we are finding it back. >> thank you for what you do.

the door is always welcome. thank you, mr. chairman. god bless all of you. >> i thank the gentleman from michigan. i go to the gentleman from texas, the hon. judge engelbrecht. >> thank you for letting me sit and the committee today. we have some questions for you. a short answer for you. after you started team street patriots, were you vested by the fbi? were you visited by the fbi terrorist squad, to investigate terrorists? how many times did you have meetings with the fbi? >> six times. >> we visited how many times?

>> five. >> the a tee at? how many times were you visited or audited by the atf? >> twice. >> and you were visited by the texas commission on environmental quality. >> yes, sir. >> state agency of the epa. >> yes, sir. >> the irs how many times? >> two business office. >> how many times we wonder criminal investigation? >> some didn't know what to think. >> did you ask to see if you were investigated? we got a response from the fbi. they said what? >> that they were not. >> they were not investigating you for criminal enterprise to your knowledge. >> correct. >> let me ask you this. at any time after you started these two groups were you harassed by so-called liberal or progressive groups? >> yes, sir. on a very regular basis.

>> what does that mean harassed? >> it can mean many things. speaking falsehoods, and bearing false witness, trying to take something like election integrity and turn it something into that divides us rather than unites us. >> in your opinion, were you arrest by legislators? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe there should be a prosecutor to investigate the irs? >> yes, sir. >> in 2013 on may 14th i sent eric holder a letter, you aware of the letter sent asking for a special prosecutor and asking the bunch of questions about the irs? >> yes i am. >> i have not received this response from eric holder. have you received a response? >> no, sir. >> were you asked by the fbi or the irs to produce all of the

tweets you ever tweeted? >> yes, sir. >> facebook post? did you comply with that? >> i don't do facebook or twitter. >> the irs, they wanted to know all the places that you spoke publicly. they want copies of your speeches? >> yes, sir. >> the federal government wanted a copy of a citizens' speech in a public forum. did they want to know that you going to speak in the future? did they want to know the names of the groups you spoke to? did they want the mailing list, the attendee list of the people in attendance at the places you spoke? >> yes, sir. >> they wanted to know what it was, or who was there. the final crescive? do you think the united states constitution let's the federal

government swoop in and killed a right of free speech by demanding disinformation? >> not what the constitution was built to do. >> >> i had a chance to be in the soviet union in the 80s. the people are totally oppressed by government, as they were afraid of government. they were afraid to say anything or write anything about government because government would punish them, take their job, put them in jail, harass them, take their money, all of those things. did you ever think we would see in the united states of america a government through its agencies, the irs, the fbi,

osha, epa, atf, take on a citizen, trying to keep you from criticizing government, did you ever since you would see that? >> i never thought that i would see that but i do see it, it is happening and i hope the american public sees it for what it is. >> the gentlewoman will -- >> the chairman is responsible under the rules of the house and the rules of this committee to maintain order and preserve decorum. we ask everybody to abide by that. >> i didn't hear your answer. i am sorry. >> my answer was no. i never believed this could happen and for many years i didn't want to believe by all appearances would seem to be happening was in fact happening and it is my hope we don't gloss over these moments but see them in their fullness for what they are because it threatens to undermine the fabric of this republic. >> did you ever think the things

that i have mentioned happened to you and miss engelbrecht did you ever as americans think you would see government swoop down and punish you for exercising the right to criticize? >> absolutely not. >> how did that make you feel as an american citizen? >> pain-free. >> you testified you didn't think we were doing enough to solve this aggression? >> correct. >> lastly if i may, mr. chairman. my grandmother was my most influential person, democrat, by the way, used to say there was nothing more powerful than a woman that has made up her mind. i think we have two of those, three of those women right here today. thank you for being here, thank

you for your flight because america is -- i yield back. >> i walked in at the end of that. a great presentation. moms on a mission. i echo what the gentleman from texas had to say. mr card right. >> thank you. i sat through today's hearing, i appreciate all of the coming, me your point is appreciated, it is understood. i wish we had opposing viewpoint today for full discussion. that doesn't discount the value of your viewpoint. one or more of you have brought up the ideas that people have said there is no evidence of wrongdoing at the irs, no evidence of corruption or however you want to say it.

that is inappropriate because the investigation is ongoing. which one of you said something like that? >> jay is fine. >> professor sekulow, it is a good point, it is something that we hear both ways. we as americans are used to tv reporters putting microphones, prosecutors's faces, investigators in police chief's face is asking for details of an investigation and what is the phrase they all in tone always? i can't comment. an ongoing investigation, we understand that because you can prejudice an investigation if you release details, if you give up clues, you can let the guilty people off the hook if you do

that. if you comment on in going investigations. we as americans understand that and it works both ways. before you impugn an investigation, before you condemn an investigation for using shoddy practices or unfair viewpoints, whenever it is, before you tack an investigation, to see how it comes out and to that point, i want to ask, do any of you have investigations that are over? that is complete at this point? if you do, way in. >> we have been involved in this situation since its outset. with regard to the investigation two aspects. their president on going department of justice investigation.

on the department of justice investigation, it is important to point this out, the wrongdoing by the irs was acknowledged by the internal revenue service, and for that reason it is different than a situation where you are trying to determine if in fact there was wrongdoing. the wrongdoing was acknowledged by the irs, they offered the apology for it but they acknowledged they did inappropriate targeting, that is number one. >> i want to say, professor sekulow, we on this committee on both sides are in high state of outrage when we found out about it. we have not heard from the justice department to be complete in investigation and i want to make the point that maybe, just maybe it would make sense for all of us as americans to step back and let him do their work before they attacked, before we attacked their methods or their conclusions. i only have limited time.

the second point i wanted to make is there have been referencess to barbara bosserman who did not come today. is highly irregular, really unprecedented to hall and investigator in before a congressional committee in the middle of an investigation for the same reasons i just discussed because it can prejudice an investigation, it can really foul it up. that is why i don't do that. one or more of you have said she was leading the investigation, and i wonder, are any of you privy to who is leading the investigation? attorney general eric holder testified, i believe it was in the ways and means committee, i believe in the senate, testified that miss by sermon is not in

fact leading that investigation. if one or more of view is privy to information that she is the lead on this investigation, not now is the time to share your information with us. >> let me clarify this for you. our office, we are the only ones so far, had a conversation with the department of justice, the highest-ranking official on that call was miss bosserman. we are not disparaging her credentials at all. it raised issues, significant issues but it is important to point out with regard to her relationship with the department of justice she is a senior official in the department of justice and highest ranking member of the department of justice that we work with. >> you suspect she may be in the lead of this investigation. the truth of the matter is you don't know and attorney-general eric holder has said that she is not, do you need to come in here, the attorney general of

the united states? >> no one has called the attorney general of the united states a liar. we have been told the highest ranking official at the department of justice is this o bosserm bosserman. >> the attorney-general didn't say that she was not. he said she is part of the team but mr. sekulow has said she is the highest-ranking official part of the team which would lead one to believe she is heading the investigation. plus we have what took place in practice. people we interviewed, committee staffers interviewed, minority staff in the same interviews told us the person asking them the questions, justice department interviewed them was barbara bosserman. so any logical person, anyone with a brain configure out she is heading investigation. the only one that won't admit that is the attorney general and a democrat members of this committee. anyone can figure that out.

and by the way, this is the underlying point, she gave $6,750 to the president and the democrat national committee. and should have recused herself by the plain language of the ethics rules in the justice department and you can defend her and send me a letter and say she should have come here, don't bring her into an to the question. you can do that and you can also say no liberal groups were invited. i would ask you tell me one liberal group you wanted to invite. >> let me back a. >> deal have one? tell me one liberal group that was targeted that you want to invite. i can point to 41 -- i can point to tea party in alabama. tell me when you conduct a to. it is your opinion -- >> the opinions of the test find witnesses are well taken but that is what they are. their opinions about who is leading this investigation and

we in the oversight and government reform committee -- >> dealing in fact. >> a serious charge. maybe you know something i don't. we have been told that she is the lead for the department of justice on the investigations including not just witnesses the we may produce but that you all have produced a maybe they told you some guido no or maybe they are not telling us the truth. also i would add the point that you talk about prejudging an investigation the president said not one smidgen of corruption. >> what i said leading into it is fair to criticize him for that but by the same token let's all stand back and wait till the end of the investigation and reach a measured and recent evaluation. before we -- >> diane in federal court against the irs. i don't get the luxury to sit back. >> i think all of you for being here.

the engelbrechts have a -- gentleman from texas recognize. >> i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the three page letter i sent to attorney general eric holder on may 14th, 2013, asking for special prosecutor who did not respond. >> i appreciate that. a plane to catch quickly. >> one question. this is a difference here between with all due respect to the ranking member there is no question that these groups, my clients anymore who are many more people, hundreds of groups, hundreds of groups involving thousands of citizens. there is no debate about the fact that they were subjected to a process which was instituted within the irs in late 2009 or

early 2010 which changed the historic, a procedural matter that is published on the web site of the irs, publicly available process that is supposed to be followed reviewing applications for its new status. there is no question that that happened. i think when you are saying the question of wrongdoing, that is the wrong doing. we are supposed to be a nation of laws and the rule of law is that the process is published. anybody who applies is subjected to the same process, the same procedures and something changed in the irs and that happened, there's no debate about that. that was wrong. whether it rises to a criminal offense, and mentioned several things that are not criminal offenses. those of the things we take exception to that the justice department needs to be investigating that they really don't, they haven't to our knowledge or satisfaction and

people calling for the appointment of special cals will but let's not go away from this hearing. whether the fact exist as they exist which is that hundreds of grass-roots organizations were subjected to an entirely new review process created in washington and inflicted upon them by politically powerful people. >> well said. engelbrecht, thank you for nothing show and want to thank mr. sekulow too. the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> eric wasson joins us for a look at what is happening in congress, he is a staff writer for hill newspaper, house

republicans held a meeting in the basement of the capital to talk strategy on the debt limit. what did they decide? >> decisions have not been made yet. john boehner, speaker of the house, presented a plan to the conference and they are now, during the current road in the following hours trying to get a recount on it. the plan is to raise the debt ceiling for about a year, to catch a fix to the military pension cost-of-living adjustment change that was made in december. basically congress cut future military pension by $6 billion, the backlash to veterans' groups and others a live with them. this would reverse that, and would be paid for by extending cuts to medicare to place through 2023 for additional year. looking at the meeting some conservatives expressed disappointment the idea of

paying for it thinking that a savings ten years down the road is kind of a budget gimmick. right now they are trying to establish whether they can get enough votes to pass this and it remains to be seen. one test would be if they could get 218 votes to pass without democratic help as it stands right now. democrats have insisted on a clean debt ceiling, even if they get democratic help for the republic on board. >> you mention the democrats. what house does the house republican leader should expect from house democrats and even fellow republicans for that matter? >> the leadership retreat happened a few weeks ago, that they were looking for something that would get democratic support and i think this military cost of living adjustment is unpopular in a

bipartisan way. the senate voted 94-0 to proceed what would reverse the cut. so this is something they are looking, the policy matters should appeal to a large number of democrats. whether democratic leaders and white house decide they don't want to deviate from their line of the attachments, that remains to be seen. >> what is the timeline on the house floor. could we see action on the debt limit before the deadline set by its every -- treasury secretary jack lew? >> everyone agrees they are risking a black swan event. basically looking to have a vote on wednesday, that would mean filing a bill under house rules sometime tonight. house democrats are meeting for their annual retreat in

maryland, questions about a snow storm coming in wednesday across the bay in maryland. that would bring up the deadline because next week there is up present-day reset here and recess will be retreats. two days before the deadline when the house comes back. >> will the senate take up the debt limit? >> good question. i would imagine they will move very swiftly. because in the white house concern over it. >> americans tax reform at a number saying they don't like this plan by the house. what might they have? >> the grover norquist, head of americans -- very influential. especially on tax matters. this is a spending matter. he doesn't have exactly the same weight, basically most republicans found their new

taxes' pledge, able to really hold their feet to the fire on that. it retains other influence on spending matters but it is important to include the national tax in those groups as well. that will be a significant defection, remains to be seen how large -- there were a number of conservatives from jim jordan on down basically saying they can't put this plan. >> eric wasson's twitter counties e. l. lawson and his website is thehill.com. >> the president and mrs. obama welcome french president fran francois hollande to the white house for an official visit. welcoming ceremony at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. the obamas host a state dinner for the french president.

late night coverage >> the new c-span.org web site gives you access to an incredible library of political events with more added each day through c-span's nonstop coverage of national politics, history and nonfiction books. find daily coverage of official washington or access more than 200,000 hours of archived c-span video everything c-span has covered since 1987 and our video is all searchable land deal along your desktop computer, tablet or smart phone. look at the prominent search bar at the top of each page. the new c-span.org makes it easy to watch what is happening today in washington and find people in the events from the past 25 years. the most comprehensive video library in politics.

>> next a discussion about the future of counterintelligence after the disclosures by former nsa contractor ed snowden. former cia and nsa official william nolte was part of the event hosted by the institutes of world politics. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> i figure you are getting older or more important when there is an introducer to the introducer. let me first of all saying john wankows wankowski. john could not be here, they have given significant credible reasons why they are not here. i hope it is not that they wanted to stay home and watch the opening ceremonies. that would be disappointing but i am in a contest with some friends of mine to imagine the most embarrassing thing that can happen to vladimir putin

tonight. tinker bell's if we pray real heart or clap our heels and dissenting maybe something will happen. any of them. one of the things i stress with my students is integrity based profession. brian kelly remains one of those professionals who to me exemplifies in so many ways the integrity and courage that sometimes is demanded of people in this field. this lecture gives me an opportunity in some ways to repay my debt to brian and also such an honor to meet mrs. kelly tonight. this is a man who for those of us who knew him all cherish him when he was alive and cherished his memory today. i have to say however, and i feel my sense of nerves coming gone, when the institute first made this offer i declined because at the very least i am not an expert in counterintelligence and as i

said at the time i don't think this is a good idea but then john talked to me about doing this and i had second thoughts and my second thoughts were john, this is a really bad idea. because this is a lecture that should be given by one of brian's colleagues, by someone who has worked in this very tough field and not someone who from time to time and i am proud of it has advocated for greater attention to and greater respect for counterintelligence and the american intelligence profession. on third thought i decided to do it but wanted to make it clear it is in that capacity as an advocate, not an expert that i speak to you this evening. i still struggle with the fog that advocating for counterintelligence should be a problem. it is an absolutely intolerable part of any intelligence process. sometimes to engage my students

when we are discussing the nsa i raise the hypothetical that technology has moved to the point where nsa can only do one of its core missions, protect american codes and ciphers or exploit the codes and ciphers and communications of other countries and i ask them if technology did that a neutral lead to one, which one would you do? to no one's surprise they picked the admission. it goes back to an incident i had some years ago, as a young historian i was having lunch one day with david and i said something to the effect that nsa was misnamed. it was the national security agency and i and 90% of my colleagues didn't do security. david looked at me and said if you can only do one which would it be? i always kept that either/or

thought in and hopefully never reached the point where it became a reality. that same question about the role of counterintelligence versus what i referred to in my classes as positive intelligence to make the distinction clear to people from the outside, has the same sort of quality. what after all is the point of collecting all this information if we can't protect the sources and methods and processes that allow us to bring it to decisionmakers? what is the point of world class intelligence structure if we don't match that structure with counterintelligence processes capable of protecting the confidentiality of that information and those forces? the question is often asked whether secret intelligence and take place in a democratic society, that places high-value on openness. one question that should be asked is whether democratic society having forged over time

with some tension rules to regulate and oversee intelligence operations should permit individuals or institutions to declare themselves above and beyond legal authority. even absent the sparks be there/or hypothetical, we are probably in something like the sixth decade as far as i can see in which counterintelligence has been take your pick, underfunded, undernoticed or even disrespected. i never got around to researching this but my guess would be if you go back to 1950 and before the resources expended in the united states on counterintelligence probably came close to matching what we spend on the other aspect of intelligence. certainly the original pioneers to what became nsa got their first job was protecting american codes and ciphers. was something of a byproduct for them. you could even find in popular

culture some reflections of fact. if you look back to motion pictures in the 40s and >> caller:s counterintelligence agencies, military or civilian were the good guys, how do i know that? they were always played by john wayne or jimmy stewart. that is all you need to know? can use the 4 they would have been played by ronald reagan and george murphy which meant going after not these versus communists which meant warner's save the law conscript. we know the culture change. over time in 70s and 80s and beyond the protagonists in motion pictures and novels for less inclined to be the good guys ferreting out spies. the rogan doing really perverse things to civil liberties and all kind of fun stuff were actually the agents of department institutions that were out to violate civil liberties. this cultural shift of course

mark morgan counterintelligence and whether one places it with the warren commission or the war in vietnam, from the 1960s counterculture role view that intelligence represented an effort to spy on americans and deprive them of their constitutional liberties has been very strong. let's leave aside for a moment, maybe for all time if we could oliver stone's jfk. after it 2-1/2 hours of that i can't figure out any institution in american life that is not implicated in his conspiracy. take a milk, something i find even more interesting, the old robert redford barbra streisand movie the way we were. on one level it is a love story about two people who can't resolve their issues. but the backdrop for that is the conviction that the 1950s represented period in which innocent americans suffered repression at the hands of agents of the hysterical

witchhunt for communist agents. did not exist. let's not even deal while we are going to the depths with the crucible, of play that is a didactic and so boring that i have often thought of by had to do with desert island discs and my only choice was the crucible or the scarlet letter i would actually discover hawthorne as the master of prose style. how did we get here? first of all we didn't have the culture shift, the perception of intelligence and counterintelligence was part of that. never trust anyone over 30 was a model for my generation along with sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. the tides of that culture really swept over rest and to some degree it is still there. the good news i will touch on as i go along is the tieds eventually subside. cultural tides as well.

the revisionist or counterculture view of intelligence and counterintelligence would as we know benefit which for a lot of writers and screenwriters was a trilogy of poster people, joseph mccarthy, richard nixon, j. edgar hoover. if you were a scriptwriter of a certain profession could you ask for a better trio to deal with? the reality is more subtle than sometimes hollywood makes it. hoover for one, had resigned or died in 1930s would probably be considered one of the great figures in 20th century criminology and one of the few people in washington in 1942 opposed the relocation of the japanese on the west coast was herbert hoover -- was j. edgar hoover. but the reality is if you stay in a government job for 50 years and assume it is your personal property hubris is going to take over. that is a real lesson in that case. as for nixon we all know the

strange twists associated with that figure. as for mccarthy his critics often portray him more as an evil aberrations and as a representative of a midwestern populism that often produce demagoguery and irresponsible figures. my former professor who just turned 90 has long noted that mccarthy in the end probably produced more anti anti-communist than anti-communist and there's a great deal of truth in that. my first paying job in high school was shelving books on the silver spring library. one of the subjects that fascinated me at the time was the books on the literature on the atomic spies. it was the most interesting thing in the world's. this cottage industry of books, half of which said the rosenbergs were innocent, mccarthy and whitaker chambers were villains and the other half that said whitaker chambers and

mccarthy were national heroes and the rosenbergs were guilty. i will move forward a bit here to remember a day when i was sitting in my cubicle as a young ennis a historian talking to a man named frank who was one of the first freedman hires in 1930. he was close to 80 at the time and when he tilted his head dramatically i thought i was waiting for a medical emergency. instead he spotted on my bookshelves allen weinstein's perjury. he was reading the spline. you know he was guilty, don't you? he said. and i replied i thought the one sign books came close to

demonstrating that to which he said ask your boss about the no no. he then walked away. i walked into my boss at knossos, i said mr. wilson, what do you know about corona? he looked at me like personnel had made a real serious mistake and said as in two gentleman of? i said no, he said that really ought to read into something called corona. mr. wilson at that point went ghost white and said oh my god, you mean corona? he says do you know someone named bill chrome? no, i don't. he said i didn't -- he picks up the phone and in a couple days i was meeting with him. and cecil phillips, one of the last of the colleges, i was being briefed in to this remarkable system. we tried several times

thereafter to declassify it within the nsa and each of those efforts failed. they failed because people within the agency and i assume with good motives insisted that to release menonaid would destroy agency equities by releasing sources and methods. i had failed at the intern program, one of my other detours but it did seem to me that if the method at issue here was that if you use a one time pad over, you are looking for trouble, maybe the agency could survive this particular disclosure. a few years later i was at a conference where christopher andrew, giving a talk on the origins of cia and the truman administration simply stopped from his prepared text and said by the way, if you think aldridge changed history of the second world war, wait until

verona comes out. and i raced from the hall, found a pay phone, some of the main eating explanation of what that is but nevertheless called him and told him what happened and i have never been able to get christopher andrew to confirm this but we believe that our british cousins had gotten tired of the nsa dragging its feet and in a few years it was the classified. what happens from that? renown no with the exception of very few hard-core that the evidence is the rosenbergs were guilty, that there were soviet spies. there are still people who deny it but when you're handler has written about how he handled you those denials don't seem altogether credible. but we also learned from that experience that two presidents and a decade of american national security policy were

subject to ridicule as part of the historical stories that was factually implausible. and in fact what nsa did i spent 30 years on and have great affection, we did value our equities. and that is something the intelligence services from time to time. some of the damage to counterintelligence and its reputation came from outside. some of it was self-inflicted, the discussion on the atomic spies continued as long. factually incorrect discussion continued only because it was declassified, fire too late. this should be continuing lesson for all the agencies. where does that leave us now. as far as the state of counterintelligence. i had several minutes over the last decade where i thought the

tsunami had talked about was receding. and the counterintelligence executive and the intelligence reform and terrorism and prevention act, as well as the same shortage of of 40 and structure and resources that suffers from. and burn and jennifer sims. and that movement has yet to appear. and i hoped it might lead to a manhattan project on counterintelligence and security in the 20 first century. such a proposal and lack of

interest was apparent. and the senior official, michelle hinckley, i was told we had more see eye training. maybe the time has come to try again to get the manhattan project going. there are other things that have said we are getting there. the intelligence national security alliance produced a great short paper on counterintelligence a couple years ago. i thought that might speed some things. you still see some of the structural problems. at the time of the manning wiki leaks disclosures, the intelligence committee hosted at one of our meetings the dod counterintelligence officials. when one of our members asked how dod counterintelligence was dealing with the security people involved in the case his reply was you have to ask the security

people. when i got back to my office i called a friend in the code the security who told me the problem was counterintelligence people messing around in what was clearly a security case. this was clearly a self-inflicted wound. i sat through a briefing more recently before the manning, the ed snowden article started to appear. the briefers said one of the problems in security and counterintelligence was dealing with structures of the interface between security, counterintelligence and information technology security. when i blurted out if you're going to name all of those drilling information insurance i was thanked. i didn't want to be thanked. i wanted some recognition that these old structures were getting in the way of getting it done. that there was so much turf going on between these various

functions, why should they talk to each other? that is rather extraordinary in the intelligence community but i will point it out anyway and i thought about this over the last few months. this is in honor of mike hayden, one sports analogy. i thought of this as being like mike shanahan. i almost said the late mike shanahan, saying i don't have a problem like defense. i have a problem with my defensive line, my linebackers and my backs. you gotta problem with the whole and that is the problem we have got with our defensive systems. we have 20th century structures dealing with the twenty-first century environment and that is not going to work. i am pleased my former agency has linked organizationally. its counterintelligence and security functions but i don't think that has to be the model

for everyone. structure in the 21st centuries this importance and process. you can put people where you want structurally and communicate well and you will get past the structure. i still have these great fear is when i see wiring diagrams to think that that is really a metaphor. that is a metaphor of an industrial model and yet we think those are very real. over at decade ago, in the twenty-first century contest between bureaucracies and networks networks will win. i look at our government and intelligence community and i think we are more bureaucratic and networked and that does not help the cause. let me add a few thoughts on the prospects for reversing the cultural way i have already spoken about. first of all, we all know this,

the national discussion or conversation raised by the ed snowden disclosure will continue and i don't intend to give ed snowden any credit for this. you could easily argue john brown with harper's ferry raid deserves credit for bringing to the country's attention the issue of slavery. who in 1859 didn't know that slavery was an issue? i sometimes think even beyond that, that we had better building codes in our cities after the chicago fire but i have never been to chicago to see a statue of mrs. o'leary's call. part of that would be where i put ed snowden. let me not go there. i would prefer to see an orderly review of our national security including intelligence, including counterintelligence. i stay in contact with a group in washington called the american security project which is very much the staff of the former hart rodman commission now on their own.

and i look back at the reports of a decade or so ago and i think we missed a terrific opportunity. there are calls for a very serious comprehensive review of our 1947 national security issue of instruments, never came to pass. it was going to be looked at everyone told me in the summer of 2001 in fiscal 2002. and we know what happened in september of 2001. so instead of disorderly, for a look we had post crisis legislation and we all know what that means. as i tell my students the most dangerous thing you will ever here in washington is a group of congressmen assembling around cameras and microphones in the rotunda saying we must do something. that is a very frightening prospect to. how would we do such a review? we could do worse. make an attempt to modify and

the environment we think we are going to be in in the next 10-15 years. define a strategy to deal with that environment and book to see if our instruments match the strategy or the environment and i look around at an awful lot of our national security systems if and i don't see that matching of tools and the problems they face. my two students, mike, chesney and christina, england, a big country. air force academy graduates, we have a problem with the air force academy to bring graduates to the score public policy and there are good sports when i coming and ask in class how many sorties did the f-22 fly in iraq? and the answer is zero.

something is wrong when we spend billions of dollars on instruments we don't want to use and i hate to pick on the air force. i will buy you a drink later. i think they are free actually. but i could easily do the same sort of thing with the other military services and i think we could easily do the same thing in the intelligence services. we are simply not adapting our tools to the environment that we face. the issues that we face in the future are among those that are defined in large part by the information environment we face and if we haven't faced that with ed snowden, target, who els got hacked this week i don't know. the information environment still drives an awful lot of national security. stewart brand who some of us may remember as the founder -- think back, the whole earth catalog gave an interview in wired magazine last august in which he said the most important event of

the last 20 years was the playing out of more's law. okay. most important, i could argue, certainly top five. i used to give lectures where i talked about more's law somewhere around 2002-2003 and it hasn't happened. i see articles all the time that a more's law is going to slow down because we reached the limits on how many circuits you could put and i find articles that say silicon, old stuff. look what is happening in nanotechnology and biotechnology and the predictions that more's law is going to end at least quantitatively balanced with those that say we are in for a whole new cycle of it. intelligence and counterintelligence more specifically for our purposes really has to deal with that constantly changing, volatile

information environment, three different aspects. it is the obvious one, the last few months is privacy. the worst thing, and i told a group of former intelligence officers the same thing the other day, the worst thing the intelligence community can do in the light of the ed snowden event is to think that this whole controversy is about us. it is not just about intelligence, not just about nsa. it is about people living in an information environment which we use all the time but don't understand and occasionally it comes up and scares the heck out of us. that is the period we are in. and i think if i went on the street tonight and ask people what concerns you more? the ed snowden disclosures or what happened to target? a fair number of reasonable people would say what happened that target. nsa is something literally in the either. target affects my credit.

people have been very concerned by that. several years ago we were interviewing candidates at the national intelligence council for a national intelligence officer position and one of the things we asked all the candidates was named the top five experts in your field outside the intelligence community. one of the applicants from a major intelligence agency said there are no experts in our field outside the intelligence community. the good news i will report to you as he did not get the job. we already spend several hundred thousand dollars consulting with those people and we had to deal with real serious issues of academic not wanting to come in to cia headquarters, not wanting to get clearance, in part because of privacy issues. one of the things i am absolutely sure of is we in the 21st century are not living in

the privacy environment many of us grew up in and our parents grew up in an our grandparents grew up in. look back, popular culture, how many novels in 19st century or movies in the first half of the 20th century had characters who were escaping from something or other? criminal charges, their family, a job, debts, how did you get away from it? you simply went west. that chances of being apprehended were very slim. a couple years ago you may remember this, and author challenge the country in effect in a piece in wired magazine, was going to go off the web and contribute $10,000 if anybody could find them and this is a skilled computer professional. within weeks there were blogs all over the country of people coming to get there without any leadership, just as blogs due to find this guy. he did a very good job, he did

really good job of two weeks before the clock ran out, someone approached him in the new orleans airport and that you the guy from wired magazine? it is very hard to get off the web -- think about that in your own lives. suppose you go home tonight and decide you want to get off the web. you want to lower your profile. would you going to do? i can give you a lot of suggestions, pay cash for everything, don't own a smart phone, turn it off when you are not using it, don't owner gps. if you have the computer make sure it is an apple product. this is not a commercial but when i am that u.s. cyber command how many years apples at home. tell me something. if you do use the internet, never allowed a service to share your information. the legal fees, change passwords regularly, never write down a password. let me ask this audience how

many of you have never written down password? that is pretty good, that is really good, you have a better memory the night to. because i have so many of these things i could never -- good for you. i expected no one to answer that. i assume you are telling the truth. if not i hope you don't deal with holographs but i am really impressed with that. we are going to have to deal with a different expectation of privacy in the 21st century and what that is i don't know. it will be the deputy director of science and technology did several papers some years ago in which he talked about the erosion of privacy and if you find those articles today on the internet they are all labeled as cia official attacks privacy. cia official calls for the end of privacy.

they are quite fun. don kerr is a scientist. don wasn't recommending anything. he was simply observing and it is true. is true. we have eroded our privacy. i prepared these remarks before the president made his address on what he was going to do about the nsa issue so i won't comment directly. may be in q&a we can touch on that but what struck me most was the end of march the government has to come up with an alternate solution to nsa storing all this data that they store. we don't want nsa to store it. phone companies don't want to store it. we got to come up with a solution. before we know the frost says, before the film and lis school

there may not be an outcome that the end of this, and second, the options for change involves regulating things versus overseeing them. the more flexible mechanism for control, i describe what we do in the internet, the information environment, wild west environment and a couple years ago i was telling friends and congressional staff i really wanted to see them get a major piece of cyberlegislation through. i am much less confident in that and more concerned that we legislate something and find out two or three or five years from now that we legislated the wrong thing or the thing that we aim at never developed or that we were actually hamstringing ourselves. this is to be something i don't know when we will get regulation, i don't know whether

the legislation could do much benefit. oversight offers greater flexibility. i joined nsa when oversight was new and in retrospect the only thing i think was missing was people wearing black armbands st. nsa our ip with the cause of death in the select committee on intelligence. i was told we will never be able to function like this. the brits don't function like this, how are we going to deal with it? every industrial democracy, some parliamentary or judiciary oversight and from my point of view, i did run congressional -- congressional oversight is one of the great achievements of american intelligence history. where would the intelligence community be to the without mark

rogers and senator feinstein and chairman? i am so glad these folks are on the side of the intelligence community, very important time. .. >> when somebody shows up at the door and says what's he really like, you know, you're going to stare at them. i've had them twice during my career show up at my house and ask my wife what i'm like. she, obviously, didn't tell the

truth, because i kept my clearance. [laughter] but does this make my sense? i don't think so. we need to get -- let me spend my last few minutes on espionage. i'm going to talk about one possibility, and then i'm going to draw short of recommending that as an option. i give the army prosecutors in the manning case highest marks for their attempt to prosecute manning in, under the 1917 espionage act. but, frankly, if they couldn't get it done in the terms of