National security is to bring transparenciy to the National Security law issues of the day. And for that reason were very pleased and happy to have cspan with us today. Cspan 2 will be broadcasting this live at this time and for that reason when you ask questions, wed ask that you please identify yourself, both so that our speakers know who you are, as well as the larger audience. Another of the missions of the ada is in nonpartisan, as well as bipartisan fashion to talk about highlight and advance the National Security law and do so in two ways. One to stand up for the principal of physical security but do so consistent with our National Security values. Thats the essence of what the Standing Committee in law and National Security is all about. Thats also why im so pleased that our speakers are two people who spent their entire careers doing just that, standing up for it physical security of the United States but doing so in a manner consistent with our values. Our discussions are harvey and fran townsend. I was trying to figure out if i would go through their bios but then i realized they held collectively together every single job at the department of justice in the fbi going back to 1910. In harveys case. In frans not quite as long. So instead what i thought i would do is let them introduce themselves. But i want to tell you one thing about each. First, about harvey and you know im going to have a hard time livi limiting myself with harvey. Hes an intellectual. Hes an idea person. But i think about teddy roosevelt, not hunting or doing all those not that aspect of it. But im thinking about the man in the arena. Here is a person who is an idea guy and a thinker but he as it curage and the gut to get in the arena and try to implement those ideas. Thats what a public servient does and thats what harvey is, hes a public servient. Fran, we tend to think these days that department of justice geared up for National Security after 9 11 and with the formation of the National Security division. Not true. Fran townsend, more than any other person except perhaps the attorney general, janet reno, was responsible for transforming the department of justice from a Law Enforcement department exclusively to a National Security and Law Enforcement department in the 1990s. She did that when she was the director of the office of intelligence programs. I worked with her on a daily basis back then. So this is first hand evidence and testimony. So for that, fran, for preparing the United States and department of justice, thank you. So im now going to turn the mike over to harvey to conduct the interview. Both of our discussants you may know where they work in the day time. Theyre just random people we picked off the sidewalk to come in today. And fran, bless her is quite under the weather. Thanks so much. Thank you for those very sweet and elegant remarks. I think what were going to be doing is were going to open up the discussion to you all because of the level of expertise in the room. Its a special privilege to be here. As you know fran has just joined our committee and given the power she was able to have the 702 passed by the house right before this very gathering which is afther statement of the power of our committee. So i think weicide get to it, fran. 702 has passed by it house. As you know there was a bit of controversy. These are the privacy interests and state interests. Im wondering at this point in time what your sense is on how the bill has been passed and what your understanding is and the compromise debate and where had they hit the right mark. Thank you for having me. Theres a lot of old friends and former colleagues in the room. I expect that the bill will pass. We are on a ramp that the legislation should get voted in the senate on tuesday. Will mcconnell allow not clear. Yesterday morning. I think people in this room i get why its important. But what most people dont get who havent worked inside the community is the many, many layers of protections inside the system. Not just inside the fbi. Yes, they have an internal system of checks and balances. Now it National Security division, formally my office. Theres the president s privacy and Civil Liberties board. They have reporting requirements to congress both intelligence and judiciary committees. And so there are lots of controls to prevent abuses. So to the extent people worry about the scope of the 702 authority, i think we have to recognize and acknowledge that because its an extraordinary power that the government itself as chosen to put all kinds of checks and balances around it. I can remember one of the things we do that still happens, office of intelligence policy and review. Now the National Security division. Was you did an annual filing of the number of fisa surveillance warrants and you broke it down by u. S. Persons and not u. S. Persons. The Justice Department and the fbi know how to do that. And that will give me a glimpse of just how they u. S. Power. How many queeries are there. And i think thats data we dont have now that we will have once the legislation passes its really focussed on nonu. S. Persons abroad and has to perform what we know as a significant purpose. So one of the arguments is the fear by privacy individuals is somehow we use 702 to back door the requirements of the fourth amendment. Is that concern that you have or youve seen and do you think the amendment that says in the event we have an ongoing criminal investigation, then there will have to be a warrant required for the fbi to bang those data banks. And because we were there pre911 and the famps wall was there and thats what the amendments were supposed to do, how do you feel now given that current amendment thats still in the bill. I think youre going to find its not used all had that often when youre talking about u. S. Person in a case, right so its not what it was intended there was anticipation of incidental collection and thats why you have minimization procedures which will still today apply. They have investigations in all 50 states against the 702 data base is nuts and it doesnt work that way, right. And so while i understand theres a concern, thats why i started by saying theres checks and balances. I dont think youre going to see theres that sort of abuse and i should say senators burn, warner in the senate have been shown real leadership at a time in washington where we complain theres not real leadership, they deserve real credit. On just this concern they were talking about insertinging language that required if you hit against the 702 data base and you came up with a u. S. Person, you have to notify it court within 24 to 48 hours and thats an acknowledgment about what the concern you articulate. And i think we said with that power this should come extraordinary accountability. And in the event we find individuals abusing that power, they should be held accountable to the full force of the law. I think that would make americans feel comfortable that were willing to discipline people quite severely who abuse it. This is a Technology Issue. The Technology Issue is eroding where we know people can be and who they are. So if i can make you queen for the day. In the Intelligence Community, what issues do you think we should focus on as we move forward for the 21st century and i mean in the power sense as opposed to a criminal matter. So look, i think there was a time we were laughing before, that there was a time we would try to describe it differants in authorities between fbi and cia as feet dry and feet wet. Thats so arcayic now because the internet doesnt allow you to make these territorial distinctions and we used to rely and craft the law around and most americans dont understand it. When we define a u. S. Person. I think most americans think of that as being an american, an americanborn american. If it we dont know we assume youre a u. S. Person. In terms of the implementation of these authorities. If theres any single selector that would cause to think you may be a u. S. Person, youre a u. S. Person. If youre a foreigner, we treat you as a u. S. Person. So this u. S. Person category is far broader than i think the average american understands and appreciates and thats because we want to balance it were trying to balance the need for these tools with our own set of fundamental values and principals. So thats one of the issues thats eroding. Does it make sense for us to continue and distinguish u. S. Persons and nonu. S. Persons. Should we have one set of rules or regulations without that process . Something our european colleagues have been pushing us to do. I think we as a people are not prepared to say the rights and privileges that americans enjoy are exceptional and that we are in some way going to continue to work to make sure that those exceptional rights and privileges are protected in a special way. I think it will continue to get harder. I think were go having to to define that quite broadly as i mentioned. Its sort of the jaimes values question. We have a constitution for a reason and we have these protections for the bill of rights. We have these protections for a reason and just because its hard i wouldnt want to see us say were going to get pushed to the european model. Great. Are there any other thoughts that you would have if you can sit down with both the congress and the president , visa vee issues and the Intelligence Community that require attention as we prepare for our adversaries in the 21st century. As you know weve had some issues with meddling in our elections and what is the appropriate response we should have . And should there be reforms in the community for us to respond . For better or worse i helped auther the intelligence reform act. Its real easy in washington to its impossible to kill something. Which explands our careers. Good point. And i always believe whether it was the department of Homeland Security or the dni that you have to have a point in time at which youre going to say let me step back and see are they performing the fungds and purpose that i instituted them for . Let me give you an example. The department i think its time we look at the department. Youll recall president bush was not in favor of the legislation. It was put together very quickly with i think 23 agencieagencies. It was intended to be a border security. Air, sea and land but it had a lot of other stuff put in it. And i think its time for us to look at is it the right mandate and is it performing a function . I was just talking his name will remain. The National Center for counterterrorism. I was talking to a principal in the Trump Administration who said do you know the National Counterterrorism center has over a thousand people, 200 cia analysts, all those people if they werent there could do targeting operations . Did you intend it to be that size . I was stunned. It never occurred me it would be upwards of 1,000 people with people posted in states and localities around the United States. They perform a very important function. Theyre uniquely positioned by their authorities to regulate and insure the protekdss between domestic collected information and foreign intelligence and so im not suggesting you do away with it but im suggesting its time anything that grows to be a thousand people, having scored it as a subcomponent, you ought to look at this and say is the right size and how do we improve it it Going Forward . Im not being critical of eether the currented a mip stragz or the obama as ministration. I know its hard, you cant keep up with the day to day stuff but i think we would serve ourselves well to get back and look at some of these post 9 11 structures we put in place and ask it hard questions. The other major component of our world is the National Center for counterintelligence. And counterintelligence often isnt discussed a great deal but for many of us in the room it has been rather something weve devoted a great deal of attention to, particularly with the Current Situation were finding with our adversaries who seem to be able to penetrating a lot of our networks. Whats your sense of counterintelligence, where were at with that and whether or not we could be doing better or improvements you would suggest . Harvey and john mcgafen were doing counterintelligence before it was cool. Its always sort of been inside the dni, the baste step child. Underfunded. It gets very little attention. I thought that would change after the 2016 election. I thought it would get more funding and more prominents john and i were talking before breakfast about russian active measures. This should be led by the National Counterintelligence center. In connection with the fbi and we aught to have a National Strategy and it required leadership from the dni and the white house and weve got commit ourselves to that with resource s and i do think we have to now begin to say we hold precious the freedom of the press as well we should but the very freedoms we hold precious our enemies are using. Its sort of that sun zoo thing. Theyre going to use the weight of our privileges against us and so when you realize somebody like the russians are using the black lives Matter Movement on social media to sew domestic discontent, it troubles me because i feel we havent devoted the time, attention and resources we have to devote to deal with that. As you know you held the position also where you were focussed as being a National Security advisor for Homeland Security and theyre struggling hard to perform that function. Do you think at this point the way weve aligns that department of Homeland Security and defense and justice in this space is maximizing what we can do . No. Look, it comes back to sort of what i started with. If you have so many Different Missions and responsibilities, if everythings a priority, nothing is a priority. I think tave arer done a pretty extraordinary job on the customs and border piece and Kirsten Nielsen also has plum island. I bet you theres nobody here who knows what plum island is. Some people from massachusetts perhaps. I think they go from one hurricane to another and i do think thats why on the counterif hadtelligence side this is not Kirsten Nielsen. This is a sort of tier one National Security problem that requires the president s cabinet to devote adequate resources and time and attention and have a strategy about priorities and how theyre going to go against them. Maybe its fair to open up to the audience for questions at this point . If anyone has something. Its not a shy group. Im still okay. Theres not been a coup. Fran, you served as the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and my question is could you please comment on what you see with respect to National Security process today at the nsc. How is it similar to past process ease, how is it different and what do you think the key points of comparison are . Sure. I think from all accounts when the new administration is, youre going to see missteps in the beginning. A bunch of new people coming in trying to figure how do they want to run the process. I think this administration thought they were going to completely review the policy review process and thats how you see things like the original eo. And they had all sort of problems. I think theyve seltd in. I think they run a much more traditional process. I think the executive secretary manages the flow. There are notices of meetings, minutes of meetings and i think they tend to do less principals in the white house, theyre able to save. You can save the principals time and thats a good thing. So tweaks around the margin of the process are fine. But the discipline of the process is incredibly important and i think they learned a tough lesson. I think they thought they could short circuit that. But its what we would recognize as a traditional process. Id like to see them come out with a cyber strategy. But i think we need a very clear National Cyber strategy that includes some of these Counter Intelligence issues because of it. It has to have both offense rv and defensive. Lets wait for the microphone. Great. Thank you for the excellent remarks. If youre familiar with the National Security strategy that came out. The first one in a few years. If we look at it as a desired end point, what in your mind and based in your experience are the key things the administration has to get right in order to achieve those stated strategic objecives . And its a continuation of what have been long standing but my key question is what are it things he that all of us from all parties encourage and support . Thats a great question. You know it was interesting to me because when the strategy came out, you had a bunch of folks like me on the phone talking about what was in it in advance and it read very much like you say traditional Foreign Policy platform. The president s roll out of it on the other hand you sort of said is he rolling out the same document because it sounded different and so i hesitate because i feel uncertain if the dockment is the real strategy and theyre committing resources to it, look, i do think we have to be predictable and certain to our allies. Our allies cannot wonder whether were with them or not with them because it diminishes American Power in the world. Doesnt mean we always agree with our allies. And so i do think that we have to keep their success on the Foreign Policy side is strengthening our traditional relationships and allies. Hes been received in poland and germany. I think its unfortunate hes canceled the uk trip i think for a whole bunch of political reasons the president has steered clear of a the cyber issue. I sound like a little bit of a broken record. If it president was asking me for advice, my attitude is i literally go face first because i think you want to own it. You cant unless youre willing to call them out and identify their adversaries and the problems they cause and the president has seen its funny because hes not the least bit unwilling to say hard or abrasive things. I just wish we would see him willing to articulate who our adversaries are and how were going after them. And be willing to build a coalition. On the other hand i will tell you whats happening in the middle east. You talk about fundamental to our longterm interests, we can disagree and have real problems with the human rights record in iran and saudi arabia but the reforms going on right now are not only in our National Interest but theyre in the longterm interest of sdublt in the region. Yus yesterday women were in a stadium watching a soccer match and they opened a womens only car sales place. This is getting 50 of their population back engaged is tremendous. So i think that the president there are a number of areas where there are really good things going on but i come backing to where i started and that is i feel less certain thats part of an overall strategy. I think hes got huge opportunity, particularly in the middle east but i think it remains to be seen whether or not we can get that kind of acrossed the line and i do worry the one thing we havent talked about is counterproliferation. And i would be remiss in saying in a world we have the iranians, they have a nuclear program. Youre going to see the saudis put out an rfp. I think we are going to see a president face a proliferation and its sort of like the counterintelligence issue. There is nobody talking about the proliferation issue and i worry about that for my kids and grand kids. Weve opened up that door as the Tipping Point to be transformative for our generation. But you mentioned the cyber issue and were talking about 702, one of the other core issues that the debate is tied to is our famous encryption. And that encryption problem tied to different sovereign nations taking different approaches about whether or not they want access to that data flow, either in motion or at rest, what rr your take and where do you come down on this very issue . Its encrypted. Its fought going to help us. So where do you break on that . Look, to state the obvious, the isis really hard because look, i want to the fbi to be able, with lawful process to get access to encrypted information. Period full stop and by the way every american ought to want that because what that means is if its encrypted and they get a court order they ought to be able to get into it and its like being from motherhood and apple pie. Somehow weve lost the moral argument with our technology partners. I think it goes back to some in some ways it goes back to the Bush Administration and i think we work to repair those relationships over time. We were by no means there. We know that in the 702 debate which you bring up, one of the Tech Companies refuse to comply and had to be ordered by the court to comply with 702. Its afther nuksz of the scratchiness of that relationship. In some ways i think weve got to learn not to rely on our Tech Partners to get these answers and you talk about reforms in the Intelligence Community. In china you begin to train in cyber from the time youre in elementary school. We have not if vested in this country in making sure our kids are that capable. Look, you hand a 3yearold an ipad to entertain themselves and they can do it. But we dont put the premium on real highlevel training and capability from the time of Elementary Education. If we want to be competitive in the intelligence world and the Law Enforcement world, we need be able to attract people to government who have that capability and we better start early like our adversaries do. Did i ever think id be talking about an Elementary Education issue as a National Security issue but i do think it is one. We refer this as the geek walk divide. And are you saying you would like to see a major cyber Education Initiative that would start countries like israel, china, russia are careening that . Is that something you would like to see them put forward . Absolutely and it requires resources and from the waungs. It require as coming together and acknowledgment that if this is the cold war we say were losing. We are losing on this front and in order to gain ground and recover some of what is our innovation and technology advantage, were going to having to commit ourselves to educating our young People Better sooner on technology. So when you talked about you were sort of president at the creation of Homeland Security and deeply involved and you i think your remarks today have said tats rar huge mission, hard to focus. So one of the issues we debated is will countries have divided up responsibilities. M i5, mi 6. We have the bureau but we also have nsa, dod. What is your position on whether or not weicide start creating a much more focussed entity and have that as the sole responsibility and is that a cabinet Level Experience or do we continue to have someone try coordinate all these varied activities . I think in some ways our great strength and one of the great protections that most americans is that we have we dont have any single Central Place of power but theres a strength in it, right . So that you have dod and fbi and cia that you have offensive Cyber Operations in more than one place and defensive cyber. Is actually who there is no doubt that what we want is a free, fair and open internet and we want to feel like i want tago on there and i dont have to worry about whos watching where i click other than google. And everybody wants to sell me of course. So i dont think you need some big hefty entity. Having created big hefty entities, im not so keen on that anymore. Because somehow they out grow their original untent and become unwieldy. So im an advocate for there being a National Cyber center that brings in the capability and expertise that is quite diverse across the federal government. We but im suggesting is really hard because every cabinet secretary, to the extent were going to pull this capability and resources, its a zero sum game. Im going to lose less control over my authorities. I think it president when theres a cyber issue, i can remember being in white house, i think it was 2004 where had the light went out on the eastern sea bord and and the image of people running across the brooklyn bridge, its from that moment on i said the president needs one place to go where he gets a 360 cyber picture about whats going on and so there isnt that place. And so id run into the situation room and get bits and pieces of it. I think for needs to be a central cyber capability the command center but it doesnt reach it away from me where theres expertise and authoriti authorities. [ inaudible ]. This is kr fr cspan. We i think its important to focus on it and and that is the notion of counterare had counterintelligence for not catching spies but understanding what other governments are doing. And does that play out in the experience you guys have had . It most certainly has to be a part of a cyber center, right . So the counterintelligence, as part of their mission give us that view. I find it very troubling when we began to learn that during this whole charlottesville tragedy and black lives matter, i live in new york. There were marches there. The notion that our russian adversaries are on social media spinning up americans against each other deeply offends me and i dont think we pay enough time or attention understanding that. Because that wasnt an accident. It wasnt like putin threw a plalt of spaghetti against the wall and said lets see what happens. We know enough about putin and the russians to know that was a deliberate strategy. Thats going to be a continuing part of the landscape, not just the election piece. And in addition to that, the counterintelligence gives you a way to look at the why and weve got that so wrong. Everyones looking at the election and thats what counterintelligences real role is the why. Sure. The other hat you wore, fran, if i remember correctly you straw bossed the review post katrina. I hate to bring back all these fond memories but one of those issues is how and i think your report was building on our resiliency and where we were in katrina and now we continually seem to be having Extraordinary Events that put the it republic at risk visa vee the weather and the attacks. Whats your sense of what you saw then and where we are now and what you would suggest build that resiliency capability that we need as a function . So, first, i will tell you i was heartened. I think successful administrations have learned what i call the lessons of katrina. That is working with it state and local Emergency Responders well before anything hits land fall, making sure you understand what the state and local capability is or is not so you know how to preposition federal resources. Making the disaster declarations literally sometimes before land fall. And to toms great credit this administration has done that. Resiliency in my judgment is really about the president is in the last two weeks talked about infrastructure. This is about investing in infrastructure in this country. Resiliency is about the strength of your if frustructure, roads, emergency services, electric, power, all of that. And so i dont think weve adequately invested in our infrasfrukture and i think thats the key to resilience. The coast guard. And the kost guard play as Critical Role in this resiliency. Would you like to see a greater expansion of coast guard assets and resources . Or you think we got that right . I think that the coast guard has historically and horribly been underfunded. This is the unsung hero of the department of Homeland Security and frankly of the uniform military services. When you look at it budget increases to dod and youre hearing bute 4 increase in the military budget, that doesnt include the coast guard. While theyre included in the military services, theyre not included in that plus up. Theyre fleet, cutters are aging. We ask them to do extraordinary things and in a post 9 11 world i expect because thats when i was there that the coast guard would see, as they took on the National Security mission an increase in funding to match that. That was a new mission. When i fist went to the coast guard, these were life savers. These were dudley do goods. Were going to save people. And when you said to them you also have a National Security mission now. Youve got to protect our ports, do all these other things, they did not get the plus up in their budget they should have gotten when they got the new mission and so i think were horribly underinvested. I think the common daunt position might be coming up. [ inaudible ] one of the original members of the office of intelligence policy in the 1980s. So precursor to your thats good. We spent a lot of time as a community as well as in these forums on technical collection of intelligence. Not enough on human. And i wondered if we look at the missiles testing in north korea, if we look at the russian involvement in our elections, if we look at the difficulties but ultimately it solution in finding Osama Bin Laden as opposed to technical means. I wonder if we, as a nation spend enough time on human intelligence and supporting our Intelligence Community of peep wool are the officers there who are doing difficult jobs and i wonder from your point of view, what do you think . Are we being effective in our intelligence gathering . Let me add one aspect to that. Theres the human side but there is also the revolution in data. And i think youve been in the private sector. You see how data exploitation is taking place. What do you see is that future of the human side and Data Collection side going and are we positioning ourselves to exploit it in the most effective way . So on the human side i think post 9 11, as is typical after a crisis we sort of take a hard lurch in a direction and after the end of the cold war, the Clinton Administration took the peace divdnd. And so the number of case officers by 1 3. So on 9 11 we had had 1 3 less people. It was no easy chore rebuilding the cia post 9 11. It takes a long time to recoupe, train, deploy. And so it took us that was a big, heavy lift. It was a huge investment. Mike haten, who i know you all know led that charge. And so we increased the numbers but of course because of the crisis we had had hmost of them focussed on al qaeda and the terrorism issue. I think were at a point to rebalance that. Like you you ask yourself why is assad still alive . Why is kim jongun still alive . If weve got good covert operations and human intelligence . Isnt there somebody around them not want to see them in power . There is live cspan. Thats all right. I could be promotable. I think we have to reinvest and rebalance our capability. In terms of the data, look, i dont think weved a kw ed adeq exploited the Data Available. I was teasing earlier that when i go on amazon, they know exactly what designer dresses i buy and i think its fair to say in the government were not as good if using those sorts of capabilities to target our limited resources, i think were going to have to because theres a limit to how many resources you can put in a problem and youre going to have to leverage those with the Data Available to you. I think we could go on for another hour given your experience and its been just a delight. I want to particularly also thank you for joining the committee so well have more of you over the next two or three years. As i look round it room the number of public servients we have for people who have sacrificed in their lives in order to serve the republic, its extraordinary. And thats why our community has always been very special. Because regardless of the political affiliation, in the end were real patriots and were here to defend the values, as jaime said and hes a perfect example of someone trying to spend his life with those careers. The first is our America Bar Association to represent our 50 years of service plus and now that you have this he has to buy you an adult refreshment. So thats one of the great things that keeps on giving and if you have trouble sleeping, the National Security enterprise book. And as we always say the key is for National Security on the spying when things get really tough, Johnny Walker is what Everyone Needs in this process to keep the faith. So with that let me have all of us thank you for everything youve done. [ applause ] preview of collections for the u. S. Diplomacy Center Museum set to open next year. Cyrus dean and arthur lee professional diplomats conducted these two treaties and this treaty of commerce was essential. It granted france most favored notion trading status. The french were very excited about getting into that economic trading war with Great Britain after the war was over and this would remain in effect for several years afterwards. American history tv every weekend on cspan3. Sunday on news makers, House Minority whip, steny hoyer looks at congress in 2018 and what he thinks the democrats chances are for winning the majority in the house. Heres some of what he had to say. I expect us to retake the house the majority. I do still because i think the environment is such that the American People are looking for some stability. Theyre looking for focus on issues they care about in terms of jobs and education and healthcare, in terms of the environment. In terms of our National Security. I think they view democrats being able to provide some stability to our country and frankly proper check an balance to our system when we see a president who has trouble creating stability within the white house much less within our government, so that i think im very positive. I think we are going to take back the house. We see all over the country a real enthusiasm and energy in the democratic base. We see a Republican Party that i think in many respects expects to lose control of the house of representatives. I dont think any of them would say that. In private conversations with some of my republican colleagues and republican friends, they say, boy, you guys are going to take back the house. We have excellent candidates throughout the country. Charlie cook says there are 91 districts in play. When we had two retirements this week of republicans, charlie cook, whos one of the prog noststy kaytors but a bipartisan and very concerned about the rightness of his judgments, says that both of those districts that republicans are now retiring in are now going to lean democratic. We need to pick up 24 of those 91 seats. I think well pick up more than that. We see not only members retiring in higher numbers on the republican side than weve seen in the past, weve also seen in those districts a tremendous interest by Democratic Candidates of running. That means they think their neighbors and friends and their districts are prepared to vote democratic so theyre enthusiastic about running. I think the 17 points i think is correct. Its historically high. Generic numbers, democrats ahead of republicans by 17 points. Its amazing but not necessarily surprising given the environment which has been created in the country. This was just some of House Minority whip steny hoyers remarks this week as our guest on news makers. You can watch the interview in its entire sunday at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. The comptroller
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.