluntarily agree to participate, share this information and can act on the information but also the internet service providers can act on information to help protect these companies but it just applies to those limited number of defense companies and they've got to go through 47 hoops to give permission for all of this information to be shared in that way and one of the things that came to the task force is that the expandability of that concept is gonna be limited unless these laws that I mentioned are modified in some way. So the idea that you have an entity that is not the Department of Defense but separate from the government where that sort of information sharing can occur and where action can be taken on the information that is shared is kind of the thrust of what we're talking about and I think that is perfectly consistent with the dib pilot in kind of the next stage hopefully. Finally from that side. Hi, Amanda Paleski from Inside the Pentagon. What you talk about having this bigger clearing house sort of along those lines what role would the Pentagon play in that clearing house? Government, including the Pentagon would share information that it sees inside this information sharing entity but it would be limited so that hopefully information that is now classified could be shared and acted upon. Again, part of our thinking was you're gonna be more likely to get government to share information if it's to one discrete entity with entities that it has maybe worked with before rather than expecting government to share with all the different ISACs or all the other different information sharing entities that have developed or could develop. Some people are saying well new information entities will spring up. Well it's possible but again our view is the more likely scenario to get something past is to have it more limited, more focused with legal protections separated from the government and then not only can you have government bringing the information there but the private entities as well and it may well be that properly sanitized you could have aggregated data that would be useful to both government and to Symantec and McAfee and others who are out there trying to make us all safer. We've got time for one more question if we've got one. No if that's not the case. Let me say I go to a lot of these cybersecurity events and at this point it's a real pleasure for me to have somebody who not only knows the subject but has some new things to say about it. So it's just, it's been such a pleasure listening today. Thank you very much for coming.


Now, envoys from the United States, China, Russia and other countries have continued talks in Qatar's capital Doha in a bid to break a month-long deadlock in peace talks. They met with Afghan government negotiators and are expected to meet with Taliban representatives later today. The talks are taking place as Taliban fighters pressed offensives across Afghanistan that have overrun at least land-provincial captors and the US intelligence said the insurgents could take their capital Kabul within nine days. While the last of the US-led international forces set to lead by the end of this month, the Taliban have taken control of about two sets of the country. The speed of the advance has shocked the government in its allies. So you get notified about fresh news updates.


We have general questions. Question 1. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the retention of locally accessible inpatient facilities for mental health patients. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. The Scottish Government provides funding to individual health boards who are in turn responsible for providing services that meet the physical and mental health needs of their local population. Some inpatient mental health care will always be necessary, but the focus in recent times has been on maximising the provision of appropriate services in the community. Mental health is an absolute priority for the Scottish Government and we will continue to work closely with our partners, including the NHS, local authorities, the third sector service users and carers, to ensure that we offer the best quality of life and opportunities for people with mental health problems. Alex Ferguson. I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and for meeting with me recently to discuss the situation regarding the Darity facility in Stranraa, which the local health board wishes to close. If it is closed, patients in need of inpatient support will have to be transferred to Dumfries around the journey of over 150 miles for the patients, families and loved ones. There is widespread public anger about this and there is cross-party support for the retention of an inpatient facility in Stranraa, feelings that were most recently expressed at a well-attended public rally just last Saturday. Things are getting somewhat heated. Local council of all parties are keen to meet with the cabinet secretary. It is just coming, Presiding Officer. Local council of all parties are keen to meet with the cabinet secretary to discuss the situation and my simple question is to ask whether she is willing to undertake such a meeting. Cabinet secretary. As the member knows, the board is now committed to engaging with local stakeholders for six months on the proposed service model that seeks to maximise the provision of local community-based care. I have been reassured by the chief executive that he remains personally committed to meeting with any elected representatives who wish to discuss this. It is a matter for the board. I am happy to continue to meet with Alex Ferguson. I have also met with Aileen McLeod and any other members in this place who want to meet with me to discuss that. In terms of taking forward the consultation on the proposed service change, that is best left to the board to get on with the job of doing that while consulting local elected members. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Welfare will be in sport last met NHS Lanarkshire and what was discussed. Minister of Health and Welfare Government officials regularly meet with representatives of all health boards, including NHS Lanarkshire, to discuss matters of importance to local people. How are NHS Lanarkshire and the Scottish Government responding to the outbreak of H1N1, otherwise known as swine flu, in the Cymru, in the Colseith area? Can the cabinet secretary set out if there is anything that the Government can do to increase the uptake of the flu vaccine in the vulnerable groups who would be most at risk from the virus? I reassure the member that we have been kept fully informed of the issue and that there is a very low risk to the public and that it is being well managed by the local health professionals, as you would expect. I am happy to write to the member with more details of that if he finds that helpful. On the uptake of the flu vaccine, it is very important that people who are entitled to the vaccine and who would benefit, particularly those who have health conditions and who make them more vulnerable, should take up the flu vaccine. Of course, there has been a lot of promotion of the flu vaccine up with the uptake campaign. I am aware that it appears to be that the vaccine is a better fit this year with the flu that is out there in the community. Again, that is an important message. If Mark Griffin would find it helpful for me to write to him with a more detailed response, particularly on the H1N1 issue, then I will do that and make sure that he is fully appraised of the work that has been taken forward locally on that issue. I ask the Scottish Government when work will start in the schools that are receiving funding from the recently announced £230 million investment under the Scotland Schools for Future programme. Cabinet Secretary, Andrew Constance. The Government wishes to maintain momentum across Scotland for the future programme and build on the excellent progress that has been achieved to date. Councils have already been informed that we expect all 19 of the schools that we announced on 25 January to be delivered and open for business by 31 March 2020 at the very latest. Morever, earlier delivery dates are expected and encouraged. As part of the project development work, councils will be working with the Scottish Futures Trust to draw up detailed programmes that capture key milestones and ensure that the projects will be delivered by the required timeline. Can the cabinet secretary confirm what steps will be taken to ensure disruption to pupils' education, such as those at Walliford primary school, will be kept to a minimum? It is for education authorities to develop and implement such transition plans. We would hope and expect that any disruption to children's education is kept to an absolute minimum when moving them from an existing school to a new one. In the case of Walliford primary school, East Lothian Council has indicated to Government officials that the relocation of the school will indeed require a statutory consultation to be undertaken in terms of the Schools Consultations Scotland 2010 act. In this act, a council's proposal paper must set out clearly, among other things, how it intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects that may arise from implementation of the proposal. We understand that East Lothian Council has still to carry out this very important consultation. The First Minister announced last week that funding is now available for rebuilding Queen Margaret academy in my constituency. Can the cabinet secretary give me details of when this work will start and the expected completion date of the rebuild project? As part of the project development work that is rightly undertaken between councils and the Scottish Futures Trust, it will draw up very detailed programmes, capturing all the key necessary steps, mapping out a timeline. It is the intention that all 19 schools will be delivered and open for business by 31 March 2020 at the very latest. Of course, I can write to Mr Scott with more specific information about the envisaged milestones with regard to the school and his constituency. 4. Fiona McLeod To ask the Scottish Government for what reason personal independence payments are included for income assessment as part of the common financial tool in a bankruptcy process. The common financial tool determines the level of contribution a debtor can pay, ensuring that the interests of debtors and creditors are considered. It is absolutely clear, both in legislation and guidance, that no contribution is appropriate where income is derived solely from benefits, and where there is private income, any contribution must not include any element of state benefits that are in payment. The common financial tool guidance also makes it clear that, where personal independence payment or similar benefit is received, full account must be taken of additional expenditure that is likely to be required for care, mobility or other health-related matters. 5. Fiona McLeod I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer and I know that it will be of interest to a constituent of mine. May I ask how many bankruptcies have involved people in receipt of personal independence payments or similar benefits in the last year? I do not have the specific information. Since April 2015, 295 bankruptcies have been awarded following a debtor application, where income has included personal independence payments, disability living allowance or attendance allowance, and a contribution has been applied in one of those cases to the level of private income that has been involved. I hope that that clarifies the issue for Fiona McLeod. 5. David Torrance To ask the Scottish Government how it works with the NHS and local authorities to ensure that medical and home care for older people is adequate and sustainable. Our legislation to integrate health and social care provides a platform for health boards and local authorities, along with third and independent sectors, to work together to ensure that people are supported to live as independently as possible for as long as possible in their own homes. The Public Bodies Joint Working Scotland Act 2014 places a duty on integration authorities to create a single strategic plan for the integrated functions and budgets that they control. The plan will set out how they will plan and deliver services for their area and the views of clinicians and care professionals, along with the independent and third sectors. Service users and carers will be central to shaping the commissioning and planning process. 5. David Torrance I thank the cabinet secretary for the answer. Can the cabinet secretary clarify the progress that has been made between NHS Fife and Fife Council in improving outcomes and supporting services redesign of health and social care integration? The establishment of a new joint board and what share of a Scottish Government integrated care fund for 2015-16 is allocated to Fife. I can say to the member that yesterday I attended the formal launch of Fife's health and social care partnership. It was a very well attended event with people from all sectors there and it was a very positive event through the day. NHS Fife and Fife Council are making steady progress in relation to the integration of health and social care. I have signed off their integration scheme, which details how integrated arrangements between both organisations will work and the integration joint board was able to be legally established from 3 October 2015. The partnership recently conducted its consultation on the strategic plan. It ran from 7 October last year to 6 January this year. The consultation is now closed and the results will be considered by the integration joint board on 10 February. Finally, NHS Fife's integration joint board received £6.73 million from the integration care fund in 2015-16 and, of course, will get its share of the £250 million announced in the draft budget by John Swinney if Fife Council accepts the Scottish Government deal. Lewis MacDonald To ask the Scottish Government whether it expects to deliver the commitment that it made on 30 April 2014 that four specialist major trauma centres will be operational from 2016. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison Good progress continues to be made developing the right trauma network for Scotland. However, there are differing views among clinicians on just how many major trauma centres Scotland needs and it is extremely important that we get the model of care right. I have asked the national planning forums to examine what the appropriate balance of centres and responsibilities within a new trauma network would be. This new network will be developed to complement our A&E departments across the country and ensure the right specialist with the right experiencer in place to save more lives in the most difficult of circumstances. Lewis MacDonald It is very disappointing to hear that answer because the Government made a very clear commitment in April 2014 that there would be four specialist major trauma centres. Does the cabinet secretary not understand the impact on the morale of staff and on the ability of hospitals to recruit staff when she renegs on that promise? I do not understand and perhaps she can explain why it is that Aberdeen royal infirmary and Ninewells hospital in Dundee are now faced with this uncertainty after a very clear commitment was made by her Government two years ago. Cabinet secretary I do not know if Lewis MacDonald is suggesting that we just go ahead despite the fact that the clinicians do not agree at the moment about what the model of care should be. Surely it is important that we listen to the clinicians across the world. Maybe Lewis MacDonald does not want to hear the detail of the answer. I think that it is important that he does and that we listen to the clinicians. As I said, good progress continues to be made with the work to develop the four major trauma centres. That may well transpire to be the right model for Scotland. There is better data now than that that was available in 2013. That is why I have asked the national planning forum to look again at the most appropriate model for Scotland, taking all of that into account. Until that work is completed and until we get the clinicians to agree on what is the best model for Scotland, I will not make a decision on the number of major trauma centres. I am happy to keep Lewis MacDonald updated, but I am quite surprised that he wants to, in the face of a lack of clinical agreement on this, to push forward anyway. I think that that speaks volumes about Lewis MacDonald's position on this matter. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review the progress of the Scottish strategy for autism. The Scottish strategy for autism is a 10-year strategy, and while progress has been made, there is still work to be done. The Scottish Government reviews the progress of the strategy through quarterly meetings with the National Autism Governance Group. This group provides service expertise, strategic leadership and challenges the delivery of the strategies. Outcomes aimed at improving outcomes for individuals and families living with autism. The strategy progress is highlighted at the annual autism conference, which was most recently held in December 2015. The recommendations of the strategy have been reframed into an outcomes-based approach, which identified the priorities from 2015 to 2017. Those outcomes focus on improving services so that people with autism can live healthier lives, have the choice and control of the services that they receive and are supported to be independent active citizens. Mark McDonald. Can I ask the minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Mental Welfare Commission report into the tragic death of Ms MN, an individual on the autistic spectrum who took her own life in a care home, and how the recommendations from that report will inform the work of the autism strategy in the future? I read with the great sadness the report from the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland on the death of Ms MN. I accept the recommendations for the Scottish Government. The report and recommendations will be discussed with the Autism Strategy Governance Group at their next meeting on 11 February as to how we take those recommendations forward. Following that, a response from the Governance Group and the Scottish Government will be sent to the Mental Welfare Commission advising me on the actions to be taken forward and, of course, any lessons for the overall strategy will also be taken forward as well. Question 8, Neil Findlay. To the Scottish Government, whether it has confidence in the chair and chief officers of NHS Lothian. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. Yes, Neil Findlay. At NHS Lothian, we have a chairman who arrogantly dismisses hundreds of emails from members of the public who are extremely concerned about the future of the children's ward at St John's hospital, and a senior officer in the organisation who warns that a protracted review process would increase the risk of service disruption, but who then agrees to such a delay following pressure from civil servants and from you, Cabinet Secretary. So how can the public have confidence in any of you when you are playing party politics with the health and wellbeing of children across Lothian? Cabinet Secretary. Perhaps a bit of self-awareness wouldn't go amiss with Neil Findlay. The outcome of the independent review and the timing of it was absolutely a matter for the board and for the Royal College of Pediatric and Children's Health. They have confirmed that they have had no discussion with the Scottish Government. It's an independent review commissioned by NHS Lothian and the timing of which was due to the availability of experts from the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health to carry out the review. Neil Findlay asked about the 400 members of the public who have contacted NHS Lothian. I absolutely do expect NHS Lothian, whether that's the chair, the chief exec or anybody else within NHS Lothian, to listen to the concerns of those 400 individuals. I have made that clear to the chair of NHS Lothian that he should do so. I would hope that Neil Findlay would accept that assurance that any member of the public, whether they email, write or attend one of the local meetings, should be heard. The review process, which I understand is going very well, will be a full process carried out by the Royal College. I hope that Neil Findlay is not casting aspersions about the role of the Royal College here. The Royal College of Pediatric and Children's Health is engaged in a full consultation with local people. I would hope that Neil Findlay would encourage local constituents to attend those meetings and take part fully. The only person who is talking about closing that word at the moment appears to be Neil Findlay. Question 9. What proportion of the £12 million funding for flood-hit communities derys from Barnett consequentials and when will it be distributed? Any Barnett consequentials accru to the Scottish Government are added to the total funding available to Scottish ministers. It is then for Scottish ministers to decide how available resources should be allocated. The First Minister announced the £12 million funding package on 9 January. Confirmation was received from Her Majesty's Treasury on 18 January, indicating that the Scottish Government will receive £14.5 million of resource in 2015-16. That was additional to the Barnett consequentials received in December, which supported the £4 million aid package announced in the budget statement. Local authorities are now actively paying out grants to those affected by the recent flooding. I thank the cabinet minister for his response. From whatever source the funding comes, it will certainly be a good use given the devastating start of the year, which a number of communities in my region have had to endure due to flooding and its aftermath and world experience for some time yet. I would also like to acknowledge the flood recovery appeal, which has reached £300,000 due to the generous support of the public, businesses and funders, which is open to applications over and above any Government funding. Will the minister agree with me, however, that prevention is much better than cure, given reports that plans for the long-awaited flood prevention scheme for Stonehaven are to be called in by the Scottish Government? Can he give me an undertaking that the process can avoid significant further delays, while ensuring concerns of local residents and traders about the proposed development are taken fully into account? I think that that will involve flood defences, but as the flood management strategies make clear, that also involves alleviation measures in the hill areas before water flows down to the coastal areas such as Stonehaven. I am not familiar with the issues about the flood scheme in Stonehaven, but Lizzie Bennum will know that all applications of this nature have to go through effective public consultation and consideration, and some planning issues may not have been able to be resolved in that process, but I will explore the rationale and reasoning for the situation in Stonehaven and will write to her to confirm the details.


Welcome to the bookmap platform details webinar. This is Bruce at bookmap risk disclaimer trading equities and futures involves substantial risk of loss is not suitable for all investors. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. For more information about bookmap go to bookmap.com. There's a free trial. It's 14 days and it comes with education. You get access to the bookmap educational course. You also get access to the advanced order flow webinars and those start in about a half hour every day. Every weekday. So we look at the live markets there and go through what bookmap is showing you. This webinar we have every day at 1030 is about just showing the basics and getting understanding of what bookmap is. So that's open to everybody. But once you have that understanding, then you won't ask questions regarding that. So you will be answering questions much more about the market and order flow in the advanced webinars. If you have any questions, you can reach out to us at support at bookmap.com. Let's take a quick look at the website and go through it here. Just drop down into the about section. You can see the intro video here is a couple minutes long to get a basic understanding of what bookmap is. And then the about sections just gives you an overview what bookmap is. And then there is bookmap for equities here with the NASDAQ total view. And it's a really great data feed if you are interested in trading equities. But further down connectivity, this is important. This is how you connect bookmap to the live markets. Bookmap is a trading platform and it connects via these different data providers here. Just like you can see here there are some other trading platforms here as well.  However, we also connect to Ninja via the API of Ninja from the API of TTX Trader Pro as well as Interactive Brokers Traders Workstation. However, you can connect bookmap just like a regular platform by inputting your credentials for your data feed directly into bookmap. And that's the best way to go. But further down, here's where you can find the free trial. It's 14 days. There's basically just one version of bookmap. It's $49 per month. It's billed quarterly. However, there's different features here that make up these other offerings. For bookmap advance, for example, the ability to trade right from the chart. As well as these proprietary indicators that we put together to help you identify, for example, larger players. The large lot tracker. These are order flow indicators that we've developed and gives you an edge in the market. Iceberg Detector starting to understand where the icebergs are in the marketplace. Some nice indicators there come with the advance package. For quants, and there have been several lately reaching out to us, so you want to learn more, click here. You're going to have to probably want your own connection to your own data, proprietary indicators, etc. If you're not sure which bookmap plan is right for you, you can click here. If you need a data plan, a data provider, there's free trials that are available out there. You can give bookmap a free trial for 14 days as well as click here to give a free trial to some data providers. You can also follow us here on social media at Twitter. Some nice stuff. Look at this image here that was just posted the other day. This is a ignition algo here. What you're looking at here is... Let's just click on this. This is a great image. It looks like it's a NASDAQ futures. You can see that the high liquidity here. Look at how they are skewing the order book very quickly, probably trying to press price up into the orders that are up above here. It looks like it was pretty unsuccessful. In fact, it looks like the sellers took them on here and this guy got filled in this area here. Anyway, interesting stuff there. The YouTube page. You can also subscribe to our YouTube page. You can see all these videos here that we have in our playlists. We have an intro playlist start there. Features and components give you an overview of what bookmap is and then these order flow video snippets, very concise videos that go over what bookmap is uncovering for you. Being able to understand absorption, exhaustion, volume and liquidity in a trend or flip of the order book. These kinds of concepts or phenomena that we see every day in the market and this is the kind of data or information that we go over in detail in the advanced order flow webinars because you see it all the time. Let's jump into bookmap and take it from there. I think I'm just going to look at the NASDAQ today. We had a gap fill in the NASDAQ and some interesting stuff to take a look at. Now, before I jump in here into bookmap and what you're looking at here let's just go over the basics because this looks like it's really complex stuff and it looks like no other chart that we are really accustomed to. It's actually really simple data and there's only three things that we are providing here. One is the historical best bid and offer. The next is the volume that trades on that historical best bid and offer. And then the third component is the order book, a historical view of the order book. I'll get into that in details in a minute but you're looking at where they're offering and bidding historically and the heat map, this grayscale here, that's what we're looking at. That's all there is here to the chart. It offers significant transparency and why is that? Let's start off with candlesticks. I'm going to take everything else off of the chart here and I'm going to show you how candlesticks are very opaque and not giving you much insight here. How book map solves that issue by giving you the insight. For example, just looking at this chart here, we have candlesticks, open high, low close of a five-minute period and we have volume down here in the sub-chart. We know there's pretty significant volume down in this area. That's really all we know. You can read the wicks and the bodies of the candles and try to gauge where they might be trading but we really have no clue where the volume took place. There's going to be microstructures in here. We can see that we continue to make lower lows here but we're going to see a microstructure in here and these kinds of reversals, if this reverses here and we'll take a look and see if we see a reversal pattern forming. We're going to see microstructural areas broken and then that's going to lead to the bigger reversal. We're going to turn on the historical best bid and offer and now we can see what comprises this open high, low close here. We see a lot of sideways action here, a breach of the low and we moved up and we went above these highs right here. We fell right back down into the middle of the range and that's currently where we are. Understanding the microstructure here is already going to give you a significant advantage. For example, one of the setups that we cover in detail during the live order flow webinars is understanding this little level here. Let's look at it right here and how we tested and breached that low and we turned right back up to it and then we sold off again. This auction here was successful. It auctioned below this range here and it accepted lower and you see the sell-off here that incurred. Looking at this candlestick chart though, what do we see? We don't really see anything here that's giving us any insight to that. This little pullback here is a beautiful entry for continuation to the downside. We don't have any clue here where the volume traded within this area here. We don't know how much traded, what type of volume, was it aggressive buying or selling and most importantly is where it traded within these candlesticks. We just have a subchart here and that's it. Let's turn on the volume and let's take a look. Now with the volume dots, we can see exactly where volume traded here. In fact, let me zoom in a little bit more and let's go over this example. This is really what occurred within all of this price action here. You see significant volume trading at lower lows and we go sideways here for a bit. We see some buyers starting to step it up in this area here but we come right back to where we broke from in this structure up here. Here's our 930 cash open as well and this is where we originally broke. This is originally the same setup that I was just covering looking for a return back to where we came from and are we going to accept or reject? Well, it looks like it's looking pretty good actually in this area here. We see significant buying in the upper area here. We don't see a lot of selling down here so we get a retest back up here but it's at this area here where we break and we see significant selling. Again, that same pattern, that same setup occurs here. Here's where we broke from and this is right where we came back to. Then we can gauge in this area here are there significant buyers? If so, then I'm looking for continuation to the upside. We're just covering the volume and microstructures right now but we get our answer down here and we see significant selling starting to come in. That leads to this complete breakdown of price. We can see the selling over here as well. More selling. Up here it looks pretty good for buying but there's more selling down here and there's more selling here hitting the bid. We break down below, we come back up and we see there's not a lot of buying up here and we continue to break down to the downside. All of this kind of activity here is completely lost in this candlestick chart. You'd just be basically shooting in the dark. We wouldn't know where this volume traded. We wouldn't understand these breakdowns and we wouldn't understand the returns back to these areas where we broke from. It's very opaque here looking at this candlestick. That's the volume. Let me cover the volume just a little bit more because I want to show you exactly what we're showing you. It's on a sub-second level because it's very simple data. I'll zoom into this area down here and let's just take a look. This is all we're showing here is historical, best bid and offer. We're down at millisecond level here, so thousands of seconds. This is the historical best offer and this is the historical best bid, the red line. We see this green dot that occurred here. We can use the data tip tool and it gives us the date, the time, what was on the ask here and the volume. This is for volume of one, this little green dot. That's what occurred here. This is a recording of historical best bid and offer in volume. There's actually a cell order over here if I zoom in and note how, actually, as I start to zoom in, look at the spread that actually widened out another tick here and then it caught up with the offer. This trade here, or this event that took place was for volume of seven. As I zoom in, note how I'm actually pulling apart that bigger dot and showing you exactly what traded here and note that we are now down at microsecond level. I know that this is for volume of one, three and three. We're showing you every single detail and every single market event that took place. However, we're giving you, although we're breaking it up and showing you all that detail, we're giving you the overall delta and understanding of what occurred there when we zoom out and we compress the timeline and start to show a bigger dot that comprises many trades. As I zoom out more, you'll note how there will be, some of these areas over here, there's many trades that took place. But so many trades took place, we need to show you the overall delta of that activity with the pie display of the dot. If I hover over this area, it's for volume of 243 contracts and the majority of it was actually buying here, which is interesting because we're dropping. It's getting to 50-50 here. These buyers here are certainly on their back leg and going to be covering at lower levels as they get squeezed out. This is one of the things that we look at actually pretty often. Anyway, let's not get into that detail. We're understanding exactly what comprises the volume and we can see who's winning the battles at these areas because we can see exactly where it's trading this volume. That's what gives us the insight here in Bookmap. Now let's zoom out, go to the current market here. Understanding the volume and understanding where the microstructures and the breaks of these microstructures and the volume together offers a significant advantage. However, there's another piece to the market here that we don't see and that's where they're bidding and offering. Bookmap will show that historically and it'll show it currently as well. How we show it currently is with the dome. Here's our dome right here. Here's our price ladder and you can see the depth of market right here with this column, the COB column. It's showing me the depth here on the offer and it's showing me the depth on the bid. This is the best bid and offer right here. This window here is the same data. It's showing me current, best bid and offer and last traded volume. Now I'm going to turn on the heat map though and I'm going to show you the current market here. The heat map is a representation of the numeric values here in the dome. So very high liquidity is painted bright white. Note how pretty volatile here. They just came in with high liquidity in a few areas and then pulled and then added higher and they just added up here on the bid as well. There's a lot going on at the moment and very high levels of liquidity as you can see here, 77 versus like 30 contracts. So double the amount and right to it. We just went right to it there. And some of that traded. Some of it was pulled as well. But we can start to gauge and understand the activity in the current market in this window here with the adding and pulling of liquidity. In the historical market though we can also start to read it. That behavior and here it is. We can see high liquidity here and it is being recorded. We take that data and project it on the chart historically and look how they were here with high liquidity and they just pulled it and added it a few ticks higher. This has got to be the same player. High liquidity at the same moment they pull they add up here. Same player here. Pulled, added up here. So now we're not only are we starting to understand the current market and the historical market but we're starting to also identify the players. We know that this player up here is this rather bullish. He's pulling his orders in adding higher. He does not want to be a buyer at lower levels. So we can read that behavior here and we can see it very clearly here in book map. We're going to see all sorts of things. We're going to see spoofing. We're going to see a flip of the order book. We're going to understand the behavior of these traders in this auction. Here they are down on the bid at 95 and here they are on the offer up at 0.3 and 0.3.5 and right now we're channeling in between that area of high liquidity. And we can tell we already know that this guy here is not so keen on trading in this area. He keeps pulling and adding higher. So maybe we can see aggressive buyers step in and maybe we can come up and test this 0.3.5 area now. And that's one of the scenarios that might play out here. And we see that they're starting to bid up at these areas here at 97.5. So we put all of this kind of data together and start to understand the context of the market. You have any questions on that? This kind of context to the market is key. We're not looking for some sort of specific because there's a white line that then they pulled and then they added this or that. No, we're looking for the overall context. For those of you who trade volume profile, you understand that. You're looking at the majority of traders. Where are they dealing or not dealing? I'm sorry, where are they trading? Where are they committed in their trades? And then looking at low volume nodes, high volume nodes, understanding that context of a high volume node. Here are columns in book map here. The market can come back up to this 99 level and it can trade there because there was significant trading action there earlier. So the low volume node is that there is no trading here so the market will exhaust out and rotate lower. We just saw a beautiful example of a low volume node and this is what it looks like here in book map. Here's our breakdown below. What I failed to cover earlier is the figure here at 6300. This is a key level. You can see that we failed above 6300 here. Traders are not interested in trading up here at 6300. They think it's not worth that. They think it's worth less and we're seeing that play out here. Here's our price channel that we were witnessing earlier and here's our breakdown from that price channel. Here's our pullback. There's actually three of them. One, two, and three. Two, where we broke from in this price channel. We actually could have come up a little bit higher, maybe up to here because this is truly where it broke from but we didn't. Instead it was this volume cluster here that was what traders were reacting to and we exhausted out of that area here in our low volume node. We can see the exhaustion. What does exhaustion look like in book map? Here it is here. We don't see a lot of trading up here. We see the volume clusters trading down here and look at again here, volume cluster of volume down here and look at this little area on the pullback here. Very little trading if any at all. There is a skew of the transactions here and that skew is to the downside and we get price discovery further to the downside. Here's another example of exhaustion here. Another few examples here. A little bit of volume traded here pushed it up just above but completely exhausted out here and rotated lower. Let me know if you have any questions of what book map is showing you and disadvantage that you're getting with the transparency because we're starting to really put together this auction and that's exactly what the market is. It's an auction. We're starting to understand where they're auctioning. Here they are at 82. We're about to trade right into it right here and we'll find out if these guys stay in the book or if they trade. There they go. Let's zoom in there. Did those guys trade? They traded right into that high liquidity and the majority of these contracts here there was 102 contracts on this price level. I know that. That's fact or 97 at this area here. Here's 102. Then they started to trade into that high liquidity. Here's 77 contracts traded and 105 contracts overall traded within this range. They traded through that liquidity. These buyers down here stayed in the book. This was not fake liquidity. It traded. That's important to know. We're starting to understand where larger players are starting to maybe scale in to their positions. When we start to understand that we're starting to look for potential reversal just like this. The larger players again look at this area here at 76. We trade down into that area and look at the selling in here, the aggressive sellers. They're not so interested any longer. We're exhausting out here at 76. The buyers read that and they're going to start to lift the offer at a swing level up here. We can see them starting to come in. This is initiated buying. They lifted the offer up to these higher levels. There's the distinction between understanding this longer-term high liquidity that stays in the book and trades and they're absorbing on the aggressive selling to the point where they came down and finally exhausted down at this level. This is what that behavior looks like. Looks like we want to come up and maybe test the... Well, our level is here at 96. Let's see if we can get up there. Let's look at 92 here as well. There's going to be a swing here and start to understand this area here at 92. There's other market information data that BookMap is not able to show. Yes, Tony, there are... With our add-on indicators, we can show quite a bit of information here. Let me turn on the indicators. For example, note these little numbers here. This is not significant. Let's see if we can maybe get more insight down in these areas here. Anyway, these numbers... This is the iceberg detector. The green numbers here are showing me where there's iceberg orders. We know that because this algo that we developed is able to read the limit order book, what was provided there in terms of liquidity and then exactly how much traded at that point. This number displays the difference. More liquidity actually traded than what was in the order book at that time. It's displayed with this number. That's the iceberg. Then you can see them also on the offer up here. That's just one. There are several others. We also have a sub chart here that's showing us the cumulative volume delta as an indicator subpanel. Another one. See this little white line here in the current order book showing the bars here. This little white line is showing us that a larger player is providing the majority of the liquidity at some of these areas. Down here. This larger player, note how we're pulling their liquidity. We're seeing the heat map showing us where the high liquidity is going. Basically, larger players here are dominating. We can see it very clearly here. As soon as they're pulling, they're adding to other areas. Then we noted the other area where they're getting actually filled as well. There are many others, Tony. We've got to wrap it up. For those of you who are in trial or current customers, we'll jump over to the advanced order flow webinars right now. See you there. Bye.