Transcripts For CSPAN2 Role Of Congress In National Security Discussion At NYU School Of Law 20240713

Congress who previously served in the executive branch discuss the role of congress and National Security and foreign affairs. This discussion from New York University school of law is moderated by lisa monaco, a former Homeland Security advisor for the Obama Administration. Now we have to recognize the Senior Member here. It is a treat to welcome former colleagues, current colleagues ive worked with, every member of this pan in some form or another come inside and outside of government. Its a treat welcome everyone here on behalf of the recent center on law and security of the nyu school of law that i am privileged to serve as the distinguished senior fellow at. Welcome to this program and welcome to my colleagues. This is really a treat for me to be joined together with you want to get to talk the most important and timely subject, the each of National Security and how the executive branch and the legislative branch address some of the most Critical Issues of our time. I will do some very brief introductions in a minute, but you will understand the theme here is every single one of these distinguished Public Servants served in the executive branch and the National Security community, and the searching topic for today is how has that service informed your view as legislators, and how can we best the best point from both branches to confront some of the most thorny issues we face. So thank you what it all for being here. Very quickly, we have to my far left, no pun intended, will hurd, represents the 23rd district in texas, elected to congress in 2014. He serves on the House Appropriations committee and the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence. Most importantly for this panel, before serving in congress he serves as an undercover officer in the cia, the middle east and in south asia, and near and dear to my heart he is my culture on the Aspen Cybersecurity Group of the aspen institute. Hes one of the most knowledgeable and thoughtful members on cybersecurity issues and issues of emerging technology and we are very, very fortunate to have them here. Next to congressman hurd, a Elissa Slotkin represent the eighth district of michigan elected to congress in 2018, she serves on the House Armed Services committee in the house Homeland Security committee before being elected, representative slotkin work for the cia in middle east and serve as acting assistant secretary of defense for interNational Security affairs where she and i spent many, many hours around the situation room table. This will not be like that. And last but not least, congressman kim, and he can represent the Third District of new jersey, elected congress in 2018, representative kim serves on the House Armed Services committee and the house Small Business committee. Before being elected representative kim worked on the nationals get a Council Staff again with yours truly, as an expert on the middle east, south asia, afghanistan. He served as a Strategic Advisor in afghanistan alongside general David Petraeus and general john allen, and so we are very, very lucky to have all of them here with us today and the citizens of texas, michigan and new jersey are very fortunate indeed. I will be your moderator for this. I am lisa monaco. I shouldve done that at the front end. In addition to a service at nyu, i was president obamas Homeland Security and counterterrorism adviser. Lets get started and get rolling. I know some of you have to leave a little early to do the peoples business. So crossing the divide, thats the part of a program, going from executive branch to congress. I will lobby softball at everyone and try and get your response to this. You have all served in the executive branch and in the National Security committee. You made the paper to the legislative branch. How is that inform your service in being a productive and effective legislator or in the time of tremendous National Security tumult . Ill start with you, will. Sure, elissa. Thank you and its a pleasure to be with my eckstein colic. When lucky to have this kind of experience here and congress at an important time. As an operator within the cia you are the collectors of last resort and our job was to collect information to inform policymakers. We were very clear, our job ws not to suggest or project policy. The transition was interesting for me because for almost a decade it was during this things were not supposed to be doing. But having granular understanding of these positions, living in india for two years and that living in pakistan for two years after that looking at these issues from a different perspective, being in new york city doing a lot of interagency work and understanding how these four issues impact our domestic agency, and in spending a year and half and afghanistan where i managed all of our undercover operations, you have a working knowledge of the topic thats important. And while isis was not a thing when i was in the cia, alqaeda obviously was. The same principles and theories in dealing with alqaeda is something you can do with isis. Also as a collector, my job was to talk to a lot of different people to try to understand. The closest you can ever find the truth is to talk to enough people and where everybody overlaps, thats as close to the truth as you will get. So having that background experience, i brought that to my job in washington. Your to act as a case officer for any members of congress . I have it more surveillance as a member of congress than i did in the cia. At least in the cia i knew my enemies were. [laughing] but the other thing i have found interesting is when they came in, i won in 2014, so starting in 2015, being a young junior member, right, the number of folks who have been around you for a while that, in cqi for advice and perspective, that at a seven more in my time in congress that i wouldve expected one of first got in. So while everybody may not understand to be able to give an answer on how, what should we do next in syrians what should we have done, they may understand and recognize its a problem. Great. Hello, everyone. Thank you, lisa. The biggest thing for me though was a transition from executive branch to the legislative branch is that the executive branch is a chain of command organization in the legislative branch is 435 entrepreneurs. Nobody is each others boss. The only people who can fire as other people in our districts, not any member we see, that anyone in leadership, not any committee chair. Im still adjusting to the culture, i would say, and because in the executive branch you can have vociferous debate about what to do on a certain policy issue, and we certainly did. I worked in the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, vociferous debate about what to do. If you cant work it out he keeps moving its way up the chain and there are decisionmakers more senior than you that make a decision and you all go on with their lives. You can say i didnt win that battle i did win but we have to move forward. With 435 entrepreneurs its a huge game of consensus building. You are constantly using your relationship to go and meet people and say you want to work on something together . Do you care about this issue . Im interested in doing something for parents with autistic children. Are you interested in that . If the consensusbased consensg which can be harder and less clear. And then the culture sort of one degree down from that, in the executive branch you may meet some characters from time to time but there is a real mission focus. Everyone comes to the table and says were doing this for a specific reason, i know the mission and im trying to get that done. I used to say to people at the pentagon if i was leading a meeting with a bunch of my staff, if i i was running a meeting and there was one person around the table and started talking about, i should lead because a really good at this and i should have that portfolio because me, me, me me, that would literally be a a reason r me to be like if its about that you and not the mission, you can get up out of here. But in congress and 70 alceste, what about me . And congress thats every meeting. Theres always somebody im great this and i should lead on this. Culturally its been difficult for some of us to really transition and i think its important and all of us have this background of having that mission focus and having training on that mission focus. We really bring that to the job as legislators which i think is a good thing even if its a cultural adjustment. A couple of things to build on. One aspect of this the was incredibly important to me and i think probably shared across this table, the three of us al serve the National Security in nonpartisan ways. We were career Public Servants in a different institutions and that something ive been wondering about coming into this body of am i able to approach a National Security with that same lens . For me i feel like i have been able to more than i necessarily was expected to do so. Armed services committee, for the most part if you were to print out a transcript of the Armed Services committee hearings, you could blot out the names and you will not necessarily know who the democrat or republican based on a question for asking. Theres a certain professionalism still that inhabited the part of. Im trying to find ways to broaden that out. Coming from a background, i had a specific expertise in iraq, afghanistan, counterterrorism issues. While im someone who work in the National Security space i cant claim im an expert on latin american issues or thinks it may come into contact with an congress but what sample is either deep Network Across the field of a lot of experts i have worked with weather at the white house or elsewhere that can help me get up to speed on this issue perhaps that is in some of my colleagues. Just my interest in building out this catalog and network of experts outside of capitol hill i think its something im trying to build upon. Also because of my previous experience, im sure the three of us can all say to this point, there are certain fundamental tools of National Security at a dont think are utilized as well as they should be on the hill. For instance, we just dont have the ability for the level of Situational Awareness of intel to utilize that in a way listen, i used to get briefed every single day and have a certain amount of Situational Awareness to build off of. Here, everything is reactionary. You really going read intel and less something horrible is happen in the world and you need to figure out what did we know two weeks ago. I dont feel that puts us in a stronger position in congress if everything were doing is much more reactionary. How are going to be able to do our oversight efforts . It also says, for me, as lisa editors, i worked in afghanistan ages ago, and i was the guy that was in the room during the codel helping briefed members of congress on that front. It was interesting for me, two weeks ago to go back to afghanistan, get a briefing in my old office and sort of the on the other side of that. How did those people do . They did very well. More important, how did you do . [laughing] its one of those things where you have a better sense of when youre getting talking points told to you. After having written them and gone through those and delivered them, and it helped me to try to get ways i can try to get at a deeper truth, evil to expose that. That gets to the final point which is a part of this job thats different is we have to speak more human about National Security and Foreign Policy. That something i wish everybody across the National Security space does but just cut out the acronyms, it straight to the point. I just did townhall upon my return, how do i talk to people in south jersey, Central Jersey shore about why it is focus in on whats happening after an 18 year war. We need to speak human about it, talk about in that way and that something that will hopefully make that dialogue which are in our country. Thats a good pivot to some cardigans. Lets get into some of that. Lets start with some of the news of the day, syria. You all i think to varying degrees have spoken out against or express concerns about the decision to remove troops from syria. Is there Anything Congress can do . Lets start with you, elissa. Representative slotkin. Thats quite all right. I would be honest i didnt surprise how much this issue has resonated even in midmichigan. The issue i think of the president having a conversation with the turks, with president t erdogan and then removing our forces, forcing the kurds to sort of leave the area where they had been working with us has resonated with people, not because people have a ton of detail on who was involved with two in the history, but because theres a firm belief the american handshake has to mean something, and loyalty has to mean something. The pictures, starting with, or ending with today where we have American Military vehicles being pelted with fruits and vegetables as they cross into iraq, i just dont remember a time when i have seen that in my lifetime. My husband was in the army for 30 years. My stepdaughter is in now. Those are wrenching pictures for us, but i think the thing that concerns me the most, we have a situation now with the kurds that is devastating, but when we have shirked our responsibilities it sends a message to every future partner and i like that they should think twice about shaking the hands with the americans. I tried my people why was it when working with this kurdish group. What are the origins of it. The origins of it are the iraq war which i did three tours over there, and americans said very clearly, i think both sides of the aisle, that they do not want American Forces on the front lines in long entrenched, expensive wars in the middle east. And so we shifted our strategy to work by, with, and through allies, and that whole proposition is that we go to the other armies come we go to these different groups and we say if you fight on the front lines, if you as infantry, we will provide overrated cover and intelligence, equipment and support. That is the bargain we struck with these kurds and that is the way we keep people like my stepdaughter out of fighting again in places like syria and iraq. But if that whole concept just has a take hole punched in it, our ability to make those deals and have those conversations in the future goes down and the likelihood that when theres a real threat it will be American Forces out there again, goes up. It has been a seriously seriously devastating week for American Foreign policy, or couple of weeks. We are all talking about sanctions packages. Theres a couple of different packages. I am in favor of you mentoring assistance for the kurds, in particular for the kurds in Northern Iraq or receiving a lot of their cousins are coming over the border. Im going on a codel that is going to the middle east on the 31st of these conversation with senior leaders. Unfortunately, in our system, unfortunately fortunately, the president has a lot of power over Foreign Policy and congress can come in behind and deal with the money and with sanctions, but there isnt a ton we can do and we end up watching scenes with anybody else like we saw today. Sometimes we forget, we have to go back to september 10, 2001. I was in headquarters of the cia and i remember in august, analysts being like something should happen, but we dont know what the people were sleeping in the cars, in the office is forget what happened. We know what happened on the 11th and a lot of people have forgotten that. Thats the reason weve had to be in afghanistan, the reason we have to be place like syria is to prevent another day like that from happening. And on september 12, if you wouldve told me, and i was the fourth, fifth, sixth employee nctc as oh, prosecute the war in afghanistan, after 9 11 if you told of september 12 would not invent another tack on homeland for 17 years, i wouldve said at the time you were crazy. The reason we havent been able to that, we havent seen that is because the men and women in our diplomatic corps, our intelligence service, our military and federal Law Enforcement kept them from happening. Thats why we are there. Ive made it very clear, these terms of this piece till i felt was more of a surrender any peace deal. I think this is a terrible decision thats a deal between between us and erdogan. And again we still havent seen all the details of that deal, and why is it bad, and elissa outlined most of them. We screwed our friends and its not just the u. S. Handshake counting. This has impacted all western alliances. I was in paris, the ministry of defense, 12 hours after the tweets that were said about this deal, and i can tell you our yoe partners in france had some opinions on this topic. So they are part of the coalition against isis. They are. They have 1300 troops in the region and the been intimately involved. So if your friends dont trust you and your enemies dont fear you, its a pretty bad situation to begin. I can make an argument that this recent announcement by the japanese to not participate in the u. S. Led effort to protect ships in the middle east is probably an, a bad indication that even if they thought it would be too much of a pain in the rear or did no way that they could count on us, and is that an indication of how our allies are concerned with us . We are creating a miniature in crisis in the part of the world has dealt with already with steaming humanitarian crises. We had spent years and treasure Building Infrastructure in that part of syria, and we left it when we bombed it. That doesnt make any sense. What can we do now . Unfortunately, congress has a lot of power to prevent action. Congress has a lot of power to define the stuff. Congress has power to approve steps defined but its really hard to compel action when there is in action. The broader question we should ask ourselves is not just removal of troops on the part of the region when he did but all of the in action that led up to. Why have we never address the issues that turkey has had . They have some legitimate concerns. Why did we not established a nofly zone in the region make sure our allies will be the ones responsible for making sure that would ultimately happen . There was a lot of questions, thinks it had not happened until that point which we should be talked about to ensure this doesnt happen again, and lets hope this is not a precursor to afghanistan. Because if something similar like this were to happen in afghanistan it would be even more disastrous than this move in syria. Usurped in afghanistan. You also were intimately involved in the design and the fighting around the campaign and our deployment to iraq. The president of iraq now is a kurd. How she would be think about all these reverberations . What is our handshake me now to the kurdish leadership in iraq where we have to be . Thats right. For me, five years ago we were working on this, i remember one of the early phone calls with erdogan when we were saying we would work with the kurds, we knew this was an issue that we would have to come to reckon with at some point but i just never imagined it would unfold in a way that it has. I was in turkey just literally days before those tweets came out, and i think one thing that struck me in hindsight is that it just felt very clear afterwards that our ambassador and other professionals working on this just had no idea this was coming. That makes this question, where are the professionals in this process of deliberation and policymaking . That something that worries me. That with the National Security council was set up for a reason. It was set up to help institutionalize a process to think through very the issues u great challenges that we face. It is meant to try to make sure we are weighing the consequences and really thinking through the scenario, hopefully with people experts. When we had ambassador out in turkey who, just an extraordinary talent come just decades of service to our country, and it just felt like he and others just, not that they were in the process but also just their expertise is not being utilized to help our country decide to the steps. Thats what aspect of it. To get closer to the point you are referencing, this is something that is deeply personal to me. I wrote my doctoral dissertation a large part in u. S. Policy to the kurds during the 80s and 90s, documenting the abject failures we had during the massacre in the 80s and in the post91 gulf war where for a while we allowed come we allowed hussein gunships to mow down our kurdish partners in the north. I also outlined in detail the decisionmaking process that went into Operation Provide Comfort which was a moment what the u. S. Did step up for the kurds and put yourself in position to try to help them. So now see situation of her own making that really feels very similar to that in some ways is very, very frustrating and deeply disappointed, and i think it very much gets back to our kurdish partners and iraq and elsewhere, just about how, in many ways for them its how far they have come in terms of being able to set this up and there is a kurd that is the present of iraq, yet i think they understand how fragile that is and how dependent that is, that status is up on what the United States is going to do. I just feel like we have just sent back that relationship right back to the 80s and the nationals get a professional all the great is an Ongoing Campaign to interfere in our democracy and to make sure that were best poised to respond to that and protect ourselves . I would love to start. Its how to handle disinformation. I held the first things on toy 16 Election Security before the 2016 election for over come in the summer before the elections i was calling for ambassador kislyak, a Russian Ambassador to be kicked out of the country because of what people had at that point had already know, the russians were trying to do and bob mueller in a hearing said, i asked the question, was this a onetime event . He said its happening right now. I should note you the only person during the hearing who actually asked him that. Again you go back to the classically trained case officer, and thats what you do. But how do you handle this information . Handling disinformation overseas is a lot easier because its a part of covert action. The cia cannot conduct covert action in the United States of america because the nationals could act of 1947. So who is responsible for dealing with that . Social media companies, you can look at the tactics, techniques and procedures that some people are using in order to do this information, to highlight people that are promoting disinformation. But do you want the federal government to telemedia that this is wrong or this is bad for this is disinformation . The media plays a role in. We know how to do with disinformation from a countering violent extremism perspective. The way you handle countering violent commit the same way you do, but the payload slight given that he was responsible for that. And yes, we can defend digital infrastructure. Prior to 2016 none of the secretarys of state wanted to have election infrastructure be identified as critical infrastructure. Jeh johnson made that decision. Took a lot of heat and then guess what, a couple months later it was like, okay, public for good move. Ive wondered about the federal come going to take over this issue. I know. I lived it. You know what, you know it. So we can harden those types of things. We can make sure that the most vulnerable types of machines are not used, but i can make an argument that going into one county thats going to make or break an election in a congressional seat, you go in heavy, not try to be sneaky about it and you go around, find out, people will freak out. So how do you deal with that aftermath . And to be frank i dont think weve had enough conversation on who should be pulling the lead. Dhss will, state department has a role, media has a role, and thats how you counter disinformation, is hard in the u. S. Yes, i was one of those people who is very happy that will asked this question at the bob mueller hearing, because there was a group of us watching who are watching this unfold and obviously had read the report. And while the media and anybody else was so focused on what the report said and what the details were, there was just painfully few people saying what did we learn and how are we putting forward bills that would keep us safe and 2020 . Its important to realize we have come in less he will correct me as he should, we he not passed any laws that make us safer in 2020. Our election system, safer in 202020 then we were in 2016. A group of us came together, bipartisan, called together and started task force into, decide to do just that come to identify the legislation that would be needed to make us safer. We learned a lot of lessons, a lot of this is very difficult because of free speech issues. But what we could all agree on regardless of political affiliation is that foreigners should not play a role in our political process. And so while the content of messages and what one side, democrat or republican, want to say about the others very difficult to regulate, going back and looking who the originator, the purchaser of that content is the way we got at this problem. A bunch of us cosponsored something called the paid ads act which makes it illegal for a foreigner to buy an advertisement for or against a political candidate in an american election. Very basic. We have a suite of legislation, a lot of it is been taken up in the next ten days through the shield act which is come to the floor very soon. Some of it is bipartisan, some of it is not but the art bunch of good pieces in there that isnt in the american regardless of political affiliation should feel is are responsible to push forward. We are seeing in we are seeing in the headlines foreigners should not be able to donate to political campaigns. Its illegal to do that. There are a lot of things that all starts with the originator. We just cant have foreigners involved in our elections. I would put an asterisk on that. There was more money for eac, for dhs, for election infrastructure. So wasnt all that change this which is crazy that Vladimir Putin wanted to run an ad saying congressman x is a dirt bag. He can do that, right, which is wild. But the funding in order money wasnt there. I would like to just zoom out a little bit here, specific to the election side of things. I think my colleagues really made it out, but in general i think what were seeing is a real need to be able to get a grasp as a country come as a nested infrastructure of what the cybersecurity threats are forward. This is something that adds congressman hurd was mentioning, just spread out over so many different agencies and departments, Armed Services committee, one aspect of it that i dug into deep is on cybercom, colocated with an essay. Shows just a complicated complicated that partnership is that just someone duell added as head of an essay as well as cybercom commander. A lot of these issues blur acrostic there some aspects theyre doing for Election Security that certainly has been good for me to see how engaged they have been and are getting more and more so. But just in general howe we approach these Cyber Threats to something that i think folks are really struggle with. In my district when you say cybersecurity their thinking of antivirus. They are thinking of fraud or things of that nature, but the level in which these threats are occurring and the speed with which they are i think is alarming when you really see the bigger picture. The fact we cant have a sense of how much is happening, there is no radar system or Defense System that can would have us understand all the multitude of attacks that are happening across the board. This is something that requires a paradigm shift in how we approach National Security, the same way that the advent of artillery and aircraft added a third dimension to our warfare. This is something thats adding another dimension that really is different in many ways. It collapses time and space. We are as close to rush in cyberspace as we are to canada. That time is something that doesnt exist in the same property to be able to do that. It requires a lot of innovative ways in which we can try to understand the threat as well as how quickly we need to be able to respond. We are just not there yet as a whole. We will continue to do the Different Things are doing on Election Security but we have to wrap or head around what is it thats going to be our posture writ large and cybersecurity before we can start to have a meaningful impact, in my opinion. Let me add on one thing. He talked about the complexity. We can do some very basic things. We all knew growing up as kids dont get into a car with a stranger. Asterisk, unless its uber or lyft, right . Why are we sharing stuff on social media and people we have no clue who they are. That is what is allowing some of these messages to have the velocity, right . I dont know who said it, a lie can travel across half the world before the truth puts its shoes on. Those are some cultural issues and education issues of just society that we have to be focused on, and thats sometimes it more difficult than trying to design that radar system for cybersecurity. Theres a Civics Education piece to this that sometimes gets lost. I would love to have representative hurd on my bill for Digital Literacy, teaching Digital Literacy to our young people. Absolutely. Representative hurd will have to leave in a few minutes for another commitment, but i want to sneak one question to get all of your perspective on this. I want to switch gears a little bit. Weve been talking up the institutions involved, both executive branch and congress on these Critical Issues. As we all know sometimes the executive branch acts and debates, kind of chooses the best of many that options, right . Thats oftentimes with some of the executive Branch Decisionmaking is, and sometimes its against a field to act or refusal to act or enacted by congress which is a fair statement in some instances. What can congress do, what should be the role in asserting itself in for affairs . You can make an argument congress has kind of retreated to some degree certainly in war powers issues, in opining on the president s how to use force abroad, et cetera, not weighing in. The syria discussion is a nice bowl role reversal on that. What can congress due to reassert itself if, in fact, you believe it should be reasserting itself . Ill answer this and run. Congress is a coequal branch of government and that should be in every area. Unfortunately, conference, previous congresses before any of us thought of going into carters has ceded a lot of that authority to the executive branch. What is important things we should be doing is passing a budget. Passing appropriation a more specific and think we should be doing to your appropriations. So you can use those years to do the true oversight that is required making sure these things are happening. We alluded to this at the beginning. The way, and elissa s reich, 435 people think their ideas is the best idea out there. So to gain consensus on some of these issues is difficult. What i have seen since my class, the 2014 class, on both republican and democratic sides, you have people that have pies towards action because they have had other careers. You dont have people that are professional politicians coming in, and so the newer members, so when newer members start getting into leadership positions thats when you start seeing the body as a whole change. I also think structurally, we need people that get reelected or solving problems rather than talking to the edges. If more districts were like mine, which is truly 5050, then you will send a kind of person appear knows how to try to be focused on getting things done. This election cycle, about 40 seats will be competitive. 17 years ago that number was close to 80. Ten years before that, that number was in the midone hundreds. So structurally and how our elections are set up is influencing the broader behavior of this body. Its important, and use over the last couple of Years Congress exerting more of a role in Foreign Policy and advocating with our allies. We sometimes forget, and andy said when he first started, we have to educate our constituents why these issues are important, why should a mother who is worried about putting her kid to school or worried about an elderly father who has dementia, why should you care about syria or yemen, right . And making the case so more people get involved. Its tricky. Its not going to get salt in the next month, but this is again, i feel good about the number of people that are coming in this office and being frustrated with the status quo and wanted to get things done. Thanks. Thanks very much for being here. Thank you. Talk to you all soon. [applause] so in terms of Congress Role, i have a brother, his name is jonathan, i have three brothers, and he was the mischievous one and was always getting in trouble. When we were kids from the very beginning, like ten years old, if he was in trouble and it would think jonathan, why did you do that . We need you to come up here and cleaned deputy would just like casually danced backwards out of the room. That was his move. I feel like thats what congress has done on a particular the constitutional responsibilities, specifically around the authorization of military force. Dance right out of the room and he looks up late doing it that you could be totally mad at him. In this case i would say Congress Role should be to go back to basics and do the things that you are constitutionally authorized and required to do. So authorizing our countrys wars, and appropriating our budgets in the kind of fashion so we can plan appropriately. And certainly the idea that, you know, we know why the danced out of the room. Because of the iraq war. They danced out of the room because they had to vote and some people lost their seats. They had a vote and some people are still paying for that vote today. Some people are still campaigning on that vote back in 2003. Since then when politicians realized it was politically controversial to have to vote on war, they just give up that responsibility. So thats deeply disturbing and one of the things in the Armed Service committee that andy and i think about and work on all the time. Then theres maybe not the things that are written into the constitution but there are things that congress should have a voice on. The conduct conflict of our wa. The strategy of our wars. Are we succeeding. How many troops are we positioning overseas and are they effective . We have responsible for oversight, not just of war but of any type of military action certainly, military exercise it certainly but also i would argue any large Foreign Policy initiative we should be exerting ourselves. And then politicians should, the legislative branch should educate themselves on these things and have some sort of facility with these issues if theyre going to be a leader. Theres a ton of our peers with this is extremely new to them, the whole Foreign Policy world. And just like i have to learn a ton about the inner workings of the pharmaceutical market, they need to learn a ton about our wars and the places where we are engaged. I do think it speaks to a point that will raise and andy mention any certain way, and i feel always obligated to say as a midwesterner sitting in a room full of Foreign Policy wonks, and im one of them, weve had the luxury for what, 70 years since world war ii, with the National Security elites in washington, whether you are democrat or republican, have basically had the arrangement where this Foreign Policy group makes the decisions of what the United States of america is going to do in the world. After the iraq war and after afghanistan, at least my part of the world is no longer willing to sit down and just accept whatever Foreign Policy adventure what administration or another can come up with. We have to shift our thinking as a Foreign Policy community. The question is not how come people in midmichigan dont care about whats going on in afghanistan or whats going on in some part of the world . The question should be, what have you all done to make what you do and you care about relevant to the middle of the country . Who are sending for the vast majority the soldiers, the marines, those the soldiers, t. Reversing the paradigm so we think about how many times a year had he gone and spoken at a Midwestern College . How many times a year have you thought about communicating your important issues that you care about to people who have never ever engaged on Foreign Policy . And seeing how your approach works. Have you translated that article you wrote into something that makes sense for people who literally wake up in the middle of the night because they cant pay for their sons insulins . Thats what i would challenge this group to do. As one Foreign Policy wonks who happens to be up from a part of a country where people are much more focus on other issues and wondering why the Foreign Policy elite keeps green getup, democrat and republican, over and over again. Going out something elissa said earlier, i dont think i heard anyone discussed congress s400 35 entrepreneurs but look, im guessing she was being charitable. I do think a lot of the challenges i see come down to just infrastructure and coordination that we could be doing better, just to start at, i agree with elissa in terms of having settled. I was have this final like to say which is lets not play peewee soccer what we all just chased the ball. You dont need 435 responses to every single thing the the pret does her every single issue out there. Lets find some ways to try to break down based off portfolio, based off expertise, things of that nature that we can draw upon. Wind is a situation, for instance, a couple of months ago when the crisis in the van was heating up, this is a situation id worked on, worked a lot with elissa and lisa before. And figure out who, asked the pentagon of what theyre doing. Who is at the state department . Who has us information we can share . I dont think we all need to be reinventing the wheel on every single aspect of it. I know this is something people have tried before but something im try to take on board i was reasoning a cochair of the National Security task force with House Democrats and unfit what we can do on that front to try to coordinate messaging and information that is out there. Also to what elissa said about the toolbox that we have. What are some things we can be doing . For instance, i think a lot with a trade war, its a perfect example where congress has authorities that they are just not utilizing, things we can do to try to take back Congress Role in dealing with terrorists and taxes. These are the types of things that are important to the last thing i will say is having were, i worked at the pentagon, the studio, usaid and at the white house National Security council and in certain roles of special at the white house i really did see something had not seen a lot of other jobs when i was more junior in my career, which was a real constant communication between highlevel officials at the white house at the pentagon and elsewhere, and members of congress and senior staff on the hill. I think that was really important. Even when its not about passing this piece of legislation are taking this action i could feel how conversations with members or others were shaping the discussions were having in the situation room and elsewhere. I think having that type of more daily contact, building those relationships are important but i think it gets back to what i was saying earlier. When were not able to stay on top of the intel, that able to have that level of Situational Awareness, i think it puts us at a disadvantage. If we are only called the pentagon after some type of attack, only calling the state department after some kind of failure in the diplomatic channels or Something Like that, we are just that doing our job so we need to figure that out. Its interesting, you both were on the receiving end of oversight requests come in the pentagon, in the white house. Has your view and you just talked about this, there needs to be much more, that Congress Needs to be engaged, needs to be focusing in on how is the policy getting executed. Has your perspective on their role in congress changed since you switched inns of the pennsylvania avenue . I dont know that it is changed. I just know they gain, you know . I came up anything that testified 40 times up in front of the House Armed Services, the senate Armed Services committee and now im on the Armed Services committee. I feel the difference but i remember coming up and say okay, i really prepared and eroding the most up and you get these weird leftfield sort of very parochial questions from members of congress and you would say, ill had to get back to you, i dont know exactly where the apaches were made that fighting in iraq. I cant the iraq policy person but ill find that out for you. You had a lot of these procurements in the other office. You had a lot of parochial questions, and i think our freshman class has really helped broaden and deepen the discussion on National Security and our committees because we do come with some background. Although us to ask about things like pfas around my military the sims because thats a chemical that is leaked around my military facilities. My perspective is just better informed. When we write a letter to the head of the pfas task force, the guy at the pentagon to the assistant secretary who is in charge of think of what to do about cleanup, environment of cleanup, i know what youre doing window that comes over. Its taken a while to come from the executive secretary and moved to some elses office. By the time the assistant secretary may be gets a hold might be three weeks later. Then they figure out how to answer it. They put the task into the system. Im not willing to wait. I know this isnt some not willing to wait for that. You just follow it up with a quick phone call to the boss and say, just fyi, i century formal letter on this. You sort of know the tricks of the trade on oversight, which i think helps. But yes, of course i remember being on the site and being like oh, my gosh, asking for more information and now i am one of those people. [laughing] i agree with a lot of that. The fact would bring a certain amount of, though with a certain amount of fluency in the bureaucratic languages helps us understand where to put our energy. For instance, i dont put so much energy in terms of having questions for the record because i been on the receiving and add enough that thats not necessarily my opinion, the best way to get some these answers that we want, try to figure out what are the places where we can have an impact, try to draw that out. That is something im still thinking through. I think, for instance, with the ndaa process that was passing for me to go through on the congressional side having been on the other side of that as well, im sure elissa felt the same way. Just fyi, now we have learned how it works him the pentagons budget is basically drawn up and edited in 21 hour hearing where we state of allnight, 21 hour straight, you have access to a restroom but your team brings you snacks, and you just do it all in one night. You know, are you guys at your best at three in the morning . Its not speedy we start at 10 a. M. And we finished at like seven, 730 time at the next order month. Writing a discussion of lowyield Nuclear Weapons at like two in the morning or Something Like that. Just to know the thing, as the pentagon assistant secretary, the ndaa everything. The language in the budget dictates your whole life. I think that it was sort of being done at a 21 hour hearing when we are not our best as asa shock to me. It was. Just knowing both sides of this has been really helpful. One thing i did want to say because i feel like elissa hit a lot of it. It doesnt necessarily fit into every aspect of this but one aspect of this i really want to figure out Going Forward is, what role, whether its the congressional side or elsewhere are we talking to our International Partners as well . Thats something i havent quite gotten a good sense of yet. I meet with ambassadors and with delegations coming in, but for instance, i have a lot of folks that ive worked with in other countries in syria and iraq and i i been hearing from them over the last couple of weeks, just seeing what ideas are out there. I think theres some avenues we need to make sure as members of congress and people in positions we are at that we be part of the broader discussion out there, not only in her own country but internationally as well. Theyre so much that is being looked upon now from the rest of the world, and they questions and they are asking, by questions like does this president , does this Administration Speak for america . I think its important figure of the voices in the midst as well. I think they can congressional delegation on one aspect of that but elissa and i know these are highly choreographed and often exercises in those ways, but one thing that is different this time around going out to afghanistan and turkey and inte of the other engagements ive had, there is a difference of which i can approach things where i am no longer speaking on behalf of the state department or the white house National Security council. Its much more of a a position edges where am i coming at . I draw upon my expertise and experience what i know but really putting in a position where it pushes maybe on some of those decision points we had before we said thats above are paygrade so im not going to weigh in on that one. We no longer have that luxury, and if your people try to use those words, that means theyre trying to dump away from a tough question. We need to go to make sure were taking those steps and having this conversation. This is one question is going to ask about what is the role of caucus with our allies, especially as many of our allied relationships are under such strain today. Im going to take the moderators rocketed by asking a compound vital question because i know you guys have got to get the votes at 30 thymic. My last question is this. You both of Certain Executive Branch and the National Security community. Those institutions some of which you directly serve in have been under attack, and the phrase, deep state, used to be only used in relation to Foreign Military intelligence service. I would love to get at your reaction to that as former National Security professionals, and the compound peace is an is there Anything Congress can do, any area of reform, and is there a hope of returning to a level of bipartisanship on National Security that seems to be dwindling . Ill jump in. This is something thats very personal to me in terms of how i came about my career. I was very a deep believer in being a career Public Servant come having worked under both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration in different capacities. I i always had this to say, the last place partisan politics belongs is in the situation room, in National Security. I still deeply believe in that. I have colleagues where lees and i worked with the get over it state department why still today dont know if theyre democrats and republicans, and thats what should be. Because we were measured ideas based on the merits of the policy, based on our assessment of the consequences and the risk that were out there. Thats the foreign policies to believe my still deeply believe that is not an oldfashioned way thats no longer possible. Thats why i was responding about what is the role of our professional come what is the role of the republic serpents who in my opinion of the study had at the wheel that help us navigate between pendulum swings on the political front. As i said i feel like ive been able to work here on capitol hill with a greater level to be able to that still, which im grateful for, but i still see the pressures of the politicization of our National Security across the board. That is one of the bigger existential threats that we have to our National Security is its a worry it is moving in that direction. In when we feel like our professionals are not being looked after, when their advice is not being heard, when youre not being part of the process, that could potentially have a huge impact when ford in terms of our ability to continue to bring in professionals, left hosting willing to take on some of these jobs. Someone asked me about this at a town hall and i said, i dont necessarily think the impact is going to be felt immediately necessarily, but i worry about five use a when we see a young generation of nasas could officials decide that going to go into the private sector or elsewhere. Immediately because thats how were trained to write, the writing style of that document is exactly how we were trained in our fourmonth Training Program when you come out and whoever that person is it took enormous and continues to take enormous professional risk in order to come forward and say something. So while its been a tough couple of months, but its also, i think, been an example to maybe young people that being in the Civil Service and being in the insell Intelligence Community you can be a value and patriot to the country. What i would say as soon as we started hearing these reports early on in the Trump Administration of large numbers of Civil Servants and foreign servants leaving the government. I called the pentagon im sorry, the services, to come back. All you need is a new secretary of state, the current director of cia, to call back the people and offer them the same job with the same grade and the same rank. Thats extremely important, people, because we are going to want to bring some of our best and brightest back. We are also going to want to get those young people who maybe had been at state department for five years and decided to take the job somewhere else they didnt want to be a part of maybe things going on. We cant allow the hollowing out of our Civil Service and whenever we have a new administration, whether its next year or its in five years, were going to have a mechanism to bring people back in a way thats efficient. Ladies and gentlemen, you have just witnessed the total value of having somebody with this experience with andy and elissa and come back and be practical and have foresight, so thank you very much for your public service. [applaus [applause]. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] british Prime Minister Boris Johnson testifies thursday on brexit and other National Issues before a Parliamentary Committee made up of the chairs of house of commons select committees. Watch friday live on cspan2. Online at cspan. Org or listen live free on the cspan radio app. This week, the house takes up an Election Security bill to prevent foreign interference with u. S. Elections. For more details about the legislation we spoke with a reporter from capitol hill. Kim starks reports on cyber security, and talks about electi Election Debate in the house. This is a grab bag of other bills, most of them bipartisan, not all of them, but most of them that in some way or another address election integrity. Particularly with the idea of keeping foreign interference out. One of the provisions, for instance, says if you receive an offer of help as a candidate from a foreign