And those others we can bring forward to a worldwide sharing of the greatest human endeavor in history. [applause] president ial leadership in this initiative would improve, extend come and celebrate the american exceptionalism in a way that no other policy or program could. Cycling pathways to occupied mars must be organized progressively with a decision made to go now full throttle out. As we said standing as proud americans from our exceptional nation with the world behind us, we came in peace for all mankind. We americans do these things, think big, act on our dreams, then look back and bring the world along with us. So to this room full of leaders, let me say this isnt the time to venture outward again this is the time to venture outward again much further in space bringing humanity out to mars making history there as we americans have here. Listen closely to my challenge. The president who appeals to the higher angels and takes us closer to the heavenly body we call mars will not only make history, he will long be remembered as a pioneer for mankind to reach, to comprehend, and settle mars. And if not now, when . And if not us, who . I appeal to you to take up the challenge and bring us all along from the Wild Blue Yonder with giant leaps to this waiting island in the blackness of space. This is the time. This is our time. And this is your time. Its an honor to be here with you, and i salute those who have the courage to lead this great nation, lead it forward, taking the next advances which are our destiny. As Ronald Reagan said, we americans have a rendezvous with destiny. Lets go for it. God bless america. [applause] your supporter and dedicated warrior, mars guy, buzz. [applause] up next on cspan2, debate about the use of Encryption Technology and smartphones. Then a conversation on prison sentencing laws. The senate is back in and will continue work on the Prescription Drug addiction bill. Live coverage at 10 eastern. Homeland security secretary jeh johnson will testify about his agencies 2017 budget request. He will take questions from members of the sonoma security and Governmental Affairs committee. Thats why today at 10 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Later, conversation about the role that state party split and National Political campaigns. We will hear from party officials. Live coverage from the Brookings Institution starts at 2 p. M. Eastern also on cspan. Next, a conversation on the fbi apple case involving the unlocking of an iphone belong to one of the San Bernardino attacker to congressman ted lieu takes part in this discussion on smartphone Encryption Technology and National Security. This event was hosted by the Wilson Center. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. We are specifically here are watching to unchain arpan, president and ceo of the Wilson Center, a recovering politician. My role in congress for most of my nine terms overlapped the subject we are dealing with today, and it is my great pleasure to welcome good friends on this panel but first a shout out to my congressman and good friend ted lieu for joining us. Had literally is my congressman. I am still a resident of venice beach, california, which i represent all those years and he represents venice beach, california, and other parts. And again ted, 20 years later, thanks for looking out for what was then my young son dan while you were a member of i guess the state assembly, or maybe the torrents of city council. We go way back. Encryption is time to. Its important, and ted is one of the only members are to understand the bits and bytes, thanks to a bachelors degree in Computer Science from stanford. No one here has missed the showdown between apple and the fbi. Jim comey says he needs apples help raking into the San Bernardino gunmans phone. Apple says complaint would endanger its products and american data everywhere. We should all care how this ends. We are in uncharted territory. The fbi wants him cooks and just to build a branded custom operating system. Credits call it golf os. Some called a golden key or a backdoor. Director comey says its a front door, lawful search for leads from a dead homegrown terrorist. Be the way its a battle over much more than one phone. Manhattan District Attorney says he has 175 apple devices sitting in new york evidence lockers that he cannot unlock. Los angeles pd have several hundred more than apple has flagged more than a dozen cases across the United States where the fbi wants to crack down, to crack its and security systems. If apple unlocks one device, where will the line be drawn . The endgame, whatever it is, will impact your phone, my phone and millions of others. It could have huge consequences for american tech firms, american cops and spies in every american and probably every world citizens cybersecurity. As i mentioned this is an area i know something about her i was a Senior Member of the House Intelligence Committee on 9 11. I was briefed as part of the socalled any update on what was then called stellar wind which was the precursor to the bold telephone metadata program. I insisted then and believe now that security and liberty are not a zerosum game. You get more of both or you get neither. To former Congressional Colleagues of mine, so lofgren, ma democrat from california, and darryl ice, republican, wrote in ipad yesterday for the los angeles times. My hometown paper. They say the debate is too big for one courtroom. The conversation belongs to congress. And so here at the Wilson Center today we want to kickstart that dialogue. We have a rockstar Program Starting with congressman ted lieu complete on these issues on one of congress few genuine techies. We are also pleased to welcome another good friend, kate martin come senior fellow at the center for American Progress and former longtime director of the center for National Secure the studies, and so i consulted regularly trying to wrap my old brain around these very tough issues. We also have susan hennessey. Is she here . There she is. I cant see. Managing editor of lawfare and former nsa nationals could agency lawyer. And david perera, cybersecurity reporter for politico pro who will expertly moderated the panel and introduce congressman lupu will make opening remarks. So one more shout out and that is to make him king in the blue sweater who would be hiding in the back if she could. She directs our Digital Futures program. I think everyone would agree that she is brought incredible tech expertise to the Wilson Center i dont know how children all this stuff. Since i remember as a staffer on team harmon on capitol hill and i dont think she knew anything like this. But again the world wasnt like this and thats the point. The world is evolving managed by minute. We are going to stay on top or ahead of us at the Wilson Center, a digitally good news that a few people in congress are paying attention. So now please welcome our panel and our moderator. [applause] thank you so much for coming. Weve done introductions. Ted has a few things to say at the top and then we will dive into the conversation. Just so you we will be taking questions from the audience after ive had a chance to exercise my ego a little bit and ask the panel some questions. Thank you. Its such an honor to be here your let me thank jane harman and the Wilson Center for hosting this event. It was really an honor for me to grow up watching jane harman. I learned so much from her. I saw how she worked on a bipartisan basis to get things done in congress address our amazing leadership on National Security. Back then as i say, i went to sleep that night. Perfect to find issues with congressman. So thank you for all you did for country. Im honored to be here with this terrific panel. As congresswoman harman said i am a recovering Computer Science major. I know a little bit about cs issues but i served active duty in a force. Im still in the reserves and when it comes to jervis i believe we should hunt them down and kill them. Governments First Priority is public safety. Thats what i support apples position. Because strong encryption is a u. S. National security priority. Im going to make just three brief points. I believe the fbi intentionally is trying to frame this issue as one of privacy versus National Security. That is the wrong frame. The actual frame should be making some Law Enforcement investigations easier versus National Security. If you look at our National Security leaders none of them are saying yes lets put in backdoors. They are saying the opposite and its quite extraordinary. You know have the secretary of defense saying that strong encryption is a u. S. Priority. He is against backdoors and he also says we shouldnt do things best moments of anger and grief. Because directly undercutting the fbis message. But also michael hayden, former directodirector of nsa same basc support apples position, strong encryption is used National Security priority. That should be the right frame. Do we want to make Law Enforcement job easier but then we can our National Security . Thats a debate. Second point is, play on top of that all these issues such as privacy, such as the relationship between our government and you, how much do you want our governmengovernmen t to be able to compel you to take extraordinary action to assist Law Enforcement . Lets say the apple team that developed the smartphone left, went to google, the fbi didnt compel google to do extraordinary actions to help break into an apple iphone . At what limit do we have . At what end do we want our government to compel people to take these actions to help Law Enforcement . On top of that we have effects on u. S. Businesses abroad, and this is not going to affect smart phones year, not just here but countries around the world. The final point is because of how important these issues are we really should not let precedent be set and these issues be decide by unelected judges interpreting an 18th century statute. Thats what the department of justice and fbi tried to do, cant use the all writs act, something best in 1789 and 20 is that to set precedent. Up with the trumpet should be something that congress decides but once again its about the look forward to answering questions and listening to my panel members. Thank you so much. So that sets the stage a fair amount. In order to tackle this issue, pretty complex, a lot of moving parts. We decided we are going to divvy it up into a tale of three iphones. So we have the first iphone to set this off a lease in the context of apple and the cover try to get special access to apple device. And that is an iphone thats at the center or at the periphery rather of a methamphetamine distribution case in new york city. Susan, can you quickly tell us whats going on . This is the case that you might have heard of over the past couple of days of a new york judge says fbi cant force apple to unlock an iphone. You might be confused that are multiple cases going on. This is a case in new york in the Eastern District. Whats really important to understand about that case is its in iowas seven but the difference between an ios seven, theres a number pashtun ios seven. How the device is grid. Important to understand is apple has the capacity to unlock the phone that to bypass the locking mechanism to extract the data. They maintain that capability voluntarily. They provide a service to the ios approximately 70 times in the past pursuant to an all writs order. They declined to do so in this case. They are challenging the use of the all writs act to compel the kind of assistance at question but its important to understand where we are, sort of the questions about compelling them to write new codes. Those arise in california some months later. I magically judge in newark has said this is an improper application of the all writs act. The department of justice has appealed and it will also go to the District Court within the next couple of weeks. Kate, should apple, its done it 70 times before at the very least, unlock the iphone . It doesnt require it to code its a special operatives which is what the fbi is asking for in the case of the San Bernardino shooters, county issue. It wasnt his own iphone. Should they do in brooklyn . So rather than directly answer your difficult question, im going to lay out what i think the issues are. I think first of all its really important to note that this case and the San Bernardino case are cases where the government, Law Enforcement has a warrant to get the information that its seeking on the phone. And when you step back and we talk more broadly about the encryption debate, one of the things i think we have to keep in mind is that when Law Enforcement says, well, we only want to get access to information for which we have a warrant, that, in fact, thats not completely true. That there are many instances in which they want access to information and in which they dont have a warrant. So thats an important backdrop. So here they have a warrant which means that there is no fundamental Fourth Amendment problem in getting access to the information on the phone. The case really does resolve, revolve around application of the statute, the all writs act. The way the all writs act comes out is in wiretapping cases more generally, the congress has already required the Telephone Companies, for example, to provide Technical Assistance to Law Enforcement when they want to conduct a lawful wiretap with a warrant. Through calea . No. Its just through, sometimes through calea but leah do something slightly different. The wiretap act itself, their sewer provisions of the wiretaps actor director by the Telephone Companies to give assistance in carrying out wiretaps. Then we have the leah which was a statute that said they have to build the telephone systems in a way that they will be wiretap accessible, but we leave the details of that up to the Telephone Companies. None of the statutes specifically require companies to help the government in carrying out warrants apply to apple in this situation or to the iphone. And so the government is relying on the all writs act as a quote gap filler statue to say you have an obligation to help Law Enforcement facilitate this lawful search. Can you voice an opinion . Are they doing, is apple doing the correct thing by resisting the fbi request specifically in brooklyn, which s. Is know to come is different one in San Bernardino. I think apple is correct in requiring a court, rather than simply turning over information in response to a court order. I think its more, im now going to state an unpopular opinion. I think its more questionable whether or not its such a slamdunk when one or the other. I think, in some ways, im not sure that i agree that we Want Congress to take this particular issue up right away. One of the things this particular issue, one of the things that the court can do, which the congress is not so great at, is look at the specific operating system, the specific ways in which apple would have to take steps to unlock that operating system, the specific reasons why the government needs the information and what the ward is for the information. The warrant. And the all writs act in some way so as to the court can look at all those factors, balance them and come to a conclusion about whether or not the court is going to compel apple to give assistance in this particular case. So im not going to express their view about that particular case. I do think that there might be some utility for those of us who care about privacy to recognize that the all writs act could have a useful role to play because it requires the involvement of a judge and it requires a particular showing by the government before it can invoke that assistance. Ted. I actually dont disagree with you that congress should not take this up right away. Which is what i am a coauthor of legislation that chairman mccaul and senator warren introduce which put together an expert panel of very, very smart people to look at this issue, provide recommendations to congress. Something that cox can do and courts can, look at a much broader issue and have lots of hearings, have lots of very intelligent experts, have people from the Wilson Center weight gain and weakened and craft policy. I believe we do need to take time on this its very complicated. But on the new york case, ill give you my answer. I support apples position as does those judge in this case, judge ornstein, who wrote an opinion i thought was a pretty good opinion. He writes in the that he doesnt believe that the folks that passed the all writs act in 1789 intended to solve the debate then and end it there. We are in a whole new world in the 21st century at the 18th c