We believe this now and go live now for discussion on National Security if one of the speakers at the moment security advisor to president george w. Bush, frances townsend, the American Bar AssociationStanding Committee on law and National Security is the host of this conversation. Its just getting underway. Broadcasting this live as it is time ever that recently as question we ask that you please identify yourself both so that our speakers know who you are as well as will our audience. Another of the missions of the aba is a nonpartisan as well as bipartisan fashion to talk about highlight and advance the interests of National Security law. And do so in two ways. One, to stand up for the principle of physical security, but do so consistent with our National Security values. Thats the essence of what the aba Standing Committee of National Security is all about. Thats also why im so pleased today that our speakers, our discussions in fact, our two people who spend their entire careers doing just that come standing up for the physical security of the United States but doing so in a manner consistent with our values. Our discussants are harvey, and frances housing or i will try and get if go to the bios, but then i realized that they held collectively together every single job at the department of justice and the fbi going back to 1910. [laughing] in harveys case. [laughing] in friends, not quite as long. So instead what i thought i would do is i would let them introduce themselves but i want to day one thing about each of our discussants. First, about harvey, and you know im going to have a hard time living limiting myself with our messiah am limiting one thing. He is a public intellectual, an idea person. But when i think about harvey, i think about teddy roosevelt. Not hunting are doing all those not that aspect of blood and think about the man in the arena. Heres a person who is an idea guy and a thinker, that he has the courage and the guts to get in the arena and tried infinite those ideas. Thats what a Public Servant does, and thats what harvey is, hes a Public Servant, so thank you, harvey. Fran, we tend to think these days that the department of justice geared up National Security after 9 11, and with the formation of the National Security division. Not true. Fran townsend more than any of the person except perhaps the attorney general janet reno was responsible for transforming the department of justice from an 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 work with her on a daily basis back then pics of this is firsthand evidence and testimony. So for that, fran, for preparing the United States and the department of justice, thank you. So im not going to turn the mic over to harvey to conduct the interview. Let me make one technical note. Both of our discussants are here in their personal capacity. You know where they may work in the daytime. They are not here in that capacity. They are just random people we picked off the sidewalk to come in today figure speaking only in their personal capacities. And fran, bless her, is quite under the weather. She normally has a drill sergeants bark, but you will not hear it today. Thank you. Thanks so much and thank you for those remarks. I think what were going to be doing is, fran and i will talk both for 15 minutes in the book open up the discussion to you all because of the level of expertise in the room. Fran, its a special privilege to be. As you know fran is just joined our committee, and give her power she was able to have the 702 pass by the house right before this very gathering, which is in the statement of the power of our committee. So i think we should get to it, fran. 72 as passed by the house as you know theres a bit of controversy, visavis privacy interests and state interests. Im wondering at this point time what your sense is of what, how the bill has been passed and what you understand is another compromise on whether you hit the right market . Harvey and jamie thank you for having me. Its really, theres a lot of old frans of pharmacology and rent its a special privilege for me to be here with you today. Look, i think, i expect that the bill will pass. I think we are on a ramp that the legislation should get vote in the senate on tuesday. Will mcconnell allow amendments . Not clear. Think not. The bill passed despite the president s tweet yesterday morning, and i think, people in this room under civil what most americans dont understand when you hear this privacy and Civil Liberties debate, i get why thats important. But what most people understand if they have worked inside the community is a many, many layers of protections that inside the system, not just inside the fbi, yes, they have an internal system checks and balances. They also get reviewed by the justice department. Now the National Security division, formally my office. Theres a Civil Liberties board. There reviewed by the dni. The reporting requirements to commerce both intelligence and the judiciary committees. And so there are lots of controls over to check and to prevent abuses. And 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, and extraordinary necessary power, that the government itself has chosen to put all kinds of checks and balances around it. I can remember when i went oi y pr, one of the things we do, still happens Speedy Office of public responsibility. Now the National Security division, you did an annual filing, the number of fisa surveillance words and the number of fisa search warrants. You broke it down by u. S. Persons and not u. S. Persons. I think you ought to expect that this could be exactly the same reporting requirements as the courts 702. The chested apartment and the fbi know how to do that. Even if theyre not set up to count right now they will be. That will give us a better sense of just how to utilize the 702 power. How many u. S. Persons, how many inquiries are there. I think that is data we dont have now that we will have once the legislation passes. As you know, 702 is really focused on nonu. S. Persons located abroad, perform a significant purpose for the foreign intelligence process. One of the arguments is that the fear by privacy individuals is that somehow we you 702 to backdoor the requirements of the fourth amendment. Is that a concern that you have or have you seen, and you thik the amendment that says that in the event we havent ongoing criminal investigation, then do have to be a warrant required for the fbi to bang those databanks . Is a a sufficient . Given your expense, because we were there pre9 11 and the wall was there and thats what this amendment is supposed to come over, the wall, how do you feel now given the current amendment that is built in the bill . So i think were going to find that it is not used, 702 is not used all that often when youre talking a u. S. Person in a criminal case, right . Its not what it was intended for. There is incidental collection. By the way, under fisa itself going back to the inception of the bill, it was anticipation of incidental collections and thats why you have minimization procedures which still today apply. I understand the concern about the backdoor. I will tell you to extend people think, you do, jim comey when he was director of the fbi said they have terrorism investigations and all 50 states. They have more leads than they can follow. So the notion that agents are sitting around banging against the 70 to database to flynns name is nuts. It doesnt work that way, right . So while i understand that there is a concern, thats why started by saying thats why there are checks and balances. I dont think you are going to see that theres that sort of abuse. I should say senators burr and warren in the senate has shown real leadership in a time in washington with the complaint that is not real leadership. Senator warner and senator burr deserve real credit. On just this conservative talk about inserting language that required if you hit against the 702 database and you came up with the u. S. Person, you it and notify the corps within 2448 hours. Thats an acknowledgment i think him that an a minute as an adult with of what the concerns you have. We said with that power should come extraordinary accountability attending the event we find individuals who are abusing that power, they should be held accountable to the full force of the law and that would take i think americans would feel comfortable, that the power is there that we are prepared to discipline people quite severely. But this raises a more general question. This is a Technology Issue. The Technology Issue is a road in what we know people to be and who they are. So where did you see, if i could make you queen for the day in the Intelligence Community, what reforms for what issues do you think you would think we should focus on as we move forward for the 21st century . I mean queen for the date and the parsons as opposed to criminal matter. Look, i think it was a time we were laughing before breakfast started, there was a time we would probably describe the difference in authorities between fbi and cia, feet dry looking in her feet wet looking at. That is so archaic now because of the internet doesnt allow you to make these territorial distinctions we used rely and craft a law around a really hard now. That would cause you for that purpose, youre a u. S. Person. If youre a foreigner inside the United States, we treat you as a u. S. Person. 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 as jamie started saying, we want to balance the need for these tools with our own set of fundamental values and principles. Thats one. Issues thats eroding. Does it make sense for us to continue to distinguish u. S. Persons, nonu. S. Persons . Should we be one set of rules or regulations without privileging that process . Something, as you know, our european colleagues have been pushing us to be able to do. I think that we, as a country, are not prepared to say americans are the rights and privileges that american enjoy are exceptional and that were going to continue to make sure that those rights are protected in a special way. Its harder, its going to continue to get harder. I think were going to have to define that. And its sort of a values question, we have a constitution for a reason. And we have these protections with the bill of rights and we have the protections for a reason and i would just cause its hard i wouldnt want us to see us say were going to get pushed to the european model. Host great, are there any other thoughts that you would have if you could sit down with both the congress and the president , visavis issues in 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 that we should have and should there be reforms in the community in order for us to be able to respond . So, you know, for better or worse, i helped author the intelligence reform act, and the intelligence reform act as you all know created the dni and its real easy in washington to create something and hard to kill anything. Which explains our careers. Good point. [laughter] and i always believed, whether it was department of Homeland Security or dni, that youve got to have a point in time at which youre going to say, let me step back and see, is this, whatever the structure is, and the authorities are, are they performing the function and purpose that i instituted them for . And let me give you an example. The department, i think its time that we look at the department. The department was put together, youll recall, President Trump was not in favor of the legislation initially, came around after the 9 11 commission, it was put together very quickly, but these, i think its 26 or 13 agencies pushed together. It was really intended to be a border are the security, people and things, crossing borders, air, sea, land, but it had a lot of other stuff put in it. Its time to look at. If the mandate is the right mandate and its performing a function, ntct. I was just talking to, his name will remain ments National Center for counterterrorism. Sorry, National Center for counterterrorism. I was talking to a principal in the Trump Administration who said to me, do you know that the National Counterterrorism center has over 1,000 people, 200 cia analysts, about the same number of fbi analysts, all of those people if they werent there, could do targeting operations. Did you intend it to be that size . I was stunned. It never occurred to me that the National Counterterrorism center would be upwards of a thousand people with people posted in sort of states and localities around the United States. They perform a very important function. Theyre uniquely positioned by their authorities to sort of regulate and ensure the protections between domestic collected information and foreign intelligence. Im not suggesting do away with it, but im suggesting its time anything that grows to be a thousand people having started as a subcomponent of the dni, you ought to look at this and say, is it performing the function . Is it the right size . And how do we improve it Going Forward . And i think were reluctant to do that. Thats not a criticism, frankly, im not being critical of either of the Current Administration or the obama administration, i think any administration ought to want to do that. I know its hard, you cant keep up with the daytoday stuff. But i think that we would serve ourselves well to go back and look at some of these post 9 11 structures we put in place and ask ourselves the hard question. So you raise the National Center for counterterrorism. The other major component of our world is National Center for Counter Intelligence and Counter Intelligence often isnt discussed a great deal, but for many in this room its 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 Counter Intelligence, where were at with that, and whether or not we could be doing better or improvement that you would suggest . So, hardy and mcgavin were doing Counter Intelligence before it was cool. I think its never been more important. Its always sort of been inside the dni, the bastard stepchild, underfunded, it gets little attention. I thought that that would change after the 2016 elections. I thought for sure it would get more funding and more prominence. Frankly, i think weve got to look at that. Its not just about the election. John and i were talking before breakfast about russian active measures. This is exactly the sort of effort that should be led by the National Counterintelligence center in coordination with the fbi whos got Law Enforcement and intelligence authorities, and we ought to have a national strategy. I mean, but a Real National strategy. It ought to it requires leadership from the dni, requires leadership from the white house and weve got to commit ourselves to that with resources. And yes, dni changed. Cyber has changed the way we do everything, know the least of all how we do counterintelligence and i think we now have to begin to say, we hold precious the freedom of the press, as well we should, but what we find is, the very freedoms that we hold precious, our enemies are using. Its sort of like, theyre going to use the weight of our privileges against us. And so, when you realize that somebody like the russians are using the black lives Matter Movement or white supremacist on social media to sew discontent, it troubles me because i feel like we havent voted the time, attention and resources that we have to devote to deal with that. Host right, as you know, you held the position, also, where you were focused as sort of being a National Security advisor for Homeland Security. And we have mr. Boss there and mr. Joyce who are struggling hard to perform that function. Do you think at this point the way weve aligned that department of Homeland Security and the department of justice in this space is maximizing what we can do to organize that. No, look, the department comes back to what i sort of started with, which is if you have a department that has dh, department of homeland securities, so many Different Missions and responsibilities and authorities, if everythings a priority, nothing becomes a priority. In fairness to them, i think theyve done a pretty extraordinary job on the immigration, customs and border piece. But theyre, you know, neilson who i had the privilege to work with during the Bush Administration, she also has plum island. I mean, i bet you nobody here knows what plum island. Host and ive spent time some people from massachusetts, perhaps. Shes got fema, all sorts of things that shes got to have responsibility for and i think that theyve always, you know, if they go from one hurricane to another, from one Immigration Crisis to another, and so, i do think that thats why i say, on counterintel against sides this is not Kirstjen Nielsens at the department of Homeland Security. This is a sort of tier one National Security problem that requires the attorney general and dni, president s cabinet to doe vote adequate resources and time and attention and have a strategy with priorities how theyre going to go against it. Host great. And maybe its fair to open up t the to the audience for questions at this point. If anyone has something. Not a shy group. Jamie, you might say who you are, but we know. And im still jamie. Host okay. And theres not been a coup during the last years. Fran, you served as 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, how is it different . And what do you think the key points of comparison are . Thank you. Sure. So, i think from all accounts when the new administration came in and look, in every new administration youre going to see missteps. Youve got a bunch of people who never worked together before, figure out how do they want to do the process. I think this administration came in and thought they would start from scratch and the policy, and thats when you see the original immigration eo that didnt have the vetting it needed and the problems with it. I think theyve settled in. I think theyve run a much more traditional nsc process. And i think that the manage of paper flow, would be familiar to any of you who have worked in nsc before. There are notes of meetings, minutes of meetings. I think they tend to do, good for them, less requiring principals to come physically into the white house, thr theyre able to do it by service and save time. Thats a good thing. The tweaks around the margins. Process is fine. Youre going to take advantage of technology, but the discipline of the process is incredibly important and i think theyve learned a tough lesson. I think they thought maybe they could short circuit some of that, but i think, now, its much more what you and i would recognize as a traditional nsc process. And h. R. Mcmaster, security in the first year, give him credit not an easy thing to do. Id like to see them come out with a cyber strategy. I know that bossert is working on it. And it has to have offensive and defensive. Host sure. Wait for the microphone. There you go. Thank you for joining our committee this morning and excellent remarks. My question is actually kind of contingent on if youre familiar with the National Security strategy that came out the first time in several years, and its Pretty Simple question, but if we look at the National Security strategy as kind of a desired end point for 2020 or 2021, what, in your mind, and based on your experience are kind of the key things that the administration has to get right in order to achieve the stated strategic objectives . Its pretty clear, its a continuation of what had been longstanding principles of democracy, opposing tyranny in some places and my question question, what are the things that they have to get right that all of us from all parties can encourage and support . Its a great question. You know, it was interesting to me because when the strategy came out, the white house did what every white house does and thats sort of a prerollout strategy and had a bunch of folks like me on the phone talking about what was in it in advance and it read very much, as you say, traditional american values, traditional republican Foreign Policy platforms. And the president s rollout of it on the other hand, didnt quite, you know, you should have said is he rolling out the same document i just read . Because it sounded different and so, i hesitate because im not i feel uncertain, if the document is the real strategy and theyre committed resources to it, look, i do think we have to be predictable and certain to our allies. Our allies cannot wonder if were with them or not with them, right, because it diminishes American Power in the world. It doesnt mean you always and i dont have to tell you, it doesnt mean we always agree with our allies, you can have disagreements you cant do that to the South Koreans publicly while theyre in a real National Security threat. And so, i do think that we have to key to their success on the Foreign Policy side is strengthening our traditional relationships and allies. I think its unfortunate that the president is not going to the u. K. Hes been received in poland, germany, france, good trips. I think its unfortunate that hes canceled the u. K. Trip. I do think, i think for a whole bunch of political reasons, the president has steered clear of the cyber issue. I sound like a little bit of a broken record. I think he cant. I mean, if the president was asking me for advice, my attitude to this is i take this i literally go face first into it because i think you want to own it and you want to call you cant defeat somebody unless youre willing to call them out and identify your adversaries and the problems that they cause. And the president has seemed its funny because hes not the least bit unwilling to say hard or abrasive things. I just wish that we would get, we would see him be willing to articulate who our adversaries are, what were going to do about it and how were going after that and being willing to build a coalition. On the other hand, whats happening in the middle east, you talk about fundamental to our longterm interests. You can we can disagree and have real problems with the human rights record in iran or saudi arabia, but the sort of reforms that are going on in saudi arabia right now are not only in our national interest, but theyre in the longterm interest of stability in the region, right . And those sorts of just yesterday, women were in a stadium watching a soccer match. They opened a womens only car, you know, car sales place. I mean, 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 back to where i started and that is, i feel less certain that thats part of an overall strategy. I think hes got huge opportunities, particularly in the middle east, but i think it remains to be seen whether or not we can get that kind of cross the line. I worry that one thing we havent talked about is counter proliferation. Id be remiss if i didnt say, look, in a world where youve got north korea, youve got the iranians, i do think that what youre going to see, emirates have a program and saudi arabia has put out an rfp, and i think there will be a proliferation sort of like the Counter Intelligence issue, there is nobody talking about the counterproliferation issue and i worry about that for my kids and grandkids. Host and opened up that door and proliferation being a tippingpoint which would be transformative for our generation. On that issue sort of that, you m mentioned the cyber issue and talking 702. One of the core issues that the debate is tied to is our famous encryption problem and that is tied to different sovereign nations and taking approach, whether they want access to that data flow either in motion or at rest. Whats your take and where do you come down on this very core issue, theres an issue because if you can listen and its encrypted, its not going to help us. Where do you break on that. Look, to state the obvious, this is really hard, right . Because, look, i want 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, right . Because what that means if its encrypted and they get a court order, they ought to be able to get into it. And sort of thats like motherhood and apple pie, okay . Somehow weve lost the moral argument with our technology partners. I think it goes back to some, in some ways goes back to the Bush Administration and i think weve worked to repair those relationships over time. We are by no mean there. We know in the 702 debates, which you bring up, one of the Tech Companies refused to comply and had to be ordered to comply with 702 and thats just further sort of, its another indication of the scratching at the bad relationship. I think in some ways weve got to learn not to rely on our Tech Partners to get these answers and that would require. You talk about reforms in the Intelligence Community. In china, you begin to train in cyber from the time youre in elementary school. We dont we have not invested in this country in making sure our kids are that capable. You know, look we land a threeyearold an ipad to entertain themselves they can do it. But we dont put the premium on real high level training and capability from the time of Elementary Education. If we want to be competitive in Counter Intelligence and the intelligence world and the Law Enforcement word we need to be able to attract people to government who have got 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. Host do we refer to this as the geek wonk device. And are you saying you would like to see a major cyber Education Initiative that would start, i know in countries like israel, china, russia, are really creaming that and is that something that you would like this administration to focus on. Absolutely, absolutely. And i think its a huge commitment and requires resources and it requires sort of from a from the wonks, it requires a coming together and an acknowledgment that were you know, this is the cold war youd 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 we are going to have to commit ourselves to educating our young people better, sooner on technology. Host so one of the issues when you talk about, when you were sort of present at the creation of the department of Homeland Security and deeply involved, and you, i think your remarks today have said thats a huge mission, hard to focus. So, one of the issues that we debated during our period is, will countries have divided up responsibilities, leadership, mi5, mi6, we have the bureau, but we also have the nsa, we also have the dod. Are you what is your position on whether or not we should start creating a much more focused entity that would have that as its sole responsibility and that would be, is that a cabinet Level Experience or do we continue to have someone trying to coordinate out of the white house all of these varied activities that are required . So, i think in some ways our great strength is and one of the great protections that most americans should actually feel good about is that we have we dont have any single Central Place of power, right . We divide up the authorities and we put protections around them. It requires this massive coordination issue that we sometimes fail at, but theres a strength in it, right . So that you have dod and nsa and fbi and cia, that you have offensive Cyber Operations in more than one place and that youve got dhs involved in defensive cyber. Is actually a protection for the american people, who, you know, there is no doubt that what we want is a free, fair and open internet, right . And we want to feel like i can go on there and i dont have to worry about who is watching where i click, other than google and everybody wants to sell me something, of course. And so, i dont think you need some big hefty entity. You can tell having created a bunch of big hefty entities, im not so keen on that anymore because somehow they outgrow their origin tent and they become unwieldy. So what i would say to you is im an advocate for there being a National Cyber center that brings in the capability and expertise, which is quite diverse across the federal government. Brings together the authorities and leverages them in a much smarter way. You know, in any administration, what im suggesting is really hard because every cabinet secretary is going to say, to the extent were going to pool this capability and these resources, its a zero sum game, im going to lose something. Im going to have less control over my own authorities and people, but i think thats what the president needs. I think the president when theres a cyber issue, i can remember being in the white house, i guess it was 2004 when the lights went out on the eastern seaboard. You know, the image of people running across the Brooklyn Bridge and i didnt know what it was. And it was from that moment on i said, the president needs one place to go where he gets a 360 cyber picture about whats going on. The, but there isnt that place, right . So ive run into the situation room and you get everybody up on it and you get bits and pieces of it. I think there needs to be a cyber center, command center, but it doesnt rip it away from places of expertise and authority. Host mr. Mcgavin. John mcgavin. Id like to raise an issue for further focus on Counter Intelligence. Oh. [laughter] gentleman is like, and the notion of Counter Intelligence which weve talked about has another dimension that you all know, but i think its important to focus on it, thats going to be more and more important, the National Cyber center, and that is the notion of counterintelligence not for catching spies, but for helping us understand the plans and intentions and what other governments are doing. You know, one thing one government ambassador or whatever, but when you see what the Intelligence Service is telling the service to do, you learn about things you have to care about. Does that play out in the experience you guys have had . Yeah, i mean, it most certainly has to be a part of a cyber center, right . So that Counter Intelligence view is part of their mission, right . Give us that view. I found 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 in social media spinning up americans against each other deeply offends me. I dont think we pay enough time or attention understanding that. That wasnt an accident. It wasnt like putin threw a plate of spaghetti against the wall and said lets see what happens. We know enough about him and the russians to know, that was a deliberate executed strategy, no question about it and we ought to anticipate, he didnt do that once and go away. So thats a continuing part of the landscape, not just election piece. In addition to that, Counter Intelligence to look at the why of that and weve got that so wrong and everyone is looking at the election ap Counter Intelligence, your role is to help think on why, whats their intention. Host sure, the why issue. The other hat you wore, fran, if i remember correctly, you straw bought the review post katrina, and i hate to bring back all of these fond memories. [laughter] , but one of those issues is how and your report with a number of other people like commander flynn was building on our resiliency, and where we were in katrina and know you we continually seem to be having Extraordinary Events that put the republic at risk, visavis the weather and attacks. Whats your sense of what you saw then and where we are now and what you would suggest that would build that resiliency capability that we need as, you know, as a function. So, first, i will tell you, i was heartened, i think success of the administration have learned the lessons of what i call katrina. Working with the state and local Emergency Responders well before anything hits landfall, making sure you understand what the state and local capability is or is not and you know how to preposition federal resources. Making the disaster declarations literally sometimes before landfall. And i think to toms tom bosserts great credit, this administration has done that. The resiliency, the president in the last two weeks talked about infrastructure. This is about investing in the infrastructure of the country. Resilience is about the strength of your infrastructure. Roads, emergency services, electric power, all of it. So, i dont think weve adequately invested in our infrastructure and i think thats the key to resilience. Host so the other hat you wore is with a service thats extraordinary in commitment and what it does for the nation, but not often talked about, which is the coast guard. And the coast guard played a Critical Role in this resiliency. Would you like to see a greater expansion of coast guard assets and resources or do you think we got that right . So, i think that the coast guard has historically been horribly underfunded and this is the part at the point in time of Homeland Security and you look at the dod a and the budget. That doesnt include the coast guard. When you think of them theyre not included. Their fleet and cutters are aging. We ask them to do extraordinary things in a post 9 11 world, i expected 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 first went to the coast guard, these were life savers. They were dudley dogood. Were going to go out and save people. When you say to them, look, you also have a National Security mission now, right, youve got to protect our ports and youve got to collect our intelligence and do all the other things, they did not hardly get the plus up in their budgets they should have when they got the new mission, so i think theyre horribly underestimated. Host i think the common issue might be coming up. One of the original office of intelligence justice, so precurs precursor. My question goes, we spent a lot of time as a community as well as in forums on the technical collection of intelligence, not enough on hume and i wonder if we look at the missiles testing in north korea, if we look at the russian involvement involvement in our owe lexes and look at the difficulties and ultimately the solution in finding usama bin laden through human as opposed to technical means. I wonder if we as a nation spend enough time on human intelligence and the people who are officers there who are doing difficult jobs . And i wonder from your point of view, what do you think . I mean, are we being effective in our intelligence . One aspect of that, which will sort of end up sort of a last question, final. Theres a human side theres been a revolution in data. Youve been in the private sector and see how data exploitation takes place. What do you see as the human side and the Data Collection side going and are we positioning ourselves to exploit it in the most effective way . So on the human side, i think its i think post 9 11, as is typical after a crisis, we sort of take a hard look at the direction. Right . And after the end of the cold war and the Clinton Administration took the peace dividend, right . So cut the number of case officers in the cia by a third. On 9 11 we had a third less people. Let me tell you, it was no easy chore rebuilding the cia post 9 11. It took the entire Bush Administration because it takes a long time to recruit, train, deploy, right . It took us, that was a big heavy lift. It was a huge investment. Mike hayden, i know you all know, was out there and led that charge. And so, we increased the numbers, but, of course, because of the crisis, we had most of them sort of focused on al qaeda and the terrorism mission. I think were now in a place where between the national and the dni and other sort of capabilities weve added to rebalance that, look, you know, 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, is there not somebody around them not want to see them in power. Host remember, this is live on cspan. [laughter] try to keep it promotable here. So i think we have to reinvest and we have to balance our capability. In terms of the data, look, i dont think weve adequately exploited the data thats available. I was teasing earlier that when i go on amazon, the side barred adds ads, they know what designer dresses i buy and where ive been searching. In the government were not as good as using those sorts of capabilities to targeted our limited resources. And i think were going to have because theres a limit to how many resources you can throw at a problem and youre going to have to leverage those limited resources with the data thats available to you in a much more efficient way. Host thank you, fran. We could go on for another hour, given your experience and its been just a delight. I want to particularly offer a thank you for you joining the committee and more of you over the next two or three years. And i also want as i look around the room, the members of Public Service we have for people who sacrifice in their lives in order to serve the republic, its extraordinary and thats why our committee has always been very special, cause regardless of the political affiliation in the end, were real patriots and were here to really defend the values as jamie said and this is a perfect example of someone who spent life in their careers. We have soaken, first is the famous American Bar Association coin to represent our 50 years of service, plus, and now that you have this, if you ever bump into jamie and he does not have the coin, he has to buy you an adult refreshment. One of the great things. Gift im giving and if you have trouble sleeping, the National Security enterprise book and as we always say, the key is the National Security on the spine, and when things get really tough, Johnnie Walker what needs in this process to keep the faith. So, with that, let me have all of us thank you for everything youve done. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] then then inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] as we leave this event, this is from the hill, former white house chief strategist steve bannon is expected to appear before the House Intelligence Committee this coming tuesday as part of its investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. The former white house chief strategist deported from his role as chair of Breitbart News this week after a dramatic falling out with President Trump. You can read more of that story at thehill. Com. Watch cspans profile series on White House Administration officials. This week will feature Energy Secretary rick perry. Today, as we market u. S. Produced liquefied natural gas. Lng. Carbon capture, being able to use coal in a responsible way to other countries, the department of energy, those National Labs, those 17 National Labs are probably some of the best investment that the american taxpayer made over the course of the years because of the basic research that was done there and then the commercialization of that research to change peoples lives. Rick perry tonight at 8 00 eastern. Cspan, cspan. Org and with the free cspan radio app. This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument over Voting Rights in the case of john hue stead, ohio secretary of state, versus a Phillip Randolph institute. Hear the argument in its entirety at 9 eastern on cspan, cspan. Org or listen with a free radio app and follow the courts Upcoming Schedule at cspan. Org Supreme Court. Youll see a list of all current justices and search their appearances on cspan. With Supreme Court video on demand you can watch all the oral argument that