tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 12, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
and most of the staff that works on the clean air act is that the clean power plan in its current form is likely the most significant development in u.s. history with respect to climate change. i don't think any of us believe otherwise. it is a tremendously substantial rule and one that will have significant impact. as an economist, as many of us are, we kind of take some pleasure in the fact that there is flexibility built into the rule. as we reread the rule, we find it based on economic principles. we see those beneficial aspects of the rule. getting to the point -- it took a lot of hard work by many people inside and outside of government. and it took an awful lot of leadership. gina mccarthy was ready and willing to take that leadership role.
and for that, we are most thankful. she has a natural inclination to reach out across party and ideological lines. that is not all that common today. and in the process of the final rule, many of you participated in conversations with the administrator. you know she was try to get the most effective, efficient rule possible and a rule that would be long-lasting. before i introduce the administrator, let's talk about the flow of the event today. the administrator is going to take the podium and speak and then she and our lead expert on the clean air act will take the stage and engage in a bit of q&a. you have on your seats a card. if you would like to pose a question, please write it as clearly as you can and legibly so our folks can read that. as soon as the administrator is done speaking, we will collect
the cards and they will be passed on to dallas. for those who are viewing this online or some other medium and have access to twitter, you can send a tweet to us in terms of a question. #askrff. it is my great honor to introduce the administrator of the environmental protection agency. the greatest trait of a true manager is simply getting the job done. i think i speak for all of us in this room and many of the folks outside who are watching, thank you for getting the job done, for doing it exceedingly well and shepherding the clean power plan through all of these hurdles that were necessary to
bring it to a final rule today. and i say thank you for doing it in an environment where the politics and the rhetoric really make this job as difficult as possible. ladies and gentlemen, epa administrator gina mccarthy. [applause] admin. mccarthy: thank you. my dad used to say that half the battle is just showing up. i'm not sure that her work washington. delivering is quite important as well. before we begin talking about the clean power plan, i wanted to indulge you all a little bit and take a few minutes to talk about the mining waste in colorado, which is a important issue. the release of mining waste in colorado is impacting not just
the state of colorado, but it could impact new mexico, utah, the navajo nation as well. it is a tragic and unfortunate incident. epa is taking responsibility to ensure that spill is cleaned up. the most important effort is the health and safety of the residents and the visitors in that area as well. we know how important it is to them. as you may know, there are thousands of abandoned mines throughout the west and epa routinely works with states to clean up these spills. the spill occurred when one of our contract teams was using heavy equipment to enter the mine just north of the city of durango. in the process of treating the water inside.
in response to the unfortunate incident, we have used the full breadth and depth of death full the agency. it takes time to review and analyze data. i understand people's frustration, but we have our researchers and our scientists working around the clock. our commitment is to get this right and make sure we are protecting public health. thankfully, there have been no reported cases of anyone's health being compromised. additionally, we are seeing elevated levels. as it moves on, we are seeing a downward trajectory towards preevent conditions. so epa has taken states to take control of discharge at the mine itself so we are addressing any downward impacts. and we are diverting water and
treating it to lower the acidity level and to remove the dissolved metals. we also stood up the command control center. we are working with local officials. epa is providing additional water supplies. we have been in touch with state leadership as well as congressional delegations and we have kept the white house fully informed. epa is an agency whose core mission is to ensure a clean it environment and to protect public health. so it pains me to no end to see this is happening. but we are working tirelessly to respond and we are committed to full review of exactly what happened to ensure that it can never happen again. with that, i would like to move on to the clean power plan.
it has been an interesting summer, everyone, hasn't not? did anyone experience summer? i missed it here. [laughter] but it is seriously great to be here to talk to you. we have made some incredible progress together. this is a big lift and i want to commend everybody at epa who spent countless hours falling over this power plan and the many comments we received that significantly influenced this outcome. we have to all acknowledge, and i think we do here, that the effort was worth the left. climate change is one of the most important issues that we face. it is a global challenge. in many ways it is very personal to all of us because it affects everything and everyone we know and love. it affects our kids, our communities, even our ability to earn a decent living.
by now we know that climate change is driven in large part by carbon pollution and it leads to more extreme heat, cold, storms, fires and floods. for farmers strained by the drought, for families with homes in the path of a wildfire, for small businesses along our coastlines, climate change is indeed very personal. we know carbon pollution comes packaged with smog forming pollutants that can lead to lung and heart disease, that threaten our kids' health directly. for moms like me and parents everywhere, you know climate change is personal and you got involved and i thank you for it. no matter who you are, where you live or what you care about, climate change is affecting you and your family today. we are past any further discussion or debate.
scientists are as sure that humans are causing climate change as they are that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. unless you want to debate that point, don't debate climate change any longer because it is our moral responsibility to act. that responsibility right now is clear. that is why we have taken action. last week, president obama announced epa's clean power plan which is the biggest step our country has ever taken to fight climate change and protect this planet. he reminded us that while we are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change, we are the last that can effectively do something about it. he is right. i am so proud to be working for this president and so excited that our country has stepped up. i can stand here today and say we are doing something about it.
for so long, many of us have worked toward this moment, not just in government but all across the state, communities, organizations and businesses across america. we limit toxics as well as smog and soot forming pollutants but now we have standards for carbon pollution as well. for the first time in history, the clean power plan sets those limits. they set it in common sense, achievable ways that will protect our kids' health. a clean energy future is already happening and it has been -- america's transition to a clean energy future is already happening. with our plan, this nation is on track to set carbon pollution 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.
we will be keeping energy reliable and affordable. the cuts to smog and soot that come with these reductions will bring health benefits for american families. in 2030, emissions from power plants will drop 90% when compared to 2005 levels. emissions from power plants will drop 72% compared to 2005 levels not just as a result of this plan but as a result of six years of concerted effort to do what the clean air act says we must do and protect public health and the safety of our communities. as a result, in 2030, we will be avoiding thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of asthma attacks and hundreds of thousands of missed school and work days.
in 2030, the average american family will start seeing real savings on their utility bills. climate related benefits from the clean power plan will save this country billions of dollars and far outweigh its cost. it is a win all around. here's how it works. the clean power plan set uniform emission rates for power plants that are alike across the country. we use the same rate for every coal-fired plant no matter what state you are in and we use the same rate for gas-fired plants. this guarantees there is equity and fairness across the board. it is how we do our business. we know everyone in every state is not starting in the same place because some states generate more of their power from renewables, some from natural gas, nuclear him a cold
and so on. along with the unified rate, our plan sets produce should best -- giving states the flexibility they need to meet the requirements in what ever customized way those states want to do it. whatever works best for them, works best for the country. they can run more efficient plants more often or trial electricity from cleaner fuels or take advantage of energy efficiency opportunities. no plant has to do this alone, no state must do this alone. they all have the resources of the grid at their disposal. at the request of many states, we are providing a model rule that states can take and adopt right away if they want to do that. it is easy and can happen right away. it is focused on emission trading so that states can
leverage the power of the market to multiply options and minimize cost. it is a ready-made option, guaranteed to get states where they need to be. that's why the economists like it. the point is, there is no one size fits all approach. our plan puts utilities and states where they belong, in the driver's seat. at epa, we will start seeing plants from the states in 2016 and they will start making mandatory carbon pollution cuts in 2022. the good news is, we won't need to wait until 2030 to start seeing the plans benefits. many power companies are investing to modernize their plants and reduce admissions. more than 35 states have set renewable energy targets. mayors in over 1000 cities have committed to cut carbon pollution.
we want to encourage these early wins so we have created a clean energy incentive program to help states get ahead of the curve and jumpstart their reductions as soon as 2020. this path forward is affordable, reasonable and we know it can be done. this is not the first time epa has been in this rodeo. that's why we also know that like clockwork, there will be special interest critics that will be dusting off their same old playbooks. they will say we have to focus on the economy at the expense of the environment. they will claim our plan will shut the lights off or send utility bills through the roof. they are absolutely wrong. they were wrong in the 1990's when they said the same thing in order to oppose our limits on pollution that caused acid rain.
maybe some of you remember they predicted total doomsday. that did not happen. we slashed acid rain while the lights stayed on. they will say our cleaner energy system will kill jobs. i'm not sure they have been following the economics as well as they should because the solar industry is creating jobs 10 times faster than the rest of the economy is creating jobs. this is creating jobs not killing the economy. by the way, over the last 40 years, we have cut air pollution by 70% while our economy as tripled. no one should be saying that we need to move the economy forward at the expense of the environment. it has been proven time and time again that we protect the environment and we grow the economy all at the same time.
these stale claims otherwise will be fall short because by now the american people have 40 years of history to rely on. at the american people will know better than to listen to these doomsday scenarios and look at history. they will know that action is what we must do and concerted, reasonable action, which is what this plan represents, is really what we are going to do. i want to make clear that epa's plan is not about what we avoid, although we know climate change is impacting us today and will continue to get worse if we don't take action. it is also about what we gain. our plan is projected to lead up to $45 billion a year in net benefits in 2030.
$45 billion in year in net benefits in 2030 alone. those benefits will continue to accrue. in the same year, the average american family will start seeing $85 in annual savings on their utility bills. savings, $85 a year. that plan will protect americans health and their pocketbooks. we would not accept anything less. one of the main ways we have gotten here has been by listening. we received feedback from millions of people on our draft plan from state utilities communities and more. 4.3 million public comments and hundreds of meetings with stakeholders and those comments and meetings helped us get to a plan that we know works for everyone. it was feedback from the utilities that made sure our plans mirrored how the
electricity moves around the grid so that we could open up opportunities. it was input from states that made sure we set fair standards across the country. it was comments from folks that told us we needed to extend the timeframe for mandatory cuts by two years until 2022 but we knew we did not have to wait until 2022 to entice the reductions using federal leverage. that is what we put together. states and utilities told us they needed more time so we listened. the final plan reflects all the needs of our stakeholders and as a result it is stronger. it is clean air act strong. that's why i'm confident our work will not be undone with so many new voices at the table. we know that americans want solutions. we know they want this type of leadership and we know that they are ready for action.
i want to finish up by reminding you what the clean power plan means moving forward. it means $75 billion in net benefits for the united states in 2030. it means $85 a year in savings on our utility bills in 2030. it means driving innovation and creating new jobs. it means riding and accelerating our transition to a clean energy economy, even faster than it is already happening. it will mean less suffering. we will see thousands fewer premature deaths and missed school and work days. in short, it means a brighter future for our kids, in particular, the most vulnerable in our communities that are already susceptible to the challenge of climate change and need leadership to ensure that their public health and their
livelihood and their children are protected. as we look ahead, it means showing the world just what is possible when you join the fight. climate change is a challenge that we can and must conquer together. now we move to the implementation. we are here to support states every step of the way. let's get to work. thank you. [applause] >> thanks so much. let me introduced a senior fellow at resources for the future. probably the most knowledgeable person about the clean air act.
dallas will help with the q and a. if you turn in questions right now, we will pass those over to the table on the left and dallas probably already has a question. >> administrator, one of the things about the last couple of years has been the process of engagement. is there a theory behind that? >> i think the theory is democracy. that is how it works. i think that is how it always worked. understanding that we essentially work for the people and their engagement is important. i don't think there is any issue i have dealt with that is more complicated, that demanded a longer view, the climate change. the engagement with this role is unprecedented without question. i think people know epa has been doing a robust job reaching out
to states and local communities. this administration has demanded it and done it in a coordinated way. the clean power plan is the it epitome of engagement. we spent years working with folks and opening up doors to all kinds of ideas. i think one of the things we are most proud of is how much this rule changed because it listened to the comments that came in. we did our job and our response to comments will take you quite a while to get through. >> so far we have not seen a marshaling of bipartisan support for the rule. are you optimistic that you can overcome that? >> the environment has never been a partisan issue. i think the more that people are
feeling the constant impact of climate now and the concerns that it raises, the people's voices will be heard. one of the value of this kind of engagement is you get people excited and interested and willing to speak up. i think you will see that while there is a lot of bipartisan discussion, there is a lot of partisan discussion now about it, you will see people doing what they always do. the state know the clean air act, what their responsibility is now. you will see them submitting plans. we have no interest in going from something that was incredibly engaging to waiting for things to happen. we will be out in communities, working with states, working with utilities. i think the utilities and states know this is doable. once we start going, people see that this is a challenge we can address.
>> the clean power plan comes forward at a time when there is dramatic technological change in the industry. it seems like the change happening in this decade is comparable to the change in cell phones in the last decade. what is the provision with respect to reconsideration? are we locked in with the goals or is there a reopener clause? >> we wanted to make sure that when we were doing this plan we set a long-term market signal. we are not going against the grain of how the energy world is transitioning. the technology advances are coming at us. we wanted to recognize that in order to reduce carbon pollution , we did not want to establish energy policy, we wanted to look at where the world was headed and follow that. i don't expect the energy world will take a right turn.
i figure it will continue to head and perhaps more quickly than we might of anticipated. with these technology advances, the great thing is the united states can grab some leadership. we can provide the business and technologies other countries will have to rely on to move forward. that is what we think we are going to be doing with this plan, capturing that momentum, not shifting or changing it but looking at what the future has for carbon emission strategies and following where the energy transitions already heading. >> the plan is built around what is technologically feasible at the state level. now that the plan is in place and goals are established for states, is there still a role for state leadership? how is that going to manifest in the future? >> i think there will be. one of the things we have to get
our arms around, there are states that have been doing this for a while. this rule is built on already known actions, entirely on things people have been doing that they found profitable to do. states would not have gone out front at detriment to themselves. we all like to think we would do that, but we don't. that's the good news. it is profitable to do this. i have every expectation that we will go ahead of what this actually calls for in 2030. i don't think -- if we do this correctly and we set this up in an approach that allows states to enter into markets, to have utilities operate the same way they always have, regionally and nationally, i think you will see this happen seamlessly. i never regret a regulation i don't have to do. why would i want to continue to rethink this when i have it on a trajectory? it is built into the market.
it will get the reductions i want at the same time it will grow a market for itself in jobs. that is a total win and one i can allow to go running off past where i want it to go. >> the economic logic you have described hinges on cooperation among the states to a degree. the question one hates to ask, what about the states that don't want to cooperate? what is envisioned for trying to achieve a cost-effective outcome and trying to bring the whole nation along? >> one of the things we realized between proposal and final, we really needed to go to these uniform standards. it becomes a common currency. it allows the market and the grid to operate. once we did that, i've had a lot
of conversations with states and there are states that don't want to link arms with other states. they want their own independence and we allow that to happen in a number of ways, not only by saying if you want to get the reductions within your own state you can, but you can still have linkages into markets without having formal mechanisms to do that because we now have a common currency. if you set up your plan as a math-based approach, go do with anybody else doing math-based. you can trade, do whatever you want, you don't need to enter into a formal agreement. the same with rate based. there is a little more rules of the road to make sure it is being done well but you can either use math-based or rate based and make this happen. states can enter into markets epa will help manage and keep track of so we know that the
states are meeting obligations but it does not require the same level of collaboration that anybody would have anticipated when we proposed to this. we think we have allowed states that want to be independent be as independent as they want but not to pass up opportunities that are less expensive for them to achieve these goals. and maybe a more seamless way to operate for the utility. >> we will collect questions from the audience and twitter. from the audience what would you say to call miners about the rule? ms. mccarthy: there are communities that are suffering already and see that role is being more challenges to the table for them. i feel like there is an obligation to address those issues as there is in any
economic transition. the coal industry has not been gathering steam for quite a few decades. i am excited that the president put together a budget proposal which looks at focusing resources on this communities. they do not need them five 23rd -- by 2030, they need them now. i hope there is an opportunity to refocus attention on that plan which will substantially benefit those communities and allow appropriate transition and services as economies shift. >> how might the administration unwind the plan and are we certain of the direction we are headed? getmccarthy: as people their arms around the final
rule, they will find it is quite legally solid. do that endlessly. we feel pretty good about it, we feel it is strong and it will stand the test of time in the courts. the question that many of us ask after that is what about the next administration? you can answer that as well as i do. when you have a final clean air act role, it is a pretty solid obligation. you need to have a substantial record indicating that things like the endangerment finding which the supreme court has spoken to a number of times, maybe we made a mistake. beenf these steps have litigated and we are on solid ground in the new administration. hopefully we will want to continue to support this and i think they will see state plans in and moving forward a significant number by the time there is any transition and for those that do not want to, it is quite a significant hurdle for
them to reverse this. >> you mentioned looking forward to paris. a number of other regulations affecting other aspects of the economy whether it is not -- methane or heavy trucks. what can we anticipate with respect to the ability to make these different regulations under a regulatory approach cost effective so we know we are not paying twice of -- twice as much for a loaf of red. in terms of getting initial reductions out of the economy. how far can we go with the regulatory approach? in terms of the clean power plant, the data seems pretty solid that this is going to be cost beneficial. it is not marginal in any way. i think when you look at the second one we put out, that is
following a trajectory of technology improvements that are going to be significant benefits to consumers everywhere. when you look at oil and gas, it any time you leak methane you are leaking product and that will be an up and his people to grab that and the new technologies there and developed to make that more easy to do. and hasepa looks for been successful in getting to the point where we recognize the limits of technology. we continue to push those limits as much as we can, but not to the point where we are going to do that to the detriment of the economy. and i think we have looked at this million ways to sunday but at least under the clean air act, we have not seen a detriment to the economy. wortht, it has been trillions of dollars of benefits. we need to look at history to know whether or not we have the wherewithal to do this moving
forward and i think it will tell you we do. you: to paraphrase what have said, the regulator can see the low hanging fruit to what about the fruit that is hire up -- higher up? how do we keep pushing? reason wehy: the wanted to move this out to 2030 and if you look at it, we look at the economics all the way along. it is not like we're just jumping to 2030. it is to send that long-term signal. the clean air act allows us and what we have can -- taken advantage of is looking at market forces to look at where it is heading and to say where does this country need to be? least as myt, at reading of this and many others, the science is spoken. a low carbon future is inevitable. do you do this kicking and screaming or do you do it using
the markets as a way to generate and leverage that movement, do you do it in a way that is consistent where energy is moving in the u.s., and do you grab that and send it a long-term signal so you become the leader in it area you are the innovator. you are selling the technologies, your growing jobs here. -- you are growing the jobs here. one of the criticism in solar is beingoo much equipment is manufactured in china. well, do it here. we are sending right signals on what at least epa believes to be a future of lower pollution, that is essential for public health and the environment. epa is not just authorized it responsible to acknowledge and push towards. ok, reduction credits for -- these are the credits, one of
the forms of credits that are created for compliance. why are credits focused on renewables and efficiency energy in low income communities? gasguess earn credits -- earn credits? ms. mccarthy: these are one of the confusions that i hope people will take a closer look. reduction credits can be earned, not just in renewables and efficiency. emission reduction credits are sort of the -- can be earned in a rate based system wherein it is allowances. it is a lingo for doing the trading mechanisms to account for the reductions appropriately. what they are talking about is not an early reduction program that we initiated. for essentially two reasons. we were convinced by the comments we received that it was better to start the mandatory
reductions in 2022. that there was a significant lift we were asking early on. that would have driven to higher cost options having to have been invested in as opposed to wait a little while longer so that lower cost -- cost options would be available. it ended up in a very significant increase in renewable energy because of the growth we have been saying in renewable energy. and legalpolicy reasons and technical, it was better. we went to make sure there was people were not waiting for 2022 and we got a lot of comments from renewable industries saying that people were sitting still now, waiting for the final rule to get done and we were worried and they were worried that it would be sending the wrong signal to have that much empty time. we wanted to continue with the movement we were projecting in renewables. that is why renewables was
included was to make sure we were not changing a market that was already projected to accelerate over those years. thesecond thing we did -- early credit. this is the federal leverage to help support states who want to go out in front. that is where i think this question is getting confused between the two. the reason why we did low income energy efficiency is we have been doing energy efficiency programs at epa and helping utilities and states to do that for at credit to do it long time under a state implementation plan. we wanted to make sure that we recognize it and low income areas, energy efficiency tends to be a much longer time horizon for it to be implemented and draw the same kind of reduction opportunities. we wanted it to have a head start. one of the things we wanted to make sure is if there is any increase and we are projecting
the increase that tapers off to incredible savings by 2030, we know that low income minority communities would be hardest hit and we want to make sure that efficiency programs equally benefit them as they would anywhere else where it may be easier. these are already proven gaveams in place area we added incentive to focus on states that are willing to start those programs early on. that is why those two but those you can the only ways earn early reduction. host: there is ample mentation of the natural. there is potentially new ozone standard. that will affect states. and you give thought to how the clean power plant interacts?
>> always. we do that and the utilities are beginning to recognize the fact that we are thoughtfully thinking through these things so we never have any discussion that does not consider what went before and new rules that may be coming up. they were worried about the rules that were in place like the coal ash rule and others and we keep working through these issues. and we will continue to do that host: time one more question. i can't resist this question. it comes over twitter. which do you prefer, cap and trade or carbon tax? ms. mccarthy: you say potato i ahto.otat
makesome anything that progress. >> i'm sorry we did not get to more of the questions. thank you for joining us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
>> coming up on c-span, parts of the security forum. a discussion on national security threats and then the work of special ops forces and the intelligence community. the french and spanish ambassadors to the u.s. discuss threats to europe. , credit cardpanel transactions in the u.s. the bipartisan policy center looks at immigration policy and the positions of the 2016 residential candidates. it's live at 10:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> wednesday, reverend john richard bryant, the head of the methodist the visible church talks about race in america. american press club here on c-span. night on q&a,
institute for policies fellow and antiwar activist phyllis menas. isis, what do they believe, why are they so violent? those questions are important and i address them in the book. what is important is what is the u.s. policy regarding ices russian mark why isn't it working? can we go to war against terrorism? doing war wrong or is it wrong to say we should fight terrorism. >> sunday on q&a. >> a discussion on national security threats from the aspen institute security forum featuring top u.s. officials in national security, cyber
fields., and other this panel is one hour. host: good afternoon, everyone. hopefully, we can get everybody back from lunch. is chris young. imb senior vice president and general manager for intel security business. ase of you may also know us mcafee. our next panel, the role of law and law enforcement in securing our nation. and in the justice department and the cia, we really have two of the government's that are most engaged in preventing terrorism from attacking the homeland, but the challenge of security the homeland has grown, and so has public me of some components of that effort,
including surveillance and detention of suspects. this panel is going to be fromated by ken dilanian the associated press. before his work at the ap, he covered national security for the l.a. times, usa today, and the philadelphia inquirer, where embeddeded both as an and independent reporter during the iraq war. this topic is of real interest to all of us, and i think he would agree with that, so i am looking forward to the subject, and i will now turn it over to can. ken: thanks, everybody. it is great to be back here with two a public servants, who rank among the most competent national security lawyers, and ,o my left is caroline krass and her job includes writing
drone option memos with targets and otherwise negotiating sensitive intelligence issues, most of which she cannot talk with us about today, but we will try. and then in the office of legal counsel for the department of justice with many years of legal service and a grad of yellow law school, many of you know him from years past, confirmed as assistant attorney general in april 2014, and he has written on counterterrorism, counter espionage, and cyber security, and he served as chief of staff under cia director bob mueller. he earned his law degree from harvard and his ea from williams college, which happens to be my alma mater. laude, and icum was on the football team, which explains why i am asking the questions, and he is answering
them. [laughter] ken: talking about the changing nature, maybe, john, you could start by talking about overseeing the law enforcement efforts about homegrown radicals. talk about what you are seeing and how it has changed. john: thank you. it is good to be back. there has been a fundamental change, and the terrorists have changed their business model. their business model is to use social media to target the young and the vulnerable, to target both the young and also folks who are mentally ill, and this is a shift. al qaeda, and might want to have theyre of individuals who would like to train, they tended to be late 20's or in their 30's, and al qaeda has carefully
controlled it brand and has look for sometimes months or years to create large-scale, spectacular attacks. and its business model is encouraging people to commit attacks wherever they are, and whether or not they have any they connection with isil, will claim credit for the attack, so how is that affecting what we're seeing in the homeland? we are seeing a dramatic increase related to the shift in this threat. we have had over 50 arrests or criminal prosecution in a doubt the past 18 months. in the beginning, they turned out to be foreign terrorist going overseas to commit mayhem on behalf of these terrorist groups, but more recently, we are seeing individuals inside the united conduct terrorto attacks here at home and are being encouraged to do so by these terror groups on social
and i think it is linked media,fact it is social and we are seeing a change in the demographics. it is younger, so we are seeing now of these arrest, around 80% are 30 years old or younger, and of those, about 40% are 21 years old or younger, and that is a serious problem that we are confronting. recently, we just had our first public juvenile case. these terrorists are targeting our children, and they do so where they play, and where they played these days is not in the playground down the street. that is not where they are forming the relationship. it is online and through social media, and that is why you are hearing such a can third effort from us both in government and in the private sector to make sure that the places where our children play are safe, and they are not vulnerable to these terrorist who are trying to radicalize them.
how is law enforcement learning about them? is it through surveillance? is it through human ships? how are we finding these? john: yes. it is a combination. there has been great work done both by law enforcement here in the united states, by elements of the intelligence community overseas, and with our foreign partners. this is a problem that is not just america, and, in fact, per capita, it is smaller than any of our closest western partners, and it is shown about 250 individuals from the united dates have either attempted to travel to either the syria or iraq region or have traveled and returned, and if you compare that to western europe, at this point, it is over 4000 individuals, and worldwide, we are talking about 25,000 individuals do want to go over
to be terror fighters, and the number continues to grow, and that is not counting the number of individuals who are inspired sothese types of techniques, that means what can be incredibly hard trying to find individuals who are in the basement at home, and the parents do not know. when they have gone on social media, and they have formed a new friend, and that friend is a terrorist overseas, they walk them slowly through the process of radicalization would be goal to get them to join their group and to have them attack at home, and that means we have to get better at identifying where those communications come from, but also we need a legal process, being able to serve it on companies to be able to identify them. get betters need to at making their platforms safe for children and to keep terrorists off of them, and it also means that we need to get our message out to the
community, to parents, to friends of those children, to community leaders that they just to say it is not whether you are seeing it outside. you have to figure out who they are talking to when they are online. n: i want to come back to these issues, but, caroline, maybe you can talk about the actors a broad and give a little idea about how your office bits into that. : absolutely. i first want to thank you. after lunch when we are drowsy, and you have all of the lawyers also to thend then aspen institute for hosting this conference. this is my first chance to come to one of these, and it is really amazing, as well, the lineup we have already seen it as well as the lineup that is coming, so just to get back to how we work closely together with john and his team as well as with the fbi.
the agency is helping to combat andthreat posed by isil, when the most important ways is intelligenceoreign collection, and that is one of our primary missions, and all of the things that we do have that link to them, and unlike prosecutors or the fbi who worry about the federal rules of evidence, we are try to get intelligence, foreign intelligence, and we do not have to worry about those rules and do not have them in mind exactly , and where they have to be concerned about hearsay, hearsay, to us, is our friend. we love hearsay. we love to get information from human sources, and that is one of the ways we get human intelligence, so we encourage people to talk to us. our operational folks have great trade cap -- tradecraft and are good, talking to some reporters and we also do not
have to worry about things like chain of custody rules. you can imagine how hard it would be to apply that type of rule to a situation where you have to have documents dead dropped under a park bench, so our rules are more flexible because we are working with human sources, and what we are doing is less intrusive, and so we are working closely with the rest of the u.s. government to combat the threat posed by isil, and thanks in part to some reforms post 9/11, we are able to share intelligence with the fbi quite freely, as long as we have a foreign intelligence if we have, for inmple, a terrorist incident
the united states, and there is an understandable desire to find it out right away, with a connection to foreign terrorist, we can help the fbi find that out if we have information already that can help link that incident to an overseas group of actors, and we can also go out and talk to people we know overseas to get more information and to help the fbi with that. ken: so the cia is not on the ground, operating in the united states, and there is an understandable desire to find it out right away, with a connection to foreign in isil -controlled areas. caroline komen it is definitely a challenge because of the is.iculty of where isil as we were talking about, isil uses a lot of social media, so we try to take advantage of that to learn more about them and to share more information with our u.s. government partners. n: when it comes to mining foreign information abroad, you can look at everything, right? what happens if you bump up against a u.s. person? against: if we bump up a u.s. person, we have rules, and it bends on how the information is collected, and it is either collected in the u.s. concerning u.s. persons or
subject to u.s. attorney 12-3 33, andder john works in the office to approve the guidelines, and there are over 150 lawyers in my office, who are incredibly dedicated, and this is one big area where they are incredibly careful to make sure we are applying those rules carefully. ken: can you walk us through recruitment, talking to a young person in the united states, and it starts on twitter, and then it moves on from there, sometimes to an encrypted place where you cannot follow it. talk about that. john: there are thousands of people, and they are then
bombarded with thousands of messages of propaganda, and the messages lined up across the board, so we are all familiar with the shocking images that they will show of public executions, but what they are also doing is they are bombarding that same audience with targeted, micro-targeted messages the same way that advertisers do, so what they will do is show a handsome, young actor in one video, literally handing out candy to children, and in the corner will isil, the same where there will be -- way there will be for another advertisement. in one hand, and in the other hand, holding a kitten, and other messages handing out candy to children, they will show images of bucolic , so theyhe caliphate will look to see whether or not they can with this large-scale
bombardment of images, can they and thenne on the hook start to dangle them in. if they get someone who they think is interested, what they will do is move off that public form, and then again, often using u.s.-built and provided technology, the same things that all of our children are using to talk to each other now, they will use those chats, services that are encrypted to get into one-on-one conversations with the individuals, who may be very young. 80%, 30 and under. 21 and under, and we are seeing juveniles, and those are just individuals arrested in the united states. all of our partners are seeing kids hooked in by this approach. what they will bend do is directly communicate, in some instances with the individuals, and get them on the jihadi pass
and get them to commit terrorist attacks and to kill people in the united states, to kill soldiers, to kill police officers, and there is a threat, so where it might be a spark between those inspired by and those who are operatives with arrorist groups, now there is hybrid, where they get the general direction to come in and attack on a specific date, and then when they have these one-on-one conversations through social media with a person overseas they have never met in person, they will get specific titans on that attack, and a core problem we are starting to face in this arena is that the agencies will come to my office, and we will be able to meet the predicate to get a court order, probable cause, that there is a terrorist, and we will get the court order or can get the court order from the judge, but then when you go to serve it on the company, the company is technically incapable of processing that order.
it means that law enforcement knows who the terrorists is to they know they are talking to a person inside the united states, mediate kit, but they cannot go forward. -- maybe a kid, but they cannot go forward. it is growing in frequency, and because the business model of s has changed, they are deliver the getting in on these one-on-one conversations, and we are seeing it more. ken: have net conversations with tech companies, and have you talked to twitter and other social media types? john: talking about social media, but when you think about many different business models in social media and to print services. engaging, and need to,
both at the justice department but also the fbi and others, to engage in talks constructively with these companies. the business model keeps changing. there is great expertise and how they technically work, and it resides in private hands, and in one mightese models, be we are a business, and we are building a platform for people to talk and share ideas. their business model is not we want to have that model used by terrorists. the business model. when we talk to these companies now, i think there is an increasing awareness that that same site that they use for good is being used to target people on the platform, and it is good business to make sure your platform is eighth. in addition to your patriotic duty, and we are seeing these common interests, and what you are starting to see now is an increase in investment in both the human resources in order to
identify the terrorists on your site or those being targeted for sexual exploitation and the use of our rhythms and other technical tools. what we need to start encouraging is right now, they have developed -- to go to scale, and they have millions of users. there is the problem of terrorist exploiting it. this is quite a be a problem for my business. ken: ok, james coley said last night there is a potentially could see a lot more of these attacks. how likely is that? the fbi has been pretty good so far about thwarting them. john: the pace and frequency is increasing, and we are well over 50 cases, even in the last six months. we have had around 12 additional , and the fbi is doing
everything it can, working with the intel community and the private community to get in front of these attacks, but the bottom line, this tactic of targeting the use -- the youth, targeting those who are mentally unstable, targeting them to commit attacks here at home, which just requires you to have a knife or a gun, it is incredibly difficult, and we have seen attacks in canada, , andalia, and in the u.k. in tunisia, and we sought an attack in edinburgh, in france, so until we figure out a way to crack this terrorist threat, day and and day out, i think all of us are on edge that we will see an attack like that at home, and we just had a tragic attack in tennessee, and my condolences go out to these families. and on that one, can you
say that he was using an encrypted phone? john: i am not going to talk about that case specifically, but i will say of the variety of cases that we are being now, currently, we are seeing that. ok. and, caroline, what about that a strategy to as continue? it is a stalemate right now. isil is not leaving their caliphate soon under the current u.s. strategy. are we seeing this for years two,? caroline: i think we're doing everything we can to mitigate it, and within the u.s. government, like the fbi -- i cannot, myself a lawyer, predict how that struggle is going to end up, and we are doing everything we can. ok, stepping back from the
homegrown threat, the intelligence community has been saying that al qaeda is not nine 11of launching a style attack. it has been decimated. is how do we know that isil not able to? sconesa that they are in to in these areas, how are we sure that there is not a major attack? : i will have to defer to the analysts on that. what i do know is we are sufficient to concern about ikeda, ikeda in the arabian -- al qaeda, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and was the 2001 authorization for force. john: i would say whether my division was formed after september 11, we are the first
new division at the department of justice in 50 years, and it was created in 2006, and it was to break down a law, between law enforcement on one hand and the intelligence community on the other, and it has been dedicated to ensuring that as lawyers, we have our prosecutors, our intel lawyers,our regulatory sitting under one roof, focusing on national security threats and this driven by what picture shows the threat is, so in terms of what they are telling us the threat is, we remain concerned about al qaeda conducting a large-scale attack. we are concerned about safe havens and doing everything we can as a government through the authorities, whether it is covert action, military action, law enforcement, or other sanctions to prevent safe havens in yemen or serial or iraq or
libya, preventing these terrorist groups from having the time and space to plot or planned these attacks. we have seen this change in the business model, whereas instead of a large-scale attack, overseas, they are encouraging people to do attacks here at home, so they are occurring simultaneously. komido you agree with jim that this is the top threat to the homeland? john: we defer. we are driven by their intel what the threat is. you are seeing in these cases, someone with a knife trying to get on a bus to commit an attack who is shot before he boards the bus, so we are seeing instances
here now where the attacks have occurred. and it occurred in chattanooga, and there were some that almost occurred but were stopped at the last minute by law enforcement. working hardnt and with our military, law enforcement, and intel partners to try to prevent a large-scale attack, as well. ken: both are you -- of you are involved in signing off on some items. gavese secretary from the whitee house. can you shed some light on how these processes work and how the decisions go through the process? caroline: yes, this is been in existence for many years. started going to meetings in the clinton administration, and i am sure it predated that, as
well, and it has been over 20 years, and whichever agencies are relevant to the topic at hand, the legal advisor will the general counsel and members of their legal team to talk about that particular issue. i spent four years total at the nse, and i believe in that process. i think in the same way that ity process the principles, is an effective way of getting all of the agencies who are relevant together and to share their views and to come to, as commons possible, a understanding, and that is usually the goal of the process, because you have a perspective on what you think is legal, what you think complies with international law, so the goal is to have everybody come to a common understanding, and i think that helps the agency. the lawyers are advising to make sure they are all on the same page and everyone agrees.
the administration takes very, very seriously whether our actions are can fit with the mystic and international law, and that is something we are -- fit with domestic and international law, and that is something we are constantly evaluating. it is an incredibly powerful role that you are playing there. caroline: yes. it is true, i am the chief legal advisor to the agency, so if there were a covert action i thought was unlawful, i would absolutely make my views known to the director of the cia, and i do not think he would hesitate. observe how do you the cia reacts to the lawyer lawyering you are doing? caroline: i experience with the agency from my time at the justice department and the nsc, and they were a terrific group
of people, and i did not know how the operational components, for example, would feel about their lawyers, and almost one third of my lawyers are embedded with the operators, and i think that really helps to foster a strong relationship from the ground up, so when something is being planned, the lawyer is right there. they understand what the goal is, and if it is not some thing that can be done consistent with law or regulations, that lawyer can then say, wait a minute. i can help you. if you do with this other way, then that would be lawful, so we have a very collaborative relationship, and we very much seek the views of the lawyers. i have received no complaints during my whole time about the quality of the legal advice they were getting or a concern that, oh, if only the lawyers would be iiet, then i could do what need to do to keep the country safe. we understand the need to follow the law for the american people. en: ok.
let's move to surveillance. one of the revelations was the 702, whichation in gathers foreign intelligence information from companies, and part of that, there is a lot of inadvertent or other types of questions, and the president, including a former cia director, they were looking at all of it. u.s. information here obtained without warrants, there should be new, tougher rules on this. you should not be able to use it against a person in a legal proceeding. you should not be able to search names against it. you should purge it unless it has intelligence value. tossed out by the white house and agencies. can you explain why? caroline: we have an oversight
board that got going frequently. at evane been looking 02 and have found it that with the fourth amendment and they knew about this issue. ity are completely aware of and john and speak more to the specific of it, but there are .ules they had been collected locally, i think we are talking about policy concerns with the information. causeot with a probable more, right? john: i will clarify some misconceptions. the idea that desk the football guys -- the football [laughter] past into lawthe
after vigorous and open debate by the congress in a unique paradigm that only the u.s. had adopted. it is more restrictive than before or in any place in the world. there were terrible abuses that were revealed, in terms of the use of authority, said congress that -- set it up in a way that involves all three branches of government. right now, this is the only country that has three branches of government involved in what is traditionally a very much prerogative of the executive, collecting intelligence for national security purposes. so what this regime was at its core, there is an oversight in the executive branch, both by lawyers, general counsel of the
intelligence community, and other agencies. then, there are applications that have to take place between prosecutors,es and andstill work at the same are probably known to set on the court to review the legality of applications. and those are overseen by the intelligence community and there are laws in place that require disclosure of information to intelligence community, those committees, said they can review them and make sure that everything is at closely -- everything is adequately looked at. many communications now that are non-us persons overseas, the same type we have a collecting for years, will hit u.s. providers. the reason that you are serving
in order for targeting a non-us person located overseas, when i have it be come out of the core -- when a haveen that debate, one of the core reasons that they are most concerned about, when they know that there is a terrorist overseas in direct communication unitede u.s. is in states. so what the board found along with others is that to examine the issue, it is or that important, so that non-us person overseas, when they find out that there is a u.s. person, they want to be able to provide the information. there are other restrictions, litigatedns that are
in thecourt system and mohammed mohammed case, an ,ndividual convicted by peers that was a man trying to bomb a tree lighting ceremony in portland, they noticed what was happening and healthy 702 -- and upheld the 702. directlyit is not related click collections, but the restrictions in place are --gely declassified and largely declassified. ken: i have to ask about the senate report -- a ford question. -- a forward question. seems some republican
presidential candidate, rick perry for example, the years that you would bring back what people consider to be tortured. could either of you see a scenario where you would sign theon the legality of interrogation techniques and how we respond to a president saying he wanted to do this, when you resign -- would you resign? amendmentthere is an that would basically codify the event of water that president obama put in place when he first got here. that includes the intelligence community. it would make it law, is that the president could not do that. i think that would be the best way forward. i do not anticipate being any situation in which i would be asked to sign off on it. ken: you are suggesting you
would not? caroline: yes. ken: john, what is your view? john: within the executive , i think it would be something that would go to caroline in the first place. [laughter] , it is something that they chose not to adopt for fbi agents at the time. ken: ok, we will about cyber. john you explain how the justice department was reorienting itself to tackle the cyber threat, but that was pre-sony. maybe you can explain how it works in that case? john: last year we talked about at fact that we were looking , on an unprecedented scale,
going back to our division in taking the intel from the threat and what we were seeing was a day in and day out billions of dollars worth of data being stored by u.s. companies. we saw that was not sufficient to watch, we need to disrupt and change the activity. and we chris young talked about the need, and i know that he talked about this, to go on offense. the defense will not change the battlefield. often outstrips defense -- outstrips even. if someone tries to sell you a product and the faith, we can take your internet, connect computers and make them safe from breach, build a wall that
preventenough to someone from getting into your system, they are selling you the brooklyn bridge. it does not exist. we are in an environment of risk mitigation and looking at ways to address the threat. part of that is eating smarter gettingng a system -- smarter and having a system that is defective, but also telling the bad guys that this is not cost free, it is not personally -- permanently anonymous. you cannot do away with it. and we need to get better at that. we organized at the justice department to retrain hundreds of prosecutors across the field and restructuring on focusing that when it comes to terrorist groups on the national security threat, that we were not leaving
the criminal justice system the table and that we were not repeating mistakes made earlier, which was law enforcement on one hand and intel on the other. retrained as- prosecutors. and with lawyers in the field. using the new information is what led to the indictment of 613-98, we never thought about one indictment alone would change this problem, but it was important to bring the criminal justice is back on the table and among other things, send the message that this is criminal. when you steal from a private company, just like they went to the back of a u-haul truck and took the secret. do --that event, i would
i went to meet with the council and we talked about similar issues and we were telling them that the litigation issue needs to be at the level of ceo and it was a serious threat. those who were in sectors cap, that sectors that were in fact, acked, likee -- att finance, new about it. but others, they were thinking, i'm not in defense, i'm in entertainment. i don't see this really happening. [laughter] sony i got mys calls fromplenty of those guys, asking if you can go back to that and telephone. -- tell us what to do. 90% of what they see now for
is intrusions into systems. after sony, we talk about is hypothetically, last year, we to the bring all tools threat, being able to do three things -- we need to get better at figuring out who did it get to know better the victim. secondly, after we figure out who did it, we cannot be afraid to say who did it. and we need to after weekday did it, there needs to be a consequence. sony was a great partner in that. fbi came from the immediately, we worked quickly to figure out who did it, we saw the unprecedented step of the fbi announcing their did it, and
-- who did it, north korea. and then the president issued sanctions against them and officially said, there will be something you see, and some you don't, but there will be consequences. it sent a message to other actors in the world. and what areid -- we going to do about it? john: after sony, there is now an executive order in place that allows sanctions. is the idea of designating certain entities under the commerce department for regulations for you cannot do business inside the united states? we need to continue to look across the range of lawyers to see what we can do to increase cost when we have heightened confidence of goods is the
intrusion. i will not talk about that specifically, but i strongly believe in this approach and we need to continue when we can to to hold specific consequences and tell the actors, here is why we are doing what we are doing. and there will be a consequence. just to make sure, we are talking about office of personnel management, the security clearance data that was hacked and being described as one of the worst cyber attack in american history. this is personal information about people who had security clearances. can you talk about how devastating that was? i want to echo what was that it yesterday in terms of a flaming the detailed --
explaining the detailed information after the first breach was-- first announced. it was not a good thing for intelligence, not for anybody who was compromised, had people --w that to have people know to have people know. ken: -- caroline: anybody would be impacted in the u.s. government. ken: has been widely reported that hackers in china were responsible for this, why hasn't the government says that? we would do everything we can to find out who did it, and built the picture -- build the in terms of we need legal authority, we need to
figure out who did it and then look for evidence that we can probably use through the right authorities to hold these people accountable. sometimes -- there was a time of thinking when we got it could not be done. you can be done, we are new at it. but it can be done and it will be done. ken: moving on, on this latter question, areber there the you are doing to disrupt cyber attacks sure unsanctioned -- short of sanctions? what weing back to said, there will be things you see and what you don't see. there will be consequences. ken: is it having an impact?
do we see it affecting the level of the cap -- attacks? john: i think you are seeing results of these efforts. from a country have moved 20-25 years ago, storing 99% of what we have in analog space, to storing it in digital space. we have communication that billions and trillions worth. we are playing catch-up. outstripping defense and we are vulnerable to it will beies and more vulnerable to terrorist who have already stated their trying to and are
develop that capability and we are trying to know that down. that down.e -- slow that down. we are calling on congress to pass additional legislation to allow information sharing within the private sector and the government. and in government and in the and working with the hill, we need to do more to prevent these attacks from occurring. caroline: john was describing the changes they have made, that he may be aware that we are engaged in the most historic reorganization of the agency, since 1947 when it was created. it is moving rapidly and has resulted from an internal study that came up with recommendations on one of the most significant is to figure out how we can work with the rapid ecological innovation, so
technologicalid innovation. areo not have analysts who -- and a single new director, so we will have five. center,an open source and efforts on the operational i --nk we can manage that size sign to manage. it is quite a big effort in the agency. those other directors i have meticulously brought this to a high energy -- standard. there is not a single careers
that singled her service in the it is the idea street. ken: i would like to have audience questions now. sir? hihigh -- . conflict -- armed conflict with some of the terrorist groups. what about using statutes to go after some of the platforms and what about civil liability along the lines of -- [inaudible] john: i will start. then turn it to caroline. we need to look at the whole range of tools and trying to
disrupt the way terrorists are trying to communicate with people inside the u.s. which willfic over -- tool would be best. the oneent model, causing concern, is using platforms which are provided by that are used by english-speaking children as a place of -- they think it is safe. whenncome to the use of -- it comes to the use of those of service,nd terms i can think of some companies, -- whatorists to target you see is that the company can
take action, they know that their systems that they know there's -- they know their , they have best become aware of the threat. they are not just getting it -- doing it in the u.s., they are doing it in the u.k., france, spain, australia, where they want to do business and customers use their services. we need to do more to help the forms -- platforms be safe. they know their systems that to prevent these messages from reaching vulnerable populations. support, let's take on the far end of the example, there was nobody --ding the camera as somebody holding a camera as
someone was getting ready to be head someone for terrorists purposes, that was somebody providing material support under the statute. if we can identify that individual who is providing support to the terrorist group, we can use a criminal authority. what we do not do is, we would not target free speech under the first amendment. you need to look at the fact in circumstances, there is conduct in the middle that could lead it .o criminal prosecution the third area you talked about, civil liability. you are starting to see hundred christine causes of -- under existing causes of action that a particular company promises
responsibility on behalf of the company terrorists exploiteir services -- their services. at the end of the day, i hope we quo isee that the status not acceptable. we have new technology and terrorists are taking advantage of it and we need to work together to make sure that they -- and if we cannot do it under existing authorities, there will be more discussion on what we need to do. caroline: as a member of the what isgroup, i think tricky is applying principles in a new area. act of war is a hard question to answer in the cyber realm. and one thing i'm always
how do feel if this was applied to you? take that into consideration. ken: search in the glasses -- this man in the glasses. clarah, from santa county, california. made that we all have to be mindful of the fact digital information can be stolen from criminal spies and terrorists. should we be concerned about a half of the nsa, maybe telephone records acquired over the years? maybe they indicate to whom we were talking and for how long, is that information at risk? i will --
that is many more of us than the federal employee. john: there are unclassified systems where the internet connected systems which are designed to connect to the world wide web, those are incredibly learnable and it -- vulnerable. it is not the same thing as top-secret systems. thebusiness records that nsa was collecting under the metadata program, was kept in a depository, which under the freedom act moving to a different system where they are stored at a provider. these are piled that are kept the company under the particular regime. to your concern, to the extent stored -- visually
digitally stored, it depends on are inovider, it they the unclassified internet system , they can be targeted by an adversary, so it is an area of where like other records, i would encourage them to be concerned about that for security and about how they are -- and think about how they are mitigating risk. concern, but i would also be about other records like .ealth or maybe business transaction records, when you are doing credit card purchases, or financial records. many of those are held in unclassified and unprotected systems, that is why we play this game of catch-up. there has been a sea change in
terms of awareness, attention, concern, vice ceos on the boards , general counsel and in the government. it is recent and we are still in catch-up mode. josh? bloomberg view. peoplee talked about that have been under surveillance, but given the changing trends, they are being but ifincreased rate -- you pick through those legal document is you will see instance as of where these suspects are talking to people they believe to be related to terrorist groups. what it would businesses that we
have people in these arenas and chat rooms posing as terrorists talking to these people and that evidence is being used in these cases. do you ever wonder that we are creating terrorists by trying them into these conversations and what line does this become entrapment? john: the use of undercover fbi, hass by the ei -- long been established in the u.s., something that we used in narcotics cases and other cases that we have prosecuted. tool a vitally important in confronting this threat. that is because we had already identify the nature of the threat. we cannot get people into the warm -- forum having those discussions, or did your people
from it,eter people this is the way we have an able to disrupt these attacks. -- cannot successfully prosecuting a case after people have been killed. success is preventing the terrorist attack from occurring. under u.s. law, we do not talk,ute for talking the we prosecute them for walking the walk. we put them to the test to see they will take it a step further to the criminal act that they won't -- they want to commit. i think you will see that. meeting with ministers from across the world, it will be the anniversary of the passing of a united nations resolution, people are agreeing on a nothing
else but the importance of the terrorist threat. one of the best practices discussed with our counterparts -- with 70 countries, how can they put on the books undercover operations? it is important that they are there to figure out who the terrorists are you actually kill people were go join the terrorist group, versus those who are just talking and inking. it is a sign of the carefulness applied.has in the hundreds of cases, while we have prosecuted, there has not been one suspect that has successfully and lamented the entrapment defense. entrapmentted the defense. ken:
>> with the senate in its august break, we feature book programming in prime time on c-span2, starting at 8 p.m. eastern. and at the end of the summer, look for to book tv special programs. on september 5, we are live for the 15th annual national book festival, followed on sunday with our live in depth program on former second lady,
lynne cheney. book tv, television for serious readers. >> we continue our look at this year's aspen institute security forum. this is an hour. [applause] >> thank you, i want to thank clark for having us here. i also want to think mr. olson for stopping in. our other guests only got as far as denver last night, said he could not join us today. we have with us, dr. mike vickers. former of special operations in the pentagon. kathleen hicks who has held many
senior roles in the pentagon. she is now at the center for strategic international studies. i will open on questions that have touched your careers. you have all spent time fighting extremist militants in your different roles. with that experience, looking at the islamic state group and al isis or isil the threat that national security is making it out to be to the u.s. public? and is al qaeda on the back burner for good, or are you just prepping for the next battle? you may begin. [laughter] since you are in the private sector now, feel free to share anything with us at all. [laughter]
michael: i think i will take a pass on that one. the threat of a terrorist attack remains a national security threat, clear and present danger along with cyber attack. we have other long-term strategic problems, that they inds everyicymakers' m isil is a bigger threat because they can inspire radical attacks across the world. but al qaeda is more sophisticated. so if an airliner blew up over the u.s., it would more likely be al qaeda than isil. al qaeda has suffered losses come up and they are still in the game.
they can come back in various ways. kathleen: i do think it is a significant threat. i do not think it has been blown up. it is a significant threat. as i have discussed in previous panels with jeh johnson, it is areart because there is an -- a territorial region that they have occupied and operated from. and then there is the social network that allows them to operate worldwide. al qaeda is not permanently out, but we can try to keep them there. it has degraded because of a lot of united states and worldwide attention and investment in making it so. not least of all the two gentlemen to my left and right. that is what it takes going forward. qaeda, it is isis, al al-shabaab, you name it, it takes a concerted long-term
effort with all the tools that we have. and the coalition. kim: did you expect we would still be a nation in this fight now? all of these years later? michael: i want to say that i am glad to be back in this forum. i think walter and others for making this possible. i apologize for not being michael lumpkin, but i am pleased to be on this stage. i will also say that i spent most of my time in uniform kim.ing [laughter] but it wasn't for lack of respect for her tenacity. it is good to be with you. so i didn't hear, i left military service for years ago. isil was not on our scope. it is a new phenomenon.
so i cannot talk about them from my historical perspective. but i do agree with mike and kathleen. it is a real threat. the persecution and the violence are threatening and scary too many. many. it is a real threat to us. i think that we speak of them as the next generation of al qaeda. we under credit them as an army. al qaeda is a terrorist group, but i sil are organized like an army, with military equipment, they seize hold territories, they do things -- it is just not an apples to apples comparison. between al qaeda and isil.
im: there are other threats -- russia in ukraine, syria and hezbollah, on and on. are the national security efforts skewed by the fear of isis and al qaeda win they have when they have not caused nearly as much damage in our country recently compared to other actors? kathleen: leon panetta like to say we have to walk and chew gum at the same time. we need to learn how to. i do not think that we send a -- spend a disproportionate amount of time on isis, or taking away from our ability to focus on longer-term challenges. now having said that, resources are severely limited. that is money, sequestration the
makes it harder. you will have challenges with money, people, and the vessels that we have -- the tool set we have. we basically have a cold war tool set. it is a constant prioritization of which will -- tools to use and to what end. ad that leads you to sort of selective engagement strategy. the united states has chosen for many years it is just as , satisfying to the public, because it is difficult to see from the public, to put resources here and not there. mike: we are in a time of unprecedented instability, and we are accruing security threats, the one that you did not mention was the rise of china.
the asia is really probably locus of economic competition. we have several challenges to the world order now. china, east asia, russia, jihadists in the middle east and we need to deal with them all. as kathleen said. and the capabilities that you deter conflict with china. the competition with china is fundamentally economic, that is not the same as instability in the middle east, and vice versa. you have to have a portfolio of capabilities and strategies to deal with the threat. i have never seen such a wide range of threats from the very high-end to the lower actors. kim: steve, do you have the tools you need to do the job? do you have enough forces to do
it? are you getting a chance to do it on the ground? for instance, what is being done in ukraine to fight russian influence there? officials talk about russian interference, but i do not hear what u.s. special operations is doing about it. the general speaks openly about sia'sut what about rush asymmetric warfare there. what can they do, what can they do? what can the u.s. do in return? steve: that will be here on friday, that could be a good question for him. [laughter] out, we are in the private sector. but the first word in private sector is private, so i will not go someplace i should not go.
but i will say that it was a classic special operation and they hadng crimea, gone to school on special operations concepts and executing. but what specifically special operations forces might do is something i will not talk about. kathleen: it was no surprise good at russians are unconventional warfare. we know that that is something they invest in homilies on them execute that in chechnya -- we saw them execute that in chechnya. that is definitely not something i would have foreseen. so what the u.s. is doing about it, special operations is a good question.
it is focused on working with the allies, particularly in the baltics and poland. but working with nato allies to shore up the ability of those baltic states to withstand pressure. little green men like approaches from russia. ukraine is much harder. back to the question that was asked about moldova. nato territories. nato put forward a view that we would spend more time on partner states coming out of the wales summit. it is important to provide defensive weapons from the u.s. to the ukrainian forces. and some special operations training should be a part of that. but by and large, efforts should
be focused on how we stick to article 5 with the nato states. throughking organizations, or more direct paths that russia has chosen. mike: russia does work through proxies, where they can. on then they are verge of losing they work with , conventional forces. then they focus back to proxy war. it is not just in ukraine or those around the former survey oviet union, it is in the middle east as well. steve: special operations across the nato countries is unprecedented. there is actually a command
within the nato structure, there is a headquarters, people going to work every day training, field training that takes place every day. and exercises that take place with a special operations flavor across nato countries. so i do want to make sure there is an indication of cooperation. kim: so while we do not see the u.s. boots on the ground in terms of training the locals, there may be european troops helping them do the same thing, helping to bolster their efforts to fight back. steve: what i'm saying is that the coordination, the sharing of tactics, the interrupt the equipment the , knowledge of capabilities and limitations is at a high level.
ukrainians, i spent some time there. -- robustt is the building tuitions -- institutions, winning influence, loving putin has done, he may have one in the short term, but he has turned the ukrainians into nationalist. fight --zenship to the so to shift to the fight against groups in syria, the u.s. has a choice, but they have now chosen to be a little hands off, working through the coalition. cominghere be a time when the u.s. have to