Transcripts For CSPAN3 Fmr. 20240705

Receipts. Call to order, this hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence. This is an unusual hearing for us, and it is exciting, from the back room it sounded like it was a reception, everyone was so excited to see their friends and to reconnect. That was happening on a social level. We will reconnect on the professional level. One thing that we know, for each of you, is you have had an incredible career in congress, incredible careers in National Security, incredible careers on this committee. We do not want to lose your resident expertise. And we believe that you work on a bipartisan basis, and certainly, you are about getting this committee working on a bipartisan basis. So we want to turn to you today to get your advice, on issues that you see that you think we need to be focused on. On issues that you think this committee, as you have seen the work we have been doing, should either continue or modify, in the way we are undertaking them. So i want first to introduce we have in front of us. We have former congresswoman jane harmon, who during her time in congress, remain steadfast and a commitment to u. S. National security, miss harmon served as the Ranking Member of House Intelligence Committee in the 107th and 108 congress. She also shared the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence and served as the president and ceo of the Wilson Center following her time in office. Former congressman frank luliano, who earned reputation as an advocate for the Intelligence Committees work in some of the most remote in dangerous areas of the world, where he himself would often travel. For congresswoman, lana ross laden who made history as the first hispanic republican woman and the first cuban american elected to congress. Miss ross little is also a leader in advocacy for the u. S. Israeli relationship during her time in the house of representatives. Former congressman pete king, who is known for his dedication to u. S. Counterterrorism efforts. Mr. King previously served as chairman of the House Homeland Security committee in the 109th and the 112 congress. He is a wellknown commentator on National Security and world affairs. And former congressman jim laundrymen, who was a leading voice on cybersecurity issues, he chaired the Armed Services committee on intelligence and one and 16th congress, and mr. Langevin served as the chair to my being his Ranking Member on the strategic subcommittee of Armed Services. We appreciate the each of you are here today, we know, the preparation you are asked these basic questions, what are the most critical threats facing our nation, what is the proper role of the Intelligence Community in our nations response to these threats . What was the Unfinished Business of this committee while you served in congress, that he believed that this committee needs to continue, and any other advice or thoughts that we might have for us, we welcome you here today. I recognize current Ranking Member. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you to our former colleagues to take the time to be here today, to provide your expertise. Its great to see all of you again. All of you developed a tremendous amount of knowledge while you are members. I like to commend the chairman for bringing us together in this venue, so you can share your perspective and expertise on the work we do here in the Intelligence Committee. I say this all of the time. The fact is that intelligence oversight is very, very hard. We all served on other committees where you have the assistance of an aggressive press, nonprofits, others who are scrutinizing Financial Services industry, the carbon industry, all sorts of things. It is committee, quite often, it is just us and our staff, to look at some of the most challenging and provoking issues that we face as a country. And of course, intelligence oversight involves command of very complicated technical issues, very complicated legal issues. It is difficult in this short time that we are given here on this committee to develop the expertise, that does the American People proud, by making sure that our Intelligence Community is both immensely capable, but that it operates into the values and legally bound to the constitution. I said before, oftentimes as members of this committee, we tend to get hyper focus on some of the areas which are tremendously important, but exceptionally narrow. As people who have sat in these very seas previously, my hope is you can point us to areas where we should be focusing on more holistically, instead of risking losing the forest for the trees. Finally, china. Obviously lots and lots of challenges out there. But the challenges and opportunities posed by china, i think, are very different than things we have seen in the past. Often, my colleagues, i think in appropriately invoked the concept of a new cold war. The reality is when we were in the old cold war with the soviet union, with almost no trade with the soviet union. They did not own trillions of dollars of our sovereign debt. We do not have the same common interests we have with a country like china, even as we have less common interests, it violates regularly the values that are so important to us as americans. So i hope, to hear your thoughts on how this committee and congress can thoughtfully and, in statesman like fashion, approach this critical issue. Again, thank you for being here today, mister chairman, i yield back. Thank you. Proceeding with Opening Statements order. Miss harman mr. Lobiondo miss ross layton, mr. King and mr. Langevin will begin with miss harman. Is this on . Yes it is. Good morning, everybody. I served with some of you, as we all did over the years. And darin, i remember your father so finally. Please say hello. I served with all these people, its ignores the exciting to have this reunion of people dedicated to the intelligence enterprise. I was thinking that on 9 11, just before i became a Ranking Member, i was walking towards the dome of the capital at nine a. M. , to remind, thats where the Intelligence Committee rooms were, in the dome of the capital. Everyone now thinks that was the intended target of the fourth plane which went down in pennsylvania. They were aiming at us, obviously they were aiming at our government. And could have, maybe caused a continuity of government crisis, because congress did not have a thoughtful plan of what to do if the capital were attacked. But it has been a long road from then to now. The one thing that has not changed at all is, well, it did change for a while, but the one thing that is back is the bipartisan character of this committee. And i just want to commend all of you for holding hands. I gather you just went on a big trip, 11 of you, to the middle east. And everybody got along. You know, it was solidarity. And, to remind what i said, of what i said back in the day, the terrorists will not check our Party Registration before they blow us up. And it is a sobering thought, and it is worth keeping in mind, always, even in the toughest times. Even when partisanship aims to drag us apart, it cannot drag us apart on this. So you have asked about Lessons Learned from my long tenure on the committee. And it was here on this committee, probably the most important thing that we did after two enormous intelligence failures on 9 11, and on the iraq wmd and i. E. , was to play a key role in drafting a bipartisan basis, and passing irtpa, the intelligence reform and terrorist prevention act of 2004. Remember how brave pete hugs from, then Committee Chair was to join with others including me, susan collins, Joe Lieberman in supporting this, in spite of the opposition from the thenchair of the Armed Services committee and even vice president. The president was for it, they were against it and he briefly stood up and passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. As i said, our first piece of advice is to fight to keep the bipartisan reputation of the committee and to make certain of the overarching mission is to provide our country, to protect our country, not ones reelection, not that reelection does not matter, we all understand this, but to put the country first. And i applaud this committee, let me go to the topic i really want to address, for creating a Bipartisan Working Group to focus on the reauthorization of section 702 of fisa. To remind, in the 70s, i was working in the Carter White House on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed on a bipartisan basis to correct the abuses that had been identified by the Church Committee. It also set up this committee back in the day, and fisa was strictly adhere to over many, many years. Then, it turned out that after 9 11, the administration, instead of following fisa, went through the office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department and came up with a series of appearances to justify practices outside of fisa. And when Congress Found this out, which we did, it was disclosed by some reporters and then, president bush, 43, partially declassified a program underway, we in the congress, not just one party, worked to amend fisa, to modernize fisa, which should have happened long before, and to include section 700 to among other things. It was not perfect. Guess what, legislation is often not perfect. It probably needs to be updated and tweaked. But it should not expire. It should not expire, that will be hugely dangerous. I just want to make the point that this committee is on the case, and i really appreciate the efforts of all of you to try to find the best answers. My second recommendation is to make a i, Artificial Intelligence essential focus of your work. To do this, you need technical capacity in your staff. You also need technical capacity in your own heads, [laughter] i would suggest that digital natives, some of you might be that, i am not one of those people, really have to understand how the Technology Works in order to help you embrace it, put guardrails around it, and to understand that a. I. Has huge dangers, but also has huge advantages. And as open sourced intelligence becomes an increasing part of the intelligence enterprise, a. I. Will be all over. And you have to understand what can happen there. Third piece of advice, focus on china as a peer competitor, but do not surge everything on china. The world remains dangerous. Think north korea, think iran, think some things which are going on in africa. Think domestic extremists. Think all of the things in addition to china, that you have to stay focused on. So you need a whole of world approach to the intelligence enterprise. And i suggest again, while focusing on chinas probably, and i would think this as well, the number one threat, keep brain cells and attention on other things. Finally, the i c and congress should be commended for the classified intelligence, has a role to play in deterrence and the broader u. S. Security. The declassification of intelligence on ukraine was central in preparing the ukrainians for the fight and ensuring that the world recognized russian aggression for what it was, and for making sure that the russians knew that we were staying one step ahead. Back in my day, not only was their overclassification, which remain a problem, but also there was an aversion to any declassification. And it is a very good, i think, deterrent. It was used skillfully by our Intelligence Committee this time. So in conclusion, many of these tasks are different now from my days on the committee. But the challenge of terrorism, and the challenge of china endured. And this committee is on it. So, i am just optimistic about what you can do, working together, and what we would all like to do to help you. This is a happy little band of bipartisan friends. And we are here to help. And i think it was an inspired idea to have this hearing, to let us all hug each other again, thank you. Excellent. Mr. Lobiondo . Think you mister chairman, chairman turner and mr. Himes for putting this together. It is an honor and pleasure to be here today, to share my inserts from serving on the House Intelligence Committee for the final eight years of my 24 year tenure in the United States congress. My time on the committee was certainly some of the most personally rewarding and professionally challenging of opportunities in my career of public service. It is the privilege to have been appointed to ic, to chair the cia subcommittee for a period of time. As you know, there are many aspects of serving on fc that we cant discuss beyond the walls of the scif. Most americans will never know the true extent of the threats to our National Security, and the rule of those who serve on fc and city play in conjunction with the men and women of our Intelligence Committee in forwarding those planned attacks. That is what makes your job today so critically essential to securing our future going forward. Theres no shortage of issues before the committee for you to be rightly focused on. From russian aggression in europe, to north koreas provocation in asia, from Irans Nuclear ambitions to the erosion of Democratic Institutions across the globe. The geopolitical picture is increasingly complex, while the security situation is exponentially more fragile. But i want to focus my remarks today on a region, often overlooked by u. S. Policy makers, to the detriment of our own National Security interests, and security overall. And that is africa. The dual threat of chinas systematic expansion alongside the resurgence of terrorist recruitment and training makes ignoring africa a grave and strategic mistake for the United States. The Unfinished Business of our Intelligence Committee is crucial to understanding chinas advances, and the operational capabilities that terrorist groups are developing in various locations on the continent. During my time on the committee, i made approximately two dozen trips to the african continent. My primary focus was the front lines of engagement in the most hostile regions of our intelligence case officers and u. S. Special forces. Places like somalia, angela, molly, niger, djibouti, not the destinations american tourists or state visits. I was often the first sitting member of congress to visit some of these places in decades. In the five years since my last trip, the situation has only grown more desperate from my vantage point. And the biggest geopolitical challenge to the United States is taking advantage of that. Let me be blunt. I believe china is bribing its way across the african continent, creating economic partnerships with impoverished african nations for its own Global Security objectives, from security leasing rights for rare earth minerals, to assessing key transportation infrastructure along the atlantic and indian ocean. China has muscled its way into the void created by lack of sustained u. S. Policy and engagements by numerous administrations. In my opinion, our diplomatic engagement has been marginalized for compelling priorities while our intelligence collection capabilities have been wholly inadequate for the entirety of the 21st century. This is providing opportunities not only for china, but for the direct threats the u. S. Interests and assets. Weak central governments across the subsaharan are allowing terrorist groups like alshabaab and boko haram to expand Operational Training grounds to export their death and destruction to western democracies, where their main goal of attacking the United States. Offshoots of alqaeda and i. S. I. S. Are looking to the congo, burkina faso, libya, Central African republic and other economically depressed nations to gain a foothold. Recruitment of young men to terrorism is made easier by the sense of disillusionment with their own governments, fueled by abandonment by the United States in the region. What keeps me up at night is the critical mistake the u. S. Could make by further reducing intelligence capabilities in africa. Instead of reducing, we must really ramp up, not cut back. Federal resources and man power we have in the cia nsa and other intelligence partners to get a better understanding of how badly we are falling behind is important. A robust Human Intelligence Program on the continent would give a greater insight into how these terrorist groups are developing their operational capabilities. And in my view, from my time on the committee and all of the trips, there is no substitute for human intelligence. The ability to develop human intelligence source takes years. The language barriers, the customs, all that goes on. And when we let that go, we are letting a key part of our ability to understand what happens go. Furthermore, let me take this opportunity to say that the briefings in washington are no substitute for the feedback that i or you can receive when engaging station chiefs or an analyst in the field. The on the scif and outside of washington is where u. S. Members of the committees will get the unvarnished assessments to help you better do your jobs and budgets. When you sit down with a station chief in one of these god forsaken remote areas, you all understand the sacrifices, not only that they make about how critical their input is to the work that you do for the authorization for intelligence communities. Without their input, i do not believe that langley can give you a good picture of what needs to be done. I came to quickly realize the more hostile the environment, the more honestly conversation with those men and women, who volunteered for those posts. Make no mistakes, they are volunteers. They are not directed to go there. They are sacrificing a great deal. Thus, ongoing direct contact with cia station chiefs in very challenging countries is absolutely necessary to understand the authorization needs of the intelligence communities, to ensure that the u. S. Does not fall behind. Let me conclude by saying that the job is not done. Far from it. And now, you, who are charged with the critical work of providing federal resources, Political Support and yes, vigorous oversight to the Intelligence Community, you are also charged with being uniformed in the application of those duties across the agencies, while Holding Accountable those who will be used the Authority Interested to them. The National Security notion of this committee must be, bipartisan. It must be nonpartisan. Historically, this was implicit fact rather than explicit objective. It was this way during my time on the committee, at least most of it. And for many former members of this panel today, regrettably changed in the years following my retirement. Now in 2023, after years of political agendas infiltrating the National Security debate, there is a confidence returning to those of us who still work in this base because of clear, concerted efforts by chairman turner and Ranking Member himes, and all of you to diligently focus on doing the nations work, rather than scoring political points. On behalf of those of us who are encouraged by what we have seen so far, from new joint media appearances to the recent bipartisan code of intelligence partners in the middle east, the time you have set tell her that if c is once again focused solely on the National Security mission of this great nation. Thank you for turning pepsi to its fundamental troops, and because of that, i sit here before you as a willing partner and resounding advocate for your efforts, i hope my testimony can be helpful to your critical work and i look forward to any questions you might have. Thank you once again for this opportunity. Thank you. Miss ross layton . Thank you, chairman, Ranking Member, and to all of my colleagues, former colleagues. I am very honored to be before you, offering my limited perspectives. First i want to commend the intelligence work for the china, both the u. S. And taiwan. Likewise, i commend the importance of placed on the continued ignorant of the uranium by iran. Thats my take on nationstate threats. Good intelligence regarding nation states, useful, motivating, improved military funding and readiness which i believe are both inadequate today. Second, like most people, i want everything, which means i urge the u. S. And the committee to not significantly reduce the profile of the Counter Terrorism threat. For example, the 9 11 Commission Report urged improved border security, yet public support but our southern border giving the impression that we no longer take the recommendations of the 9 11 seriously. What is the terrorist threat, on conditions in our southern border . Third, i think at some point, work and cooperation with the Foreign Affairs committee, which he had the honor of serving as a Ranking Member. And other relevant committees might prove useful and productive. Of course, i recognize the secrecy issue of information that might provide some severe restrictions. Fourth, out of the public would appreciate a thorough review of any possible pieces of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, fisa. I always believed that fisa is useful and important, but the effectiveness and longevity of vice that will ultimately depend on Public Confidence in its application. Fifth, a religious subject is the governments relationship to the foreign Intelligence Surveillance report. Reports of false statements to the court, or they accurate . What are the consequences . Perhaps the greatest damage to our Public Confidence are the reports of government misrepresentation to the court, with apparently little negative consequences to the government. Sixth, the committee should consider what strengthen sanctions may be added to fisa to fight obese. I hope a strong and vibrant pfizer mains while the uses are curtailed. Of course, broad fines authority and strong restrictions and sanctions for abuse may seem contradictory, and unless carefully drafted, they may indeed be contradictory. So good luck and somehow achieving both goals. But i have the confidence that you can find your way through that maze. Finally, as my other colleagues have said, i was so pleased to observe that the bipartisan nation of this committee, once again, with the speaker and minority leader emphasizing non partisanship at your first meeting, that goes a long way to setting the tone. And the intelligence was my favorite committee, while it was nonpartisan in approach, it did not stay that way. I am pleased as punch to see that bipartisan spirit alive and well once again. That is thanks to both you, mister chairman, the Ranking Member and all of the members. Thank you for this privilege. Thank you. Mr. King . Thank you, chairman turner. Member himes. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify this morning at the hearing. Alongside colleagues, i the privilege of sharing on this committee, im very appreciative. Also natick a moment to mention some of your staff members. First of all mike was tremendous, getting ready for the hearing. And the work for me as chairman of Homeland Security committee, now with intel, i thank them for years of good work. John, a new member of the Committee Staff, he grew up with my children, work in my District Office years ago. Went on to a great career in the military, now he is here with the committee. I wish john well. Lisa major is here, somewhere in the gallery. When i was on the committee, she was assigned to me is my unofficial intelligence, she did a great job. I want to thank you for that. Listen, no committee is more vital or essential for National Security and this Intelligence Committee. Im sure each of you on the panel, could be at a greater level of committee of bipartisanship, the greater the likelihood of the committee for fulfilling its mandate. The issue is a potential of crisis, which faces the committee on many, with china, russia, iran, cyber security, boris security and the invasion of ukraine being just a few. In no waypqn■ what i suggest ths committee diminish its focus on any of these critical areas. What i am urging, though, is with all of the legitimate concerns with any Intelligence Committee, the congress, the media on the issues i listed, i asked the committee for at least elect focus, to have the threat of alarmist terrorism, and all facets of our government keep a similar focus. As a new yorker, i lost many hundreds of friends, neighbors and constituents on 9 11. I will never forget the horror of that day as a member of this committee. Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security, i dedicated myself to all i could to prevent another 9 11. The defense isnt counting measures put in place after 9 11 have been largely successful. But 9 11 is not ancient history. Its something that should not be relegated to the rearview mirror, or is the continuing terrorist threat should be ignored, it affects the entire country. Unfortunately, too often americans have short term memory only. Its almost an eight and a half to get put in the First World Trade Center bombing, in february 1993, and the attacks of 9 11. International terrorism was an issue that 2000 president ial race, received little to any Media Coverage in the months leading up to 9 11, on a bipartisan note, let me emphasize that one person who never lost focus was congresswoman harman, a commander for that. Today ices, alqaeda or large groups, that affiliates have been on the retreat, but are still very lethal force. Americans in afghanistan, they brought on our security and instability in the middle east, eating to their brutality. I strongly support the efforts against russian aggression in ukraine, but we cant allow that necessary struggle to take our allies attention away from the cooperative anti terror measures which took place after 9 11. We have learned the harsh reality that islamist terrorists are dedicated to destroying america, and our way of life. They have a great capacity to adjust, you must ensure we never, ever relived the horror of 9 11. Thats my message to you, focus on everything you are doing. Again, let me repeat what my colleagues have said. To see this committee working in a bipartisan way means so much. Without going into detail, the last two years that ileana, frank and i, every meeting was a war, a battle. Chairman, im sure you know, im not trying to ascribe blame, but im trying to thank turner and jim himes for what they are doing, bringing this committee together with one voice. We can fight over so many different issues. Theres no need to be making intelligence a bipartisan issue. What you are doing here today with this session in congress is really great for the country. So thank you for what you are doing. I yield back. Thank you, mister langevin . As usual, great job. Thank you, chairman turner and Ranking Member himes. This distinguished members of the committee, my former colleagues. I want to begin by thanking you for welcoming me here today. Great to be here at this distinguished table of former colleagues as well. I am sure you are looking forward to talking about something i care deeply about, and that is the subcommittee on intelligence. I had the privilege of serving on the hipc from 2000 72,015. Hipc is a special committee, as we all know, chartered some of the most important word in congress, and much of this work cannot be discussed publicly, for obvious reasons. The Intelligence Committee, in supporting its mission, is a privilege which comes with enormous responsibility. Because hipc members are granted a unique access to some of the most sensitive, critical activities that our government undertakes. The committee of course is always at its best when you can operate with bipartisan in a nonpartisan letter. And in the words my colleagues here, at the table, for that reason, i am pleased to see the tone struck by chairman turner and Ranking Member himes, and their sheer commitment to that approach, it is so important. As i look back on my service on the committee, as well as my service on the services committee, i thought i might mention a few priorities i hope this committee will keep in mind. So, to begin with, emerging technologies have and will continue to fundamentally change the world. The rest of our United States and allies will become more discouraged and more dangerous. Artificial intelligence, cyber security, and autonomy, synthetic biology, micro electronics, advanced computer, software and more all present new threat streams as well as new opportunities. The committee must continue to push the Intelligence Community to confront as well as adapt and leverage, adapt and leverage to these technologies. Artificial intelligence in particular, and Machine Learning will be particularly impactful. These capabilities have the possibility of advancing very noble goals and pushing humanity forward. Particularly when they reflect on democratic values. But, they also raise enormous challenges. I am continually struck by the fact that any of these individuals that have helped develop and scale Artificial Intelligence right now are among the staunchest advocates to ensuring that it is regulated and used responsibly. This is an area that the United States, the congress and committee should really seek to lead. And the impact that Artificial Intelligence and be massive amounts of data now available, well have, the impact it will have now on the Intelligence Committee is particularly acute. Artificial intelligence and Machine Learning could fundamentally change how the Intelligence Committee collects and analyzes data, and provides insight to policy makers. But, it also presents an enormous challenge, as many more appropriate for voicing different settings. But i can say that we could erase adversaries like china, who develop and employ this technology, the winner will garner a massive, potentially insurmountable advantage. I present however, i think in some ways the government is not leading the way in many emerging technology areas. And the best technology, and the most talented people along with the Largest Investments are often in the private sector or academia. The government should continue to press the Intelligence Community to find novel ways to leverage the capabilities and skills through the country, particularly from companies, universities and organizations that do not have an established history of partnering with the government. During my service in congress, now in the private sector, i almost daily encounter companies that have incredible technology, and the National Security community really does need it. They often lack a Clear Pathway to contribute to the Nations Defense and the Intelligence Communitys mission. So likewise, it is a National Security imperative to attract and retain highly skilled, trained workforce. We could have all of the policies and the structure in place that we want. Without lead people to implement it, we are at a disadvantage. So, for one example, there are approximately 700,000 jobs in cybersecurity right now that go unfilled. So the Intelligence Community has, i think, the best mission in the world. It must be willing to adapt to and attract a new generation of Critical Skills. I would encourage the committee to push the Intelligence Community to have different ways to make career progression more flexible for intelligence, to the employees, to create cultures that foster innovation and develop more robust pathways for University Students to serve in the National Security community. In fact, im treating right now an institute on cyber and emerging technologies, with my alma mater. I think this is a great model for bridging the gap between students with Critical Skills and the National Security community. And i will extend an invite to all of you to visit it when it is up and running. The institute expose a Diverse Group of students to cutting edge technology, helping them to develop the skills that the Mission Needs to be successful. In closing, i will also say, attracting a Diverse Group of highly skilled, patriotic americans to the Intelligence Community is an imperative. I can think of fear places where we are having a diverse workforce, where its more critical commission success than the Intelligence Community. I encourage the committee to explore ways to advance this fundamental requirement. In closing, thank you again for the opportunity to speak today on issues im so passionate about. And again, i commend chairman turner, Ranking Member himes for the bipartisan tony struck. This committee is strongest when we Work Together in a bipartisan or nonpartisan way. Thank, you mister chairman, i yield back, and thats my time. I want to thank all of you for your excellent comments. It really does show the range of your work. I always try to describe it to people, that the Intelligence Committee is really like a committee of all subCommittee Chairs. Because everybody has their own portfolio, their own lane. They engage on it, they advocate for it. And you evidenced that in your comments. I want to thank you for your bipartisanship statements. You are sitting here, presenting to us on a bipartisan basis. You worked when you were in these chairs on a bipartisan basis. We certainly, and in honoring you, can see us doing so, so thank you so much. Three quick areas to ask questions about. 700 to, obviously thats one of our biggest issues. I can tell you, that bipartisanship on this issue has been very important. Also, bipartisanship, a complete resolve, 702 needs to be reauthorized, but fisa, in its enlarged capacity needs to be reformed. And we are undertaking that process. I look forward to your recommendations to us as we go through that. There are some great ones out there. Jane and ileana, you both mentioned the abuses that Congress Lead in both establishing them, to stop abuses in the Intelligence Community, amended them, modernize them to stop abuses. We have seen, its been publicly discussed, publicly released here later, the fisa courts opinion was released that documented fisa abuses of americans, what i consider to be civil rights. However, in reforming, we have to recognize the importance of the doing. So i am going to ask pete, jane, ileana, if each of you would take a moment and talk about the importance of fisa and 700 to as a tool, and how important it is that we do the collections for foreign National Security, at the same time we undertake those. I will start with jane. Miss harman . Thank you, mister chairman. Again, thank you all for your service and at every critical time. Lets remember that fisa stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Foreign intelligence, focused on non u. S. Persons, but designed to prevent of these of u. S. Persons and obviously, to find out what the threats to our country are. And when we amended fisa after discovering it, as i said, the bush 43 administration was not following it, we did our best to target nonu. S. Persons outside the u. S. , to come up with a strategy that would get information, including information ultimately from the u. S. Persons if they were in the chain from foreign intelligence targets. And we did okay. We did pass these amendments on a bipartisan basis, but we have them sunset every five years, thats what we are talking about. The end of this year is the second or third sunset of our effort to amend fisa. You are right, it still leads work. I would make two points. Number one, how important it is to have our activities in this area be strictly under law. That was the chapter that we missed in the early bush 43 days. To be fair to them, and us, we all thought we would be attacked again. So we were struggling to make sure that what they thought were best protections were in place, but they should have come to congress. And we would have helped craft something maybe more careful than what we do craft. My bottom line is that there are excellent people on this committee, and outside of the committee, i would just mention, as i have to some of the, glenn gerstell, the former general counsel of nsa, who is leading a hearty band which i am part of, to come up with the best design suggestions for amendments that might be in place, and you are not wrong that there were some poor practices. You are not wrong that this legislation is essential, so i would just urge that you meet with these folks, get the best ideas and approach this again, and i nonpartisan basis, because the terrorists want check our Party Registration before they blow us up, thank you. Thank, you i will build on what my friend jane has said. Fisa abuses hurt the publics credibility in all ours, and when abuses occur, public support is eroded. And fisa abuses may include, and weve seen this in recent years, exceeding authority by Government Agencies when carrying out foreign intelligence activities which do not require specified targeted court order or misusing private information in a way not authorized by law or abuses of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Processes. , by the government, and abuses of the Court Processes include misrepresentation by the government in court when they make these applications and the suspicion that some court orders were sovereign occasion for political purposes. So i think that weve gone through a few difficult years of abuse of both fisa and the court and i think that that Public Confidence can be enhanced by the reforms that this committee will make to both fisa itself and to the courts so thank you for the opportunity. Mr. King . Chairman, i would swear say, first of all that i believe that we will intercept and monitor threats coming to the u. S. , any type of foreign threat we can monitor it is essential we have to maintain that, and at the same time we have to realize that there have been abuses of intentional and unintentional and i think among the unintentional once that technology has gone up in protections we have in place. So i would just ask when you do this, you do work on it, and it not be done in abused in a way that realizing that is always going to be some abuse that you want to minimize as much as you can what happened in the past should be used and protection for the future not just to pass blame around, and having seen 9 11 jane i the time sows franken eliahna, we never want to be in that position again of having incel out there that we wouldnt monitor up and surveil at the same time we dont want american rights violated and if i can just make one remark which is off point to bid, one thing of note since we left the congress is that i want to give congressman freddie the thicket content. He was able to suffer through might new york accent without a transit, its the first time years hes been able to listen to me, so thank you. Thank you on that. Mr. Cornet them beyond it lobiondo, i greatly appreciate your dedication of going to africa and to advancing our intelligence, our goals, and also paying attention to places that, as you, said it many people hadnt gone in a long time. They thought the members of congress adopted members of the administration. Cornet could you tell us about some of the reactions that you got and when you go, those countries feel neglected and when you meet with those officials the reaction that they have in the fact that you are there has to be credible, you leave with a to do list, which is actionable when you come back but also, as you are describing our u. S. Personnel dont get the attention that they deserve their. They have limited Resources Limited access both on the state department, on the Intelligence Community, and you are actually being present, im certain, made a huge difference so tells us some of those impacts so, in some of these places that dont get a lot of attention, for a lot of different reasons, the intelligence personnel that we have on the ground, while they are very dedicated, i think sometimes they feel ignored and neglected, that is what i got out of it and it was unbelievable to see the reaction of wanting to share their thoughts with a member of the Intel Committee on what was important why it was important what they needed and why they needed it and very often i would have discussions about what we were thinking of doing and reauthorization bill, and to try to get their take on it. And it was pretty remarkable. I mean sometimes i would get, that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard, dont ever do, it it is not going to help, us its going to hurt us or you know weve been asking for this for a long time you really need to make this happen and that you also will have the opportunity, as you know those of you who have traveled, that you will not only meet with your Intelligence Community but with some of the in country officials sometimes it might be the president or the Prime Minister or some highranking official which the state department uses us to transmit messages to them and that response was pretty remarkable as well. Sometimes i was chided by those country officials by cornet, it was done tactfully. But basically, you know, we didnt think the u. S. Knew we were here. And that is not the message that we want to send. We have an opportunity to show them that it matters, and being a partner with the u. S. Is a good thing. And then, last but not least, i always took the opportunity and found that it was very rewarding to sit down with the personnel, some of the stations were very small, not many of them had more than 15 people or so but to be able to thank them because they are giving up and sacrificing so much but it is also the opportunity because they dont have much contact with washington to be able to ask questions to help them better understand why their commitment to serving their country and some of these places is really important the. I was struck often by the station chief who emphasized that as i mentioned in my remarks that human intelligence is critically important, it is not enough on its own it has to be combined with signal intelligence and im probably saying stuff all of you already know, but it is critically important that we dont let this go. Signal intelligence sort of takes care of itself with technology as it advances in the nsa does its job, but on the human intelligence side, it is easy to say. For our government that this is too involved we are not going to do it, it is too costly, et cetera, et cetera. And that is a huge. Mistake. Thank, you i agree with your comments, frank. Its excellent that you made that point on human intelligence. Mr. Lineman but, is your legacy of your comments i want to introduce you to one of our new staff persons that you will be excited about, because you have made that a point of the Armed Services committee and here. That technology and innovation and being on the cutting edge is incredibly important and that companies as they innovate have difficulty in walking through the door, and there is no clear path for them to go. In our establishing of this for this congress, we created a technology and innovation protection staff member that whose job is just that, i would like to introduce you to jonathan clifford. Jonathan is eager to meet with you we just had a conversation with him during your comments. Chiraz the, and i invite each of you to the extent that you have innovation and companies and things that we need to be looking at, that is. Job we found, as my notes show like all of you did that when somebody gets in touch with us with innovation and we tried to assign it to someone who has a full portfolio and intelligence, that they dont have the ability to really assist them or to rack down what we need to be doing we now have someone whose job is just that. I want to ask you about your institute, cyber has been such an important aspect of what youve undertaken on both the Armed Services committee and hear and Cyber Defense is incredibly important but so is cyber offense. And youve been an advocate for hey, we have to make certain that we are doing everything that we can. Could you talk for a moment about offense and defense, that we need to be playing in both . Thank you for the question, mister chairman. I commend you for adding the new staff member whose job it will be to be the point person for new emerging technologies. Thats gonna help to keep this committee and quite, frankly this, country on the cutting edge to make sure that we are bringing those capabilities in. On the cyber offensive defense both important of, course always but and these delirium commission, we came up with three but main premise and that is to deny benefits. Shape, behavior but also impose costs so on the defensive side it is really incredibly important that we build in resilience absolutely critical. Because, and we have to assume as the administration resembles and has an executive order, is moving to whats called the zero trust violent. You have to assume that the adversaries are going to get in but if they do get in you want to limit, obviously you can do everything you can to prevent them again, but prevent them from going and getting anything of value, so building in that resilience things like, the encryption, both at rest and in transit. Had that happen, for example the opiates that happened years ago that would have not gleaned the atmosphere wouldnt got anything of any value but the data was an encrypted and, unfortunately, its probably led to untold damage the. So building in that resilience, the adversary out, but if they do get in there not about to get anything of value. Shaping behaviors another one, and that is working with our partners and allies, of course to establish norms and calling out and punishing of those who violate those norms and it might, for example, attack our Critical Infrastructure or compromises in other ways working with partners now is incredibly important. But then, at the end of the day we have to have the ability to impose costs on our enemies and adversaries and if they do attack us, compromise, or do damage to our allies and partners. Perfect case in point is the work that is done right now by u. S. Cyber command. In partnership with the nsa, u. S. Cyber command and nsa have a Critical Mission to defend forward. And, obviously, the nsa, working with u. S. Cyber command informs that we are vulnerabilities are with the adversaries are. And it keeps them out of our networks but also will work with our partners and allies to impose costs on the adversary. So ukraine is a perfect case and point. We talked about this publicly about how in both to russia invading ukraine that we were working with ukrainians to build in resilience, and then after the russian invasion, the networks were more secure as a result of our work with them. But the ability to hit an adversary or to take down the servers and their ability to operate, it is a capability that we reserve and we need to employ at critical times which i know we dont. Excellent, jim himes. Thank you, mister chairman, and a big thank you again to our panel i want to circle back around 2702 because it is one of the two or three big things that we have to do in this committee this year, the reauthorization, and i think in this room we understand how essential 702 authorities are to stopping lethal fentanyl, to stopping cyberattacks to stopping terrorist attacks and to understanding what is happening inside iran, north korea, and china. We have a lot of work to do to explain that to our colleagues and there are two legitimate, but i think overblown lines of criticism against 7021 is if you read the sort of headlines of the privacy, groups that it is a massive Warrantless Surveillance Program of americans, of course, it is not that. It is targeted exclusively at non u. S. People. It is actually quite small. There is a total of about 250,000 702 targets all non u. S. Persons. The fbi which does u. S. Person queries has access to about 7800 of those targets. So it is in fact, quite small. And it is subject to regular we authorization by the pfizer courts and therefore, constitutional scrutiny. Theres another line of thinking which is the fbi, who should be held accountable for some pretty significant abuses of fisa, including the release lately of fisa which was indicated improper searches about people associate with blm and the january 6th attacks. That line of thinking basically says that the fbis irredeemable on reformable and that is politically motivated and its actions despite the fact that, of course, the inspector generals report found that whatever errors may have occurred in crossfire hurricane they were not politically motivated. So, one very specific question now and i will aim it at you, jim, is what advice would you have for us with respect to reforms, and messaging to those who are legitimately, legitimately, concerned about protecting the Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights of americans, and peter because you had so much contact with the fbi i want you to give us the same advice with respect to reforms and messagings with respect to the fbi in particular. But chairman let start with you but. Jim, thanks to the question. I will say that during my time on hipsy, as well as on services, i understand the value of 702 authorities and i to agree that it should be reauthorized. And on that, bipartisan approach i can remember when 702 was up for reauthorization in private years, both ranking with chairman rodgers and Ranking Member reubens burger, got us together, got us and we went out to an essay and got the briefing of the value that 702 brought, and how it allowed us to track down, and in some, cases remove some of our hardened enemies from the battlefield that were attacking us, and the checks and balances that are used to make sure that 702 is used only within the confines of the law. So i just want to make that point of how important it is, and, again it was a bipartisan effort that led to its reauthorization, i hope that would happen again with this committee and this congress. Kyung in terms of other areas of government, or if there are key those who misuse authorities that isnt what oversight is all about. In this committee, the ig investigations or other checks and balances. And people, certainly, if they step outside the confines of the law, should be held accountable. And i, would obviously, that is one oversight is really all about. But not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, maybe we can make sure that these programs that keep countries safe are in place, stay strong. But again, oversight and accountability will be important as well and having a transparent approach to how these authorities are used as is possible. Thank you, jim. And again, peter, i direct the question what the fbi and u. S. Personnel because theyre not enough members have as much contact over the decades as you did with the fbi. Thank you, jim. First of all, i think we should go back to the 1970s, Church Committee which did find so many abuses that have been carried out. I think we, in response to that, have so many restrictions put in place that we were caught off guard on september 11th, with the wall between the fbi and the cia. And that led to the whole expression of connect the dots. We have to find a way to connect the dots, and that was one of the reasons for expansion of pfizer, 702, and so, it was certainly well intended. There had been abuses, that is no doubt, im not saying i disagree with you. Whether or not there was political bias, i do think there was a gender bias for certain people in the fbi, where they couldve gone either way, and they went to the extent of somewhat convincing himself that there was crushing and i not trying to change that debate, and whether was intentional or, not it shows the danger that you cant have somebody does want to abuse, it they can, whether its a lot of good intentions are not. So we have to find a way not to relive what happened after the Church Committee hearings put some restrictions in place, but the fbi cant do its job but find other ways to monitor it and also, that there are sanctions there whether abuses are intentional or unintentional, the people nearby know that there will be sanctions against them if they do violate it, we have to understand i dont want us to, but i dont want any legislation to come out of the house, which is going to restrict Intelligence Community from doing what has to be done. So it is really a fine line that you have to draw between making sure that we have fully protected, but also to prevent some of the abuses intentional, or unintentional, that did occur during the last 567 years. Might i add one thing to that . And that is, i have said for years that security and liberty are not a zero sum game. You either get more of a both, or less of both. So i think the challenge for Miss Committee and i think this committee is totally up to it, and so is its ace staff is to do both at the same time. But reform 702 to some extent, have penalties for those who would willfully violate it. But at the same time, move ahead. With a critical function of government. We would lose a huge amount, it would be a negative sum game if we gave up a 702. , think you. I appreciate that, and peter, thank you for the answer. Because language is so important and it is very philly effort and heavy left both ig horowitz and the Durham Report found confirmation bias, that is to say that once the fbi was going down a path, they kept going down that path. But both explicitly said that they did not find political bias in the creation of, anyway, i think the distinction is really important there. So i dont know that we disagree. But i do think that the precision of language is important. But when i was trying to make was whether or not it was intentional or not, i did say in those hearings that there was, they were convinced there was collusion, and they operate from that premise. Whether that was done for policy purposes, or whatever, it shows that abuses can be had, whether intentional or unintentional. Absolutely. Okay, last question, because i want to be respectful my colleagues time here. Jim, i want to direct this question to you. Is a technology question. Artificial intelligence. We are in a weird position in a congress right now because half of a. I. Experts are telling us that a i stands a 10 chance of leading to human extinction. And, you know, a lot to people very much more knowledgeable than we are raising the alarm and saying that it is really time to regulate a. I. The problem, of course, is that almost nobody offers actionable suggestions, and it is a really tough area, right . Because we are talking about information and the congress is quite rightly, by the First Amendment prevented from doing an awful lot of regulation information. So my question to you, jim, is, and if anybody wants to pipe in quickly. But let me start with jim, what are some actionable steps that the congress should be taking right now with respect to Artificial Intelligence . Yeah, so i, like many, see the promise of a. I. , but im also concerned that it could go sideways and it could do things that are just unpredictable. So i will just say this i would actually argue that you should be working with industry and hearing what they think would be appropriate bumper guards, if you will, regulation in that area. And making sure that at the outset, first and foremost, that as a i hasnt developed, that it is a hard understanding of the importance of protecting privacy Civil Liberties, so that it cannot reach those types of barriers, hopefully. That, obviously, whenever a eye is used with technology, that there is a requirement, that there is a person in the loop, especially when life and death decisions, could be made. So we can think of how a i will be able to bring together and make sense and analyze massive amounts of data in a short amount of time. That can provide policy makers with the very best information, and again, that is why it is so Intelligence Committee, is that ive always believed that the best intelligence is always going to be the plenty tip of the spear. Because you know where your enemies and adversaries are, or threats are coming from, you can move more quickly to dress or take out those threats. But when you are talking about employing technology and incorporating a eye within those capabilities, you have to make sure that there is a person in the loop so that it is a kill chain for example that fits the person reason is, its not the a i. Thank you, before i yield, does anybody have a very Quick Intervention on actionable things that congress should be doing with respect to a. I. . Okay, in that case, i will yield back. Thank, you mister chairman. Mr. Kelly . Thank you, mister chairman. Thank all of yall, and mr. Stewart wanted me to yield time just to tell you, thank, you for all of yall are doing in the National Security world, and what you have done for our nation. Especially in the icy so. He wanted to thank you all for being here, and i relay his best. On, second mr. Lobiondo, a kind of see the world the same way that you do an over ways, and i made over 20 visits to africa. Mostly in north africa, the sale, and those areas that a lot of people dont go to. I also think that there is a lot of value that we are missing in the southern hemisphere, and i dont see that as violent extremism, or terrorism, or all those things. I see it as the great power competition. Can you comment a little bit on just with the longevity of a relationship, being in those places, and do you agree with me that south america is a huge return on investment if we just invest a little there . Congressman kelly, thank, you very much, and thank you for your willingness to get out to these remote places and see firsthand what is going on. I totally agree with you, that the southern hemisphere, south america, is critical. As we move forward. Our challenge, or your challenge now, up as Committee Members is you have limited time to travel. And how do you pick where you go to get the biggest bang for your buck with information gathered as you come back . I know that i had several trips into colombian, south america. They were always very enlightening and formative. I chose to focus more on the african continent because it seemed like the challenges there from the terrorist groups and from an intelligence standpoint were much greater than they were in south america, but it is all important. I mean, you know, throwing a direct anyone on the globe, and youve got a challenge that youve got to deal with so, as you try to figure out what you are going to do and how you are going to do it, i think the feedback you will get from the people on the ground will it be critical, as it was for me with understanding what needs to be done, why needs to be done and maybe as important, because so few members travel with security clearances, that you do, to be able to communicate with your colleagues. Those critical areas that should be, very often, are passed over because, listen, they are time constraints. You only have to do so much with the time a lot. But colleagues need to understand why you went to africa. What you find out when you got there, we are south america, or some other places on the globe. This is for all of yall, listen. We are losing the pr fight to retain 702 and our authorities. And each of you know how valuable that is to protecting america. Unfortunately, the acts of a few bad people have tarnished the whole thing. And i dont think people understand how small that is, but any is too many. So i say that, so, some of yall have mentioned, and ive been in the military my whole life. My whole adult life. And there is a unit torrent code of military gestures. When you do things that are outside the scope, you are punished for that. There is no such thing in the icy. That is one of the things that i think that can help with 702, when somebody either recklessly or intentionally abuses the process, they should have consequences to that but would each of you real quickly just tell me one or two things that might help us convince the American People that fisa or 702 is good what can we change or reform. Up to add to that, i would say that publicize, get the fbi to admit, as they now have, what the abuses were, see if you can craft amendments specifically aimed at curbing abuses, and making those who willfully or willfully negligently violate the lawful boundaries pay the consequence. I think that that would be very helpful. But keep in mind there are two competing, but there have to be reconciled, goods here. One is protecting the security of america and the other is protecting the privacy of americans. We actually can walk and chew gum at the same time. If i could just add though to the travel deal. When i was here, we went to north korea once, that was very interesting, when porter gospel the chairman. And we also went twice, or i went twice, to libya, and red with mo mark puffy before the fall, and i remember after he fell i asked, who is guarding the arms caches . And i was told, oh, they are safe. No problem. Well guess what, all those arms, migrated to the sahel, which is basically an ungoverned part of north africa. So it is really important, frank is right. Pay attention, and final comment, there has been one i. S. I. S. Attack in the western hemisphere. He was in the u. S. , it wasnt in argentina, it was in the 90s, and it was a jewish center. And so we need to keep eyes on south america, we need to keep relationships, and hopefully, some of you will have the opportunity to do what frank did, which is to check in with a lot of posterior places that need to know that we are paying attention. My times expired, mr. Chairman. Let me just add to what my colleagues have said, especially jane, for the Jewish Community center in buenos aires, argentina, it was the largest terrorist attack by iranians, it was an iranian terrorist attack, and on the day that the independent prosecutor was going to present his evidence to the authorities in argentina, he had a mysterious death and undoubtedly, the iranians were behind that as well, and we will never know what went behind that operation. But clearly, iranian thumbprints were all over that terrorist attack, and where hundreds of innocent argentinians, including children, because they attacked a deer care center at the Jewish Community center died that day. And we are about to commemorate another anniversary just two weeks of that bombing, the greatest threat. Up mister chairman, my time is expired, i yield back. Mr. Carson. Thank, you chairman. So good to see so many of you who i have served with, and each of you has been an invaluable member of hipsy and we appreciate your service. They often say hide and hindsight, it is 2020 as, you look back on your service mom, do you see any Unfinished Business or maybe even investigations for the community that we might want to revisit . And had there been any of moments since you served on the committee . And now i have gone on to greater the status. I guess, i would say that 702 is not so much unfinished the fact is, we did have debates on during that time, we thought it was effectively addressed, obviously, more has to be done. So if you called out unfinished, but it is just a big process which probably, 20 years from, now people still be trying to work around this and find ways to make it effective. But also to protect her from abuses, and also. If i understand one thing, congressman kelly was saying, how can you get public support back from 702 and others. I think you should highlight the successes, like i dont know that it was going to be a liquid explosives attack on the new york city, subway system in 2009, and that wouldve been threatened to be cause because of. But im forehand, the dollars in the defects in the abuses, whether intentional, or unintentional, is almost an important in the long run. How you can direct those abuses. But i think, all of us who were here on 9 11, we saw that. We saw so many, quote a quote, protect tubes. So protections. But the mind was a place to make sure that liberties are being protected. It was overly done in a way that the dots were reconnected so i found a way to benzos do what i think that is probably the number one thing which is going to be as long as its going to be here i would say i would say, im not sure if its not how moment, but on my frequent trips. I came to realize that. While all of these towards groups other and focus, that they were really starting to combine forecasts, and that was something that worried me beyond what i could tell you, and i feisty this in alqaeda, alshabaab, and the rest of these, start sharing resources, sharing information, sharing technology, all aimed at us. Make no mistake, anything that they could kill or blow up this in a democracy, especially the u. S. And especially was while many of these countries had very limited resources and are very challenged that, for example, at the center for african republic, the president is virtually the mayor of the capital, not the president of the country. They have no ability to control what is going on in the hinterlands of their own territories, which means that these terrorist groups have an opportunity to set up Operational Training grounds, and go unfettered to what their deadly purpose is. And if we are to understand that, we would better know that we should be involved with these governments, aiding them in ways are appropriate to help our efforts in their. Many of them dont like this idea, but theyve got terrorists on their soil. But they cant do anything about, it they just dont have the ability to do it. That falls to the u. S. , and our partners, and you have some good partners. I know in the case of mali, that france was an excellent partner, and they were able to do some things that we were not able to do. When we were able to share intelligence information with them, they were very effective in what they were able to do to thwart that. I would commend you for hiring the technology and innovation staffer. That is a great focus, and many of the things jim has said it will be able to be accomplished because now you have someone who really understands the technology. The future threats are going to come from a i cyber and a lot of these things that werent around when i was here. And making sure that we not only have human intelligence and human beings focus on this. But leverage the technology to help human beings focus and help them to Leverage Technology focus is going to be a huge part of your future success or your future lack of success. I support janes comments, and, i agree with them, wholeheartedly. Couple of things that are left undone and that i would hope that the congress would take up, you remember, i think is around 2019, that the congress created the cyberspace solarium commission, and the commission was charged with creating an over arching strategy to better protect United States from sovereign texas impute consequence. To the recommendations that are still outstanding, while several, all the way to Great Success reading, there were 80 recommendations and about a third of them that were adopted already. So it was a long term goal. But establishing a bureau of diversities sticks, its a bit wonky, but without data, to analyze it is hard to know you have been the right policy steps to make and so certainly the Congress Passed the year or two ago with the instant reporting. That will require incidents if it gets to be reported, and that is being worked out with not live security right now. But a bureau would, again, be able to work with the private sector to collect the right amount of data, and keep the better policies. The final thing i would say is passing the joint collaborative the Public Private partnership is so important, and having a area of the most critical of Critical Infrastructure. Oh my gosh, terribly appointees, if you will. Working with the Intelligence Committee, to be able to analyze threat data in realtime is really important. Think of it in terms of opposed to passing emails back and forth. You are looking at google docs. You are seeing changes being made, so you can put context to the threats, that each side is saying. That is one of the things that is still on standing i think i know congress was talk about it again, i encourage both of those things to be knocked. Think, you mister lahood. Thank you, mister chairman, i want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. Ive heard the expression, when you leave congress, that you miss the circus, but not the clouds. Im glad you thought enough of us to come back here today and be with us today, have your voice, have your valuable testimony and your insight here today. I want to touch on a couple subjects. Weve heard a lot about 702 reauthorization today and how important that is. And i commend chairman turner and Ranking Member himes for creating a Bipartisan Working Group on 702 that i chair along with and work on my colleagues on that, and i would love to get my feedback on ideas, reforms, safeguards, i started the premise that a 85 pfizer works well, there is 15 that hasnt worked well, that is part of our oversight obligation and responsibility. We need to fix that 15 , so we are looking at those reforms and safeguards to get it to the abuses that weve seen at the fbi and other agencies to fix it. And to get it reauthorized. So we would love to get your feedback on that, soviet free to reach out to the working group and myself. I want to switch to another topic that has deals with the handling of classified information. Weve had several public instances of muss handling of organization. In some, ways very embarrassing, very unacceptable in terms of the behavior, you know, at the time, former President Trump invites president pence, and so we have looked up what can we do to look like the statue. So we had a quickly funny way to add Civil Penalties to the statute, which we currently dont have now. Formal federal prosecutor, finding out what are more tools we can add to the statue, ultimately, to deter the mishandling of classified documents. Which is a problem, i would love to get your feedback on ideas that you would have on either the classification process of whether, which we are looking at, but what more we can do to ensure that we dont have any instances of mishandling there. Start with you, peter, a lot on the line here. Thank you, hello. I think there is no vermont of classification, having said, that your lack of position is well as declassify. Assuming that is probably classified, to me, we have to make the sanctions more significant, not to be hunting down people. Obviously, theres gonna be human error, you have thousands, and thousands, of documents. That couldnt wait to enjoy it as much as possible, you can take them with you. By mistake . But whats the point, everything weve gotten to go get, not too slow walk, it not too in any way try immediate investigation, and i think the do is probably worthwhile, probably not for the quote unquote, first offense, once hes found its there, if it is there, the civil penalty should kick in. So, thanks darren, and i certainly would agree with peter that the overclassification, i dont know what the committee can do about that. But it is certainly something that should be looked at. And i think it falls into two categories. So youve got a situation like former President Trump, President Biden vice pence that had classified documents and what is the final analysis of that, one potential harm to do the country and how does that come about and what can we do to ensure when i highranking official is leaving office that it is very clear what they cannot take . But i think the second part of this is sort of the snowden part of it. That weve got people who willfully, intentionally, steal classified documents, give them to our enemies, and in my view, the penalties cannot be strong enough. There was not enough of a deterrent. These people need to understand if they are going to do this, and put the United States of america in jeopardy, that theyve got a very high price to pay. Not a slap on the wrist, not please dont do it again, not, well look at it differently, but a real robust penalty that is a deterrent. I feel very strongly about that. First, let me apologize to this committee. That i will have to leave at 11 sharp, this hearing may be over, but if i am root any of you, i apologize. On this topic, the last law that i was principal author was that overclassification act of 2010 or 2011, which president obama signed into law, and the point was there are steps we can take, congress can mandate to require portion marking of documents, you understand what that is, to educate folks who do classification about what the rules are. Classification protects sources and napa, not people from personal embarrassment or protect their turf. I mean, we have to get that. And, the executive branch has many different classification systems. So it is extremely hard for agency aid talk to agency d if you are classified documents involved. And that could be simplified. And this committee might take a lead on that. The last thing i would say is that the rules for declassifying by a president should be made much clearer. I cant imagine anyone ever intended that a president just thinking that things were declassified was enough of a trail to prove that they were declassified. And i think that ought to be written into regulation or legislation so that that cannot happen again. I agree with my colleagues have said, and public trust, anything that erodes, public trust, and our institutions, or individuals in power, that, is we are going to have a crisis in trust in our government, and trust in our institutions. Because of these perceived abuses of power, and whether its willful, unintentional, what are the penalties of these individuals that will be facing . There is a lot of confusion about classification of documents and when they can be declassified, and who can declassify, and i agree, there is too much classification. So i dont know what this committee can do about that. , but the penalties are unclear, and anything that erodes, Public Confidence in our institution is a detriment to the fabric of our representation. And i worry about this crisis, and all the polls indicate that when they ask the were on the right track, on the wrong track, im a zebra, what you think about what you think about this institution and this organization, and you see it diminishing every time. And that saddens me. Weve got to alter better job of, once again, getting the public trust in our institution, if not, this will be a great detriment. For the future her our government and our democracy. Likewise, i shared one of my colleagues the classification issues, i think there is a tendency often to overclassify things that arent necessarily classified. Youve i think weve all been in those briefings, and we came out of those briefings with scratching our heads, sometimes crying, it is really all of that, and often it is probably not, so we will get you in at things hottest is important. Holding people accountable if. There is violations of the rules. Having those checks and balances, transparency is vitally important to making trump in. The vast majority of people in the complicity and the War Community go to work every day, at the very best they can to work with the object communicate there, that the countries, and if there are a few bad apples it violate those rules, it hurts them. Everyone. So it has to be, that the accountability. One of the things i mentioned intention right here is talking about the highprofile leak that of hope and or betrayal of the old protections of classified protection. Is the oversight process, modern plutos, this is a very select special clearance. You know, obviously, protecting pride and Civil Liberties is the american experience. Because constitution laws. For those who have high level clearances, the should be a different level of scrutiny. You dont want the clearance. You dont want the scrutiny, than to accept the clearance. Just applied for this type of jobs. If you do have the clearance, there should be a review of the level of scrutiny that people are. Under if there were, so many of these creatures would have caught or early on, and has been one of the things that i guess im i wish we had done more to rein that in. More scrutiny on those who protecting privacy and Civil Liberties in writing a port and courts to curtain. It is a default level of scrutiny, you dont screw, neither dont ask for the questions. You dont want dont give it. Thank, you chairman. Thank, you all of. Yous grades the everybody again. Thank you for your service to this committee during the time you were in congress, i want to ask you all what is kind of a thorny question, but i dont mean it in the spirit of being combative or even opening a penthouse backs or rehashing old fights. But, given the events of the last several years, all of, us or many of us were serving in congress, or watch the russia investigation, and so forth. Some of the missteps the fbi, and so forth. And all of us have opinions on that. All of us are opposite opinions, but weve got another president ial election showing up. Weve got congressional recess every few years, my question is one that is important for the congress of the American People, which is, for those of you that have an opinion on this, when you think it is appropriate for our intelligence agencies for, the fbi, in this case, to look into any kind of delusion, or relationship, between, lets just say, any candidate and a foreign government. This could be a question as relevant ten years from now, or 20 years from now. Somebody may be colluding in 20 years with the prc. So given the events that we experience as a country and as a congress, you know, and, i know people werent thinking about this question, but as you sit here as members who saw this committee, who sat in congress, your thoughts on that. If any . I was here, first of all, it is important that jimmy in vault with, unintentionally, or intentionally. I do think there is a higher threshold before you go public, before they go to the pfizer core, and before it becomes almost a theme that there is definitely collusion there probably make an argument in many cases that there is always some evidence of some foreign involvement, and you can have a full scale investigation that there is an application to fisa core and that there should be, not done and even a workshop okay, im not disputing a fact, and probably say more so than ever how far are involvement is, and so many different ways. Here we are, in many ways, one world now, and so my concern was not with the fact there was looked into, i thought was looked into, in an uneven way, and we have to try to avoid that in the future i must make this clear the fbi i had a very good work relationship with the fbi in new york, that was not an issue. Some people the top levels of the fbi had, you know, real disagreements with. But no, just like we shouldnt put in such restrictions at 702 is not gonna work. We should also put restrictions that investigations of farmer collusion should not be looked into. Again it is about balance. Agreeing with peter king, which of course, is im want to do too often. I think that the threshold for these agencies getting involved needs to be somehow determined that it seems that each one would have an arbitrary way to determine if they are going to perform certain information. This should be irrefutable evidence and there should be a standard that they have to follow, so that we dont have to go chasing down rabbit holes without good reason. Now, following up on those things that are proven to be critical and important, it must be, don has to be done, but there has got to be a more uniform way than its determined to have moved forward. I think, especially with the fbi. Colluding with a foreign power under circumstances that you described, is afghanistan. And the laws should apply equally to everyone. It is true that some allege that there were abuses by the fbi. We do not have to go there right now. The essay ice had a mixed history, certainly, it starred under J Edgar Hoover and some of the other activities on various watches. But i remember bob mueller, coming into the fbi, i think it was four days after or four days before 9 11, that was when we discovered that the dots were not connected, and that parts of the fbi were not talking to other parts of the fbi, and heroic actions by him and a team to make the place work well. So im not sure which would set the standards, but i think it is crucial that we not take certain activity out of the purview of our Law Enforcement agencies, because, espionage, by anyone, is a crime. And i agree with that, it is always appropriate to look at and investigate collusion between a candidate, or public official, and a foreign entity. No, and i dont think any of us would say, oh hands off, you can run for president and we wont look at what you are doing. The problem is, the misinformation, and the leaking, the online leaks to the media, when all the facts are not presented. And cannot be presented to the media because it is a close investigation, and that leaves, again, to the erosion of Public Confidence in our institution. So is it appropriate, yes, always. But the problems are the leaks of miss information, whether purposeful, or not. And the damage that that has done for your work, in order to come to your members, your colleagues, and say, hey. We need these powers to be reauthorized. And theyre gonna say, no. No, our institutions have messed up to 20 times. So public erosion of confidence is a problem. Think you get, your transparency is just so important. I agree with the status that my colleague said. It has to be a clear threshold, and it is actionable intelligence, actionable information. It should be pursued. But directly right balances of checks and balances is essential, following the money is important, of course, that is why nature disclosures are so important. And making sure that you are connecting the dots of where people and their money are coming from, it is important to that and that whole process. But when there is action, the intelligence information that they need to be able to do that to survive, and according to the book, with the right checks and balances, and place. Thank, you yield back, chairman. Thank, you were in a pause for just a minute. I, like jane, unfortunately, i have to run to the capital. Dan crenshaws gonna take over, he is going to take my seat for this question. Thank you. [whispering] i recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. Thank you all for being here, this is been fasting to listen to you. Thank you for paving the way for us. I want to note that there are strategic threats and there are tactical threats. Thats how we see things in the military, often, and everybody i think as a pretty good grasp on what our strategic threats are, invading ukraine, the war in europe, the rise of china, there is north korea with their nuclear weapons, et cetera. And iran is trying to destabilize the entire region. These are, i think, better classified as strategic threats. But then i ask sort of a rhetorical, semi rhetorical question, bit of a thought experiment. If you could choose one country outside the United States and make it better in every single way, and make it more prosperous, make it more secure, improve its civic institutions, which country would you choose . Its a rhetorical question, but i dont put anybody. To improve the country . Ten times better, make any country ten times better. . The i would choose mexico, thats what i would choose. I want to put anyone on the spot. I would choose mexico, one hunted percent. Because that is a tactical threat right now. There are multiple organizations that are paramilitary in nature, that are equipped, better funded, more ruthless than any other organizations in the planet. And i think what makes this threat even worse is that the current president of mexico, who does not seem to want to be a partner of the United States, whether it is donald trump, or joe biden. And this concerns me. It is a great deal. Especially recently because these drug cartels, especially seen a low and jalisco cartels, are responsible for the deaths of about 80, 000, 70,000 americans a year through there a fentanyl poisoning specifically comes from them. Nobody else, but them. Of course, the precursors come from china. And i think this needs to be on congresss radar in a much more substantial way. One question i have, for you, chairwoman ross, leighton, is that how do you, given your experience as chairwoman of Foreign Affairs, how has our state department doing on this. Are they properly engaged . No. Can you expand on that thank you for that question, and i so agree with you, mr. Crenshaw. That mexico should be that country. Because it truly impacts what happens in our country, directly. And i would add to that list the axis of evil of latin america, which is cuba, nicaragua, venezuela, while all of these countries are in cahoots with the Iranian Regime and other entities, and they allow penetration within their soil, and in nicaragua, russia has now established a foothold in where nicaraguan law was amended so that it allows russians to have facilities in nicaragua, spy facilities, and they can operate freely and off the coast of venezuela. You see russia and china, and iran operating as well. So weve got a real hotbed of potential terrorist activity, and certainly gathering of secrets and spying on the United States right in our own hemisphere. And i would say that on your question about the state department, we have always found, in a bipartisan manner, and our Foreign Affairs committee. The state department really needs to ramp up its game. Wonderful people, certainly Foreign Service officers, who are the best of the best and we see them in a very difficult positions. And they are doing their best of protecting our homeland. But the state department is too much, and i would think the diplomacy role, i think that is there 90 of what theyre doing, but they are ignoring the clear, present, dangers, of our country, and some of their when they go to the country, they start to think that they are part of the egyptian government, are they are part of the lebanese government. What i wanted you to comment on is our current ambassador, master sows, we concerning stories about it, and concerning what you think about this, and other members, i think about israel, this is exactly the concerns. When someone is directly undermining his own administration because of the desire, the most outsized desire just to how it goes in the relationship with president in this case. And i would state, mr. Crenshaw, that is a problem for republicans and democratic administrations. Not just the current one. It has been an ongoing problem to have, and im not commenting on about employment itself. But for so many of the ambassadors that we see going before the senate committees, they seem to have an incorrect attitude about what they are supposed to be doing, and whether it is something as simple as helping an American Business that is having a difficulty in that country, they say, oh no we cant get involved. And you look at them, use have this commerce section in your embassy, and that is what you are supposed to do. With the red room and they just seem to go native, and of course diplomacy is important. We want to be partners with all of our allies, but the best interest of the eyes states at heart and they are not allies, they are actually enemies of the United States. But i love the state department, i love the individuals but there is a culture of get along and go along within the bureaucracy. And i see that as a problem. With respect, i agree with you that relationships with mexico are complicated. But it is in our interest to find a way forward to have a cooperative relationship with mexico and to criticize them when they are wrong. And, without commenting on the behavior of massacre salazar, which ive seen the allegations but i dont know that they are accurate, i would say that the fentanyl challenge is a whole of government challenge. It is not just the state department, the department of Homeland Security does have a focus on this. Is it doing as well as it should, i think that is some to assess. But full disclosure, i on the Homeland Security advisory, counsel, and i know that secretary mayorkas wants this. He wants his department to be effective, but they obviously, our Law Enforcement agencies and everyone else needs to focus on the scourge of fentanyl and you are right that the precursor start in china. They dont start in mexico, and we dont want any of our border countries enabling the importation of fentanyl into our country. Fully agree with that, im out of time, and i know we need to wrap up by 11, so we need to get to everyone. I can read this. So let me see that first. I recognize congresswoman spanberger. Thank, you mister chairman. Thank you so much for being with us today. I want to, ask just based on your experience, the challenge that sometimes the committee faces is that we have classified hearings, we have really great conversations. And as was the case even this week from our hotspots meeting there were some clear, actionable things we could be considering from a legislative perspective to address some of the issues discussed, but then we go back to our colleagues outside of the committee, and it becomes kind of a question for me how do we say, you know, lights are flashing, or this is a priority or this is how we could get that chance that i know youre concerned about. Because we have these conversations in pepsi or we had this testimony before he fc. So do you have any recommendations about when we get dug in on an issue or we get alerted to a clear potential path forward, how do you make or bring in colleagues who dont have the committee exposure, and i will open up who wants to respond. I think one way to do it would be to encourage more members cystic to get the briefing. I think that puts more of the fear of god to them when they actually hear it in the scif and hear how serious it is. Unfortunately even of members on both sides, no matter what the tone, they are really not guilty to the reconceive notions. Obviously to the extent there is a chance to provide classified briefings, these members of congress to show them how real musicians are, and how no misguided and so of course they preach conceptions maybe. But it is a real challenge, and it is particularly a challenge when you hear one thing, in the scif, you hear one thing at a classified briefing, and then you see somebody going on television, saying the complete opposite. And how do you counter that without the self developing class information. Frankly, in any way, it is not easy. It is less expensive to go to the other ones. So, it is challenging to be able to get colleagues to understand the critical nature of some of these issues. One of the things i remember that we did when we were doing a reauthorization of 702 was to bring general Keith Alexander in to bring him into the scif and in a series of meetings, make available to all members of congress the opportunity to question him directly to listen to his presentation, and it was rather discouraging on such an important issue that so few members took advantage of. It and i know that some of us that were on hips e at the time took a list of colleagues that were not on the committee, and sort of went them and said, hey, this going take place. Common ask general alexandra, make up your own mind, you know. Dont take what is out there in the general public, maybe erroneous, as peter was saying. And then dont regurgitate that as gospel. So it is challenging, but it can be done. And it can be done in a former can make an interesting for other members to be able to be able to understand these things. I think theres another too much to your question though, which is, how does the public get informed if people are briefed in classified settings and then cant talk about anything . I remember in my day, a number of members didnt want the classified briefings because they wanted it to be able to talk about stuff, i also knew then and know now that open Source Information includes a lot of the stuff that members get briefed on. And you are in a conundrum because you have been briefed in a classified setting, you cant talk about stuff, you are reading the newspaper. So, i think the challenge is to flip it a bit, to have some public hearings, that is what i would urge you to do, like this one. Where you can air, in public, information that is publicly available. And then, to go into classified settings to get into more depth, information that would somehow bridge the gap, and enable this committee to really showcase the fact that it is to the public, because this has a very small public face. But it is on top of things that should concern, and enable the public to understand what should concern them. I think this is a bigger greatness for this committee, and i think the case has not adequately remained to the public about what the real threats are, and the public needs to, i mean, after all, this is a democracy with needs to understand and engage with what courses of action our country will take, and what the human costs are, in terms of human life and resources of those actions. While that is an excellent question, and i think, as long as this committee looks to reauthorize some of the important programs that are before you, expanding that relationship between this exclusive committee and the members at large is going to be so important. Too often, you are just siloed away and the members who dont feel like they are getting all of the information and in the sheets that we were given about this panel, you told us to inform the committees legislator and oversight priorities and engagement with the intelligence communities. He fc has conducted a series of open, bipartisan, panels, that are featured and you want to explain all of that. These open hearings, as jean has said, they are so important because it makes the public comfortable with testing on, you with what they are hearing. And then to have the members, your colleagues, feel like it is not being deprived of critical information and having more settings where you can invite your colleagues to the scif and look at the relevant paper that our Intelligence Community has produced, that is going to give them confidence in your work, and it will make it easier for you to reauthorize these importance Intelligence Community tools that we need to have reauthorized. So it is a great challenge, but bringing more people in, and having these open hearings, they are their wonderful. Thank you for the countenance, in particular, the reference to 702 that we are facing at this year. So i think there is a number of actual things we can do, and mister chairman, i yield back, thank you. Gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes mr. Gomez for his five minutes. Thank, you so much. That was a perfect question, because it is one of the things. Im brainer the committee, and i said exactly would represent former representative harmon is that he said, you have made the case on certain issues. I said that regarding tiktok, i said, i dont know how to argue that this is the big bogeyman, everybody makes the argument that are personal information is out there anyways. And, so, im having trouble making that argument for people. But it is exactly that. How do you take some of this information, one of the things i want to know from all of you, this committee is a unique committee, it is almost like i feel like i have a secret power. Because ive so much information, but i cant use it, i am always clark kent, i guess. How, how would you use the information that we learn in these committees in a responsible way, number one, number two, what is a lesson that you learned from being on a committee, like watch out for this, this is one thing that everybody falls for, dont fall for it . Everybody makes this mistake. Just an open question to the panel. I believe in a minute and i apologize that i might not be here for your questions, but i have a comment about that. One of my big briefs, big complaints here was that the briefs by Intelligence Committee experts were in a very narrow lane, and you would ask someone, well, what about that, and she, he, would say, well im not. Testifying on that and putting the home picture together, getting somebody, either the writer of an agency, or somebody with a broad enough, authority to help the committee understand the whole picture was very difficult. And, as you know, there is a special intel language that takes away and a wild learned, and so many acronyms that are impossible. So i would think, in the committees interest, and frankly in the countrys interest, there should be more broad, or brief, or briefers with broader mandates who come before the committee, and some effort to make sure the members of the committee take this responsibility seriously. No one made you serve on this committee. It is a high honor to be appointed by the airship to serve in this committee, and to make sure that all of you have the best, most accurate picture of what the country faces. I would say that to have the members be more cautious about media appearances that they make right after a classified briefing because ive seen some colleagues cant wait to rush to those microphones, and that can be putting our men and women in harms way. And again, it erodes the publics confidence. Thank you. We all share your frustration in having served on the Intelligence Committee, and you have privy to be important to him for more information, and we want to be respectful to our constituents, for example, but obviously you are bound to protect these numbers and detect classified information. I will tell you, among colleagues i, think the easiest thing to do, obviously, is encourage them to go and get a briefing in the scif, even better if there is something that is relevant, working in a bipartisan manner to leaving a hold a briefing, with members of congress that arent, ill say, on the committee, or something that is allowed by the chairman of the Ranking Member, to put together briefings for those members that might have questions, especially if theyre outspoken, if you give us some form . Bipartisan basis k should fit in terms of the public and this is what i believe, quite frankly. I worked with the briefers, or with the Committee Staff to come up with a unclassified way of talking about the topic. And the staff is incredibly talented, and dedicated, and they were clearly working to try to come up with a way of conveying information that doesnt violate classification. Do away with free conceptions. Somehow tell yourself that you are an open slate, and you want to hear both sides. There are too many members ive seen, and maybe im guilty myself. You know whats right, and you know what should be done. And you miss an important part of the briefing. But i wish you well. Thanks for being on the committee. And again, it is a minefield, but its well worth it. To me, this is the most impressive, Outstanding Committee to be on. And again, to know that one of the most frustrating things from both sides, 90 of what were seeing with a particular issue is wrong. Its tough, you have to try keep your mouth shot. Thank you. I appreciate that. The gentleman from crypt on yields back. Sorry, i just had to. Chair organizers, miss plaskett. Thank you so much. Mr. Crenshaw, we both chuckled when he said he looked like clark kent. But i have to tell you, jimmy, youre better looking than clark and. You have greater powers than him. Dont let clark and take the power for you. Thank you all so much for being here. Its so good to see you all, having served with you all, its been an honor to serve with you all during the time that you are here. And now to get your expertise, as a look back on what you are doing. I had a question for congressman low beyond oh. I was really moved up on your testimony but africa. And the concern that you have for us not taking resources away, but actually increasing resources. Have you seen that in your time and hips, e movement away from an area that later on, events made us look back and say that was a mistake that we did that. Thank you for your service, and thank you for the question. The answer is absolutely. What ive observed over my time was gradual and unless you are really looking for it, you werent going to see and. Because there are so many global issues that are sucking all the oxygen out of the air. But the reality is that the potential for the african continent and the countries in africa, and the partnerships that they can provide with the United States of america are enormous. But we have over numerous administrations, both parties, decided that it was too expensive and have gradually pulled back. Its a mistake, and its a problem. When that void is there, we can just watch china come in and eat our lunch. As i said in my statement, they are bribing their way across africa. And because of the nature of the challenges that many of these countries in their leaders have, the money is powerful for them. So the United States is not offering those kinds of things. The United States doesnt come in and bribe officials. We have laws about that. China does not, and we have to be more cognizant of what is happening. Why this has happening, and how we should be increasing our activity there. Whether it is state department, whether its intelligence, whether its special forces. To play a key role that doesnt get talked about very often, and it and worries me a great deal that this slide continues. Thank you so much. Its china, as well as now we see private organizations like a wagon or throughout. It is really very disturbing, so im grateful you are continuing to raise the alarm on that. And you, gentleman from new york, new jersey right there. You saw the time between the first attack on the world trade in the last one, we kind of were silent about that. And when these things creep up on us and were not vigilant, it tends to bite us in the pituitary. Its good to see a former new yorker on the panel. We appreciate that. Youre right, though. I dont know if you know, mr. Crenshaw. Peter kings father was the sergeant when my dad was a rookie who trained him in the academy. So i trained your father lapid or than he trained me. Thank you for that. Youre absolutely right. It seems like ancient history, but it was also ancient history on september 10th 2001, back in 1993, that was in the past. We saw what happened. Im not trying to sound the alarm. We have to be alert, you know it was taken by the nypd, theyve stopped 19 different attacks against new york. Its been cut back substantially. But it still happens. And i think there are a number of other threats. Sometimes as a people, we focus on whats in the newspapers, whats in the media today, what members of congress are talking about today. And we forget the past. We forget the past, well be forced to relive it. Thank you for your service, and the floor is open. Thank you. Remember at heart, youre a new yorker. One of the things that you talked about was the need for us to retain talent. For particularly the intelligence area and the cybersecurity space. What were some of the programs that you think works best. You talked about the novel in that. What do you think are the ways that we can support that, as we look to our next appropriation. As we look towards the next intelligence legislation. Not just new talent, diversity, what are the things that you think work well . One of the great programs that i support is the cyber core program. And i champion increasing the amount of money that goes into that program to expand the number of students we can bring in. Cyber corps is a scholarship program. First of all, the school and asked to be designated as a cyber center of excellence. So nsa accredited, and once i have that designation, students can apply to the cyber corps program. So it pays for tuition from theres a stipend of over 30,000 a year. And then while the graduates, they agree to go into a job in the federal government, in cybersecurity for two years. To give back. Its a wonderful program, theres a couple thousand students and now. We need to increase that dramatically. One of the big challenges that is about a huge deficit in the number of individuals going into these jobs. Theres over 700,000 jobs that go unfilled, approximately, across the country and cybersecurity. The numbers only expected to grow. And we need to drive a Diverse Talent pool to make sure were filling those jobs. Cyber core is one of the pathways to doing that. But other areas, what i want to do at the institute of cyber and emerging technology is working with local high schools. So that kids in their senior year, hopefully they can be introduced to a pathway to studying in cybersecurity as a career. They can enter and job the pays of six figures, and the advantage that the kids have growing up today, on like all of us didnt learn about computers and cyber and the kids, by contrast, are growing up as digital natives. We want to harness that ability, that talent and while they are studying in high school they are also earning College Credits to Enter College and have color credits under their belt. Excuse me, congresswoman, if i may, very quickly. Across the Intelligence Community, especially the cia, the commitment to do something about refining how long the qualifications take. We have some very young, right, talented people who want to join the cia. When it takes 18 months to get clearance they go to something else. The committee can do something about that. You know a hearing has gone along with the witnesses stand up and leave. I came back to tell you all thank you for coming, and thank you for your service on the committee. Weve become great friends, and we served together through some challenging times on the committee. I appreciate your comments about the committee, something that may give us support. But thank you for your testimony today, thank you for your expertise, and thanks for sharing we miss hearing from all of you in congress, because you are not here serving with us. So thank you. Good luck to you and your families. I yield. Thank, you good luck to you and your service. That concludes our questions. I would like to once again thank our panelists for the perspectives and insights. The meeting is now adjourned. Today, security concerns ahead of the 2024 president ial election cycle. With testimony from election assistance commissioners, live at 3 30 pm eastern. Before the senate rules in the Administration Committee on cspan 3. Cspan now, our free mobile video app, and online at cspan. Org. Order your copy of the 118th congressional directory, now available at cspan shop dot org. Its your access to the federal government of contact information, with every house and senate member. And important informon congressional committees. The president s cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. Scan the code at the right to order your copy today. Or go to cspan shop dot org. Its 21 95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support or non profit operations. Book tv every sunday on cspan two features authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. And a pm eastern, former fbi special agent thomas baker shares his book, the fall of the fbi, where he argues that americans have ost faith in europe to do it to politicize a shun, by former director james comey and others. Then at ten pm eastern, on afterwards, former Trump Administration interior secretary David Bernhardt contends that the Administrative State has amassed unaccountable power over the last 20 years in his book, you report to me. Hes interviewed by American Enterprise Institute Senior fellow, adam white. Watch a book tv every sunday on cspan two, and find the full schedule on the program guide, or watch online anytime on book tv dot org. Cspan 2 is your unfiltered view of government. Or funded by these companies more, including comcast. You think this is just a Community Center . No. Its way more than that. Comcast is partnering with 1000 Community Centers to create wifi enabled lift zones, students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. Comcast supports cspan as a public service, along with these other television