tv Russian Interference in Democratic Elections CSPAN January 11, 2018 1:31pm-3:00pm EST
taxpayer made over the course of the years because of the basic research that was done there and then the commercialization of that research to change people's lives. >> rick perry friday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org, and with the free c-span radio app. and now senate foreign relations committee ranking member ben carden and congressman will hurd, a member of the intelligence committee, talk about the immediate need to address russian interference in elections around the globe and what actions can be taken to prevent future efforts. the german marshall fund in washington, d.c., hosted this event yesterday. it's about 90 minutes.
good morning. thank you, everyone, for joining us today. it's a great turnout on an important issue and i'm heartened to see so many people here for this important conversation. welcome. i'm laura rosenberger director at gmf. as an organization dedicated to strengthening transatlantic cooperation on regional and global challenges and opportunities in the spirit of the marshall plan, gmf has always been at the forefront of tackling transatlantic challenges and protecting the principles of democracy, good governance, and rule of law. that's why we launched the alliance for securing democracy here last sumner recognition for the need of a bipartisan, transatlantic effort to understand the assem metric tools that russia and potentially other states are using and to deter such activities. while the threat of foreign interference in our democracy may seem new to many americans, our european partners and allies
are familiar with these aki all. there are many lessons we can learn from others who have experienced encountering these activities. standing together as independent sis across the atlantic will be the surest way to preserve that foundation of our strength. we also know that putin uses a range of asymmetric tools, and we need to look at them comprehensively as a tool kit and counter that range. these tools are evolving and as the u.s. intelligence community's assessment of the 2016 election released just over a year ago assessed, moscow will apply lessons learned from its putin-ordered campaign aimed at the u.s. presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide. moreover, we know that russia's efforts to undermine our democracy have not stopped as russian oriented networks on social media continue to inject and amplify vitriol in our daily discourse, trying to turn americans against one another. it's therefore essential we come together across party lines to
defend our democracy. this is, i know all of us here today believe, a national security imperative. jamie fly and i outlined an approach to this recently, but time is not on our side and we need to take meaningful action along with our partners and allies. so it is a privilege to host key figures from across party lines who are leading efforts to counter the threat. and i can't think of a better moderator for that conversation, the former secretary of homeland security, michael chertoff, who we are honored to have as a member. secretary chertoff is a leading voice on cybersecurity issues and has championed the need for more effective measures to counter russia's efforts to undermine democracy in the u.s. and europe. the secretary will introduce congressman will hurd, who is a leading voice in the house. but first we'll hear from senator carden about the important report he's launching
today highlighting these issues. i know we've all learned a great deal from it. he was elected by the people of maryland to the senate in 2006 after nearly two decades in the house. as ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee he's worked to further our national security and protect human rights. he's fought to ensure that anti-corruption, transparency, and respect for human rights are integrated into our foreign policy, including through his championship of the mag nowitzki act and the global act. among a number of roles he's ban commissioner on the helsinki commission. senator cardin, it is my privilege to welcome you today. >> laura, thank you for that introduction.
i also want to thank karen donfreed for her work here at the german marshall fund. it's been an incredible asset on the transatlantic relationships and encouraging dialogue and support for democratic institutions. and it's good to be here with mike chertoff. he's done an incredible service to our country. honor to be here with you, michael. i know you will hear from representative will hurd later, who has been one of the leading forces in the house against russia's malign influence. so i hope you will understand that our concern about russia's behavior is a bipartisan concern or a nonpartisan concern, one of great interest to our national security. the alliance for security democracy that laura talked about with jamie fly is an effort to bring to the attention of the american people, the public, what russia's threat is all about to our democratic
institution. so it's a great lead into why we did this report, which i am releasing today on behalf of the democratic numembers of the sene foreign relations committee, put putin's assault on russia and europe, implications for u.s. national security. this is the report that we are releasing today. it's about 200 pages. exactly 200 pages. how did we do that? just shows you how well we plan in advance. i asked for about a 200-page report. we got it. we're releasing it today, and i first want to acknowledge the incredible work of the staff that put this together over the last year. this was an effort that was a great deal of compiling information, interviewing, working with people from other country, government representatives. dame nan m damian murphy led the effort on
our staff, and i thank him for his professionalism and commitment to this task. he had able help. megan barkley contributed to this report. it would not have been possible without the leadership of our staff director jessica lewis. so i just want to acknowledge my name might be on this report, but it represents the professionalism and dedication of our staff people. i'm frequently asked why is this not a report from the full senate foreign relations committee. let me try to explain that from the beginning. because this is not a partisan report, and it's a report i expect will be embraced by both democrats and republicans in the united states congress. we had to make a decision early in 2017 as to devoting the staff resources and time in order to put this together, because it is going to be a tremendous effort to get this comprehensive report done. and we recognize the important of presenting to the american people a comprehensive
understanding of what russia's game plan is. we knew after the 2016 elections that we were vulnerable. but the 2016 elections was just a small part of russia's overall design to try to -- mr. putin's design to try to compromise democratic institutions. and we knew that we had to start. so we immediately informed the republican staff and senator corker our game plan, of what we were doing, and we kept them engaged and informed as we went through the process. so this is not an effort to exclude one party. in fact, much of what is in this report was with the assistance of republican members. so i just want that to be clear, and we expect that this report will be embraced for the seriousness that it exposes on russia's behavior, russia's interference in 19 countries outlined in this report. and we are prepared to move forward. this is not a partisan issue.
there is a long tradition in congress of republicans and democrats working together to counter russia government aggression abroad, an abuse against its own citizens, our ally, and democr allies, and democratic institutions. the sanctions bill passed in 2016 was nearly with unanimous support is a reflection of that tradition. i was proud to work on that degs wi -- legislation that included a team with the likings of john mccain, lindsey graham and marco rubio as well as democratic senators bob menendez, jeanne shaheen, and dick durbin. the strength and durability of our own political system relies on such bipartisan solutions to our national security challenges. i think those of you covering the senate foreign relations committee know that senator corker and i worked together, not this a partisan manner, in a nonpartisan manner, in order to advance the priorities of our country, and we have certainly done that in regards to the threat that russia poses to the united states.
during the cold war, colonel rolf vonbreath, a longtime head of the active measures operations from the east german said a powerful adversary can only be defeated through a careful and shrewd effort to exploit even the smallest cracks between our enemies and within their elite. now, that was during the cold war. and the colonel would have used traditional media and methods to exploit these smallest cracks. it would have indeed been methodical, careful, and slow. he could never have imagined the havoc wreaked by today's modern technology tools of the internet. the speed and sophistication of these weapons have allowed his like-minded brethren in moscow today to take this technique to scales and make an outsized impact on democratic institutions around the world. today the government of the
russian fed case eration is engn relentless assaults against democratic institutions, universal values, and the rule of law at home and abroad. president vladimir putin directs these attacks with an asymmetric arsenal, cyberattacks, disinformation, support for fringe political groups, the weaponization of energy resources, organized crime and corruption, and military aggression. why does he use these tools? because he's weak. he's not ten feet tall. nor should we make him out to be. his economy is faltering. his military remains substandard. and he has few adherents around the world. russia's economy ranks number 12 in the world. it is 7% the size of the u.s. economy. it's smaller than countries such as italy, south korea, or canada. he's forced to resort to such techniques because that's all he
has. and due to some measure of success, especially in 2016, his attacks have grown in intensity and complexity over the last few years. with every attack, he's learning and honing his techniques. this began well before the trump administration, this design. this is not just something that all of a sudden started in 2017. according to the organized crime and corruption reporting project, mr. putin has accumulated tens of billions of dollars in stolen wealth. he has an active and effective propaganda machine. he has tried to splinter the eu in key ways like internet trolls spouting a public dialogue on brexit and the uk and slowing serbia's integration talks with the european union. and he's been able to stall progress in georgia and ukraine's secession into nato through aggressive military incursions and occupations. we have to acknowledge the
effectiveness of these tools. it brought mr. putin to power in russia, the use of these tools. these techniques were first developed at home against the russian people, and now mr. putin is using them globally. through our analysis it became clear several european countries have stepped up to the challenge. for some in europe the 2016 u.s. elections was a wake-up call which led to political resolve and action. for others the threat of these russian tools have been present for decades, and they have organized accordingly. you learn through this investigation that the asymmetric arsenal can be countered with the right mixture of political will, defense, and deterrence. the countries that have achieved a degree of success all have one thing in common -- political leadership who publicly said enough is enough and from there mobilized their bureaucracies to respond. this unfortunately stands in sharp contrast to our current situation in the united states.
following attacks like pearl harbor, 9/11, u.s. presidents have rallied the world to address the challenges facing the nation, yet today the current president of the united states still barely acknowledges the threat posed by mr. putin's repeated attacks on democratic governments and institutions, let alone exercises the kind of leadership history has shown is necessary to effectively counter this kind of aggression. never before has a u.s. president so clearly ignored such a great threat and a growing threat to u.s. national security. and we have to be careful not to confuse president trump's inaction with the patriotism of our many honorable career and political public servants and government, who are clear-eyed about the credible threat and doing their best to respond. they are trying to implement the sanctions laws on russia. they are trying to provide assistance that bolsters democratic institutions abroad.
they are strengthening our military presence in europe and helping to defend our friends in nato. intelligence, national security, and law enforcement officials work day and night to protect us. i hope that this report can offer a constructive policy path forward and space to implement it for those in government who acknowledge the threat. and i draw inspiration from europe. many valuable lessons can be traun fr drawn from our friends there. let me highlight a few examples. france has fostered a strong cooperation between government, media and others to blunt the impact of the kremlin's cyber hacking and smear campaigns. in response to what french authorities view as a russian effort to hack the political structure of campaigns, the french network and information security agency warned all political parties about the russia cyber threat in the fall of 2016. that agency subsequently offered
cybersecurity awareness and training seminars for all french political parties ahead of the french election this past spring. all parties participated with the understandable exception of the national, and we understand why they declined. the macron campaign was a clear target of russia's hacked e-mails, which leaked these e-mails shortly before the runoff elections. france was prepared for that attack. the uk has made a public point to chastise mr. putin for his meddling in democracies and move to strengthen cybersecurity and e electoral procedures. they understand that russia was actively engaged in the uk with twitter accounts during the brexit referendum. the baltic states have diversified supplies, informed their public about the
activities of russia security services and strengthened defenses against cyberattacks and disinformation. the nordic countries have been particularly good on focusing on their individual citizens and empowering them with the critical thinking skills to fight this information. for example, sweden incorporated into its primary schools a curriculum to teach digital competency including how to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. even bansu, the bear, one of sweden's most popular cartoon characters, has been recruited to help children learn about the dangers of fake news and the need to cross-check sources of information. and in germany, all political parties in 2016 except, you guessed it, afd, agreed not to use bugs and paid trolls in their campaigning. chancellor merkel warned in a major address of the threat of fake news and disinformation tact tactics. the interior ministry also p proposed the creation of a center of defense against
misinformation, noting that russian germans and people of turkish origin are especially susceptible of disinformation and recommended intensification of political educational work with those groups. i think most of you are familiar with the lisa case that appeared in germany, a fake news created by a russian state tv that was aimed at the russian-german-speaking population to incite them to protest against migrants. here in the united states, we must respond with urgency to this threat. if we don't, the regime in moscow will be emboldened to undermine european civility again and the united states interfere in our midterm elections of 2018 and our presidential elections of 2020. make no mistake about it, mr. putin will push as far as he's allowed to push if we don't push back. even beyond electoral
interference, we also found examples of kremlin-backed efforts that impact the daily lives of americans on things they care about, for example, cheating americans out of medals at the olympic games, attacked businesses and to steal the financial information of millions of american consumers. so what should we do about this? what should we do about to counter russia's a symmetrical arsenal? the report includes many recommendations but i would like to summarize the top six. first, mr. trump must show unequivocal presidential leadership to mobilize our government and the american people. he should immediately declare that it's a u.s. policy to counter deter all forms of russia hybrid threats against the united states and around the world. the president should establish a high level interagency fusion cell modelled on the national terrorism center to coordinator all elements of u.s. policy and programming in response to the
russian government's maligned innocence operations. second, the u.s. government should provide assistance in concert with allies in europe to build democratic institutions within those european and eurasian states. democracies with transparent governments are more resilient to mr. putin a arsenal. as part of this -- to build awareness of and resilience to the kremlin's maligned influenced operations. specifically the president should convene an annual global summit modelled to the global coalition to counter isil. civil societies and private sector should participate in the summits in the follow-up activities. to reinforce these efforts the
united states government should demonstrate clear and sustained diplomatic leadership in support of individual human rights that form the backbone of our democratic system. members of the united states congress have a clear responsibility to show u.s. leadership on values by making democracy and human rights an essential part of their agenda. they should conduct hearings to publicly advance these issues. i am proud the record of the senate foreign relations committee in this regard and highlighting human rights and the actions that we're taken in passing legislation. i thank senator cor kerr for his leadership, but we must do more. the u.s. and our allies should expose and freeze kremlin dinked dirty money. cor ruch corruption provides the motivation for the kremlin maligned operations. these are criminal enterprises. u.s. treasury department should make public any intelligence related to mr. putin a personal
corruption and take steps with our european allies to cut off mr. putin and his inner circle from the international financial system. they want dollars, not rubles. they want visas to visit other countries and not be stuck in russia. that's why the mcnitsky law really worked. u.s. government should also expose corrupt and criminal activities associated with russia's state-owned energy sector sector. in addition the united states government should issue yearly reports that assign tiered classification as well as governmental efforts to combat corruption. this is a bill that's already passed the senate foreign relations committee. it's a bill that's patterned after the trafficking and persons report that judges every country's efforts to fight modern day slavery. we need the same effort so
countries are prepared to fight corruption. fourth, the united states should designate countries that employ maligned innocenc maligned influenced operations as state hybrid tlhreat actors. countries designated as such would fall under an escalating sanction regime that would be apply whenever the state uses asymmetric weapons like cyber attacks to interfere with a democratic election or disrupt a country's critical infrastructure. united states government should work with eu to ensure that these sanctions are coordinated and effective. united states government should also produce yearly public reports that detail the russian government's maligned influence operations in the united states and around the world. fifth, the united states and nato should lead a coalition of countries committed to mutual defense against cyber attacks to include the establishment of a rapid reaction team to defend allies under attack. the u.s. government should also
call a special meeting of nato heads of state to review the extent of rush government sponsored cyber attacks among states and develop a formal guideline as to how the alliance will consider such an attack in context of nato's article five collective defense provisions. united states government should also lead an effort to establish international treaty on the use of cyber tools and peace time modelled on international arms control treaties. finally, the united states and european government should mandate that social media companies make public the sources of funding for political advertisement along the same lines as tv channels and print media. social media companies should conduct comprehensive audits on how their platforms may have been used by criminal entities to influence elections occurring over the past several years. and should establish civil society advisory councils to provide input and warnings about emerging disinformation trends
and government suppression. they should work with foundations, governments and civil societies to promote media literacy and reduce the presence of disinformation on their platform. following the end of world war ii, united states led the world in constructing a liberal international order underpinned by democratic institutions, shared values and accepted norms. the enduring bond between america and europe embodied in organizations like the german marshall fund is the foundation for that order. it advances our interests, and expands our prosperity. yet the defense of that system of institutions and democratic principles is nothing to mr. putin who seeks little more than his power and wealth. it is up to the united states and our allies to engage in a coordinator efforts to counter the kremlin's assault on democracy in europe, the united states and around the world. in closing we must take care to
point out that there is a distinction between mr. putin's corrupt regime and the people of russia who have been some of the most frequent victims. many russian citizens strive for a transparent cannibal government that operates under the democratic rule of law. we hold hope for better relations in the future with russia. we applaud the courage that we've seen of those who have protested on the streets of moscow and throughout russia to speak out against mr. putin's policies. i always remember some of the most human rights activists who continuously tell us russians that the passage by the united states congress of the law was the most pro-russia we could have passed because it spoke in favor of the russian people. russia and the united states are members of the osce.
we made a commitment to respect the rights of our citizens and we have a right to challenge when our country is not complying with the commitments. that's our responsibility. the united states must work on our allies to build defenses and strengthens international norms of values to deter such maligned behavior by russia or any other country. that's the essence of what we're recommending in this report. it's now time for the united states to exercise leadership. thank you. [ applause ] thank you for your leadership and getting at this report. i think what we'll do now is maybe i'll ask a couple questions and throw it to the
audience. i know you have a hard stop to leave five minutes before the hour. what's interesting about this report is in much of the pouubl dialogue about russian interference has been about fake news and did somebody hack into the election process itself which obviously as far as i know happened or did not happen. you point out that russian activities are much broader than that. it involves the use of investments overseas in europe, for example, to leverage in order to favor russian interests. it involves the use of energy as a way of exerting economic leverage. there's corruption. there's cyber attacks. we saw that in estonia in 2007, in georgia in 2008. there's a larger playbook of hybrid warfare. we talked about bringing everything together in kind of a fusion and having a strategy. can you give us a little bit of the sense of your vision about how this would work?
>> well, thank you for the question. we concentrate on a particular episode rather than on the plan that russia has against democratic institutions. when russia attacks the u.s. elections, we get excited about that. we do -- we have investigations going on about it. we try to see how we can protect ourselves against that particular attack or when russia invades ukraine we take action because we say well -- we take action as if that's an isolated episode. when it's not an isolated episode, it's part of an overall design that mr. putin has which recognizes that democratic countries, countries that have the rule of law, countries that have free and fair elections, are against his personal interest. he can't go in those countries and commit the same type of criminal behavior that he can in his own country. there's concerns that these countries will impose sanctions against his economy and some of them have. so he wants to bring that down. he also wants to be as popular
as he can with his own people and he uses propaganda to do that. i envision the fusion cell, the interagency committee to take every resource we have, whether it's intelligence, defense, state department, and put all of that together as to how we deal with the overall plan. the priorities may well be to join our europeans because the front lines may well be europe rather than the united states as it is. and the front lines in europes are countries that have a prior connection to the soviet union. we need to develop that type of strategy working in coalition and this interagency cell would develop that type of an overall strategy and would be responsible for all players participating and having a strategy to carry out the u.s. policy. >> let me ask this question. back in the cold war when the
russians did propaganda, the objective eventually i think as fanciful as it was was to get all the workers of the world unite and join russia. obviously that didn't work. what is putin a objective? he's not seeking to actually become the popular leader of other countries. what do you see his end game being? >> well, i think mr. putin is, first of all, trying to preserve his own popularity in a country where the economy is failing and therefore has to have other successes. the other successes may be military successes that are contrived so that he can show the people of russia that he's been a successful warrior. it may be winning more medals in the olympics than you should win if you play fairly. it's pride of the russian people he's trying to show through his activities. number two, he needs money. corruption and illegal funds are the grease that operate his
operations. that's an incredibly important part of his overall strategies. and then third, part of this, and also i think deals with local popularity, he wants to be influential around the world. he wants russia to be influential. therefore he finds ways through criminal organizations, through appliances that violate basic human rights. we've seen this in the middle east. we see it in europe. he's showing much more influence. all that is part of his game plan. the only way he can accomplish that is by using this asymmetric arsenal of cyber attacks and energy weaponization and in cases he uses also sponsoring criminal organizations. >> some of the reporting we've seen in recent months about the use of fake news by the russians have been examples of exploiting existing social divisions,
taking actual stories, real stories and propagating them around on some of the issues involving police misconduct. that suggests that for putin to be successful in planting seeds of discord there has to be futile ground. that means our civil society obviously has a role to play in creating conditions that don't allow the fertilization by this kind of malevolent news. how do we engage civil society but respect the fact that under our first amendment the government doesn't tell us what to say or what stories to write? >> well, it's a really challenging question you're asking. there is discontent in all communities. the migrant issue has created resentment naturally. it's a natural issue over the history of mankind. we've had problems with public acceptance of migrants.
but what we have not had is another country coming into our country and exploiting them. that we have not had as a tool. as an effort to disrupt our government. that's what's happened with russia. that's what's unacceptable. it's the same thing we're talking about when we're trying to figure out the acceptable use of cyber, for getting information, for using it as a tool. there's a limit to what you can do. mr. putin has violated those international norms. it is wrong to interfere with the domestic tranquility of a company. one of his objectives is to weaken eu so the migrant issue gives him a really excellent opportunity to accomplish his objective. he certainly doesn't want the expansion of nato. having troops in georgia, having
troops in ukraine makes it much more difficult for those countries to move towards nato. these are all part of his strategies to weaken europe, to weaken the west in a way that goes over the edge of what is acceptable conduct. >> now, obviously the russians will look at what we're doing and if, in fact, we implement some of the suggestions made in this report, they're obviously not simply going to walk away from the field of battle here. what do you see their reaction being? what should we be anticipating down the line? >> i expect that they're going to issue a 400 page report. [ laughter ] >> so we found out when we passed the law, they did their own list of people that couldn't visit their country. they'll do something like that.
part of mr. putin's strategy is that every country has these problems. do we have corruption in our country? yes, but every country has corruption. are we doing something about it? yes, we're rooting out. look at all the indictments we brought. we even brought one against mr. mcnitski after he died. the point to all that is this is our country and we're going to make sure that russia's greatness is preserved. so that's the challenge that we have and i think mr. putin's response will be we can put a bigger spotlight on your problems than you did us. >> let me throw out some questions. people with mics, if you just identify yourself and ask a question rather than make a statement. yes, over there. gentleman with the glasses. >> thank you very much for this report. it truly looks excellent. i would like to draw you out a
little bit on your third point, the asset freeze. much of this money is in this country. probably most of the russian money through anonymous companies and the money comes in through law firms and real estate. three years ago the u.s. treasury assessed that $300 billion a year is laundered into this country. do you have any idea about doing something about this? >> absolutely. we agree with you completely. we have problems because of our domestic laws. we protect the free enterprise. we have laws that work to mr. putin a advantage in hiding resources. we have shell companies that we don't have full reports on. we need to strengthen our laws, particularly as relates to shell companies. that was suggested several years ago. congress has yet to act on that.
that's an area where i think we need to act. we call in our report for the administration to issue an annual report on mr. putin's illegal gains so that we can try to put up more of a spotlight on it. much of it is in the united states, but there are other countries that also need to cooperate with us and we need to make sure that our banking systems are not available for the use of those transfer of funds. >> on the statements of the ambassador, thank you very much. the question is about maybe a general relationship between u.s. and west to russia. i would refer to the last report about the enemies of russia where u.s. landed in proud first place with 68% of russian people considering u.s. is an enemy.
ukraine was number two with 29 and eu was number three with 14. how do you -- well, you said we should make a distinction between an administration and russian people. russian people with vast majority are considering americans as enemies. is it from russian come back to the relation spirit of cold wartime or do you see the past settle up relations? >> well, i'm for as much people to people exchanges as we possibly can because i think there's a lot of misinformation. the more information we can share mouamong the populace i tk the better off we are. one of the curious, i have no argument, no complaints against the people of russia. they're good people. they have a proud history. they should have a bright future. i want to empower the people. the soviet union decided to join
the osce. that was a voluntary decision they made. there was certain commitments they made that russia now needs to comply with. these are basic fundamental rights for citizens. in the helsinki document every signature state has the obligation and the opportunity to question every other state. i've questioned activities in the united states where i thought our conduct was not what it needed to be. that's what an open democratic society does. but russia leadership is doing things to, with propaganda, to get popular support that has been misleading its population. i honestly believe that we want to have and can have a good relationship with russia. but it can't be with the country that tries to interfere in our electio elections. it can't be in a country that is trying to use energy as a weapon
. it can't be in a country that invades its neighbors. it's the conduct of the government that is causing the friction. yes, you often root for the home team. and with the united states imposing sanctions against russia, i expect the russian people didn't like that. i understand that. i must tell you, we had the same problem with south -- with the apartheid south africa when the united states imposed sanctions against south africa t. wasn. it wasn't very popular with the people of south africa. it was the right course of south africa. i think it's right for us to be -- to speak out on behalf of the russian people but the conduct the russian government needs to change. >> the lady back there. >> i'm from international broadcasting bureau.
which we're very successful in cold war. what do you think will be the role of those entities now in this whole big picture, voice of america and radio free europe? >> voice of america has been strongly supported by the congress. we don't speak to that directly in our report, but we do talk to the fact that we think dealing with information, the free press, is very, very important. the problem today is that people are insensitive to what is 28 and what is not accurate. and we have an attack on the free media in our own country as well as around the world. voice of america offers information in many parts of the world where that's the only source of really true objective information. >> good morning, senator.
thank you for your words about the cooperation with europe, something that we really welcome and you know we stand ready at the european union to work with the u.s. on this. and i appreciate your report. you mentioned when you started out something that i think is quite fundamental because you are suggesting some kind of a leadership role for the u.s. in this report on several international initiatives. but what do you think about the possibility to do that really in this current political climate in the u.s. and with as you mentioned yourself a president that barely recognizes that this is a threat? >> well i would acknowledge that president trump is unpredictable. he conducts policy differently than any previous administration that i have ever been involved with. he is not only unpredictable to the members of congress and to
the american people but to his own administration. so it's not an easy type of manner in which he operates. he has his style. i do believe that the american people and the congress and his administration has changed his views during the course of this year. i think in regards to russia there's been a change in the administration -- in president trump's views as it relates to russia. so i think the president has been exposed to the realities of the challenges that we have and is acting in a way to at least recognize some of these threats. is he doing what i want him to do? no. i hope that the bipartisan efforts in congress will help in that regard. to pass a bill 98-2 in the united states is remarkable.
the president signed that bill. i'm hopeful that we'll continue to see the united states evolve into strong leadership working with europe which is critically important to defend us against these types of attacks. >> good morning. my question goes a little bit in the similar direction to caroline's. you mentioned this bipartisan nature of the report of course and this fusion cell as you called it, the interagency that should join all the efforts and develop the strategy for the europeans. what are the chances of success for establishing such an agency now which needs bipartisanship of course given the nature of the discussion now and maybe emerging lack of bipartisanship with regard to the russian investigation and do we have a
specific road map or specific steps already in mind for implementing this agency? >> we've had candid discussions with members of the trump administration about this. we've had candid discussions with the europeans. we've had candid discussions with members of the senate and house. i think there's a growing understanding of the recommendations in this report including the interagency committee that has broad bipartisan support. i can't tell you what president trump's going to do, how he will embrace it. but i do think there's strong bipartisan interest. i mentioned several of the republican senators who i've worked with over the years on this. it's been a broad group. so i think there's a general recognition that the u.s. leadership is indispensable to dealing with this security
issue. >> here's my question. our country has been the subject of a very vicious propaganda campaign. we're under attack. all we have to show for it is, with all due respect, 200 page report? we don't even have anyone in our office in science and technology. i don't see how this is going to get addressed anytime soon. >> understand the purpose of this report is to give a broader picture with the focus primarily europe but also the united states, the activities of mr. putin. what we need to do to address that. there are other investigations that are going forward. there's other efforts that are being made, particularly as it relates to the direct attack in the united states. we have mr. mueller's investigation. we have intelligence committees investigations. there's going to be some additional reports coming out that we hope will give us some additional recommendations on changes we need in order to protect ourselves. as we take those recommendations
up, i think this report will also be helpful to say okay, we can deal with that threat but let's make sure we have the broader issues also on our radar screen. so i hear what you're saying. i agree with you. to me the trump administration has not stamped and put the resources where they should be to deal with this threat. i agree with you on that. >> i think we have time for one more question in the back there. >> good morning, senator. my name is audra. my question is given our distinction between sort of official government taxpayer business and the fact that russia, you know, hacked our political institutions, what is congress doing to help political institutions secure themselves as we approach the midterm elections? >> our elections? >> yes. >> every country has different election systems, so there's not
one size that fits all. there's a common theme here. as you know, the u.s. election system is one that is run by the states. in many cases it's the counties that actually do the security, et cetera. we know that there has been some hacking interest as to how our voting system operates, so we know there is at least an effort being made to better understand how our system operates. we also know that there's been efforts made to understand that not every voter has the same impact on the result of an election, so where do you concentrate your resources. we also know they've used social media and that we have to protect against the -- at least have disclosures on how the social media advertisement is done. we know all those different issues. anticipating into 2018, we're urging that starting with the president and the trump
administration that they work with each of our state and local governments that they recognize the threats out there. we have one vulnerability that europe doesn't have. we don't have an election cycle. we're always in election mode here. so that's more challenging to protect against that type of an open system that we had and a culture that we had that politics is always fair game. we really do need to recognize that the 2018 elections started a year ago. and there may have already been some activity. are we as prepared as we need to be? i don't believe so. i do know there are tremendous concerns. i know what's being done in maryland and what's being done in other states in order to protect the integrity of our election system and additional steps have been taken. >> senator, thank you very much. >> thank you all very much. good to be here. [ applause ] . >> thanks for the report. have a good trip.
[ applause ] now we are happy to be joined by congressman will hurd. congressman hurd represents the people of texas. but we're not going to talk about the border in this meeting. >> we can if you want. >> we've got our plates full with the russians. he served in a certain three letter agency in various posts overseas. was then involved as a cyber security adviser in the private sector and since 2015 he's been a member of congress. he's on the government oversight and reform committee, the homeland security committee, and
the house permanent select intelligence committee. congressman, welcome. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> before i start with a couple questions, then we'll throw it open, let me just ask you, have you had an opportunity look at the report that the democratic staff and the senate intelligence committee, foreign relations committee issued on russian involvement in various kinds of information operations? >> so i haven't had a deep dive in it, but i'm fairly familiar with some of the broader precepts of it. >> and just as kind of a general overview, as you look at the kinds of issues we ought to be thinking about, what strikes you as kind of the top priority in terms of our engagement on the issue of russian information operations and active measures, et cetera? >> well, it starts with what is our strategy in how to handle it. that's why i think what the alliance for securing democracy is doing is a good thing.
i would -- active measures, hybrid war, all of this is part of covert action. this is coming out of the intelligence community i think of this as a community. i think of this as covert action. and how do we counter that? historically if this was being done overseas, the cia would be responsible for this. but the national security act of 1977 says the cia can't do covert action in the united states of america, so they're not prepared for that. who has the responsibility in dealing with this? and it's not just a public sector issue. we have to get the private sector academia and the press involved in it as well and so there hasn't been enough conversation on who should do what, what are the roles, responsibilities in this effort. i think highlighting the problem is important. i think some of the social media companies, highlighting the tools and procedures that the russians were using to try to erode trust in our democratic
institutions were important. but i ultimately think the spear head of this is going to have to be something between the state department and the department of homeland security. we can use the countering violent extremism as a model because it's the same effort. it's just the messaging and the counter messaging is a little bit different. >> well, that's actually a very interesting point about counter violent extremism. for those of you not familiar with that term, that's been a strategy we've had for some period of time to look at what makes people susceptible to being recruited by terrorists. and one of the things we talked about a little bit earlier is some of what we've seen that the russians have done to promote dissension really are seeds that are planted in ground that is fertile because of what we ourselves are doing. >> absolutely. >> the first line of defense is us and how we wind up educating
ourselves and preparing ourselves. if you can give us some sense of how you might think we do that using all of our institutions, government but also the private sector as well. >> it starts with what is vladimir putin trying to do? vladimir putin is ultimately trying to reestablish the territorial integrity of the ussr and what is preventing him from doing that? eu, nato, and the united states. vladimir putin knows that he can't beat us militarily. he knows he can't beat us economically. that's why they've had to resort to hybrid war. they've been perfecting this for three decades. and so one is a recognition of that problem. we need the private sector, the tools that the russians are using, we need them to help identify when they see these trends. i think that is what was helpful in the german and french elections after our elections is
because twitter, facebook, google, everybody saw and were able to analyze the tactics that were being used and give that information to the russians -- excuse me, to the germans and the french. but what we also need to start doing is the intelligence services, the u.s. intelligence services need to start sharing a little bit more with those sections because if you look at what the work facebook has done on, what is it, the ina or the internet research agency, ira, excuse me, all that has been done on their own. >> that's that agency in russia that basically has its trolls. >> for sure. and so if some of this information that's gathered by our intelligence services is able to be used by the private sector to continue to do their targeting and their review and their focus, i think we can be
even more effective. so that is some very basic efforts. also we need to identify when something is wrong. how come we all know don't get into a car with a stranger. we all know stranger danger. why are you listening to a stranger on social media? and why do you think somebody you know nothing about, why do you think that information is valuable? and so that is such a basic common body of knowledge thing that we have to start incorporating. i took music class. i took a lot of history classes when i was a kid. i am neither a musician nor a historian. we should be starting to educate how the internet works, we learn how a combustion engine works but we don't know how the
internet works. so we have to start educating at the very basic level. when my 1 1/2 year-old niece knows how to use an ipad, we've got to make sure she knows not only how to use that tool but what the information is coming back to us. >> that's critical thinking. for years we've talked about the importance of teaching kids about people on the internet who might be trying to lure them in to groom them for some kind of improper behavior. but you're suggesting a broader education now about how do you evaluate what's real what's not real and apply critical thinking. that's something that we as citizens ought to learn how to do. in terms of the government obviously there's a sensitivity because you have free speech, first amendment. even if you don't like it, if rt puts out a story, whether or not they're an agent of the russian government, there is a free speech element.
but what are things that maybe social media can do or should do in terms of impersonation? when someone pretends to be a friend of somebody or they conceal the fact that they're buying a political advertisement? >> so on twitter, we all have, you know, if you're an elected official or a musician or someone, you get the little blue verified mark. is there a way to say listen, if you want to get some other kind of verification to say that the name that pops up is indeed, you know, somehow connected and attributed to somebody else, that's a possibility. you don't have to do it if you don't want to. but that would be a signal to a person using it, this person has gone through some kind of check to say they are indeed who say they they are. i think that's a very basic thing. also when it comes to political
speech, the rules and regulations that have overseen in political speech is quite clear. the same processes and the restrictions that you have in print media should be the same things that you have in all media. there's been a number of hearings on the hill about this topic. most everybody agrees on that and we should be thinking about our political speech that way. now, that doesn't mean the russians are not going to try to do something to get around those issues but not every russian person involved in covert influence is lex luther, right? and so we need to -- we can defend against some, but we still have to have this broader whole of government approach to countering that. also can we stop it at the beginning. there's not enough information,
not enough focus on this as an intelligence collection priority. just like we would chase russian intelligence officers or iranian nuclear weapon proliferate ors, internet trolls, people trying to influence our democracy, i think that should move up the national priority intelligence framework. >> one of the things we talked about earlier with senator car de -- cardin. that includes investing in companies and using those investments as a way to leverage russian interests. it involves using energy dominance as a way of leveraging again with respect to countries in europe. it involves support for french political groups including financial support. what are we seeing in terms of those kinds of efforts here and whether or not we see it yet,
what do we need to think about doing to counter act those as well? >> i think when you look at the use of companies to try to gain influence or political weight in the country, it's not just russia. we also have to bthink that chia on one. one of the tools we have is a review by a number of different federal agencies to ensure what that investment is going to be, it doesn't have a national security implication. there's a lot of review on that process and is it tight enough. one of the things that i've learned in my recent travels through eastern europe, i have a theory that the closer you are to russia, the less likely you are to believe their nonsense. but the converse of that rule is true too. the farther away you are, the mor likely you are susceptible. >> take a look at hungary. they're quite close to russia
and certainly war band has been at best neutral between the u.s. and russia in many cases showing an inclination towards russia. how do we work with our allies in europe to make sure they don't wind up either through leverage or propaganda beginning to move into a different orbit? >> well, my nato friends get mad when i say this, but some of the things i think is funny about nato is if you're in a conflict with russia, you're not allowed to be in nato. isn't that the people we want in nato? that precludes ukraine. ukraine is i believe on the front line of this battle. they not only are fighting a hybrid war, they're fighting a hot war. i think that's a perfect example of where the russians get away with things. people are still talking about what's happening in ukraine as a separatist movement. the 920 tanks that are in eastern ukraine are russian
tanks. and so the fact that anybody thinks this is something other than an invasion and the fact that the russians said we need the u.n. to arbitrate this is a real simple solution. leave. leave the country that you invaded. that will solve that. that will solve that real quick. so we have to support these countries that are on the front lines because the way they go, the way others -- maldova is a perfect example. the fact the russians were able to infiltrate certain provinces, run candidates that were supportive of them to basically break away from muldova, they're getting ready to go through an election and the same kind of pressures that we saw in ours are going to be here but you have all these added things like the influence of money and energy. that's why i'm excited about selling energy to eastern europe. because guess what?
the europeans would rather buy from us than putin. putin makes money from oil, but his political pressure comes from natural gas. and if we're able to break that, their influence in these regions are a little bit less and you will see some of these local folks less susceptible. that's kind of getting outside the area of disinformation. but these are some of the tactics that, again, russia and vladimir putin is trying to do to reestablish that territorial integrity of the ussr. >> in 2015 and 2016 you measured ukraine. the lights went out in a certain part and that's been attributed to a cyber attack that actually shut down some of the substations. obviously we focus here on our energy infrastructure and our other infrastructure. i know that in addition to your prior work you're involved with the aspen cyber security group which i'm involved with as well. but how can we work with the private sector to make sure
we're upping our defenses, not just against what we constantly see with theft of information but actors that interfere with your critical infrastructure? >> we have to start thinking of critical infrastructure as connected ecosystems. one of the reason you'll do something on the utility grid is because that will impact the financial services industry as well. and so there aren't clear rule and responsibilities when it comes to cyber defense between the public and private sector. we talk a lot about information sharing. between the federal and -- between the government and the private sector. we've got to clarify more what information do you want to share because not efb verybody is on same level. we need to be doing table top
exercises. if something were to happen and there were to be some active activity, what is everybody's role? we do that now to respond to terrorist threats. we do that now to respond to natural disasters. i think the hurricane, hurricane harvey in texas was a good example of how all that preparation for about ten years led to good execution. we need to be having that same kind of mentality when it comes a cyber attack on one of our critical infrastructure. but we also have got to get ahead of the curve. what i integrity frustrated in the federal government, we're thinking about should we transition to the cloud. we act like the cloud is new technology. the cloud has been around. the answer is yes, why haven't we. the future is going to be good a.i. versus bad a.i. and do we have the talent to deal with
that future problem. are we thinking about the strategies of what cyber warfare looks like between good a.i. and bad a.i. and how do we stay number one in cryptology, artificial intelligence, machine learning. all of these are tools that we are going -- there's a reason vladimir putin said, whoever masters a.i. is going to be the next hedge mond. we know that's where they're going. we have an edge. our edge is not that great. we've got to separate from the pack. and so these are all things that, again, investment and basic research, applied research, people cooperating, these are all -- all of this matters in this broader being prepared for hybrid war with the russians. >> let me take some questions from the audience again to remind you, if you identify yourself, we'll have people with
microphones. gentleman over there. mitchell. i've done a lot of work for the usc and russia. i'd like to go back to a conversation we had earlier when senator cardin was here and the perception that's taken root amongst at least some of the russian public that this is all part of an anti-russian complain brought about by the american political establishment. what can be done to counter that perception that would be effective that wouldn't necessarily be viewed as still another propaganda campaign? >> it's a hard issue to deal with. traditionally that is the public diplomacy role of our embassies abroad, trying to do that public
diplomacy role against a hostile government is very difficult. there have been debates here in the united states about cutting the budget for the state department and usaid. i think that's crazy. my friend ambassador ryan crocker always said that if you have more wing tips and pumps on the ground, you prevent boots on the ground. so basically saying aggressive and strong diplomacy prevents having to bring the military in. i'm not saying we're invading russia. but we've got to have a strong state department and one of their key responsibilities is that public diplomacy piece. i can use iran as an example. and i was saying we need to be supporting the iranian people, not the iranian government. when we have these issues, we should make sure to separate the two. because a lot of times we'll say we've got to stop russia. we're trying to stop the russian government specifically vladimir
putin's initiatives. and just something that simple and that distinction i think matters. but this is a hard -- i'm open to ideas. if you have some, i know you've been following this. let me know. >> over here. >> amanda brown. you mentioned sophius earlier. we have two reform bills that are picking up steam. to what extent do you believe that investment in our high tech firms poses a national security threat that should be subject to review? >> i think when it comes to the sophius review we have to be able to do a deeper dive and know the person who is getting
involved. so in any deal, due diligence matters. i don't care what kind of deal it is. so i think the due diligence part we need to be a little bit more aggressive. and so that would be, you know, and i don't care what the industry is. i think yes, we focus -- it's primarily focused around high tech. but you can get into the back door a number of different ways. you can do things when it comes to commercial real estate and start building a presence. this is -- we should be thinking about all of those kinds of investments. we should be making sure we have the due diligence. and when the government plays a role, i think we can streamline and improve the due diligence that we do on some of those
inve investments. >> david, i'm a fellow here at the alliance. there are millions of americans across the country including districts like yours i would imagine who don't accept that russian interference and hybrid warfare are threats to american national security. or even if they do accept it, it's not immediately tangible so they don't pay much attention to what we're doing here in washington to defend against it. so my question is how do we take the conversation we're having here in washington today and bring it to the broader american public to get their buy-in for what we're trying to do, what you're trying to do, what congress and it is administration are trying to do to defend against the threat. >> a lot of folks in south and west texas are ready for the red dawn event. so we're ready. we're ready. it starts with talking about it. and that's what i try to do. everybody -- i talk about i.t. procurement when i go back in my
district. trust me, that is not a sexy topic and nobody has ever held a parade for that. but it requires conversations like this to articulate what the problem is. when you look at national security, i don't care what district you go to. national security is usually a number two, number three issue. and so for us that are having this conversation defining this as a national security concern and explain the why. a lot of times for those that -- you've been doing this for a long time. we take certain things for granted. we always have to continue to make the case of what is this threat to us. and i think this latest example we saw within our elections is a good test case. the specific example that i believe senator burr used in the hearings with the social media company of what happened in texas between what looked like a
black nationalist group and a southern pride group, that i think is a perfect example of what the russians are trying to do to go from cyberspace into the real world. and the more we can highlight what the problem is and then -- and we always have to go back to that so everybody knows the importance of this. it's hard. >> gentleman back there. >> hi there, congressman. we just heard from senator cardin discussing what he said he hopes will be received as a bipartisan or nonpartisan report. you sit on the house intelligence committee. i think it might be an understatement to say there's been some political friction in how your russia probe has been going. can you give us an update about what you've produced in the
probe. [ inaudible question ] >> and wonder whether our government is able to tackle these issues in a bipartisan way? >> so i do believe our government can tackle these issues in a bipartisan way. we have to in order to ensure that the american people have trust in what is being done up here. my goal is what we've always stated is, you know, what exactly did the russians do, what was the government response to that, and what should the government response have been. because i want us to look further into the future of how do we set up to prepare for this into the future. so let's agree on, you know some of those tactics that were being used and i think there is bipartisan support on that.
i think sometimes some of your colleagues want to focus on one thing that may have been said in order to show that division. but i will say in some of these meetings and hearings and things i'm in, there is a bipartisan support to make sure we get to the bottom of this. but the area where we need more conversation around, where we started this conversation with, what is the national strategy to deal with counter disinformation. and there's not been enough conversation on that. i know that the national security staff, the council is talking about this and trying to develop this. that i think, because when we can put in place a strategy that i think republicans and democrats will agree on, then we can make sure everybody knows that we're trying to prevent this problem from happening in the future. >> lady in the back.
hi. i'm clarence. i work for the agency counters violent extremes and task force heading up their digital strategy team. i loved your comment earlier about really combines thought leadership, especially from lessons learned from cbe into broader political disinformation. my question is there's a lot of dupe pl duplicate efforts. look at this information alongside terrorist propaganda, but how can we have more in working together specifically when it comes to actions on the hill? there's been several meetings with the text sector and a number of partners in the space and i think a lot of people haven't necessarily gotten there and seen those parallels. >> it starts with what this organization is trying to do. how do we catalog all the different folks that are already involved in this effort? i'll be honest. i don't know who's all involved
in this activity. a lot of things are popping up. so when it comes to a major problem having a little overlap is not necessarily a bad thing. but we do need streamlined organization. it starts with what is that strategy, who is responsible for it, and once you know who is responsible for it and you have a strategy, then you can start making sure everybody understands what their roles and responsibilities are. it is unclear, because we don't have an overarching plan on how to deal with this, and it's not just in the government, but it has to be a public/private cooperation. and we're trying to do that with cyber security, because i think more people have gotten used to how you handle cyber security, but disinformation is still kind of a nebulous, you know, issue for people. cve is still nebulous, even though that's probably been around a lot longer than this notion of disinformation. and so we have to figure out who is in charge and come up with a
plan and everybody can figure out what their role is. and these are some of the conversations that both the house and senate are trying to have. i think the publication on this report is a helpful narrative to push that, and so that we can start focusing on, okay, for 2018, this is how we're going to be prepared. >> yes, over here. . >> thank you very much. so to continue this theme of combatting disinformation, we've been listening to the wonderful presenters here, thank you, talk about -- >> identify yourself. >> sorry. christine vargas, civic engagement fund. thank you. we've been watching a lot of propaganda come out of russia to its own people to make sure they're behind what putin is doing. what would you recommend that u.s. leaders do for similar efforts here in the united states? for example, we've got sinclair broadcast group putting out basically video op-eds that are
extremely divisive and are not actually news. and while they don't fall afoul, they are still causing problems that help people be more susceptible to fake news, vote a certain way. and not in a way that's going to help us focus on the real issues like we're discussing here. so what would you recommend to deal with that? >> well, i don't know if i would categorize sinclair and vladimir putin in the same conversation. but, look, i think there is a great book called "the red web" which was written by a -- hackers. some russian hackers, is probably the best way to say it, about how vladimir putin basically was able to control not just the outlets for social media, but the broader media in general. and that is kind of the playbook, and you see that. i would say what's great about the -- the other thing that's
great about this, the reason we're having this problem, there are so many vehicles to get information out, right? and so, you know, you -- it's hard to -- it's hard to hide when you have everybody in different organizations like many of you all here that are shining a light on these problems. and so we have to continue to encourage that. but you're absolutely right with the -- what the russian government is trying to do and influence their own people in order to keep putin in charge. you know, the discounting of this gentleman -- i'm drawing a blank on his name -- who was probably one of the leading opposition figures -- >> ivanley? >> yeah. that's crazy we're allowing this to happen. the fact that russia is doubling down on some of the oppressive regimes in iran and syria. you know, we need our -- this --
we can't do this alone, and we need our european allies to follow suit and support us on shining a light to these practices that are happening in russia. and it requires many of you all to do that, as well. and let's encourage, and let's support our allies like moldova. let's encourage and participate with the ukrainians. these are all -- these are all important things for us. >> great. we have time for one more question. yes. >> thank you very much. ambassador of georgia. >> in georgia, as well. i apologize. >> thank you. this year is actually ten years since the invasion of the -- of russia to georgia. and since then, we are trying to minimize the space where russia can continue. we are the number one reformer with regards to fighting of
corruption. we are in the eastern european central asia by the world bank. we are, you know, trying to become as transparent as possible as a government. we're a leader of open government, partnership in the world. this year is also the ten years of the promise that georgia will become a nato member. through that optics, how do you see the possibility of nevertheless, despite these reforms now, we face 8,000 russian troops standing on the georgia assault. so do you see the response towards that as strengthening georgia, and bilateral and also multilateral with regards to other countries. thank you. >> if i was able to make the decision, we would have a whole lot more friends in nato. and unfortunately, i think sometimes they have -- how do i be diplomatic?
outdated, understanding models on how they can be helpful. but guess what? the u.s. should still make sure we're supporting our friends. and we're supporting the folks that are on the front line. and georgia is on the front line. moldova is on the front line. there are so many other places that are on the front line. and, again, it goes back to the gentleman's question in the back. we have to explain to the american people why -- what happens in georgia is important for our national security. and that is something that folks like here in this room -- like the secretary -- being able to make that case of why supporting you is important for the folks in south and west texas or iowa or ohio. so you have my vote. but if there's other things we can be doing and should be doing, we would love to see you. >> great. well, this is a great conversation. and, by the way, great illustration of bipartisanship. both of you came out basically
in the same place. and, you know, we deal with adversaries. we're americans rather than party members. and so we have to remember that. and this is the beginning of a discussion, not the end. but thank you very much. >> thank you. [ applause ] a look at the u.s. capitol on this thursday afternoon, where the house today approved a six-year extension to certain foreign intelligence surveillance measures, known as section 702. current authority runs out on january 19th. the vote on that was 256-164. by the way, you can see how your congressman voted at c-span.org/congress. this will take you to our congressional chronicle page. the senate today continuing work on judicial nominations.
both bodies, by the way, taking a break for the mlk holiday after work today. watch the house live on c-span. see the senate on c-span 2. and president trump weighing in on the house's work today, tweeting, house votes on controversial fisa act today. this is the act that may have been used with the help of the discredited and phony dossier to so badly surveil and abuse the trump campaign by the previous administration and others. the president followed that later with this quote. with that being said, i personally directed the fix to the unmasking process, since taking office. and today's vote is about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. we need it. get smart. join us later today for a discussion with former energy secretary, earnest monise. he will discuss the future iranian nuclear agreement and the situation with north korea. starts at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. at c-span.org or listen live
with the free c-span radio app. and later, the american constitution society looks at the judicial nominations process and the trump administration. watch live coverage of that, beginning at 6:15 p.m. eastern. also on c-span. watch c-span's profile series on white house administration officials. this week will feature energy secretary, rick perry. >> today, as we market u.s.-produced liquified natural gas, lng, as we sell our technology on carbon capture, being able to use coal in a responsible way to other countries, the department of energy, those national labs, those 17 national labs, are probably some of the best investment that the american taxpayer made over