45 years and counting. thursday, c-span will commemorate the 80th anniversary coverage with a ■k■ from normandy featuring a speech from president biden. :gwe will take your calls. join us for a celebrati -- ceremony at the world war ii museum. stay with us as we continue to commemorate d-day back at presidential speeches and othei+special programs. watch the day coverage of the 80th anniverry of d-day on

the generalecurity department spoke with the american bar association abo and legal challees, recent impeachmentmayorkas. this is about 45 minutes. [indiscernible] >> to have jonathan here.

as■1 y c resume that you have senate as the sixh security, chief legal officer of our department. the dhs is approximately 3005 hundred attorneys who serve across the country making us one argest law firms in the city. he is also thedh policy ofce ref the rulemaking activity. io to his return torved as theel counsel in 2011 and 2016. he then was a partner at a law firm in d.c. there he counseled clients on federal state government, cybersecurity, homeland security, and congressional oversight. assistant attorney general in the department of legal policy a

deputy general counsel at amtrak and counseled senator someone named joseph biden on the senate judiciary committee ironically enough. originally from cincinnati he spent part of his childhood in jerusalem and speaks fluent and french. if anyone would like to pose a question in french, ield it. he has a bachelors degree from harvardudies. i love to see when someone with social studies makes good in he has an mpa from princeton. he lives in chevy chase with a lovely family with three children. wen will have a free ranging discussion. has expertise in a variety of to note that clearly his career has been animated by public service as -- as opposed to

those of us in the private sector. begin with an open we call it cottage cheese question. it is planned but it is good. ■@it is still fresh. what do you find is the most significant legal challenge that tly facing, particularly in the areas of obvious one, immigration? >> first of all, you. thank you to jason and the committee f i it is a pleasure to be here and it is always fun to be around so many smart legal minds. and so many knowledgeable where we practice. thank you for that introduction, harv. in terms of most challenging legal questions that we face, i

don't know that i can claim anyone is most challenging. some of the things on my mind, i will start with immigration and then we can talk about cybersecurity. on immigration i think tha issus that are coming to the forefront . of federalism coming up over and over agains states enact laws that would enforce federal immigration law. as you know those are now in the courts. that is an important issue. i think another issue that is not purely legal is the political stalemate on immigration. as we have seen, there is only

so much that can be done through executive actionlation. rtunately, significant immigration reform is not come at the moment, it becomes a challenge for us to see what we can do to try to address issues of migration and immigration without that assistance. >> in terms of cybercuty? mr. meyer: the biggest issue, the facet of cybersecurity that makes it a is the ever-changing nature of this. it is a fast-moving field because it is dr by technology. the law has to try to keep up with it, which canayit is a chao

be up to, but it is also what makes it fascinating. it is almost inherently an ever-changing field. it is also still a relatively new field, cybersecurity and cybersecurity law. the law is still the lipping. that is part of what makes it fu you can be involved in the development of this new body of law. is not that new anymore. cybersecurity has been active for probably 20 years. when you're talking about years, it is pretty new. there is a lot still to be figured out, i think. that is thehallgein that sense n challenge, but it is a challeharvey: prosser on

cybersecurity law. to follow up on it, as you know, he fbi has had something called rule 41 which allohem to go on to networks and remove malware, which has been a little controversial. ■initially the question is, how do you understand the relationship between theand dhfe major organs that we have that you oversee> part b is the goal of this talk is to have you remain promoteable. is there any other legislative issues or things, if we give you a wand and we could end the staleme that you would like to see enacted or give dhhs more power that you think would be important?

mr. meyer: so -- what was the first part of the question? i know that you're not stalling for time. rule 41. should dhs have power? the relationship between the fbi and -- on cybersecurity can be confusing. one of the first questions always was do we go to the fbi first or to scza. can be confusing. there is a lot of overlap. i think tmatter that the fbi's s tion and enforcement. part of the other focuses on government networks networks it

focuses on ira the like. it focuses on systems to a great extent offering resources to the private sector. so, to help them figure out what is happening and in exchange -- not exchange, but in addition, to get their assistance in learning and figuring out what more we, the government, cto pr, prevent cybercrime, prevent ■:licious foreign actors from taking those malicious foreign describe the relationship between the two. they interact a lot and it is important. i think as to the rule 41,

it is less of an issue for cisa because where they are the most active in terms of themselves getting involved in networks is primarily government networks. so, it is less of an issue. with regards to legislation, obviously i will not make any it would have been and will bee, great if the bipartisan board of security bill could pass. that is not going to excite anyone with that statementbut it is true. if not that, something like it. there is need in the immigration system and as anyone in the field will tell you it's broken. there is a need for aix and congress is best positioned to that. that i think is the biggest

legislative to things, another thing that unfortunately drew a lot of my time over the past year and a half on the hill gislation. it was the whole impeachment thingunfortunate. we can get into that if you'd like, but i think congresstook . 2oi hope there will not be more that coming down the pike. obviously, there are a lot of other things that can be done. this a lot of work going on with ai now. i know that the hill is . everyone is interested. there is work to be done ontalks more so than cyberere

is plenty to do. mr. rishikof: you are running one of the largest law firms in the country. as you know, there are a lot of senior managers in law firms exploring ai and the impact that it may have on associates in being able to reduce the workload. at the same token, we have the question of ai and how we understand the evolution of privacy. you have a polic hat and a managerial hat. how are you exploring that in your policy hat and managerial hat? are we going to reduce the number of lawyers at or 25% if we use ai the way that many of the companies are promising to senior partners and law firmsmr. meyer: i don't seee number of attorneys at dhs going down anytime soon for that reason or any other.

you said 3500. we are now close to 4000 attorneys at dhs, but we love that here. i'm doing incredibly important will tell you from my experience everyone is very busy. mr. rishikof: you are right. i look at ai as a manager of a legal office and the larger departmental issues, which are much broader and deeper. from the ogc standpoint, we have been thinkg about it. i've had a number of co my chief of staff and others and we are in the process of developing a policy for our lawyers on ai. there is no question that it can be an extremely valuable tool. there is no question that it can be a very dangerous scratch, as has been -- dangerous crutch, as has been demonstrated with silly

stories about lawyers looking cats and submitting briefs about ai that turned out to site false■j cases. there is no substitute for the attorney work. just as we are talking about , when i was in law school, and i'm sure it was true for many of us here, you looked up cases in a book and new shepardized by going to the shepherd books. and then along came alexis and west law and tools that made us much more efficient and at what. i think that we have to view, fori as a tool like that. perhaps likely more powerful than those things, but a tool not a substitute. with regard to the department, it is a broader issue. now you're talking about the

threats that can come from the use of ai by our adversaries. these ai can be put to in defending the homeland. the use of ai in misinformation and malinformation and disinformation, anthe use of ai in collecting intelligence. the possibilities are manifold . we are spending, across the government, a lot of time thinking through all of that now. as many of you know, the president put out ander on artie i believe that october. that called for a lot of follow-up work, which is happening now, across the interagency, across the government, including in particular at dhs. dhs appears a lot in that executive order. one thing the eo called for is setting up for the artificial

intelligence safety and security board, which is a board that the secretary stood up of dignitaries in the field to advise the department and government on the use of ai. there is any number of other is at, including privacy and civil liberties issu■-■:our chief prid others are lo at it, and it includes the lawyers because there are a lot of legal issues it raises, too. mr. rishikof: you touched on another noncontroversial issue which is elections. 2020, 2024, the security of elecons,% that remit falls under your jurisdiction. how do you feel about how the department is positioning itself for the upcoming election to

ensure that we have an election with integrity and something that will choose the next president of the united states? mr. meyer: that is something that the department is spending a ton of time on. a number odepartment - secretary first and foremost, but also cisa focusing on infrastructure. again, there is a lot to do. whether it be attempts by foreign actors to mess with the election or domestically, or whether it be the more mechanical, if you will, issue of hardening election voting systems against cyberattack. making sure the technology is accurate. that sort of thing. or what i will refer to as the softer sort of threats of

foreign actors trying inappropriately to influence the electionough the use of mis, mal, disinformation sometimes powered by ai or other means. there is a lot going on. we areon, ina, information and analysis director is focused on these issues as well. eight to 12 years ago i think that the issue caught a lot of people by surprise. that is certainly not going to happen this time around. we are very focused on it with the upcoming election, and we are doing everything that we can within our authority to make sure that the election will be safe, secure, and most importantly trustworthy. mr. rishikof: one of the questions is famous section 230,

social media. do/t you see the department takg positions with other parts of the government on that issue ang to be left to the rtdo you guyst you would like to see as part of a new legal rule or legal approach? mr. meyer: so, we, the secretary and our undersecretary of policy, spent a lot of time engaging with the technology engage with them.al8 there is already some litigation relating to that work before the supreme court, so i won't go into the details of■2 that. again, it falls into the larger issue of information.

a lot of what we is to make sure we are advising the department in a way that allows us to correct inaccurate information, to spot disinformation and mal information without having a heavy■÷ hand and without any fit amendment rights and the likes. we have done a pretty good job. and as i say, i need to be a little careful because this is being litigated. mr. rishikof: i will move on. the other area of the world that moves aggressively in this space is the europeans. their legislation is covering a lot of the waterfront. your sense of how you see the department's position in

those debates, and what would be the policyroach where you run up against those european pieces of legislation in jurisdiction? mr. meyer: in private practice i would advise clients on gdpr and other privacy laws out there, state laws and the like. n my world it doesn't come up on a daily basis. lawyers at dhs are not dealing with it, but what comes to me. dhs plays a role in some of the agreements with foreign countries. there we have to negotiate with foreign countries. if they are european, they are under gdpr. by the way, this was happening before too during the obama administration. i was involved in advising other

countries on exchanges of information. we have to take that into account. we are under an obligation to abide by american laws of privacy and security, with a foy and they may demand thataws. where it becomesrticularly for e are talking about things like security of air travel. and shipping, and the like. we engage innversations and negs with our partners about how we will exchange information. sometimes it is going the other way, too. the europeans won information from us about people who may be traveling who could pose a danger. it plays into that calculus.

we have incredibly skilled policy folks and lawyers who work through that thicket and generally come out with good outces you also have the coast guard under dhs. mr. meyer: people often forget that. it is a huge part of vhs, a tremendous part of dhs. -- of dhs, a tremendous part of dhs. yes, it's often forgotten. dealing with other parts of the government, they will forget that one of the military services is part of dhs, not the dod. we have to remind them to make sure that the coast guard is included in that they are very a lot ofof the migration work that we do. it is great that they are part department. i know that some of you worked at dhs. it is always such a pleasure to the coast guard attorneys. they are incredibly smart

people, devoted to the mission, always willing to talk and happy to tell you about what they are doing at the coastuard. that really is one of the fun parts. mr. rishikof: an affiliate of the committee actually is a lawyer, a jagged officer -- jag officer. we like to see lawyers in high positions to help smooth the process. the commandant is also a lawyer. i first met him lawyer at the cd in the obama administration. it is always great to have lawyers in nonlegal positions. one more question and then i will open it up to the audience. you mentioned shepherdi zing. some think that you are speaking ■bgreek. one of the interesting issues, give, given where you sitlawyers?

what courses would you recommend that would help them prepare for a career in public service at this point where you set that you would like to see tmr. meyew pieces of advice that i give to young lawyers when i talked to them. ones who want to go into government. first, don't lose sight of that goal. if that is what you want to do, don't lose sight of that goal. it's common,nd true with me. i came out of law school and i went to a big law firm. i was in new york, making good money, and then at wilmer in d.c.. i saw some of my colleagues who started out wanting to go into public service never really go. the reason is, they got used to the money and it became to financially difficult to make that move. my first piece of advice is to start out in private,

and don't let yourself get used to the money.budget yourself lie going to be at that firm forever or you will be at that firm forever, or one like it. government does not pay as much. you can get by fine on government. i've been in government most of my career. that is the first thing.83 thing i was telling her and i tell people all the time, when i came out of law school, i was not planning to be a homeland security lawyer. perhaps in part because homeland security did not exist as a field but i be a national security lawyer. i knew i would be in government and i ended up at dhs in the field i'm in almost by accident because an opportunity came along and i took it area if i had been too inflexible and what

i wanted to do, that wouldn't have happened. the great thing about being an attorney in washington is the of so many of us is to go back and forth between the private sector and the government. ld take full advantage of that opportunity which is a wonderful way to have a career and you should be open to unexpected opportunities. i work for job biden and that happened by chance as well. it happened because someone i was working with at doj was offered an opportunity to be on joe biden's staff and decided she didn't want to do it because she had young came to me and said this was offered to me, i can'do it, are you interested? if not for that, who knows where what i be today? so much luck happens which is erything happens by luck but a lot

happens byand you need to be open to the luck in the opportunities that come along. you need to be flexible. there is a lot of serendipity. ■6>> any questions we have for e general counsel? identify who you are. >> i am a legal intern with dhs. >> i didn't plant this. >> you may not be able to comment on thisñbexpectation isy regulations [indiscernible] will that make it difficult for the dhs? >> it will be difficult for any regulatingwe have lived in aor f

deference to agency regulations for so long. 't think it would be terrible there to be less deference to agencies on regulations if, as this system work, congress were abl active and that congress is. 535it's country because of they are millions of people but cannot get there with small issues. then you have real vacuum in terms owhat agencies can do. i think that is the problem. then you have the courts having to weigh in every time and look at(5 deference and it

becomes more certainty for anyone who is affected by the regulations. i think it is a problem but as a personal opinion, i don't think there should are should not be a difference but the problem is in the real world working it out that i think it will create a lot of difficulties if we can't have that. anymore cottage cheese questions? >> [indiscernible] i'm so glad you're not my client. >> once got it office and i said it was very thoughtful but it's not heroic.

this is a question you can answer or not. you must be one ofhepeople who e flaw the way -- inhments have bd over the years. is there something remarkably humorous about this? what is the lighter side of impeachments? >>e hs over the course of that process. i'm drawing a blank. >> let me help you so you move on. anything about the process you would like to see reformed? when we were growing up, it never happened. it never happened and now, we've had a series of impeachments

even going down■ to a secretary as opposed to a president. that's unusual. it's in the constitution as clearly a process since but i ag being in the middle of it. is there anything you would like to see that wo >> you are exactly right that it has becomeoo canother way to pui got to do all of this research, there have been something like over 800 served presidents cabit in the history of the united states. until this year, not a single one has had an impeachment taken up by the senate. some of you may think that's not right.

what about william belknap in 1876? he was impeached. but by the time he was impeached, he resigned and even that was not taken up by the senate. perhaps most importantly, the dg bribes and kickbacks. which is the case with the guy who was impeached this year. importantly, the entire process, there was no implication of any personal misconduct that't looks to be a. it's not really even a point of debate. if you looktitutional debate the administration should ber mal

impeachable, they said if you do thatit will make everyone serving at the pleasure of the senate which is not what we have in twe do not have votes of no confidence. it's funny in the sense■, of i'm laughing because i'm not crying but it has gone, what happened this year took it in the direction -- it's always been purely political in the sense of , i forget who it was who said but someone said what's two thirds of the senate. there is -- it is always dependonyou see this more broad.

we didn't realize it. there were a that were unwritten rules. they are now being ignored because they are not being written. this was one of them you don't impeached over a disagreement about the policy. i would argue it's even more than that. it is in the constitutional history of the united states but because the rule is whatever gets the vote, tha't treat it an though it should be. my best description of it is it's unfortunately exemplifies a broader phenomenon we see in this country which is an abandonement of a political culture with unwritten rules that were provided by both sides

for centuries. that is a very disturbing statement in life. >> angus in the back? >> [indiscernible] >> it's a bona fide english accent. >> it's from south jersey. >> that's a great question. it gives me an opportunity to talked about witches people say, let me back up -- i often tell people that i havee

most important did was walking in the door021 after i . cothe prior senate confirmed the general counsel was fired. it was without a senate confird general counsel it was like 800 days. you can ask them but i think a lot of lawyers at dhs, the career attorneys, all breathed a sigh of relief when they learned i was going to be the general counsel. not because of anything in particular about me but because it was someone they knew who they had worke with and who was serious about the mission.

i could have had two heads and they would have breathed a sigh ofelone of my real is real lawyeri in sprule of law. ■dreally honoring the work we do whenever i leave that that will be what people remember me for more than anything. it's a great group of attorneys. whenever the took secretary talks about ogc coming doesn't sath part about being a law for m

law firm in the united states. these are very dedicated public servants a lot of my job was to stay out of their way. i hope that will be my legacy if nothing else that i was able to empower our attorneys and bring a sense of ordernd honor and respect for the practice of law. >> we have one more question. >> i'm going to ask a technical legal question. >> i've read your stuff, you might as well be a lawyer. ■■nyo needn't honorary■: -- you needn't honorary lawyer degree. >> thank you very much. i want to ask what it's like for you to be in the hot seat afcted by the ability of any

state government in the united states who say they don't like a particular dhs policy and go to? how does that affect the agency when we have these changeovers and administration undertaken by thesuddenly shifts to texas w florida. do you sense there is concern in the supreme court that the standing dtr states has gotten some out of shape? >> i don't know what there isn't too light. penpal named ken paxton from ts and wheat send letters all the time. it has always been the case that an administration's policy gets challenged in court.

there are standing issues but is always been an ability to challenge them. in that sense, there hasn't been a change but thethere's been ann volume.i think there are a coupf factors to it. one is which they tried to address in cords recently. there is a lot of forum shopping that goes on and particularly the phenomenonstate federal coue cases get assigned notches by district but by smaller areas. there is often only one to there. it's not just forum shopping, it's judge shopping and i think that's a real problem and that needs to be fixed and that has caused a lot of inconsistenci f

legal rulings we been getting. when you can choose your judge d getting a nationwide injunction out of one judge. you have one judge selected by the plaintiffs and right, it favored the democrats during the trump administration and favors republicans now so it's not a republican thing -- not a political thing, per se. there needs to be one policy enjoyed across the entire country. that's not the way this was intended to work. i don't know what the solution is but i think we need to find a solution to beyond that, anyonee suit for whatever they want and

it has to be litigated and that's fine. amount -- more litigious? yes but we got a good ruling on standing on the enforcement guidelines case in the supreme court, 8-1 almost two years ago. we■o good rulings but they are taking time. absolutely, i think it is not as it should be in it's worse than it used to be. i think this is something the court will have to deal with. that will help to find it. let me thank jason for bringing this lovely guest to our group. you are now for part of famy def the family, we are going to give you oin.

he doesn't have one on him so he has to buy you an adult refreshment. we are also giving you error ledge jerí2 sourcebook -- our legendary sourcebook. we look forward to you and if you're having trouble sleeping so this is something that may help you. let me thank you in our intern who asked that lovely question and holly for putting this together. i think you will remain promotable and you made a lot of new friends. join me in please thanking our guest. >> thank you all. [applause] [video clip] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [capononal cable satellite corp. 2024]

♪ announcer: announcer: c-span has been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 euros. here is a highlight for my key moment. >> to my colleagues, my friends and most especially my wife d family, i have hurt you all deeply and i beg your forgiveness. i was prepared to lead our narrow majority as speaker, and i believe i had it in me to do a fine job. but i cannot do that job or be the kind of leader that i would like to be under current circumstances.

so i must example that i hope president clinton will follow,l not stand for speaker of the house on ja6, bus a backbencher in this congress that i so dearly love for approximately six months until the 106th congress erw that whereupon they get my seat and asked for the governor to, special election to take my place. announcer: c-span, powered by cable. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> when connection is nelock tie to help, bringing affordable internet to families in need, and support to veterans. no matter wherever and whener it -- whenever and wherever it matts the most, we will be there.

[clock ticking] supports c-span along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. ♪ today, watch c-span's “2024 campaign trail.”, a weekly roundup of c-span's mpaign coverage providing a one-stop-shop to discover what the candidates across the country are saying to voters, along with first-hand accounts from political reporters, updated poll numbers, fundraising data, and campaign ads. watch c-span's "2024 campaign trail," friday nights at 7:30 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or download as a podcast on c-span now, our free mobile app, or wherever you get your podcasts.iltered view of politics. ♪ announcer: tune in to c-span's live coverage of the 2025

national political convention starting with the republican four-day event in milwaukee on july 15. nexts up, the democrats as they convene in chicago starting august 19. stay connected to c-span for an unfiltered gmpse at democracy at work. watcthe republic ans live this summer on c-span,, c-span now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org. c-span, yourle. ■5■0