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