Transcripts For CSPAN Congress And National Security 20140727

That quote from the congressman showing only did the past secretaries about the oversight reform, but so does the whos who of the National Security commission. The problem looks like this, the solution is going to be discussed by the distinguished panel. Its my pleasure to introduce gorman who is a reporter covering terrorism, counterterrorism and intelligence and she won the 2006 award for the washington correspondents to recover to the National Security agency at a 2000 received a citation for the National Magazine writing for the educatio education writing association. She will moderate the panel. Thanhispanic thank you for jg us for our officially unsexy panel. [laughter] but congressional reform is probably the most highprofile reform that has never fully or at all then embraced, and in the ten year report looking at the current state of the play for the National Security Council Commission says that theres been a proliferation of the committees that are now responsible for the counterterrorism and Homeland Security type of issues we are now up from 88 to 92. So i guess that is some kind of accomplishment that we will discuss. The report also highlights another congressional oversight problem into another realm that is too little congressional oversight when it comes to certain types of programs like sensitive intelligence programs, particularly as we have seen recently those that were highlighted in the revelations where we saw we have seen and are seeing significant congressional blowback to the way some of those programs have been conducted and the secrecy around them so we will be discussing problems of both too much and too little oversight as well as other issues with the distinguished Panel Including the ambassador who is the former ambassador to india during the Obama Administration and their managed a range of issues between the two countries including technology transfer, counterterrorism and nuclear energy. He is wellknown as a former six term congressman from indiana and a former member of the 9 11 commission. He also served as the president for the center of the National Policy and is now the senior director and strategic counselor worldwide and serves on the National Commission on the future of the fbi. Governor tom ridge is a former governor of pennsylvania and to serve as the first Homeland Security secretary said he has really done a lot of work on this kind of issues that we are about to discuss and he oversaw the merger of the 22 agencies and the 180,000 employees. After graduating from law school and he was drafted into the army where he served as an infantry Staff Sergeant in vietnam earning the bronze star, the combat infantry badge and the gallantry. He went on to serve six terms in pennsylvania. He is now the ceo of bridge global where he advises businesses and government on Security Issues and is a partner where we see sort of a pattern here that he founded with the former white house Cyber Security advisor howard schmidt. We also have Kenneth Weinstein who served as the Homeland Security adviser and we have the two former Homeland Security advisers and president george w. Bush second term and prior to that he spent 19 years at the Justice Department including the first of the attorney general for the National Security launching the National Security division and also served as the general counsel at the federal bureau investigation. Hes now the chair of whitecollar Defense Investigations group at taft and is also a member of the directors Advisory Board on the nationaboard on thenational cour and a member of the public classification board and a member of the cia counsel asked him whextrawide Advisory Board e chairman of the panel of the National Security Advisory Board so witboardso with that i thinke wanted to start with opening thoughts. Itthoughts. Im delighted and honored to join with the secretary who served in his capacity as the Homeland Security adviser in the panel. And the fact that this is a boring topic we all agree. [laughter] Dot Commission said that the system was blinking red, hair was on fire and something terrible was about to happen. And then we outlined why that mistakes were made and how things could have been prevented. We now have seven different commissions and groups that hold of the congress you need to change and reform the way that you oversee Homeland Security or else something bad might happen. And now, we find ourselves five, ten, 13 years Later Congress has still refused to act. They acted to reform other agencies, other executive branch departments, and they have steadfastly refused change themselves. That must change. We say that very specifically in this report. Second, we say its important because the work they do commit the men and women that work up there work on committees that oversee the department of agriculture and education or the department of Homeland Security. And now with things changing so rapidly in the world taking over the world large swaths of territory and expanding the Different Countries around the world on a cybersecurity coming out with a speeding bullet every day, we need a department of that can act quickly and has a vision and a budget to take on these new threats, and is still the congress has Different Committees and subcommittees to oversee this. That is unsustainable. We need a smaller and integrated canopy. A committee with experts that can help set the budget and the vision for the department of Homeland Security as it enters to these threats and third its important because as the congress may always different people come up to the subcommittees, we waste their valuable time. We waste the resources. We waste billions of dollars of taxpayers money and we hear the Congress Talk all the time about waste, fraud and abuse and how bad that is. Here is a great example of waste, fraud, abuse and how congress could do it better so we are hopeful that by talking about it in these terms and having people especially like the secretary talk from his perspective on Homeland Security like this must be done now by five years from now or ten years from now after an attack by it must be now. Hispanic its difficult to add as my colleague just said but what we try to supplement his observations with a few of my own. This is the Bipartisan Policy Center so im going to take a leap of faith, and on behalf of secretary johnson and the secretary napolitano, secretary chertoff and yours truly, my plea today is into you but to the leadership of the house and the senate, do something with regard to the massive inefficient, ineffective oversight procedures dealing with the department of Homeland Security. We speak with one voice across the board. Republicans and democrats on this. And it requires leadership in the house and senate. Its structural and organizational. It is asked him pointed out i cannot imagine in my wildest imagination to a comfortable conclusion as to the ether eithr inability or the unwillingness of congress to reconfigure itself so that we can be more effective partner in the maturation of the department so we can be a more effective leader dealing with frankly the escalating threat environment from the physical to the cyber over which the department of Homeland Security has so much control and jurisdiction and i can think of only one reason and its a turf. We both sat in the congress of the United States for 12 years. We would tell you that on the way to the floor after we vacated the hearings people would be expressing their profound distaste and displeasure. There are too many committees on monday to too many subcommittees i going for half an hour, 45 minutes particularly when cspan is there i do my thing and move on. They do not develop. There are not enough people to develop standards of excellence in the committee. Thats not a criticism that is a fact of life. So what the Bipartisan Policy Center is simply saying in a post 9 11 world where the threat has evolved both in terms of numbers of al qaeda organizations basically the connective tissue of al qaeda is now in about 16 different regions and countries and one could argue that the threat, the terrorist threat today is even greater than it was on september 11, september 12, 2001. Is it a matter of the turf on the hill. There is an absolute in. It can maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department Given its escalating role within the safety and security of the country to just think not about the turf that use it on and the kennedys that yoat the committeesthat use it e obliged to get into secure and that is the turf of the United States. Its not that it cant be done. It is about generating the will to get it done. And hopefully the Public Forums like this and if you think about it that can there be two or more influential people in the committee around then the governor and the congressman asked by the congressman of the United States to pull to together direct the nations and to tell us what you think needs to be done. We have military leaders at the Law Enforcement community there is a consensus, bipartisan consensus republicans and democrats all across those whose responsibility is to secure america to the congress saying you need to change your jurisdiction of the committees. Its too diffuse and desperate. As long as it stays that way youre going to have individual and i not think to say this or highlight anybody, but you will have people doing runs around the secretary. Dont go to the hill because they have their own little relationships with Committee Chairmen and committees. Its time that they accepted the unanimous belief of people on both sides of the aisle to change the oversight. And i think the Bipartisan Policy Center for allowing us to publicly exhort, plea, bag, ask him a demand. If you want to make america more secure one of the most important things that you can do is create a relationship between the congress of the United States and the new department. Listen, its still a new department. Its still maturing. They have work to do and if you want to make it effective to have to changhaveto change yourd Committee Structures. Thanthank you. Hispanic that is one of the most impassioned advocates. I guess it is really frustrating to me. The governor, and i say to myself congress and the u. S. To these men to assemble a committee and tell us what we need to do to make america saf safer. They keep saying it publicly. Do what they recommended to do. The recommended to do. Its not that difficult. Would you like to add something . Ditto. [laughter] let me say thank you to the Bipartisan Policy Center for having me. This is an important event and it is an honor to be included here. On the unanimity front, my own personal anecdote, i was asked to come out with the folks that are here today with a meeting last year and out in palm springs about the asking folks to talk about this issue. I am on about 35 different Advisory Boards and Everything Else in the city where we routinely gets together with folks from the views across the spectrum and we talk about things and theres always some high level of consensus, but then when you get down to the granularity, there is a little difference of opinion and that is the beauty. You are able to hash out the differences and come to a common ground. This is the first time i went into a session like that and we ended up with absolute unanimity not anonymity on every granular point we talked about on this issue. There was no difference of opinion. We have different ideas but in terms of the need to make this happen, it was absolute across the board and as for this group iv executive branch. Branch. But my whole government career and executive branch usually i would be the last person in the world to be demanding or asking for in a comprehensive and effective congressional oversight. But in fact that is the plea im making as an executive branch person because, you know, i came out of the Justice Department where you have a Pretty Simple oversight structure you have the Judiciary Committee and its pretty straightforward you know who they are and who you have to go to. You know you have folks like Sheldon Whitehouse that knew the issues that you were dealing with down to the granular level, and that meant that effective oversight that meant tough questioning and follow through and deep understanding on the part of the members about the mission and about us as individuals coming and that was a real oversight and i do not see that in the situation. And i get that it is not easy to rectify this problem. We have heard about the issues. My co. Panelists can speak to this for the diversity of the issues that we deal with everything from the Border Control to the secret service, they have such a wide range of activities that the understanding of the oversight is not only just pulling together the challenges but pulling together the legacy jurisdictions into one or several places. But it is a subject matters. They are so diverse its hard to put them in place. Place. So we wouldnt diminish the difficulty of the challenge, but we do want to emphasize the need to meet the challenge. Just to kick off some of the issues i can tell you firsthand when i was at Homeland Security advisor talking of the difficulty of answering the oversight demands for so many Different Committees that was a huge drain on the resources and i think a couple of years ago, there were media reports about how john thistle, the administrator of the tsa but declined the subcommittee on aviation because he said the department didnt believe that was the Proper Committee of the oversight. What it was or what it was and was a very telling event. John pistol was the most accommodating the fourth kind of guy that you would ever meet in the country. And when he got to the point i cannot adhere i have to do my day job and we really need to get the shop in order, that was the shortcut product out to the congress and the hope they heard it. So the other demand on time, there is also enjoying the resources there is also the diffused message the branch gets from so many different communities of oversight. Getting the correct message in the congress where you should go and i think as michael said when you hear a lot of voices coming you dont hear any voices and thats true. It really i think means it has handicapped the department and thats critical when you have a relatively new department. And i think there is also issues of the lack of having a champion on capitol hill when the department has one committee or to committees and the department when it comes to an agency like the dhs when you think about it. And then the last thing i would point out is from the ambassador aambassadorat the outset. This legislation needs to get asked. We like to have authorizing legislation, but as the legislation needs to have this in the dhs like cyber. And the fact that we do not have the lines of authority on the deal with that issue i think that has led to what has been a problematic delay in getting the cyber legislation to which it is going to go a long way to helping us meet a very real threat to the National Security. So the reallife implications to the future i agree it might not sound terribly sexy but it really is fundamentally important to the government. We can issue this as the dynamic getting a little bit more granular, how would you reshape the congressional oversight. Are we talking one committee, to committees . How would it look and how would you get there if im able to start with him and move down the line. I dont think file we have recommended for the leadership on the 9 11 commission we have recommended a certain set of changes for the congress, i think basically this is going to be the Congress Decision of the reform process. They set up the rules that would be voted on sometime in january. Whether they reduce this to one or two committees in the house and in the senate they have to reconcile how that would work in the jurisdiction systems. We are not going to at this point describe directly where they should remove it. Where do you think it should look personally . It should be a lot stronger. It shouldnt be 92. It should be a handful of committees. Ideally down to one or two. It should have a number of people on it that are experts that develop expertise on Homeland Security and cyber issues as all three of us have talked about the changes are coming at us very quickly. People are over in serious as we have training and radicalizing. At the fbi they said just a few weeks ago there are scores of people coming back into the United States of america and listing the radicalization and this lawmaking skill what is the role in that and what is the fbi role in this and the Intelligence Communitys role and if the congress isnt overseeing this and given the dhs specific authorities and the chick, nobody is overseeing this. So, america is vulnerable. We dont have any one committee this past legislation that is telling our new Homeland Security department with the role should be in this effort. Experts, people on the committee that are devoted to this that spend hours every week getting to know these issues and going around the department of Homeland Security and having the appropriate oversight hearings, then the final point i would make is. This isnt like the committee that i sat on where most of the oversight is done publicly and we all know what reforms we are working on and what amendments need to take place to reform the Public School system. We talk on the department of Homeland Security about very secret things. Anand the sensitive communitiest the time that have to be protected. So, if we do not have the appropriate people getting to know those issues in space or wherever it might be at the nsa if those people are not doing their jobs and serving on the committees yeartoyear and knowing how to hold the executive Branch Accountable and having tough hearings on that windy overextend privacy issues, then nobody up here is doing this job. So, it is very important that we get going now. If they vote on a resolution in january with the new membership to take this issue on, that process has to start now. They are willing to give up the oversight and finally i would say tom mentioned the think tanks in town. We have brookings that has endorsed this on the left and hear it to job the right has come together and endorsed this concept. If they can do it in the think Tank Community why cant the congress do this if they come across the board . There are no excuses for not acting to this. Think tanks dont. A couple things real quick to put in perspective for you in my success and interest have the same challenges. While i was the secretary we were conducting the war in afghanistan and iraq. And i was on the hill. Frankly because the Committee Structure and the executive branch has been narrowed down over a period of time to make a general observation we still have a congress with which i was privileged and honored operating in the 21st century the challenges related to the United States federal government in the 21st century not just within Homeland Security but across the board cry out desperately for rethinking how the legislative branch exercises its constitutionally delegated authority. I understand there are different jurisdictions. If i could wave a magic wand i would probably have no more than two authorizing committees in the primary committee i would have a couple of select committees but because of the nature of the overlapping of jurisdiction, and again, the Committee Structure is archaic and antiquated and its not terribly effective and we are not even going to go into why they didnt Pay Attention to what was going on in the va and whitey didnt Pay Attention to what was going on elsewhere. Its out of date and its not really effective so i would probably if i could have my way have a couple of the subcommittees have been where oe you have overlapping jurisdiction with justice, somebody from the Justice Committee with the primary responsibility outside of the dhs would be a member of the subcommittee. So frankly it is going to take some thinking about who should serve and where. But at the end of the day you could interlock these other committees into the subcommittees that the departmentat the department,so e of that multiple jurisdiction point of view in the same structure. So, if i could have my preference would be one fairly large committee, multiple subcommittees, but you make sure that part of the subcommittees you had some overlapping jurisdictions or you could have a more complete look at the totality of the responsibility in the department. It appears the intelligence and Armed Service and the judiciary. Just to add on to the ambassador said about the important steeped in the subject matter of what you do keep in mind for th that the oversight r the executive branch it is the committee and members who know how to ask the right questions and followup to get to the soft spots of the operations and find out where things can be approved. And you cant just do that as a member of talking points. You have to be immersed in the substance of what the agency does. Ive done a lot with him and the Justice Department about the surveillance batters and he knew that area. Chapter and reverse. So when he has to question in the hearing he has a question and i give the response i knew i was then going to get a followon question that whatever issue i didnt address in the questioning of the same thing when i got questions in the record or written questions so you had to prepare and respond differently than with somebody who would be a parttime oversight versus who doesnt spend a lot of time in your world because that person isnt going to do to ask those questions. So, i just want to sort of take it back to what oversight is. Its asking the tough questions to help the agencies improved. If you dont have the knowledge because you are not doing it day in and day out he lost no to answer the right questions. Given the difficulty the congress has had to pass the legislation are we surprised that it hasnt embraced the measures that would also require the turf and is it realistic to expect that it could have been on the time frame. It is absolutely realistic to ask the people that represent our American People to do their jobs, to reorganize, to be a network fighting a network of terrorists. We dont need these massive bureaucracies here in the United States overseeing the Committee Structure and a terrorist group that can get into the country that are coming into the country as we speak. We know from what i said before the terrorists have gone to syria where there is an ink you cater training these folks into target of the United States of america. We know they are targeting the Aviation System here and they are coming here. Some of them are here and what does it take for them to realize we shouldnt have 92 Different Committees overseeing this thread of a few dozen people coming into the country. Theres no excuse for this, there isnt and what a shame it would be if the next type of commission writes the report that says ten years ago they saw the failures in the executive branch in the agencies. They warned about that in the 15 years ago and the 9 11 commission warned about that. What does it take . Its realistic to expect the democrats and republicans to Work Together on National Security issues to protect the country. It may not be realistic for us to think they are going to come up with a bill to agree on the abortion issue were agreed on the definition of marriage, but it is realistic to expect them to do this kind of job so we are hopeful that members on the of e house and the senate side will start to meet in august and september and maybe talk about their ideas for convincing the oversight and share their ideas with the Different Committee headheads and they will come uph some plans and maybe thats circulated in the fall and then the new members would vote on it in january and maybe theres a way to hold members accountable. Its a National Security vote. Its not simply a vote about how the congress is organized. What do you see as the role of the executive branch in pushing ahead on this issue . Writing as i try to articulate some of the executive branch has a strong interest in having the rationalized oversight or grand. And his folks are stating stata little time in the hearing they think probably it is duplicate if. I think it is incumbent on the administration to make this a priority to push the congress because the congress has to embrace it and unless they recognize publicly that this is an important issue and it isnt going to happen because they are going to have people pushing back hard so it has to be a public effort and they will be armed and turned with the push from the president and the white house to say this is important. So making this top priority in the conversations to congress. You mentioned in pushing this ahead what should they be doing. One, it is a National Security issue. It is a National Security issue. I dont think anyone would argue that the restructuring of congress after world war ii and the subsequent stretching from the department of the war to the department of defense has provided more aggressive and effective oversight of the dod. But that isnt an organizational much of this is a National Security issue, number one. No one is arguing about the need for the oversight. We just all the leave the oversight should be comprehensive would be more effective if it was narrowed on the subject Matter Experts that could help the maturation and the development of this. Finally writ large i would wager that if you took a private poll of 535 members of congress and ask them in their heart of hearts if they truly be leafed the Committee Structure in the executive branch was as effective as it needs to be or should be in the 21st century given the range of issues and size of the government, i have to believe most would say no its not we are just going along to get along because thats the way that its been. So we begin to make the changes in a 21st century infrastructure overseeing a 21st century government that is far more complicated and complex regarding the threats of the challenges and you need to think about the Committee Structure we are saying to the leaders its a National Security issue. I like that notion its not a vote on the reorganization of the National Security. I want to take a moment here to not refine the point because palm has madtom has made it mucn i could ever make it in his eloquent on the point when we look at the department of defense and the special forces and coast guard all the special programs we have Armed Services and defense appropriations and a handful of committees for we have the 80 billiondollar budget. Now its gone up to that with 92 committees overseeing it. So youre telling me the department of Homeland Security should hav have eight times the number of the subcommittees dealing with the National Security of the United States and the department of Homeland Security is dealing now with issues of radicalization, people coming into the country but also maybe some that are already here that are homegrown terrorists to the effect of what happened to the Boston Marathon bombing. They have a specific claim to help protect us from those globals. Yet congress doesnt really know whats going on because there are so many people up there that are fighting for the jurisdiction and oversight. That has to change. You talked some to the cost of all of this. I was wondering if you could sort of rate the quality of the oversight of the Homeland Security at this point. The commission didnt do their report card this time around. I will look at it by comparison. I think the oversight of the Justice Department was quite effective. I was there for 18 or 19 years instead of working with congress as i said the judiciary and the intel committees. There was a vibrant, strong, aggressive the way that it should be coming and it was knowledgeable. And i think you dont see that when it comes to the dhs. I was dealing with it when i was the Homeland Security adviser and it wasnt any of those is. Its not because they were not members that didnt care a lot but it was a parttime occupation and that wasnt the focus of the staff were the exclusive focus of the staff or the members and that is an important point by the way. As a result it is the sort of watereddown oversight that you get and i think weve all been there to testify. Note that you can get the sort of standard answer without worrying about the followup. And that is i think that might be the particular exchange. You are not going to get asked questions. And yes, keep in mind hes our people that the oversight is just one of them and unless it makes itself really the principle and that official is going to get short so there is a cost both to the Oversight Service of the congress providing the American People. It how would you rate the quality of oversight by the congress at this point . They can choose quantity with quality. The point of my colleagues have made is legitimate. There are talented people on the hilhill on both sides of the aie and i do believe. To a certain extent they would develop very specific subject matter expertise. I think at the end of the day while i add that Homeland Security is one of those agencies is multitasked is a Border Agency about goods and people going back and forth across the border. You also worry about immigration. You also worry about natural disasters. You also worry about cybersecurity at a critical one for structure and certainly worry about the ongoing terrorist threat but they are all related to the border. So there is an epicenter of focus that i think really is itself to the aggregation of all of the right group rights groupe department. But when you suddenly diffuse oversight across multiple jurisdictions, you lose the sense of urgency and in my colleagues point of view under the notion that on a daytoday endaytodayand monthtomonth u begin to develop the expertise to ask those followup questions they turn it over to the staff member and im speaking very respectfully of the staf staff t the point that you made you need aggressive oversight. The executive branch welcomes and the constitution requires it and demands it and suggested, but you dont get that. I think again at the end of the day with large of the executive branch is antiquated we are here talking about Homeland Security, but i think the congress and the aftermath of 9 11 confused the quantity and its tough not to give jurisdiction but theres plenty of jurisdiction in the other areas to make the Committee Chairman happy. Although that should not be the function of the leadership to make the Committee Chairman happy. It should be to construct the oversight capability. I would agree with the criticisms and the evaluation of my colleagues have that as a former member of congress and someone who loves the institution of the congress. One of my dreams growing up here in indiana was to someday run for congress and represent my Hometown Community in this wonderful city. And having lived abroad to represent the country to a billion people in india so proud is an exceptional place when we look down the road and we think about what their jobs are to give up the turf and to serve on one less subcommittee and move from serving on six to five or 423, for our National Security not to be a tough call. So i think our oversight when it doesnt have been its sufferers. Our security suffers. Our safety as a country suffers because they are not acting on these things. And in that report, giving too many other areas the Congress Needs to act on an addition to the oversight and the organization of oversight of the department of Homeland Security. We talk about developing a new authority as to how we send our troops and men and women into war and updating the 2001 resolution so that that decision reflects the American Peoples interest and their opinions. Spee. Working with the Intelligence Committees, and i was struck when i was talking with the congressman a couple of days ago. He said that, you know, having followup he concluded that congressional oversight of these surveillance programs has not been robust enough. I was just curious what your sense of that is. That obviously is an issue that has come to the fore because of disclosures. It is you have to look at the fundamental tension and problem, which is this. Intelligence communities are tasked with a very difficult job , being the ones to daytoday look at these highly classified programs, assess those programs, and do so without those programs being disclosed to the rest of the world. If you look at some of the programs that have been controversial in the wake of the snowdon disclosures like the telephone matted data program where all the information was gathered and held by that government and searched for indications of terrorist activity, that is the one that has caught the most controversy. It was completely classified. You had the Intelligence Community being briefed about this. You had intelligence communities themselves not able to talk about it more broadly. I think the senator raised that concern before. And that is a problem. If there is no way around it, frankly, because, you know, there are large parts of our surveillance, if not most of our surveillance, that need to be done in total secrecy and cannot be disclosed. But it does raise a concern. How does the public have confidence that oversight is being done effectively when they cannot see what the oversight is, whether tough questions are being asked, whether congress and the body of the Intelligence Committees are asking about how are we calibrating this balance between liberty and privacy on the security and privacy. So that is a tension that will always be there. I will say, though, i think one of the lessons of this whole post snowden situation is that is incumbent on the executive branch to disclose more, if they can, when theyre is a program that can be disclosed to do so and not have what i think is a reflexive reaction that we need to be careful not to disclose anything. One piece of information out might lead to more. The slippery slope. It is a viable argument. Recognition that the more the public knows about these programs the more basis they have that they have confidence that it is being done appropriately. In the absence of that knowledge there is an absence of that confidence, absence of trust, and doubt about the oversight. And do you agree it is not robust enough . I always agree with the congressman. He always has had the wisdom and insight and i associate myself with the gentleman from our home state of indiana. When we talk about oversight we are talking about convincing, reforming, streamlining the department of Homeland Security and oversight in congress. It is a very different issue than the Intelligence Committee. One, it is finding numbers. This is called the select committee, not caught the select community because hopefully because the leaders go and pick specific people that they know have an expertise in National Security that are going to devote significant time before Committee Hearings and after Committee Hearings, that these people are going to travel not just to langley or the farm or nationally but internationally to visit other chiefs of station and see what issues they are dealing with overseas. These people are going to serve on these committees and develop a sense of expertise and devotion to issues. They are going to penetrate and ask tough questions about issues. Why is there this problem with over budgeting on this particular set of systems that we are buying . As a hypothetical, why is that happening . Who do we get up here to have accountable answers given . How do we do staff work to make sure that the right questions are asked and followed up with after we have the secret hearing and i do not get the sense today that that kind of thing is taking place by all members of the senate and house committees. And i would further say enough of the members . I would like to see more members participate in that kind of dedicated fashion which is, again, why you cannot have six or seven Different Committees that you serve farm. If you are truly serving on the committee you are replying to a peak on to win three or four to develop the time necessary, to travel, study the issues, oversight. And i would say lee and i have talked about this. It is not only a function of all we just talked about, getting the right people, bipartisan staff working on these issues together, but it is also, you know, terribly important that the executive branch breed all members of the committee and dont keep narrowing down the briefings to the gang of haiti, a gang of four, they can get to. Members on these Intelligence Committees which are supposed to be selected you know, 25 members of the 435 where a dozen or 15 of the senate from 100 are picked because there is confidence in these people that they represent the entire very, very topsecret information. To you feel they are currently representing the entire body . To you feel they do you want to answer that question . We are about to go to q a anyway. I think in both the department of Homeland Security side and on the Intelligence Committee when need to vastly improve our intelligence oversight capabilities. It takes them. I just want to make a quick comment here on behalf of the department which i was privileged to help form and lead. Homeland security does not generate its own intelligence folks. It can be held accountable for intelligence failures and have been blamed from time to time when those things have happened, but they rely on of the alphabet agencies to get them the information. I just want to make that known to everybody. This notion that somehow the secretaries have a little bit of competitive intelligence capability but by and large still have to rely on the alphabet agencies in order to make decisions about disseminating information or acting on relevant and timely information. I throw that out there as an anecdote. I think economic pretty strong case, Twentieth Century structure , a much larger government. An argument could be made that the select committees on intelligence might be the only committee you sit on where your burden to serve in other committees could be substantially reduced. That is the nature of the world we live on and is probably argue about important jurisdictions. One could argue if you accept a Committee Assignment on the Intelligence Committee perhaps that ought to be your reason for existence for the years you are on it. Just a thought. Keep going back to Twentieth Century government, 21st century oversight, 21st century government, much bigger government, more complexity and challenges and we still have jurisdiction the same way. It does not make any sense. Next question. My name is elis got and eli scott. I do believe it oversight and transparency go handinhand. Having worked in the Army Intelligence three years, i think will tend to loosely used National Security classified documentation when they should not be classified. Up perfect example, 9 11. We have had a number of document classified which cost the Family Members not to get a complete picture of what happened on 9 11 i would like to ask, how would you rate the classification of the documents during 9 11 . I also ask the two gentlemen from Homeland Security, how would you rate the transparency of Homeland Security . Thankyou. Thanks for your question. Nice to see you here and a thankyou for all of your great work, not only helping on the 9 11 commission but on the pentagon memorial for 9 11. I think you bring up great points. A first of all, i think one of our recommendations i know one of our recommendations in the report today is about transparency and the encouraging the National Archives and executive branch to release more and more of the documents from 9 11, to have this transparency and this openness so that the American People have even more access to what we found and why we made the recommendations we did. And so we make a very, very strong set of recommendations here to change that process and open up the system. Secondly, over classification, we also have seen that there is tendency in our government to over classify all kinds of different of formation. And that really hurts us in many ways. When we talk about sharing information, sharing information across government, or is obsolete, but when the federal government, departments, breaking down silos and vertically to local and state officials in making sure that they get information and pass it back to the federal government. When we over classified information, say it is top secret and it probably is not, those local authorities , oftentimes, could not and maybe they dont get access to a critical clue or something that they could pick up. I think that is improving, but i know in our recommendations that we continue to recommend changes there. I think it is really a very important question. In spite of what happened on 9 11, you still have an institutional bias based upon a cold war mentality. It distributes information on an need to know basis. By and large, a lot of these have decided that you dont need to know until we are ready to tell you which is not exactly the barometer that i think is appropriate. I think over classification is a way to shield information, a reason not to share it, and even in my time in government, and i would defer to my colleagues, i have seen secret or topsecret documents that if redacted in a certain way the information could be shared with regard to transparency without divulging sources and efforts. We are looking at this section of classified and over classification as critically important going forward. Secondly, there is word missing in this conversation between the federal government and the rest of the country. That word is trust. Even if you have secret and topsecret information it is beyond belief that somehow we cannot figure out a way to share that with either the governors or the Homeland Security and visors or other people out there on the ground because you cannot secure the country from inside the beltway. Unless we are sharing more of this information, secret or topsecret, and just people who get it that they will not leave it and not necessarily act upon it, and we will never match applies to of maximize our ability to defend ourselves. I want to inject one more word into this conversation. The classification system. Do not use it to withhold information, and cannot be so reluctant to share even that kind of affirmation. I do not want to hear about leaks. There is no town that leaks more than washington d. C. , so do not tell me you are people out there who have daytoday responsibilities for the safety and security of friends and neighbors and their communities. At some point in time the folks in this town have to be more trusting of the people who wear the same uniform of publicservice whether lawenforcement community, Homeland Security, we have to start trusting one another if we will ever take it had to evolve the intelligence we have to it in a position where we can be preemptive rather than reactive. An excellent question. I think it there is one thing, one issue that is less sexy than congressional oversight it is over classification. [laughter] i am actually on one of the things from the beginning, i am on the declassification board devoted to addressing this issue. We consider ourselves sexy, but i guess not a very sexy topic a fundamental problem when you are writing a document and you have concerns about whether it might have information whose release can be damaging to the National Security. People tend to err on the side of classifying. And so it really requires a comprehensive, allout effort by the executive branch to push back against that human nature. The president when he came in issued executive orders addressing this issue. There has been a lot of talk about it. As much as we can generate by your reports and public discussion of this issue, the need for making sure there is not over classification, you will need to get a groundswell to push back. It is really just a function of human nature. I think we need to go from need to know ten need to share. It is another world to make different world. We will go to the commissioner. One thing that was mentioned a couple of days ago when talking about this report, and the Commission Documents and papers still remain classified, including a chunk of their report on the National Security agency. He said that he did not believe any of them needed to be classified today. So this has been an extraordinarily articulate discussion by my pals year here of the myriad reasons why we need to reorganize and reform congress. Ten years ago we said when we made our recommendation that it would probably be the hardest of all our recommendations to realize. We were right. We are not paying smug about being right. We are unhappy about how right we were. So the question i have, and i will direct it first to governor richard, 80 youre extraordinarily candid and articulate exposition of why turf is the primary reason for their resistance to a sensible reorganization reform, the Homeland Security issue, National Security component of to why we are not only wasteful but counterproductive in the current regime, can you unpacked what it means for there to be a tariff issue that seems to be resistant to reform and how we, as citizens , can force accountability for the refusal to accept these recommendations which we have made and reiterated and reiterated again with support from all of that different advocates we talked about. I did not articulate it as well as you just did. Thank you for your kind words. I think in terms of almost historical inertia upon the hill over decades. It our committee has always had jurisdiction over these issues. Natural instinct to preserve it. I do not think the institutions of government are different than institutions of the private sector or us personally. Change is difficult to. Change is very difficult fundamental change in your life. Having said that, that explains it. It does not justify it. And i think the point in time i just doubt very seriously if you will ever have to many chairmen regardless of party affiliation, regardless of the chamber who are willing to relinquish jurisdiction they have had. It is at that point in time and i think this is where maybe you are going with the question how do you activate the body politic to affect the change . I cannot think of anything better them while we are doing now with multiple agencies and groups and think tanks that continue to put pressure on the congress. Ultimately i think it comes down to five people, maybe for. Of the leaders in the house and senate to of both parties. At the caucus letter of level. Ladies and gentlemen, we have met. We are in a bipartisan agreement easier said than done. I think this is an issue of leaders. I think, as i said before, i think most men and women in the house and senate will tell you they respect the Committee Structure. I cannot believe they feel fulfilled given the level of their engagement spread across multiple committees in jurisdictions that they are actually doing their job as effectively as they would like. I think you need support from the white house. There are four people need to affect these changes post november before january. Is there a fundraising component . We know how much time spent on fundraising and the congress by individual members it is a constant demand on their time and energy. And it is there a fundraising component that is associated with failure to organize and streamline oversight on Homeland Security . And let me in a second question coming from the families of 9 11 victims, whether in your view 9 11 families could, again, be active proponents for change on the congress if they work to organize and again rededicate their efforts to this issue . A couple of quick short answers. One, i understand where youre coming with regard to the fundraising component. I dont think that would have any effect. I think galvanizing and around this important issue would have far better and greater effect. I like that a lot. I dont think there are any questions like that. If i could answer both your questions, i think there is a fundraising a fact because of the bandwidth on almost everything that happens and if a number out of a 24hour day is spending six hours a day fundraising and two hours a day in oversight hearings, is that theyre right ratio that we need to protect our country today . It would be interesting for some of the media to do a survey about members of congress. How much time is spent in committees, not just a markup of the bill when you have to be there and votes are recorded on amendments and final passage of a bill. How many hours are you in that committee when they are doing the oversight of how the department of Homeland Security is working these things and what problems are encountered . Do you have three members in that hearing for the entire time, or do you have 20 . I would be very interested to look at that. Let me go back to your first question. I think three things need to happen for this to pass, and i think it is passable. First of all, it needs to be defined as a National Security issue. It is not a reorganization of congress issue, not about turf but what we do to try to make sure that our Committee Structure is appropriately aligned with the threat to and with the solutions in america today. And 92 subcommittees and committees does not do it. Way too many. It is wasteful. The second thing that needs to happen is thirdparty involvement. The 9 11 Family Members should be involved. There should be groups that will reach out to the leaders and tell them we want this to happen for National Security reasons. I think, you know, it needs to be focused on the leaders. But if they are hearing from other members in the senate and house that they would give up jurisdiction, give up subcommittee, and tell the leaders they are willing to do that, this may happen. This has a better chance. Lastly, i would say the great thing about our system in america is when the people way and. Not just the Third Party Interest groups, but the people, cspan viewers. If they call and say, we are not point to take this anymore. We Want Congress to do its job. We are not point to reelect 90 or 95 percent of the congress if they are not doing basic National Security issues. They called the hill and we in. That is probably if they will do that i think you could see a bigger chance for this. A great point to end on. Thank you. I am sorry. We have run out of time. Happy to take your question off line. Unfortunately we do have to move on. Before we do so i want to make a few comments. Understood. I apologize. Happy to talk to you offline. I do need to wrap up. [inaudible conversations] happy to talk to you. Okay. I did not know you were a Family Member and tell you showed me this time. Happy to talk to you offline. Appreciate that not everyone is getting an opportunity to speak. Thank you for volunteering. I think that we are probably all happy to participate alongside our cspan2 commissioner frans. With that, i would like to recognize a few people in the audience to have made all of this possible. Without a permit would not have this project, and i am grateful for her support i would be remiss if i did not talk about all the people who made today and this report possible. Jacob clark, ashley mccormick, kristin madding sleep. We thank you for all of your hard work. Homeland security program, Michael Garcia has been invaluable. Thank you. And, of course, i have to ethnic bbc director of communications and her incredible team. It added brandon who has been communicating with the press to make sure you knew about this. She put together this report and made it possible. At this point, i am happy to break for lunch. It is directly behind me we will pay coming back together to begin the next part of our program. Thank you all. [applause] [inaudible conversations] kt mcfarlandnalyst on president obamas foreignpolicy. On newsmakers this week, customs and border protection. Sunday at 10 00perla kautsk amn 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. O, theears ago t watergate scandal led to the first resignation of an american president. The housend, Judiciary Committee considers impeachment of the president and the charge of abuse of power. About what questions the framers had in mind, questions of whether the activities that had been found out by the committee and the Senate Watergate committee were indeed impeachable, and thirdly, can we prove that Richard Nixon knew about them and even authorize them . Watergate, 40 years later, sunday night at 8 00 eastern on American History tv on cspan3. On monday, president obama awarded the medal of honor to ryan pitts, a former activeduty army staff