she paid an $800,000 fine for sexual harassment. he admitted to it in one court case and has been convicted in the public place for the other sexual harassment. >> finally, four years in the senate. is it the job you expected? >> sometimes. it can be a tiring job with all of the travel. it is exciting to be in the middle of a body that we have had since the beginning of our republic that debates important constitutional questions. i think there needs to be a voice for those of us who believe in privacy and individual liberty. sometimes a voice has not been there. i've been excited. >> senator rand paul, thank you for being with us. > thank you.

>> what they may consider next week on dealing with the debt ceiling on a more long term basis. >> the pressurery started the first in a series of what is known as extrard noir measures. those are designed to avoid hitting the actual debt limit and the procedures that the treasury department says could run until late this month, they haven't set a date certain as of yet on when exactly they are expecting some time before the end of the month, law makers in congress are trying to figure out a way to raise the limit. there is a possibility that they will come up with a bill to be voted on as early as next week, although that is still a bit in flux right now. >> we know the senate is coming back to take up a deal with military pensions. why is this an ire with the

senate? >> it's an issue because it happened during the negotiations on the two-year budget and this was included in there, this is something they now want to deal with separately and so this is something that you have both seen as a possible thing on the debt limit although it's my sense they may be moving away from that but this is something the senate plans to take up separately now. >> the new federal reserve chair will testify after a dropping less the last week and impressive job numbers. >> they want to get a sense of where she's going to be taking the federal reserve. it's not often they change the person who is in charge. that's a month men us the thing. they often change less frequently these days than we change presidents. this is going to be a new

direction possibly although there is some indications she may be similar in a lot of ways. i think what people are trying to get is a really good handle on where she wants to take the federal reserve, what sort of policies she's going to have and this is going to get looked at in the spec or the of law makers in congress saying what they would like to do instead. a lot of this is a sounding out period of what they would like to do. >> when congress comes back it will be a short week. who will the house democrats hear from and what are some of the issues they are expected to address. >> we're expecting they will get to hear from the president and vice president biden. he things that we're expecting the president has

to say about immigration refomplet these are things that the white house and democratics have said they want to address but don't look like they've got a legislative vehicle or a push to do immentally. there is a question of how much of this is going to be campaign related and how much is going to be policy related. we may get some clarity out of that. and it's a difficult position because they are in the minority right now. they are trying to take back the house. they have an up hill climb to do it. the president is in a position if we can't figure out a way to help them take back the house, he will be dealing with a divided government the remainder of his presidency. i think the president would rather not to have to deal with that. house democrats hold the key to

that. they have to be in a position where they think they can actually move and win some of these seats in districts where mitt romney actually won with a small percentage or that obama won but a republican congressional candidate won as well. >> derek wall bank covers bloorl news. thanks for the update. >> thanks very much. >> you can watch live court and jury of the house when it returns tomorrow at noon eastern and the senate at 2:00 eastern over on c-span2. >> next a discussion about the future of counter intelligence after the disclose yours by edward snowden. you'll hear from william nolte who worked for the cia. his is an hour and 15 minutes.

>> i figure you are getting older or more important when there is an introducer to the introducer. that is pretty good stuff. let me first of all thank john and the institute for extending this invitation. michelle nor john can be here and they've given significantly incredible reasons they cannot be here. i hope it's not because they wanted to stay home and watch the opening ceremonies. i am in a contest with some friends to imagen the most embarrassing thing that can happen to mr. putin tonight. maybe something real bad will happen to him. one of the things i stress with my students is intelligence is

an integrity based profession. brian kelly remains one of the professionals who exemplifies in so many ways the integrity and the 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 i should add it's an honor to meet ms. kelly tonight. this is a man for those of us who knew him all cher risched him when he was alive and cherish his memory today. i have to say and i feel my sense of nerves coming on, when this offer was first made i declined. at the very least, i am not an expert in counter intelligence. i said i don't think this is a good idea. but then john talked to me about doing this and i had second thoughts. 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 field. and not someone who from time to time and i'm proud of it has advocated for greater attention to and greater respect for counter intelligence. on third thought i decided to do it but i want to make it clear it's in that capacity as an advocate, not an expert that i speak to you this evening. >> i still struggle with the thought that advocating for could wanter intelligence should be a problem. it is an absolutely integral part of any intelligence process sometimes to engage my students when we're discussing n.s.a. i raise the hypothetical that technology has moved to the point where n.s.a. can do only one of it's core missions, protect american codes or exploit the codes and communications of other

countries. i ask if tech noming did that and you could only do one what would you do. to no surprise they pick the second mission and i have to tell them that's wrong. it goes back to an incident i had several years ago. as a young historian i was having lunch with david and i said something today effect n.s.a. was misnamed. it was the national security agency and i and 90% of my colleagues did signet, we didn't do security. david looked at me and said if you could only do one, which would it be and i've always tcheapt either or thought in my mind and hope we never reach the point it becomes a reality. i think that same question about the role of counter intelligence versus what i refer to in my classes as positive intelligence

only the make the distinction clear to people coming from the outside has that 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 decision makers? what is the point of a world class intelligence structure if we don't match that structure with could wanter intelligence processes capable of protecting the confidentiality of that information and those sources? he question is asked where counter intelligence can take place in a society that places high value on openness. one question that should be asked is a democratic society rules to regulate and oversee intelligence operations should permit individuals or institutions to declare themselves above and beyond legal authority. even abs at no time start either or hypothetical, we are probably

in something like the sixth decade as far as i can see in which could wanter intelligence has been take your pick, underfunded, undernoticed or even disrespected. i've never gotten around to researching this but my guess would be if you went back to 1950 and before, the resources expend in the united states on intelligence probably came close to matching what we spent on that other aspect of intelligence. certainly the original pie neers to what became n.s.a. thought their job was to protect code. it was a by product for them. and i think you can even find in the popular culture some reflections of that. if you look back to motion pictures in the 1940's and even the 1950's. counter intelligence agencies were the good guys.

that's all you need to know. 10 years before they would have been played by ronald reagan which meant water saved a lot of scripts. then we know how the culture changed. over time the protagonist in motion pictures and novels were ss in point to be the good guys ferreting out spice or actually the agents of departments and institutions that were out to violate civil liberties. this cultural shift marked more than counter intelligence and whether it places it with the warn commission. the view that intelligence represented an eye to spy on americans and deprive them of

their constitutional liberties. let's leave aside for the moment if we could oliver stone's j.f.k. after about two and a half hours of that i can't figure out any institution in american life that is not imp kated in his conspiracy. take a look at something i find more interesting and that is the movie the way we were. on one level it's a love story about two people who can't resolve their issues. but the backdrop for that is the conviction that the 1950's represented a period in which innocent americans suffered repression at the hands of agents of a hysterical witch hunt for communist agents who did not exist. let's not even deal while we're going into the depths with the cruss balance. a play that is so die dact i can and so boring that i've often

thought if i had to do a desert island discs and my only choice was the crewsable or the scarlet letter i would discover hawthorne as a master of prose spile. how did we get here? first of all, we did have the culture shift and the perception of intelligence and counter intelligence was just a part of that. never trust anyone over 30 it was motto for my generation along with sex, drugs and rock and roll. the tied of that culture swept over us and to some degree it's still there. the good news and i'll touch on this more as i go along is that tides eventually subside. the view of intelligence and counter intelligence would as we know benefit what for a lot of writers and screen writers was a trilogy of poster people. if you were a script writer of a

certain persuasion could you ask for a better triowe to deal with. reality is more subtle than sometimes hollywood makes it. hoover, for one, had he resigned or died in the 1930's would have been considered one of the great figures in 20th septemberry criminology. -- but the reality is if you stay in a government job for 50 years and assume it's your personal property, hubers is going to take over. that's a very real lesson in that case. as for mix exxon, we know the strange twist embedded with that figure. as for mccarthy his critics often portray him as an evil aberration rather than a representative of a pop lism that produced dem godge i can

and irresponsible figures. my former professor who just turned 50eu9 has long noted that mccarthy probably produced more anti-anti-communist than anti-communist and i think that's a great deal of truth in that. my first paying job in high school was shelving books in a library. one of the subjects that fascinated me at the time was the literature on the atomic spies. and it was the most interesting thing in the world, this industry of books half of which that said hits in the rozzenburgs were innocent and mack car thi was a villain and the other half that said chambers and mccarthy were national heroes and the rosenburgs were guilty. >> i'll move forward a bit here

to remember a day when i was sitting in my cube cal talking to a man name frank who was one of the first freedman hires in 1930. he was probably pretty close to 80 at the time and when he tilted his head rather dramatically i thought i was waiting for a medical emergency. instead he had spotted on my book shelves allen weinstein's purge ji and he was reading the spine. you know he was guilty he said. and i said i thought the weinstein book came pretty close to dem traiting that. to which he said ask your boss. >> he walk add way. i walked into my boss' office. i walked in and said mr. wilson, what do you know about verona and he looked at me like personnel had made a real

serious mistake and he said as in two gentlemen of. >> i said no mr. frank was in and said i should read into something called verona. he went ghost white. and he said you mean venona. he said do you know someone named bill kole. i said no, i don't. within a couple of days i was meeting with bill. and i was being briefed into this remarkable system. we tried several times there ter to declassify venona within n.s.a. and each of those efforts failed. they failed because people within the agency and i assume with good not tives insisted to release it to the public would destroy agency equities by

released soirs and methods. now i had failed out of the crypt analysis program, one of my other detours in life. but it did seem to me if the source and method at issue here was 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 was giving a talk simply stopped from his prepared text and said by the way, if you think ultra changed the history of the second world war, wait until venona comes out. and i raced from the hall and found a pay phone. some of you may need on explanation of what that is. i called mr. kole and told him

what happened. i know bill kole and i believe our british cousins had gotten tired of n.s.a. dragging it feet on venona and in a few years it was declassified. and what happened from that? we now know with the exception of a very few hard core is that the evidence is that the rosenburgs were guilty. there were soviet spice. there are people who deny it but when your handler has written a book how he handled you, those don't seem at all credible. we also learned two presidents and a decade of national security policy were subject to ridicule due to a story that was factly plausible. what we did was value our

equities above the good name of the united states of america. that's something all the intelligence services need to think about from time to time. hence, some of the damage to counter intelligence and its reputation came from outside. some of it was self-inflicted. the discussion on the atomic spice continued. the factly incorrect discussion continued only because venona was declassified far too late. this should be a continuing lesson for all the agency. where does that leave us now as far as the stite of counter intelligence? i've had several moments turnover last decade where i thought the tsunami i talked about was reseeding. clear decade, it's very

it suffers from the same shortage of authority and structure and resources that the d.n.i. as a whole suffers from. i'm glad to see my good friend burton here tonight. i was excited when they published a few years ago and i thought here is an underpinning for intelligence and counter intelligence. that movement has yet to appear. i was encouraging by the advanced research project for intelligence and i hoped it would lead to a manhattan project on counter intelligence in the 21st century. when a proached with such a proposal the lack of interest affs parent. when i ha later raised this with a senior official, not michelle, i was told we just needed more c.i. training so maybe the time has come again to try and get that manhattan project going.

there are other things that have aid we're getting there. the intelligence national security aligns produced a great paper on counter intelligence a couple of years ago. i thought that might speed some things. that has not happened as well. you still see some structural problems. at the time of the manning wick ki leaks disclosure, the committee hosted at one of our meetings a d.o.d. counter intelligence official. when one of our members asked how d.o.d. counter intelligence was dealing with the security people involved in the case, his reply was you'll have to ask the security people. when i got back to my office i called a friend in d.o.d. security who quickly told me that the problem was the counter intelligence people were messing around in what was clearly a security case. this was clearly a self-inflicted wound.

i sat through a briefing recently just before the snowden article started to appear in which the briefers said that one of the problems in security and counter intelligence was dealing with the structures of the interface between security counter intelligence and information technology security. when i blurted out if you are going to name all of those, throw in information assurance, 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's extraordinary in the intelligence community but i'll point it out anyway. i thought about this over those last few months. this is in honor of mike, i have

to do one sports analogy. mike ght the former shanahan -- he's still mike shanahan, but the former coach. >> i have a problem with my line backers and backs. you have a problem with the whole. and that's the problem with have with our defensive systems. we have 20th structures dealing with a 21st century environment and that is not going to work. i'm very pleased that n.s.a. my former agency has now linked organizationly it's counter intelligence and security functions but i don't think that has to be the model for everyone. structure in the'1"st century is going to be less important than process. you can put people wherever you want structurally and communicate well and you'll get past the structure. i still have these great fears

when i see wiring diagrams to think that is really a metaphor. that's a metaphor of an industrial model and yet we think those are very, very real. john and david said over a decade ago that in a 21st century contest between bureaucracies and networks, network will win. i look at our government and intelligence community and i think we are far more bureaucratic than network and that does not help the cause. first of all, we all know this, the national discussion or conversation raised by the snowden disclosures is going to continue. and i don't continue to give mr. snowden any credit for this. you could argue john brown with the harpers ferry raid deserves

credit for bringing to the country's attention slaverry. who didn't know slavery was an issue? and i sometimes think even dwhrooned that we had better building demodse our cities after the chicago fire but i've never been to chicago to see a statute of mrs. oh leery's cow. part of that cow would be where i'd put mr. snowden. let me not go there. orderlyprefer to see an review of intelligence and counter intelligence. i stay in contact with the american security project which is the staff of the former heart rudman commission now out on their own. i look back at the reports and i think we missed a terrific opportunity. there calls for a very serious comprehensive review of our 1947

national security instruments never came to pass. it was going to be looked at everyone told me in the summer of 2001, in fiscal 2002 and then we know what happened in september of 2001. instead of this orderly thorough look we had post crisis legislation and we all know what that means. as i also tell my students, the most dangerous thing you'll ever hear in washington is a group of congressman around the cameras saying we must do something. frightening possspect. how would we do a review in i think we could do worse than look at the method doling. make an attempt to define the environment we think we'll be in the in the next 10 years. define a strategy to deal with that environment and look to see if our instruments match either the strategy or the environment.

and i look around at our national security systems and i don't see that matching of tools and the problems they face. mike and ents are air force academy graduates. we have a program with the air force academy to bring graduates to the school of public policy. and they are good sports when i come in and ask how many sort, the's 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. i hate to pick on the air force, i'll buy you guys a drink later. i think they are free actually. but i could do the same sort of

thing with the other military services. and we could do the same thing in the intelligence the issues that we face in the future are among those defined in large part i the information environment. by theave not faced at snowden target, who else got hacked this week, i do not know. the information environment drives a lot of the national security. mayart brand, whose unless remember as the founder of the whole earth catalog, david interview last august in which you set the most important event of the last 20 years -- he said the most important bit of the last 20 years was playing out of the moore's law. it is certainly the top five. i used to give lectures