Skip to main content

tv   Homeland Security Undersecretary Confirmation Hearing  CSPAN  January 13, 2022 7:34am-9:13am EST

7:34 am
center. watch american history tv saturday on >> meteorologist: and find a full schedule and program guide or watch online anytime on c-span.org/history. >> c-span's online store, our latest collection of c-span products, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and every purchase supports our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime on c-spanshop.org. >> the senate intelligence can be considered the nomination of hov lanes to serve as undersecretary for intelligence and analysis in the homeland security department. members questioned him about domestic terror threats, collecting information on us citizens, and security of the
7:35 am
southern border. hov lanes previously served as homeland security adviser in the george w. bush administration. [inaudible conversations] >> everyone who is interested to take their seats. i call this hearing to order and welcome mister hov lanes, great to see you, welcome as well to elizabeth and three their daughters, maggie and natalie, mackey had the good sense to be an intern for the committee last summer and we were grateful for her service.
7:36 am
i understand your daughter really who is at berkeley law school is watching remotely and i ask that you give us some evidentiary proof that she did tune in for this couple of hours and hopefully if she's watching now she is appropriately embarrassed so we will see the aftermath. i want to -- before we begin commend you on your excellent judgment as evidenced by both your attending and living in the commonwealth. we question your choice of law school though but congratulations on your nomination to serve as undersecretary for intelligence and analysis at the permit of homeland security. this position synthetic reticle juncture between the analytic work of the intelligence community and the information sharing role of the development of homeland security. of confirmed your job will be to receive and analyze intelligence and law enforcement information relating to homeland security and to ensure prompt dissemination throughout the department as well as to your
7:37 am
partners at the federal, state, local tribal department and agencies, you can do this hearing with a strong background as intelligence and law enforcement professional who has faithfully served our country throughout your career as a federal prosecutor, the highest levels of the fbi, general counsel and chief of staff to director mueller, as us attorney from the district and first ever assistant attorney general of the doj's national security division and as homeland security adviser to president bush, you had virtually every job across justice and homeland security and until world. the fact that after a decade in private practice you made the admirable decision to return to public service is important. in our conversation before this, your appointment comes at a pivotal moment and it will clearly have some challenges. the ina mission is to find and continues to evolve and mature, since its creation in the aftermath of 9/11 and for many of us on the committee there is
7:38 am
a sense the i in a at least recently is a bit unfocused and stuck between its dual missions of national intelligence and department priorities. we have some members are very unhappy with the ina's operations in portland in 2020 and disappointed the eye and a head next in a warning about what was to come on january 6th. we just had the 1-year anniversary of that date and recognition of what domestic violence extremists can do for me the end of the political spectrum needs to be a focus of your work. at the same time, domestic violence extremists, the first amendment protects americans right to free speech and nonviolent nonviolent peaceful protest. obviously part of your role is to defend the first amendment rights.
7:39 am
as head of dhs intelligence operations, epicenter of those two imperatives, protecting the country and protecting the constitution and i would like to hear how you hope to navigate that important work while not politicizing ina's activities and but for the record a moment who's who of law enforcement and intelligence officials who are supporting your nomination from both political parties. that's a good endorsement that you are the right guy at the right time. thank you for appearing at the committee, before the committee this afternoon. i look forward to your testimony of i recognize the vice-chairman. >> thank you for being here in your willingness to serve as undersecretary for intelligence and analysis at the apartment of homeland security. the chairman has gone through your extensive public service record, the landscape, we have all the same challenges we had when you last were in public
7:40 am
service and a few have emerged that are relatively new in scale and scope not the least of which is the threat to the united states from the chinese communist party and in particular their plan which is now very clear to work through licit and illicit means to dominate global and emerging technologies to displace the united states in ways that benefit them. i will be interested to hear your views on china and how they would inform your approach to intelligence and analysis should you be confirmed. i also hope to hear a little bit about how you will insure dhs intelligence and analysis isn't being used or reasonably perceived which is in many ways is important, perceived to be used by either party or whoever is in power for political purposes under the guise of pursuing domestic violence extremism is a very fine line, the worst times in history of our intelligence agencies have
7:41 am
been when they were user perceived to be used for purposes of political advantage and this comes at a time there's a broader crisis of confidence in institutions in this country, but none has been more damaged the last few years rightly or wrongly in many cases by the intelligence community so it is important we do everything possible to ensure the perception and reality that you operate beyond the bounds of politics so that both policymakers but ultimately the american public and have confidence that their assessments are real so those are important points. thank you for being here and look forward to hearing your testimony and answers to the questions. >> i ask unanimous consent letters of support for the nominee be included in the record and i would to be point out a who's who across law enforcement and, just as leaders and his list of supporters from national
7:42 am
security and intel. i won't go down the whole list but for my colleagues and those tuning in, keith alexander, jim clapper, mike hayden, mike mcconnell, mike morel, leon panetta, tom ridge and a host of others, impressive group. >> the champus one concerns me deeply. that is a record. >> the letter -- >> it would be devastating to flow to the nomination. >> without objection i will submit those letters for the record. wilderness please stand and raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear to give this committee the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? please be seated. before moving to the opening statement i will ask you to answer five standard questions the committee poses each
7:43 am
nominee who appears before us. they require a simple yes or no for the record. first do you agree to appear before the committee here or in other venues when invited? >> yes i do. >> of confirmed you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the committee and designate staff when invited? >> yes. >> you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the committee in order for to carry out its oversight and was afraid of responsibility? >> yes. >> will you ensure that your office and staff provide such material to the committee when requested? >> yes. >> you agree to fully inform and fully briefed to the fullest extent possible all members of this committee rather than the chairman and vice chairman? >> yes. >> thank you very much and your opening statement and then recognize numbers for 5 minutes by seniority. >> thank you, chairman warner. members of the committee, i am profoundly honored to appear before you today as nominee for
7:44 am
undersecretary for intelligence analysis at the department of homeland security. i'm joined by my wife elizabeth and my daughters mackey, cecily, and natalie. i like to recognize my daughter ellie who reportedly is watching this from her birthday back at school today. it means a lot to me there with me today and it has meant a lot to me that they have been with me throughout my career. most grateful to president biden for giving me this opportunity to serve and opportunity to work with strong national security team. i'm also grateful to him for looking beyond political office in selecting someone who previously served in a republican administration. in a small but important way that is a reaffirmation of the nonpartisan approach to national security that has traditionally been and must always remain a bedrock principle of our government. the same nonpartisan approach i always took during my 21 years of government service. i first served as federal
7:45 am
prosecutor for a dozen years, handily, white-collar criminal cases, and doing so without any consideration of politics and with a clear focus on protecting civil liberties and due process rights. i then pivoted after the 9/11 attacks to focus primarily on national security matters hoping the fbi reoriented cell toward its intelligence mission after 9/11, establishing the new national security division with my colleagues at the justice department, running the homeland security council as president bush's homeland security adviser and taking the same nonpartisan approach i learned as a prosecutor and making every decision with regard for its effect on civil liberties. through government service i work closely with dhs and admire how the department established itself under the exceptional leadership of governor tom ridge and responded then to a constant stream of natural and homeland security threats. i am clear eyed however that those threats have multiplied
7:46 am
in the years since and that the dhs of today faces an increasingly complex threat from nationstate adversaries like china and russia and others who target our elections and steal our sensitive technology and cybercouples and transnational criminal organizations that victimize our communities. ina is absolutely critical to a different's ability to meet each and every one of those threats. and secretary mayorkas's words dhs is fundamentally a department of partnerships and it is ina's missions make those partnerships effective by ensuring relevant intelligence is fully circulated throughout the whole homeland security enterprise. ina performs a number of functions to accomplish that mission. it manages the information and intelligence sharing with our state, local, tribal, territorial and private sector partners, service the intelligence needs of dhs components and leadership, leverages the information
7:47 am
holdings of dhs components to identify and address threats to our national security and coordinate information sharing within the department. of confirmed i will work hard to enhance ina's jennifer: accomplish those tasks. first, i intend to focus on a workforce of ina which as i have seen is a very strong and impressive group of dedicated intelligence professionals. have a manager i always believed it is my first duty to support my personnel. as leader of an intelligence agency i will be particularly vigorous in defending their ability to deliver objective unvarnished analysis that is completely free from any political influence. i will also carefully review ina's operational role in homeland intelligence enterprise to identify and eliminating unnecessary duplication or overlap and focus ina's role on areas where it adds particular value. and maintain a constant focus on applications of ina's
7:48 am
activity on civil liberties, privacy and the need for strong safeguards, oversight and transparency in our intelligence operations. as we all know, we can only be successful at safeguarding our people come our homeland and our values if we maintain the trust of our fellow citizens. importantly i will work in close collaboration with congress and this committee in particular. i long had a strong relationship with the members and staff of this committee and deep respect for it and if confirmed you can count on my being a very willing and very collaborative partner in our joint effort to make ina as effective as possible. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and the honor of considering me for this position and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> for planning purposes if any members wish to submit questions for the record after today's hearing please do so by 5:00 pm friday january 15th.
7:49 am
i would like to start on the questions we had when we had a chance to visit over zoom. you have had positions in prior administrations in terms of outside hierarchical approach, appeared to be higher in the food chain. you had next ordinarily successful private-sector career. show the committee why you are willing at this moment in time to come back to a part of dhs that needs strong leadership but would not be viewed as conventional choice. >> appreciate that question. thank you for the opportunity. the honor of my life and career to work in government for 21
7:50 am
years and yet the titles and positions and responsibility at higher levels is great and exciting but really the substance of the job and people you do the job with that make it so important and i have often been asked why they were job iran and my answer was working with trial teams prosecuting cases, the low end of the totem pole but the substance of it, the meaningfulness of it and the commodity of it were the best and that's the way i look at this. a wonderful team and larger national security leadership in this administration as you pointed out we are at a critical time in history. i couldn't be more proud and more excited about this opportunity. >> i will accept that answer and appreciate your willingness to serve. i promise i won't reveal to president bush or bob miller use of the asa job was better than working for those individuals. talk to me a little bit, many members may want to get into
7:51 am
this, one reason i think you are the right choice right now. this is a piece of dhs a lot of us were concerned about in terms of what happened in portland, didn't do a good job in terms of alerting prior to january 6th. there are enormous challenges in terms of how you set up your role vis-à-vis the fbi and what kind of collections, can you talk about how you can work with the fbi that the conflict with the fbi? >> there are issues with ina is with any organization. i spent a lot of time with the folks at ina over the last 2 weeks and been tremendously impressed as i said in my remarks with their quality and dedication, they are good people and that is the key. when you have good people on the team the team can succeed. it has had some head winds. they've largely acting leadership which is a problem. that has just happened and variety of things that have happened made things difficult.
7:52 am
the makings of a strong team and strong operation are there and doing great things. in terms of the work of the fbi that is an important issue and when you look at the intelligence enterprise in our government, the lines are intentionally not clearly delineated. there is overlap. there should always be overlap between different agencies but you have to keep focused on that. you don't want overlap to mean duplication or worse, confusion because two intelligence agencies work the same space and come up with different analyses that confuses the customers so the fbi working closely together and they have a strong relationship and i expect if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed one of my first visits will be down to fbi headquarters to talk about the standard relationship where we can coordinate better and make the lines clear. >> giving the benefit of the doubt, at what point do you
7:53 am
throw the case, an investigation over the transom to the fbi for criminal charges versus how far you might pursue a matter. i also think you will have challenges, one of the things that did a great job for donald trump and doing the job right now is building up capabilities there but there's going to be, you're going to have some rubber cysts as well, you want to speak to that for a moment? >> you look at the responsibilities, you see there will be some overlap. i don't know that translate into rob. my sense is the two entities have done a good job trying to coordinate and making sure ina is providing the intelligence advantages both within dhs and the state and local and helping
7:54 am
operationalize that. i've been in touch with jen easterly, we talked the other day and we will be focusing on that overlap and frankly on the need for that coordination to be stronger because it has to be intelligence operational side working together. >> as we discussed on the phone i want to give you the opportunity to address it. some reason to address i believe the very few but nonetheless hours on behalf of the china national offshore oil corporation. the reason it is concern is it fits the fact pattern for how the chinese communists party aggressively plays abroad and in particular here at the basic facts as i understand them and make sure i understand the facts, april of 2018 a partner at the firm in the china office asked for help because he was
7:55 am
working for the client, china, national oil corporation and it was related to a march 2018 release by the us trade representatives, the findings of the investigation for their technology transfer, the report included the government's evidence for how the chinese government provided competitive intelligence through cyberintrusion, the chinese state owned enterprises and in china of 2025, as part of its military and the report explicitly stated that in 2012 this company twice requested and received intelligence from chinese intelligence services that help them in negotiations with five us companies, the report specifically found these examples illustrate how china uses the intelligence resources at its disposal to further the commercial interests of chinese state-owned enterprises to the
7:56 am
detriment of their foreign partners and competitors so the core negative the report is there is no distinction between the chinese company in the government, the government, american corporations competing with a foreign corporation don't get to go to the cia or nsa or whatever and get intelligence information to negotiate or compete. but the fact pattern about you being asked by a partner at the firm to look into it is i believe >> thanks for raising this. it is an appropriate thing and important thing to ask about. in terms of the facts, a partner in the states does trade stocks, that partner will see what trade sanctions are consequences there could be because of these allegations was wanted to find out if there
7:57 am
were criminal exposure so he asked me to have an associate write a memo that says these are the criminal laws that could be implicated. the associate did that. i passed the memo back and as you said, 2.8 hours of work, no contact with the client, no advocacy, talked to nobody, didn't call anybody in the government. it was almost a law school exercise by the associate but it was on behalf of the chinese oil company and you raise legitimate concerns about not just here but your leader in this area, i know you and senator warner have done a roadshow with members of academia and industry to raise the alarm about what china is doing you and i agree about the need to do that and the fact that is happening. we are seeing now and assault across the board in every space, political, economic,
7:58 am
military by china to try to become dominant over the united states and change the world order so i agree with that and i mentioned the other day, harkening back to my time in the national security division at doj in 2006-2008 that is when there was a daunting realization that in terms of technology theft the chinese were loquacious. my colleagues and i were banging the drum sounding the alarm about that back then to try to get academia and the industry to pay attention so this is consistent with what i've seen the last 15 years and i can assure you that if i get into the position at ina i will keep sounding the alarm. >> my time is about to expire but what did you know about this company before this work came to you? the way you describe what it sounds like partner came and handed it off to an associate who did it, a logical type exercise and came back and
7:59 am
reviewed and the partner requested it but what did you know about this company at the time, i'm just curious, did it make you queasy or concerned the firm was advocating were trying to help a company that undertakes these sort of actions that implicate national security concerns? >> a couple things was when i thought about it i thought this was he was looking at a range of sanctions, didn't have the expertise to look at white-collar. i was just the one for whom the assignment would go to the white-collar space to look at and say these are possible laws that would be implicated just to clear one thing, you said advocate. i don't think there is any advocating that went on. it was an explanatory exercise. >> the firm represented an advocate on behalf of this entity, not necessarily you directly. >> i believe they were doing trade work with them but i
8:00 am
don't know for sure but to answer your question i should have thought more about it than i did that day. senator wyden. >> mister chairman, first, let me express my thanks to you for your responsiveness to my concerns about what happened in portland and to mister hov lanes, appreciated visiting with you and i believe in making sure witnesses know what we are going to talk about. .. wainstein, appreciated visiting with you and as you know, believe in making sure witnesses know what we're going to talk about. >> appreciate that very much. >> when the trump administration sent department of homeland security troops to my hometown in the summer of 2020, the department's office of intelligence and analysis was the intelligence office sent untrained, and experienced personnel to portland without a plan or clear management. so i spent months battling to get the general councils report
8:01 am
released to the public so that oregonians would know about the abuses that took place. the report was finally released last october, but because of redaction, i am still pushing to get the full picture out for oregonians. one issue in particular i have focused on is the general councils finding that dossiers were developed on people, presumably including my constituents who apparently were no threat to homeland security. according to the report, some junior personnel were so upset about this they refuse to even work on them. so that's why oregonians want to know what went intoom these dossiers that were distributed around the department of homeland security. but so far that information is just being withheld.
8:02 am
so t do you believe the departmt of homeland security intelligence personnel ought to be collecting and distributing dossierss on americans? >> thank you again for that meeting the other day and thank you for your practice of giving a heads up for all the questions that you're going to ask the nominee like myself. i was troubled by what i read in that report and the part that's been made public. i have been heartened to hear about a number of the changes that been put l in place to address some of the lack of training, lack of guidance. as you pointed out lack of ability on the part of some who felt the concern about what was going on but who felt they could raise the alarm. i assure you that will not be the situation if i'm heading up ina. people will feel fully comfortable to step up and raise their concerns. >> what about these dossiers though? should there be dossiers?
8:03 am
what information ought to be in them? who should get to see them? because that's what my constituents want to know. >> and that goes to the guidelines and it's very clear. letnf me step back a second. as you and i discussed, open-source collection which is what ina does, it can be fraught when, especially if it's done in the context of protests or demonstrations. and so there are clear guidelines about what doj should do. sorry, what dhs ini can and cannot do. so, for example, they can only collect information and distribute it if it's relevant to a departmental mission of protecting against terrorism. they cannot collect just if somebody as exercising first amendment rights come you can't do that. you have to use the least intrusive means of collecting information. and then once that information is collected in terms of disseminating it, this is u.s. person information that needs to be carefully handled pursuant to executive order and pursuant to
8:04 am
law. it shouldn't be distributed without regard to privacy. and what i read in that report is that there is insufficient training and guidance as to our information about the u.s. persons could and couldn't be distributed. >> i am getting ready to run out of time. if you are confirmed would you released to the public this and other information about this office in portland that i have been pushing to get unredacted? that's a simple yes or no question. would you be willing to release it to the public? >> i won't have the authority to release butda i assure you i wil push hard to release it to the maximum ability the department -- >> is there any reason why it shouldn't be released? >> i know there some redactions that might have to do with personal information, private information. there might be sources and methods but i can assure you that your concerns have been passed on, folks at dhs on all -- are already engaging as of
8:05 am
last weekt with folks in the general councils office and they're working hard to try to actually minimize the amount that is without. >> i will only tell you, you have got to think, because this is what happened in my hometown, we saw with the office of generall counsel said. you got to think it's going on elsewhere, and i will tell you there's a pretty ominous history in this committee, as chairman warnerer knows, about the use of dossiers. so i'll get to the bottom of it. we'll continue to work with you between now and the time this committee votes on your nomination. i've have additional questions i'd hope we can have a second round as well. o you.airman, thank >> on this issue i do think there's so many questions raised about portland, i want to add my voice to senator wyden. i would like you to work obviously you've got to go through your appropriate channels once you get confirmed, by the help as much as possible can be released as well. and and i think we should fray give members extra credit for actually being here in person,
8:06 am
but that's not the rules so we now go to senator cotton on webex. >> mr.iv chairman, we appreciate the extra credit. >> mr. chairman we appreciate the extra credit. >> if tom doesn't poke his head up soon, i'll go to you, senator cotton are you out there in ether land? mr. vice chairman i'll make executive ruling and go to senator corning. >> thank you mr. chairman, mr. wainstein, congratulations on your nomination and thank you for your lengthy distinguished public service. and i'm glad your family could be here. i'm sure they're very proud of you, and i'm sure your service
8:07 am
is a family affair and not just, not just out hanging out there on your own. senator rubio talked about the work you did for chinese clients and i don't imagine you had to register, i don't think you had to register under foreign agents registration act, did you? >> no, i've never lobbied . >> have you had some experience with the foreign agents registration act during your service? >> when i was in government, yes. under me, or under our division. >> i think we've seen a number of instances that certainly have been disturbing to me where foreign governments have hired lobbyists here in washington dc who have not registered under the foreign agent registration act but rather under the lobbyists disclosure act in order to obscure their representation of foreign governments. but it -- you know, we're here
8:08 am
because we were elected by our constituents to serve the people of this country and not foreign countries and certainly not without our knowledge of who is advocating for policy changes in congress. could you, could you expand upon your views of the role of the foreign agent registration act and whether you believe it is adequately serving its purpose? >> thank you, senator, i think you're putting your finger on a very critical issue, been around a long time, but it hasn't been a force with sufficient energy for decades, you know, as long as it's been around. there has been a focus on fera over the last few years, i know the justice department is adding resources to that, national security division, and they're focusing on bringing cases and i think they need to, because i think you're right, we need to know who people are speaking for when they're advocating for legislative change so i agree
8:09 am
with that and to the extent i'll have any role in that in ina would be minimal, i would be, do everything i can to encourage strong enforcement. >> well there are, have been bipartisan bills knocking around here for a while now and we haven't been able to get those passed yet, but i would hope you would use the benefit of your experience and perspective to advocate within the administration for those changes so we know, there's even been, when we were considering the foreign sovereign immunity act to allow the 9/11 families an opportunity to file litigation over foreign financing of the terrorist attack on 9/11, one foreign government went so far as not just to hire u.s. lobbyists here in washington dc, but also to enlist the aid of veterans who came up hire without disclosing who was
8:10 am
paying for their hotel room and financing their presence here and purported to be advocating on behalf of united states military veterans. so this takes a lot of different shapes and forms, but i think it's an insidious problem and one that i hope you will help us in whatever way you can to address. i want to ask you, there's been an increased focus on domestic terrorism. obviously, since the events of a year ago on january the 6th, but what part of the u.s. government, in terms of law enforcement, particularly in went so far as it affects the intelligence community, would have jurisdiction to investigate cases of so-called domestic terrorism? >> good question sir, sort of goes to the point we talked about, i talked about with the
8:11 am
chairman about the areas of overlap and this is an area where there is shared jurisdiction. there is shared responsibilities to do intelligence and law enforcement work visa vi the domestic terrorism threat, obviously the fbi takes point on domestic terrorism when it comes to doing investigation, building cases, in fact, they will not do, i think sanborn testified to this they will not do intelligence work absent some predicate, some predications under fbi guidelines. ina doesn't have that predicate responsibility, it has what i discussed earlier, pursuant to a departmental mission, first amendment rights, et cetera. but it can do the open-source searching or collection if it relates to a threat that dhs is tasked with protecting against.
8:12 am
so it's a complementary assignment of responsibility between the fbi and dhs and ina and thin the additional piece is ina plays a critical role in tieing the federal government's responsibilities and efforts against domestic terrorism with the state and local tribal territorial and private sector and that's, that's really important piece and real huge value add that ina brings to the domestic terrorism fight and frankly, to the whole intelligence enterprise. >> mr. chairman, i have a few more questions, i'll wait for a second round. >> senator hynek. >> i'll try to be brief. mr. wainstein, when the american public found out section 215 had been interpreted by the fisa court to allow the collection of millions of americans phone records with a single corridor,
8:13 am
there was an understandable amount of disbelief and outrage in the public and that precipitated congress stepping in, passing usa freedom act whichen banned the bulk collection of american records, including national security letters, so usa freedom act cautified national consensus that the collection of american records in bulk, infringed on the privacy and civil liberties of ordinary americans. do you agree that this national consensus and the usa freedom act have it right, in prohibiting open-ended bulk collection? >> thank you senator and thank you, that question passed on to colleagues at dhs who passed it on to me, and this is also a topic senator wyden and i had a good discussion about. >> i can imagine. >> yes, and look bulk collection
8:14 am
is a difficult and fraught issue, because dulk collection by definition as i i said it, you may be looking for one bad guy in the group, but you're then going to collect information that involves innocent people so you can imagine a situation where there's a crime at a bus station and 2:00 in the morning and you want the manifest for the buses who pulled in at 1:00 because they may have contained the person who committed the murder women you know not everyone on the bus committed the murderer so you're getting information of private innocent people, that's the dilemma of bulk collection. so the question is, then, is a particular collection, in many people, would agree that would be an appropriate investigative step to try to solve that murderer in the train station, but is it appropriate then to take that to millions of people's telephone records and that's the issue that came up with the use of the 215 order for the telephone meta data
8:15 am
program and just, i guess, two main points about that that occurred to me and we discussed in our call with senator wyden, one is even if that was arguably lawful, many scholars agree on whether it was lawful or not, there's an additional step there which is, is it appropriate? does it meet the expectations of the american people and the expectations of congress to use that tool in that aggressive way? that deliberation, that analysis, wasn't really done. and the second piece of that, related to that, is this idea of secret law, that the reason why those expectations weren't measured against that program is because the program is classified, the pfizer court opinion authorizing the use of 2 design for all that meta data was classified and couldn't be discussed openly in congress, couldn't be discussed openly with the american people so people couldn't see, you know, couldn't make arguments one way or the other and that really
8:16 am
handicapped the use of that tool and made it understandable why people reacted when they did when it got exposed by leaking and i think it's a lesson, a lesson i've taken from that and that's not the only instance. i think there were other instances post 9/11 with too much reliance on classification when there should have been more transparency, live and learn, if i go back into government, that's a lesson i'll keep front and center. >> do you think congress got it right in passing the usa freedom act as a response to those revelations? >> i think it's understandable while congress did that. in terms of the need for 215, for nonbulk collection, i still see that might be a need. i'm looking at it from the outside and whether it as a need -- >> but not for meta data that involves enormous numbers of innocent americans. >> exactly, it's just the fact that, you know, criminal side you have a grand jury subpoena,
8:17 am
then you don't have a comparable tool, and i honestly don't know where the administration is on that issue. >> one of the challenges, obviously, at ina is just that the challenges with workforce morale. that was true even before some of the things you heard about in recent years with my colleagues in portland, politicization of intelligence, et cetera. if confirmed, what are your plans to turn that around? because no organization can function well without high quality morale within its ranks happen. >> it's a very important question, and really, i mean, at the end of the day, my main responsibility is as a manager, as helping to manage that organization and as i said, that means supporting the people, i mean support, i mean it's my job to help them do their jobs as well as they possibly can. they're really good people at ina and i've been in organizations where morale ebbs and flows for a variety of reasons.
8:18 am
the nice thing about that, if the right reasons come into play, morale can go back up and i think, i know morale might have taken some hits at ina and i've heard about it but i can tell you the people are pretty energized as i've been dealing with them i think in terms of how to deal with any morale issues, one of the points you just put your finger on. they have to know that i have their back, that i'm going to ask them to do nothing more than give objective, straight forward analysis. that's all i want, and that politics is going to play no role in it. that approach, just as i felt as a prosecutor for years, doing national security law work at doj, that's what people want to hear. they want to hear they're being valued for their work, their contribution to national security, and not for whether their work butters the bread of one political party or the other. >> and for members who are going to be around for a second round, and i'll be happy to give up my time to get to them, but there
8:19 am
are four, five members on webex so it will be a while. senator. >> thank you, chairman. mr. wainstein, on the personnel issues, what do you see as the right balance between contractors and permanent employees and, particularly on the contractors side, what do they bring with them that it may be hard to replicate in the agency on a permanent basis? >> that's -- talking about management, sir, that's exactly one of the first management questions i'm going to need to address i think. i've heard issues or concerns raised about an overreliance on contractors at ina but look, there should always be a balance, look contractors provide a really important value. they allow you to search, if you have a need to surge personnel, as you know, it takes forever to
8:20 am
hire people, go through the standard process of hiring folks into the federal service, you can get contractors who can surge quickly. they're also helpful if you have particular needs or areas of expertise to satisfy, contractors can be brought in, don't have to train somebody in, so there's a real value to contractors, by the same token, especially with analysts, the optimal is, you know, traditional government employee who takes over the position, learns this, the area of analysis, and really develops expertise, it isn't somebody who comes in and out on six month assignments. that's the optimal. but there should be a balance, and in positions i've held or offices i've run i've always looked at that and made sure there was a balance. here my sense is maybe an overreliance on contractors, i think that is being rectified but one of the first things i do as a manager is look at that on day one. >> as we look at the growing
8:21 am
importance of artificial intelligence and machine learning and all of the public data that's out there, do you think we'll be able to keep up with the new techniques we need to sort this information down to where a career individual can look at it? or are we going to need some help just dealing with all the information that's publicly available, not anything that we're getting some other way, but how do you propose we go through that in the most effective way and know what we can know from the public available information that's out there? >> right, well i think you're raising sort of the dilemma of intelligence and the intelligence enterprise in general, which is there's always too much intelligence and if you can't zero in on what you need, you lose the significance of the intelligence you need to focus
8:22 am
on. and especially when you're talking about an entity like ina that's looking at open source information, i mean it's everywhere, it's, you know, there's so much of it. so there are a couple things, one, you identified one issue or one solution which is artificial intelligence. and i have not gotten to sort of deep dive on what ina is doing with artificial intelligence to sort of get rid of the noise and focus on the important information, but my sense is that is an important part of their operations and also training and guidelines, making sure, especially when talking about, you know, looking at people who might be somewhere along, around the line that separates violent extremists from just political extremists who have first amendment rights to do what they're doing, you have to be very careful about hoovering up everything about these people because we're talking about personal information so those guidelines have to provide strict guard rails in terms of collection so
8:23 am
that also helps to widdle down what you pull in. but that's a real challenge. >> that's helpful. i think you're right. it's going to be one of the first things you have to deal with if you're confirmed for this job is how we going to have explained looking back and there's lots of information there and we couldn't figure out how to find it even though it was publicly available information and then the topic that you got into earlier, that's a different topic in my view of the things that aren't as available to the public as other things are. the mix of contractors and the full-time employees, is it your view that you can find the full-time professionals that you now need for this skill set that are willing to do this job as
8:24 am
their career? >> yes. the main reason is the people i've been dealing with are topnotch. the way you recruit the best is you perform the best. if you're known for performing, being a strong entity, people want to join you. they want to be part of your team. we'll be, obviously, based on resources and we'll be talking do you about resources as well. resources permitting, we'll be looking for the best and the brightest. i think we'll have access to them but there are others in the intelligence community who might be interested in come over and doing some time on the domestic front. >> thank you, chairman. >> if senator king is not going to -- how about senator bennett on webex.
8:25 am
going once, going twice. senator casey. >> thank you very much. i'm happy to be jumping in the shoes of those you just named. thanks for the opportunity. i'm going to thank the candidate for nomination for his public service. his service has been distinguished and we're grateful he's ready to serve again. thank youful for his team is willing to help him do that. i wanted to ask about one topic and that's hospital security and especially ransomware attacks on hospitals. we know hospitals across the country have been targets for
8:26 am
these ransomware attacks because of the data and the dependence we all have been telemedicine and what happens in those hospital systems when they have ransomware attack. they caused severe disruption to patient care and have caused and will continue to cause problems for health care generally. i have two questions, one is to what extent is cyber mission center support or provide analysis to dhs cyber and infrastructure, cyber security infrastructure agency to track cyber threats to hospitals and health care networks throughout the country. >> thank you, senator. appreciate your question and it's going to have serious threat. before i get into hospitals and health care, specifically, yes,
8:27 am
the cyber mission center i've gotten briefed up on that. i'm generally familiar with how it operates and how it works closely with cisca. we talked specifically about the integration of our the rni and how ina needs to focus or challenge target intelligence. to let them know about specific attack, specific ransomware attacks and techniques. parties and groups that are engaging in ransomware and techniques for dealing with ransomware. i.n.a. is working on all those fronts. we agree if i get on board that first thing we'll do is sit down
8:28 am
and see how that relationship working and how it can work better. in terms of, well, i'll let you say the second question and i assume that's about hospital specifically. >> that's going to be critical that coordination so you can provide both support and analysis. the other question just pertains to similar concern is if you're confirmed, will you commit to enhancing i.n.a.'s both the collection and analysis on cyber threats to health care networks to ensure that federal agencies are providing networks with the most up to date and actionable information? >> yes. i can commit -- i will commit focusing like laser on that issue. ransomware is terrible directed at anybody but particularly when
8:29 am
it's directed at health care organization. health care organization will be threatened to be shut down putting people's lives at risk. i would imagine folks at i.n.a. are very focussed on this issue and that resources are being put to it. i know that ransomware is a big priority but i will -- when i get in, i'll sit down and make sure i get a full briefing of what we're doing on the health care front and make sure we're surging resources as needed. >> thanks very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> the ever patient and attentive senator sass. >> felt like it was dripping with sarcasm but thank you. thanks for your past service and not just thanks to you but your wife and daughters. i know one's away. many times in the years, the decades of your government service after 9/11, i'm sure dad was away a lot.
8:30 am
thanks to your family for the sacrifices you all made as well. >> do you believe that china sees themselves as engaged in a zero sum technological race with the u.s.? >> yes. i think they see themselves as zero sum technological race with us. not just that but other aspects as well. >> can you explain what you think the goals are and how they seek to exploit america's open society and to the degree your views have probably changed oaf the last couple of decades. everybody in 2000 had a much more benign view of what china and the u.s. might be able to do in cooperative competition but in a different place now. you explain how you see the goals and how the view is changed and when. >> that's a great question. i was talking to a friend about that yesterday. look, i did sort of have maybe it's polyannaish, but i had
8:31 am
optimism that china would come into the league of nations and operate as a responsible member of the world order, respect the rules and would compete fairly and become maybe a capitalist democracy of some sort. i retained vestages of that hope for quite some time after the turn of the century. i'll say that, and i mentioned this earlier, i'll say the rude shock that made me realize that was a pieb dream was when i was heading up the national security division, we started seeing this frontal assault by china on stealing our technology. they are going industry to industry. chinese nationals and other being deployed to do that. they were starting campaign to play in violation of the rules.
8:32 am
that's why we sounded the alarm. i think a lot of people were slow to pick up that lesson. i was probably slow to pick up too. since that time in the last decade, 15 years, i think we have seen that focus on stealing technology and intellectual property and willingness to bend the rules there is now pervasive threat for the whole approach to the west and the united states. i find it to be a very alarming situation. i agree with your characterization this is a zero sum game against the united states. >> thank you. i appreciated your back and forth with the vice chairman of about three hours of work you did.
8:33 am
it's important for those not on the intelligence committee to understand what the national offshore oil corporation does. they try to intimidate china's neighbors and help the ccp benefit from their civil military fusion and try to harm other nations that believe in open navigation of the sea ways. the rule of free trade, human rights et cetera. i've been satisfied with the back and foth and the three hours of billable work. now. >> thank you.
8:34 am
i think we should be evolving toward a standard where certain types of work are not inexcusable if we understand the context as yours was. i think we should be moving toward a standard where all nominees for all national security affiliated responsibilities agree they would do no work for ccp affiliated organization in the future. i look forward to supporting your nomination. i appreciate the distinction you drew about domestic political extreism versus violent extremism and i know senator cornyn has more questions on that. sgla tlp are many of our colleagues as well as many businesses that still don't understand this. one of the critical reasons we
8:35 am
appreciate so many senator who is have been part of the road shows as we make the case in classified setting to business and other entities about the other challenges the ccp face, i would say to my colleagues and i get to another round. >> i want to talk about coordination and sharing of, we have a huge sprawling intelligence enterprise. it involves 17 different agencies. on the domestic side your most important counterpart is the fbi.
8:36 am
>> thank you for the meeting the other day and thank you specifically for that particularly suggestion where you suggested i reach out to the fbi and fbi counter part and suggest we have whatever it was a monthly lunch. we're coordinate and sharing information sufficiently. absolutely. i agree with the sentiment and that specific recommendation. >> well, in serving on this committee now for going on ten years, it's been my observation that one of the tendencies in the intelligence community is to hold close the information that's gathered and intelligence isn't any good unless it's shared particularly with the people that need to see it. i think we classify too much.
8:37 am
i think sources and methods has to be top of mind. we lempbed there was intelligence about potential violence but it never got to the capitol police. i.n.a. doesn't consider intelligence that it gathers as something it owns but it could be helpful to either the fbi or local law enforcement. >> thank you, sir. i think you've addressed a couple of points that i'd like to expand on. one is the information sharing generally. as we discussed the other day, i lived and breathe the issues surrounding lack of information
8:38 am
sharing post 9/11 where just as you said with january 6th, even more so, i think before 9/11, there was an inability to connect the dots. that was the terminology used to characterize it. a large part was failure to share information that could have been shared. we really had to go to work after 9/11 to break those walls down. i think in the counterterrorism space between the bureau and the cia and others the government has gone a long way on that front. look, it's endemic in work that siloing happens. don't think sharing first. they think raising it up their chain before sharing. that's something that needs to be focused on. another issue is classification. it's an issue near and dear to
8:39 am
my heart. also so the information can be more easily usable by our partners in law enforcement enterprise especially like state and locals. that's an issue that i.n.a. is focused on since it's the intelligence bridge to the state and locals. >> thank you. i have some other questions about how you deal with domestic violence extremists or domestic terrorism and separated from politics. i think other people are going to discuss that in a second round. i appreciate your willingness to re-enter government service. thank you. >> we have senator joe brand on
8:40 am
webex. >> thank you. thank you for being here. a cyber scoop article published this monday described 20 current federal law enforcement contracts to 7 million dollar which include facial recognition services and software. expanding use of facial recognition technology. such mistakes could not only be discriminatory to our citizens but disasterous to law enforcement. if confirmed, would you provide full and accurate accounting of collection retention and exploitation from the use of
8:41 am
facial recognition technology, including lifting all contracts and subcontractors used by dhs, i.n.a. to this committee? >> thank you. i'll make that commitment pure -- pursuant to keep the committees fully and currently informed about our intelligence
8:42 am
ina has also had challenges in opportunities for its workforce and experienced low morale and high rate of attrition. regarding special velvet ina has historically did not -- [inaudible] according to ina officials. if confirmed, what steps would you taking me to be to address morale and training issues? >> thanks, senator. that's a fundamental question, fundamental issue and challenge for me if i walk into ina is to assess what the morale of the
8:43 am
workforce is and take every measure i can to improve that morale which improves the effectiveness of the organization. i stepped into management positions in a number of different entities throughout my government career, and as i mentioned earlier morale can change. they can turn on a dime but it also can improve on a dime. it's a matter of doing some of the blocking and tackling of management making sure people have career paths laid out, opportunities for details, training, that kind of thing. it's making sure the tone at the top is right as i alluded to earlier, , that everybody on the line realizes the supervisors and had a ina have their back so long as they do their job right and honestly and objectively they will be supported. they will never get a message from the front office that they need to do anything for political reasons, which is antithetical to good morale in the intelligence agency. and look, i think there are good
8:44 am
people at ina, really good people and i think word will get out and it is getting out to the rest of the intelligence community that post surveys are out there but they're playing an important role in a critical mission of our government, and i think we are seeing that. and so when you have criticality, you have good work and just wrong management, those are the makings of good morale. so i actually expect the morale to end up being high. but thank you for the question. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cornyn. >> mr. wainstein, you are a cofounder of former republican national security officials for biden, and obviously engaged in the political process during the last election. you organized and led a public letter calling the previous
8:45 am
president a threat to the rule of law. certainly, you are within your rights to express your point of view and support the candidate of your choice. can you assure americans with whom you disagree politically that you do not view them as a threat to the rule of law, absent some criminal conduct? d that you do not view them as a threat to the rule of law absent some criminal conduct? >> absolutely, senator. thank you for that question. i want to thank senator rubio for letting me know that question might be coming. if you permit me, i'll spend a minute or so giving you my position on that. that is a completely fair and appropriate thing for you to be asking about. you should ask about the political activities of people who come before you to take these positions in the national security and the law enforcement
8:46 am
enterprises because the last thing, as i said earlier, the last thing we need is anything in these positions of authority who is allowing, injecting policy into decision making. because of the effectiveness and credibility of the national security apparatus. fair for you to look back at it. the thing about me, there's not much political past up until 2020. i'm a government guy. promoted by party, administrations on both sides. basically my job was to do what was best for the american people and not for a particular political party. i felt strongly about the last election. an important point is the thing i felt most strongly about and you alluded to that letter was the concern there was plitization of the law enforcement intersurprise at the justice department. that's the center piece of that letter. it was that concern that made me feel like i should be vocal.
8:47 am
that's the concern you have. that's what i'm worried about. i've spent my life as a public servant resisting that. i did that with my last year and you can be sure if i end up at i.n.a., that's the position i'll view to. thank you for that question. >> we talked about domestic terrorism and whose purview that falls within in terms of law enforcement. i think you said the fbi would take the lead in absent some foreign nexus. you would agree that would not be within the purview of organizations like the central intelligence agencies and other parts of the i.c., correct? sdplg domestic focus intelligence work would not fall within the purpose view.
8:48 am
>> one of the concerns that i think everybody should have is about the abuse of some of those tools like the foreign intelligence surveillance act to surveil american citizens. particularly based on perjured testimony. when you read inspector general horowitz's report on cross fire hurricanes, it documented the perjury of one of the fbi lawyers and the various other abuses of the process. did that cause you concern? >> yes, it did. >> one of the problems we have here, you talked about 215, i
8:49 am
support the re-instatement of section 215 of the foreign intelligence act but as i told the director of national intelligence, every time that the skeptics about the power that's given to the intelligence community members of congress, every example of an abuse of that power makes it harder and harder for us as a political matter to get congress to pass or reinstate those authorities. let me turn to the border. obviously, when you see two million people roughly plus coming across the border during this last year and instances of drug trafficking and seizures, people with criminal records potentially people from other countries of special concern.
8:50 am
for example, in the del rio sector, they said they detained people from 150 different countries coming across the del rio sector, alone. from a national security perspective, is that a concern of border as long as i've -- from law enforcement perspective, yes that's a concern. >> i realize this is not necessarily within your authority or your bailiwick but i want to use the opportunity to highlight the fact that the secretary of homeland security is actual assigned a nonenforcement directive saying the border patrol and i.c.e. should not detain anybody who
8:51 am
was guilty of illegal entry into the country unless they have committed other crimes. the problem remains that the non-enforcement posture of this administration and the department of homeland security are operating as a substantial pull factor for people to leave their homes and come into the country illegally. are you aware of some of the most recent statistics with regard to those who have come here and been released on notice to report? are you familiar with that process? they are given a notice to appear in court or a notice to report to an i.c.e. officer. are you familiar with that? >> i'm generally familiar with it, yes. >> senator, i'll get you a third round. you're at 7.5 minutes.
8:52 am
can i get you back on the third round. >> i just have one more question. i'm happy to do a third round. >> two quick points. first, i'm going to be asking you written questions with respect to the dossiers and whether it will be released and i'm going to need those answers before this committee moves forward. that's number one. number two, there's another part to this 215 debate. this is a bulk collection of the phone records on million and millions of law-abiding people where i'm trying to square your public testimony with the written answers that you gave us to the pre-hearing questions. let me make sure we walk through this quickly. in your public testimony about the bulk collection of all these phone records you said and i quote, this part of the law was significantly more protective of
8:53 am
civil liberties in grand jury subpoenas. you also testified that if the government wanted to collect and this is quote, an obviously incident day-to-day action, i think you're going to have some questions from the fisa court judge. you knew that the government was secretly using section 215 to collect the phone records of millions of innocent americans without any subsequent review without the fisa court. for the committee, and i'll be asking about this as well. reconcile what you knew at the time based on your answers in your public testimony because i'm having trouble reconciling the two. maybe there's something else i need to have information from you on. >> thank you. i think i can help you a bit.
8:54 am
i appreciate you raising this the other day and giving me a heads up about this. let me -- so everybody is on the same page. you're asking about testimony i gave in september 2009. that was after i left government. >> in public. >> it was a hearing to the re-authorization of certain parts of the patriot act. i was asked to testify as somebody who worked in that area. i had left the national security division where i had direct responsibility for that area as of late 2007 or early 2008. i opined about the importance of re-authorizing those three sections that were up for re-authorization at the time, including 215 and the point i was making is a simple point. the premise for 215 for inacting 215 was that on criminal side,
8:55 am
criminal prosecutors could use a grand jury subpoena when they needed to get records. i did that thousands of times in my career. don't have to go to a judge. persuade that judge to authorize that order. in my mind, it's always better to have a judge in the process. someone couldn't just go use 215 for innocent purposes. i was explaining to find out about his girlfriends, whatever records or something like that.
8:56 am
that was raised earlier in the hearing that i testified in. he also mentioned he specifically singled out to members that there was a classified collection under 215 that some members knew about that he was happy to brief those members about that classified collection and that's the meta data program. that was already out there nap was the baseline for the hearing. i was there for that. i was talking about how the 215 was designed and how grand jury
8:57 am
subpoenas are designed. that's still a valid argument for 215. >> my time is up. i continue to find it hard to reconcile what you knew and at the time you gave this public testimony when you talked abtd i quote here about how 215 was more protective of civil liberties. you knew the government was secretly using section 215 to collect all these phone records on millions of innocent americans without any subsequent review by the fisa court. this is not just policy. i'm going to have to get some more information from you with respect to reconciling what you now now have indicated you knew at the time which does not seem to me to be consistent with what you said publicly.
8:58 am
we'll continue this discussion and thank you for the extra round. thank you. >> if i may, a couple of points. i had been out for two years. i didn't know what was still running or not. i knew it had been authorized at some point previously before my coming into the national security division. also you said this collection was done without review of the fisa court. my understanding is the fisa court authorized and re-authorized it a number of times. i think there was sort of continuing review of the -- >> i'm not sure that's helpful to you because your written answers to the pre-hearing questions indicated that you knew the government was secretly using 215 in a way that didn't
8:59 am
have any subsequent review by the fisa court. we're going to have to g over this some more. thank you. >> senator blunt, you're up next. do you have anything else? senator cornyn. we're in the 7-minute round area. >> we were talking about the border. what will be your role in official capacity with regard to border ine enforcement and threats to the homeland coming across the border? >> i have a lot to learn about the role at border. my understanding is it's twofold. one is to provide intelligence and information to the rapg of people, actors and enforcement
9:00 am
agency. make sure state and local who are down around the border are getting as much intelligence as we can find about what they can expect to be seen crossing the border legally. what kind of migration pattern there >> to those agencies. as well as dhs and also to collect intelligence that might be gleaned from people who are coming across the border, so, you know, the people who are taking to the secondary and asked this kind of thing, intelligence and important information that can be helpful to the intelligence community, to dhs to our state and local partners is developed and we then are responsible for channelling that intelligence into ina and making that into actionable product. >> as you know, given the volume of people that have come
9:01 am
across the border in the last year of some two million, that, by the way, doesn't count so-called getaways, it's always struck me as odd that we try to estimate people we never see, the number, but we know it's more that are actually detained along the border and long those, law enforcement identified people's criminal records, multiple offenses of drug smuggling, sex offenders and the like. currently there's no process in place to actually do biometric identification of the people, actual people coming across the border. as a law enforcement professional does it concern that you people are coming across the border for whom we have no record, plus, a positive or negative, and then
9:02 am
they're released into the heartland of the country and given a notice to report or a notice to appear and just in the last six months, 50,000 of them did not show up at an ice office given their notice to report. and just violating the terms of their release. do you view that as a national security and a law enforcement vulnerability? >> it's clearly, it's always a concern for national security and intelligence community when you have a blank space, when there is a lack of information about people here in the united states and what they might do and so the more that we can learn about and from the people who are coming across the border, the better. as an intelligence guy, i want to know more rather than less and so whether that's interviews, from making sure they go through the process,
9:03 am
what have you? absolutely, it's better to know more and whether it's coming across the southern border, whether it's coming through our airports and ports, we want to know more rather than less about people here in the united states. >> and do you finally, do you consider our lack of knowledge about those individuals a national security vulnerability? >> i guess i'd say that a lack of knowledge about people coming into our country is troubling because we want to know more about these people than less. we want to have an understanding whether somebody is coming in for malign purposes, whether it's to launch a terrorist attack or what have you. so, absolutely, whether it's people coming across the border, whether it's people coming through airports, whether it's people coming in as refugees, what have you, we -- and i know this is the approach that dhs would want
9:04 am
more than less. >> so, yes, that is a vulnerability? >> well, vulnerabilities arise from lack of intelligence information and the intelligence enterprise is all about, as you know, this committee and you know all too well, is all about minimizing vulnerabilities. you minimize by having information before a threat becomes reality so my feeling is that we reduce our level of vulnerability the more knowledge we have. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> i believe senator king has one more question from web ex. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. wanestein, i want to take you back to law school. an analyst walks in and says we have information on a group called sons of liberty at one of the midwestern states, they seem to be very strong supporters of the conservative causes. we've heard a tip that they may be planning some kind of action involving violence at the u.s.
9:05 am
supreme court. what do you do? >> that's a great question and i have a very vague recollection of law school, but i remember getting a few of those questions in classes and getting called on and hopefully i'll do better than i did in law school. that's a very realistic scenario and that goes to the issue that i think we discussed earlier, which is, you know, given where domestic terrorism is coming from, it's coming from a range of motivations, but some of it is coming from attitudes about politics and political views. that makes the intelligence operations in that space incredibly fraught, incredibly difficult because you cannot -- you're forbidden at the dhs and every part of the intelligence community, federal government, you're forbidden from taking investigative steps just because somebody exercised their first amendment rights
9:06 am
and you can exercise your first amendment rights by saying something that other people would think is completely absurd and extreme so as long as it's not inciting violence you're allowed to do it and ina cannot and should not be involved in collecting against that person or party. the last piece of what you said, the analysts came in with, that got my attention, that there's an indication that this group is planning some kind of violence because that's -- that's the dividing line. if there is sufficient basis to believe that this group is planning a violent act of some kind, especially a violent act like this, which is very clearly terrorism seemingly, it's intended to influence the government by attacking the supreme court, then that makes it a fitting and appropriate target for intelligence collection. so, it really would come down to how much of a factual basis is there to believe that that group is going over that line
9:07 am
into violence. and it can't be that there is some remote possibility that it could happen or that similar groups in the past have gone from being politically extreme to being violent. it has to be that there's some evidence that this group is, in fact, crossing over that line. >> i think you're right. i think violence is the dividing line. i will share you my favorite interchange with a law professor who once asked me a question i didn't know the answer, but i bravely guessed and said yes, and the professor says, mr. king, a shorter and more accurate answer would have been no. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. wainstein. >> thank you, sir. >> well, mr. wainstein, welcome back to the arena. you have proven me completely wrong. i thought that we would glide through this hearing in 45 minutes and you saw from both
9:08 am
sides of the dias, an enormous amount of interest. i personally, one, look forward to supporting you. i think you have absolutely the right experience at this moment in time for a part of the ice and law enforcement that i kind of understand its role, but don't fully understand and in the hypothetical that senator king posed, if this group, which had been maybe filling out violent threats and somehow moved from violent threats to a plan of action, at what point you continue at ina versus turning it over to the fbi. i don't expect you to frankly have that whole answer because i think that this part of dhs is probably an area that's probably still evolving, particularly in light of the fact that it was set up in 9/11, we presume, i think, the
9:09 am
general presumption were these sorts of threats were going to be born and originated. the unfortunate circumstances we have now is that there are some of these instances where these threats may be domestic oriented. how we work that all through will be one of your responsibilities as well as, and i appreciate the fact that you are affirming the work force, the right thing to do, but the data clearly indicates that you have a work force at least at this moment in time needs a strong leader, needs a senate-approved leader. i appreciate your candor. i do think some of the comments again my colleagues have raised, our staff and i work well together on a lot of issues around china, but i think we're all evolving with china. i think it's important when we talk about china as well, an
9:10 am
asterisk in there that it's with the cpp, xi jinping, and an understanding why this kind of job and this kind of challenge even though on the chart it's not as high as the jobs you've had in the past. it might be the kind of thing to bring you back into government service, so, i thank you for your testimony. i thank you for your thoughtful answers. i thank your wife and three daughters and i will still be expecting validation that ellie, i think is the fourth, she's giving up time at berkeley to watch this hearing and you can quiz her on the fact that i mentioned her twice if she actually followed through. i'll put her to the test. >> we will, as i mentioned, the members of staff, people who have got additional questions, please submit them by the 15th, the close of business, and clearly you'll get some of
9:11 am
those and my hope is we can move quickly on this nomination and my hope is, we can get some help from some of my republican friends because there have been too many people held up for too long and i think the sooner you get into this job, the better for dhs, the better for ina and the better for our country. and with that, any last comments? >> just want to thank you for holding this hearing. i appreciated the engagement of you and all the members and i join with you in the fervent hope that i'll get confirmed and get in there quickly. there's a lot of work to do and anxious to get in there and work with dhs and work with your colleagues. >> thank you very much. hearing is adjourned. ♪♪
9:12 am
>> the senate committee considers nominations, including leo bray nard to be board of governors of the federal reserve system and sandra thomas federal housing finance agency. watch today 10 a.m. eastern c-span 3, on-line at c-span.org or full coverage on c-span now, our video app. >> majority leader chuck schumer is considering changes to

23 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on