tv Texas Tribune Festival - Trump National Security CSPAN October 17, 2017 5:14am-6:18am EDT
>> good morning, y'all. thank you for coming out to the perhaps most timely and serious and important of the sessions you'll hear at the seventh texas tribune festival. by this i mean the deadly serious topic of president trump and his views on professional athletes. [laughter] >> hold on. my bad. i'm sorry. trump and national security. evan was unclear when we spoke. i just checked twitter and thought -- i'm happy to say that this paneled board bid the lbj school of public afirefighters here at the university of texas. thank you to dean evans for that sponsorship. i'm duty-bound to remind the audience our sponsors, we love them but they don't get to choose which what question is ask or what answers the panelists offer. we at that time caveat out of the way, let me tell you who i am. your host and moderator,
professor bobby chessny from ut austin. the cofounder of the nation's leading source for online commentary from experts on national security law issues and also co-host of the creatively named national security law podcast, which is basically car talk mashed with crossfire and reaction to weekly national security news. do with nat what you will. we have one hour divided into 40 minute's discussion amongst our panelists and then 20 minutes of discussion we you. so us a your listening and reacting either there are topic wiz against get, you can raise them. followups. i will ask and remind you at the time when the microphone goes owl and i open the floor, please deep menz brief -- keep this as questions, questions brief and make shower enough of you get to talk as possible. lastly, please silence your phones but don't necessarily put them away. we would be thrilled if you would join the conversation
online, on twitter, using the hash tag, tribfest 17. if i'll looking at your phone i trust you are not looking at your e-mail but your commenting on what we have simpled identity lied to introduce my represent advertise. joaquin castro, representing -- [applause] -- representing my home town, san antonio in the 20th 20th district. he's a stafford grad who went on to harvard law and then after a successful run in private practice, entered the texas log and had five terms and now in washington in congress, serve thing house permanent select committee on intelligence and the house foreign affairs committee, representative castro, great too have you here in austin. dr. kathleen hicks to my right. senior vice president nor center for strategic international studies in washington where she also holds the martin luther king chair. she had king henry kissinger
chair. she is welcome to the campus. >> thank you very minute. on the edge, representative will hurt from the 23rd district. [applause] raft rafter at a&m the student body president. a tremendous accomplishment. he joined the cia and served for many years overseas as a clandestine service officer, then a cyber security firm and then news congress, on house, representative hurd, nice have you on campus and last but not least, the one and only mr. malcolm nance who had an
amazing capacity for language and a desire to serve his country and realized both of those talents and ambitions in serving our anywayy and special glaze intelligence and crip tollingic matters and has been continuing to serve from the private sector through a variety of training and other forms of service to our intelligence and military communities, and then emerging as ally influential contributor to our national dialogue to his media appearances and recent books, in 2016 i think they were both 2016 -- a become on the islamic state and the struggle against i and a become on russian hacking of the election. speak offering that back, if you took around the texas union building behind us here, after the panel, into into the community hub, mr. nance will be there shines book and i highly recommend that to you. [applause] >> let's dive right in and we
have identified series of topics that well not be comprehensive but touch on our most pressing champ lengths as a nation itch want to begin with north korea. north korea's nuclear and missile programs are evolving rapidly despite our best efforts to disrupt hem. sanctions, both from our government system and from the u.n. system have followed and have increasesly tightened, including over the past week or so and most notably threats, colorful threat, military threats, exchanging back and forth. a frightening time in many respected. one possibility is it's simple play bad hand that must be played as well as can be played, perhaps president trump is playing is at well as it can be played or perhaps it's a bad hand and being mishanded. congressman, castro, i'll start with you. what is your perspective on the north korea situation. >> it's obviously the most volatile national security situation that we're dealing with right now.
i think -- given the administration and the president a lot of credit for going the ewan ewan and marshaling the world to place the tightest restrictions, sanctions on north korea that north korea has ever debt with, and so i believe that our best course for cutting short their nuclear program, deliver is one, is to basically do everything we can to bring them to the table to choke their economy as much as possible. we have signaled to china that we expect their cooperation. but i also think the president needs to take the fight off of twitter. right now you see back and forth between what is a young dictator in his early 30s and the president of the united states in public statements that's have gotten more and more heated. think that's counterproductive. i don't think it's getting us anywhere. folks have been on different sides of the issue. some folks argue for military strike but realize at this point itself you're arguing for military strike, you're arguing
to strike a country that has nuclear weapons. the only thing at that time we're unsure is how far they can fire the nuclear weapons. so that makes the situation especially tricky. i do think the best course of action is a diplomatic one, despite the failure of the six-party talks years ago, and the fact that for years our strategy with north korea was not really diplomacy, it was isolation. and we have to figure out a way to get them to the table. >> dr. hicks. >> i defer flit want to underscore the congressman's point about the game of nuclear chicken on twitter. don't think that's helpful for either party. the risk of miscalculation to in terms of impacts immigrant can have north just because of the nuclear weapons, north korea is already quite dangerous even if you put accede the newark clear weapons piece, it's tremendous and not worth it. not worth it for the manliness show going on between the two
gentlemen, shall we say. that is not helpful. think that the president pride himself on unpredictability as a centerpiece how he thinks of his foreign policy and how the taught of himself as a substanceman in terms of gaining advantage. when you look at foreign policy, unpredictability on this level is extremely destabilizing. could there be a small chance of success by doing a mad man theory and being contracts? i suppose there could be but the downside risk,s are tremendous for the american people, for our soldier, sailors, airmen and marines in south korea and the hundreds of thousands of americans who live in south korea. >> mr. nance, let me invite you to join this topic. >> sure. i'm not a korean expert. but i am a war fighter, and i've been involved in every military operation since 1983. every war that we have fought, and i have been under sustained
article -- article tillry bombard. the game of chicken being place in ward as the doctor says, has human consequences and it's real world consequences and those open the intelligence community, like representative hurd and i understand that when you say and do something, your opponent has an opportunity to respond. right now we're responding with trolling. and donald trump is trolling a country which has spent 64 years perfecting trolls. right? perfecting their commentary but this can quickly escalate out of control. the problem that we have now is that this year -- and i was on a panel with jd dion earlier this year -- and i couldn't actually believe that people were discussing the viability of attacking north korea potentially with atomic weapons or even conventional weapons. if that were to happen, first off week would become a global
pariah instantly. secondly, 14,000 tube offered artillery that have been buried into the ground for over six decade will rain high explosive nerve gas, mustard gas, all over the demilitarized zone and the city of seoul where 10 mental people live and endanger over 40 million people instantly and that's if we find out that the united states doesn't choose to use what call the 35 minute solution. that's when the president decides to launch a minute man one mill. in 35 minutes from go, it will impact in north korea. and decimate however many million people. these are options we shouldn't be discussing right now. we should be discussing six month paid family leave. we're having a baby. [applause] >> my problem with the -- as,
again, an intel jess war fighter in the media, it's being discussed as if it's possible. and the use of nuclear weapons is off the table. every president since trumpan truman have understand these are not toys and now that we need deterrence -- north korea is a nuclear player forks matter how you slice it. if we keep pushing them they may have to make a demonstration of their power and i'm afraid of something i predict lead to months ago, they would surface detonate an atomic bomb with video cameras running to prove to the world that they are nuclear power and not to be messed with two days ago the foreign minister of north korea threatened that. so we're in a situation where war fighters like me, who are out on the front lines, their families, 25 million people in the immediate thousand mile area
of north korea, we are betting their lives on this dangerous tweeting rhetoric and the president needs to ratchet it back and his three generals named to gain control of the telephone. [applause] >> a lot of opinions here about i think aberdeen would agree a diplomatic answer is the dui go nobody would have thought that russia and china would agree with the united states at then united nations. the fact this week china has directed its central bank to stop doing business with any china entity working with the north koreans. significant diplomatic achievement in order to ultimately resolve this. i've always said, twitter -- tweets are not policy.
but we are not -- the rhetoric is not what is pushing kim jong-un to develop nuclear weapons. he has been on this path for a long time. kim jong-un is interested in one thing and one thing only, staying in power him believes that the only way he can stay in power is by doing what his father and his grandfather this, first leader, kim il-sung, could not do and that is getting nuclear weapons. kim jong-un also has a legitimacy issue. his mother was not his father's wife. let that sink. in like a monarchy. he had to kill his uncle because he had more of a direct line to the first leader. this why the used the nerve agent in a public place to kill his half brother in order so solidify his position in what we -- the will we, we next united states in our alis do -- we of the change kim jong-un's
calculation that the pursuit of nuclear windfill will prevent him from staying in power. that's the only way we get him to stop doing that. hard to do but we also have to be prepared, one thing learned from my nine and a half years in the back alleys of plays laing indiana, pakistan, afghanistan, be tough with tough guys and nice with nice guys and we have to be prepared when there's another test to it should it down. hey have to be prepared to defend our allies. when kim jong-un is shooting missiles over japan. the changes the calculation. there are coulding theres to do to take defensive measures against his global threat. this is an opportunity for us to potentially do military exercises with china because if something happened in north korea, there's going to be three million refugees, north korean refugee on china's border and the chinese don't want to see that happen. so this could actually be an opportunity for us to have the chinese realize that a u.s.-south korea-y pan alliance
is not a threat to them as much as a destablized north korea. if enwhen you look at everything in magged from secretary mattis to hr mcmatter talking about this needs to be solved diplomatically but we have to be prepared to defend our allies and not just the millions of folks in seoul, but we have hundreds of thousands thousands. men and women on there as well, too. >> china came up several ties. the mutual not a do dosin china are -- it's a deeply complex web of interests, some complimently, some competitive. economic ties but we have trade tensions. ...
>> it's more than i think any other world leader, how is the president doing? >> first of all i applied -- i don't know if you notice the pivot to china, that has been the basic approach of the administration under that name or others for multiple past administrations. there has better deficits on china the recognition that there the second largest economy growing a military might pressure and great economic potential both as a market and a trader with much of the world.
there is no administration in the united states couldn't ignore china to treat them as a key to how you deal with the revolving world order is key. to the stent president trump has done that it's a good thing. they are struggling internally between those who have been here who look at china primarily through the lens of the great threat that needs to be stamped out through any means necessary. i don't beat believe the war between the united states and china's inevitable, but we need to carefully manage that relationship. ramping up the rhetoric it unnecessarily on the economic side is not helpful given the strong oral and positive role china can play in areas like
north korea. security said there's no question they are our greatest military child. there's areas where russia is more important challenge. this is going to the point where they can credibly threaten to close access around china. it's really military problem for us in terms of protecting our allies in defending her interest. we don't want them to do that. we want to get up our own capabilities to deter the and fight credibly through that but we want to work to make sure that the security tensions that are very real to not overextend the on this larger nation and economic goals that we share. >> can i ask you to weigh in?
>> the only thing i want to comment on is how the united states since january decided that we are just going to heat all former u.s. power that we had whether the transpacific partnership or trade agreements, we just decided to give it to them in the guise of protecting american interest to make can great. we look at the transpacific partnership we have decided china will be the principal economic failure for every nation of the united states will go and try to do one-on-one trade agreements with all of these nations. it's enough to turn the manufacturing over to china over the next two decades but now giving them this power over us is not good business. doesn't make sense the united
states would yield its last bit of every leverage and the ability to sell lower and cheaper on the market than china itself that we would give that up. i don't understand that. >> i look at the relationship is for enemies. the u.s. and china. it's a broad and deep relationship that you cannot look at one topic does not define the entire relationship. so trying to look at the broader bilateral relationship through one lens you cannot do it. it seems it feels like president trump and the chinese president have talk more in these last nine months than any other point in times of be surprised if their tech buddies. my point earlier about the fact
that china's taking steps with their own economy to deal with north korea these are signs important to that relationship. but we have broader economic troubles, economic espionage in the united states that needs to stop. the chinese version of amazon, ali baba and the united states is treated as an american company. but amazon in china is not treated as a chinese company. it's ultimately a problem. when you look at how china's doing investments in emerging technology in the united states in order to get a toehold in important industry that's a significant problem. the relationship is strong enough to deal with individual
problems while working on major issues like north korea. we will see this play out in the nafta negotiations we talk about rules of origin. the chinese are taking advantage of nafta especially in the automotive industry and that's hurting mexico and the united states. been able to tighten that is a way we should be looking at how to be strong against china. but i don't think a physical confrontation between the u.s. and china but it's a complicated relationship there were looking at every individual aspect the trump administration has been a godsend for -- it really has a loud both personally and china
to ascend on the world stage and be seen as more of a leader among nations. particularly early in the presidency realize it's only been nine months it seems like four years. early when he was starting to alienate some of the long-standing allies mexico is one of the united states largest trading partners. i believe that we start to alienate your long-standing allies they can do their trade with other countries. they can go to china and brazil were somewhere else. so i still believe that a longer-term threat to alienating countries with whom we do trade and have long-standing trade with is that you're creating an opening.
then several months ago i said if the united states through the trump administration takes away eight from mexico and i'm sure china would be glad to give mexico whatever we take away. just as china has gone into african nations and under development projects they have started to and will continue to go to latin america and do the same thing. they gave a speech and talked about climate change. cc him take on future oriented leadership to be seen as the leader among nations which the united states have occupied for generations. >> china will never be a leader on climate change. they're increasing their carbon emissions over the next ten years, not decreasing it.
i agree, when there's avoid, avoid will be filled. we cannot let that void be filled. >> but yet the president saying i want out of the paris climate agreement and the president of china saying i'm going to stay in. that's a stark contrast that the world recognizes. >> i don't think china cares at all if they're going to be the leader of climate change. i think they're more interested in dominate in the global solar sales industry and wind power industry. they own. ten years ago they were not in the market of solar power. the united states was. we have the only manufacturer, the united states another macon whiskey. china has flooded the entirety of this country with cheap solar panel and that's what they want
to dominate. >> i do think it's a very complicated relationship. we should not leave them behind every pillar where we are not. but no doubt the united states has one of the strongest advantages in this network were putting it at risk every day in terms of how the administration speaks and tweets about allies and partners and how he treats them. we should expect that they have opportunity. they have their own interests. they like us but they're not going to stick with us through thick and thin if they have alternatives. we talk about russia which is a very good playbook, the chinese have their own and they pay off
politicians and are investing in southeast asia. if you talk to australians are japanese, they're very worried about the degree to which the u.s. is committed to the region and the degree to which the chinese can buy their way into the good graces of asia. >> i want to remind the audience not often talked about their about to have their communist party conference. this is a big deal in china. the moment when the president will further consolidate his power. there signs if the consolidation is going well enough. once that's accomplished and my sense is that he probably will accomplish this transition, he will have a freer and stronger hand to play in 2018. now you mentioned a moment ago the china give a good overview of the particular mix of advantages and disadvantages
they have. you think about the russians, it's like that. they have a problematic economy certain things they do well in boot has exploited those constraints. we've seen it with a growing influence with russia over its neighbors and with the little conquest of territory taking creamier from the ukrainian's. we see it in the combination of information operation, the leveraging of social media and especially her own in 2016. you've literally written a book about this. how well is the administration responding to this strong and aggressive poker playing? >> i think the obama administration is making great response.
>> how it well is america responding? >> in the last two years, poorly. there has been no response. the strategy for confronting russia so to speak is coming down to words and read rick that russia discounts completely. they do not care what we're doing. vladimir putin has a strategy for where he wants to bring the russian federation in the future. when i did my intelligence analysis in the book it became clear that he was raised in the soviet, a former kgb officer and what he has managed to do was transition russia away from the communist ideology but keeping the goals that the stove he state had to discount american
democracy until lesson america's role in the world. when he was a young kgb officer he was stealing computers from the west bringing them to the east and integrating them into the kgb. that's what his job was. he understood information and power. honor harnessing that propaganda transitioning that termination with billions of dollars that apply to that, he is implementing an ideology in his head that he thinks will lesson integrate the united states and allow the russian federation to be the number two superpower in the world as opposed to china strengthen economic power. that requires the united states to be knocked off that box. i think he has knocked us off that box. the hacking operation wasn't
just to create chaos. it would've created chaos if hillary would've won but she would had a much stronger response to it. she said she would've considered this equal to a terrorist attack on the united states. donald trump doesn't believe in it at all no matter what anybody tells him. these operations continue. and every day you can't turn your phone off without learning some new travesty that the russian intelligence community which created a deep integrated operation templates united states election. >> if you look back on it, it's old school kgb operations with lots of money. they don't have to buy a trade union or printing press. they can pretend to be american citizens by the millions like they did last year.
i had operation carried out against myself with a pretended they were an american citizen by denver and set at a conference they were going to assassinate me on stage and then posted it among the all right in southern california. there wasn't going to be an assassination, they wanted people to come to the conference to see a spectacle. we tracked back to st. petersburg in russia. this is how their weapon rising america's democracy. our battle state belongs to them. [applause] >> nine and half years as an undercover officer i chased russians all over the world. i learned something simple. the russians are not our allies they are our adversaries.
, and of story. vladimir putin is trying to destabilize her institutions because he can't stop us militarily or economically. that's why he's trying to erode trust in nato and the e.u. and drive a wedge whether real or perceived between the white house and the american people. that was the purpose. when the gr you, the russian military organization briefed -- with a brief that in their ga u101 class, it will go down as a greatest covert action campaigns because it created the wedge. what are we doing about it? we do not have a counter covert influence strategy.
this information is a part of covert action. the united states the united states is responsible for covert but caa can't delete stuff in the united states of america. secretary tillerson can't do it with his twitter feed alone. we have to have public and private sector working together. , can we do right now? we can arm the ukrainians. the russians invaded ukraine. but they created this narrative that's a separatist movement. it is 920 tanks in ukraine. there's more russian military in eastern ukraine than there are ukrainians. they're trying to say that we should have un peacekeepers come in. just leave, you're the ones who invaded a sovereign country. in a bipartisan way that we know there's not a lot of bipartisan things that happen.
three years in a row congress, the senate, and house have suggested and pass legislation to say that they should be arming our allies in the ukraine. because vladimir putin does not care. he just sold weapons to turkey. turkey is a nato country. we give weapons to an ever serve he didn't think they would use it against you. we have to show that were pushing back to make sure allies know that we have their back. we can do this today because the president has the authority to armor friend. the state department and the secretary of defense has suggested that president trump makes this decision. i hope he ultimately arms our friends in the u.k. [applause] >> part of what makes the relationship with russia tough as it is with china is that
russia has a seat on the national security council. the un security council. [laughter] [inaudible] the be in that position in the united nation whenever the united states is trying to keep peace in the world in different places look at getting chemical weapons out of syria 2013 when it was clear that congress did not want the military to go in. who is cooperative and helpful? russia. when you talk about trying to sanction north korea they're in a position to veto that were trying to take action against north korea they are rand
.-ellipsis same thing. russia's instrumental with helping with a solution there. that's what gives them leverage with the relationship with the united states and the world. to the point about disinformation and propaganda, their methods were tailor-made for social media era now in full bloom. thirty years ago in the 80s would've been hard for them to achieve it. they never achieved it in the cold war because our media and how we receive information is much more filtered. they were can i do fake ads where people were getting their information from a handful of sources. now, last year the plurality of folks got their information from facebook. rather than a network, cnn or
whoever. they got it from reading other friends feats of facebook. the thing about facebook is it's a relatively unfiltered. now it looks like that will change as we cooperate more with twitter, facebook and other platforms to weed out twitter bots and face facebook accounts that were recruiting people to go to trump rallies in florida. their methods and the way they do things is a perfect fit for a media era that has been unfiltered. president obama and the years we live through was the first president existed in an arrow where social media was in full bloom. when i see facebook coming to the intelligence committees in the house and senate think this was a problem of first
impressions. this was the first time where it's only been in dizziness for a few years where they had an assault by a foreign government trying to influence an election. it's going to be consequential and interesting to watch how the challenges result. will take public and private cooperation, but the private sector and government working together but it's incredibly consequential. i was very surprised to learn when all this broke set there's not a single federal law or state law, could be wrong about that no single federal law that requires a basic or minimum level of cyber security protection for voting system. states and counties that administer elections are not
required to have cyber security protection for voting machines. that's why virginia they're trying to get rid of touchscreen voting machines and i soon go back to paper ballots. i know another state was pursuing the same thing. a few countries are doing the same thing. that's a challenge we have to take on. the russians will come back in 2020 and 2024. it could be someone else or china that comes back or nonstate actor that works to influence our election. [applause] >> in any conversation about national security it's also called station about cyber security. opm, sony, target, home depot, it just goes on and on.
we all recognize there's a clear were problem that's multidimensional. it's social and economic. what more could we be doing by way of solutions? >> what is a digital act of war? nobody knows. we haven't had these conversations. now let's start with what the un considers an act of war. few manipulator do something to destroy the country's utility grid that's an act of war. but when the russians do this to the ukrainians there is no response. so establishing what we consider an act of war and our response is important. sometimes the response is not going to be that of a digital act. two summers ago when they're
trying to influence the election i said kick the rest of the best are out of the country. we can take nondigital responses. but were going to do something. we'll have those conversations within the framework of the government. if you look at the federal government, the.gov states, we are not following basic principles of good digital hygiene and protecting people's information. opm is the perfect example. there are little things, i've been probably and 35 parades in my two and half years in congress and nobody is held up a sign that said it procurement. but the way we purchase it business services is a problem. there is a bipartisan piece of legislation that got the house and senate that change the way we purchase the business service
in the federal government to make sure were introducing the latest technology and what we need to do is make sure the federal government sharing information with the private sector. the head of that essay says if the government thinks it can protect the digital infrastructure alone is the equivalent of -- to defendant from the germans. so we have to improve that level cooperation. the private sector has a good idea of when the russians will attack them again. let's turn those into requirements and goes to guys -- and get them back in the hands of the private sector so they can defend against these nationstate hacker like the russians, north koreans and chinese. there's so much more we should be doing.
also starts with local officials recognizing the threat. i was at the premier hacking conference, they had 26 machines and nobody had seen the machines before. they said compact these machines within seven hours every one of them was hacked. when you have digital access to something it's easier but the fact that it could happen in a short time, we have to begin to work together on this. this is a bipartisan issue in washington, d.c. it was under the obama administration and continues with the trump administration. >> i think the single most important factor we can pass all the legislation we want we have a serious problem with
validating information that succumbs into the information battle space. as a comes onto the web. you have no idea what you're reading if it's true or not. this has been weapon nice by nationstate. it has been amplified by a political party in the united states. we have a president to flat out validates every point that would defeat it. by calling the russian hacking a hoax. the president of the united states actually saying the considered opinion of the u.s. intelligence community is fake. right. that straight from info wars. or breitbart. organizations that have sketchy relationships in any way shape or form. the only way ten that is transparency. what was the now isn't a matter
of determining whether the president works with the russian, that will come out in the legal investigation. but the public is just starting to find out that their perception of reality can be influenced in such a way that they would believe black is white and up is down. we saw that if anyone out there at any time ever believed that hillary clinton was absolutely corrupt on the basis of the word e-mails, okay she didn't have the greatest software security practices. but the hard drive she had to destroy, she destroyed in accordance with the u.s. department of defense and state department and national security agency policy.
i am afraid we might not be able to change it back. again, you can't legislate this out of existence. we have a saying in the intelligence community, common sense is the least used intelligence analysis tool ass do we really need to get back to applying that and we have organizations that are now trying to create this true fact food label that will go on determining whether a website is primarily a propaganda organ or whether they just live or whether aliens really do control people and are living in human skin. this is what we're up against.
how can i put it? trying to regain the meaning of truth as we in the intelligence agency know it, i see it, it's empirical, i can determine its behaviors on the basis of its actions and what they will do next and that is gone in this last year. that is what we need to work on the most. >> in a moment we will be inviting you to come up for questions one dimension of the cyber security challenges the personnel and staffing in the private sector for dod, nsa intelligence compound and what is your reaction? >> you're driving me down a narrow lane. i am going to start out and go in the house that? i agree with malcolm that the information environment in which we live now is not fundamentally going to change.
it's a information revelation just like the industrial revolution. the question is how we think about our national security environment and that is where we are so woefully behind. i mentioned before that allies in alliant techsystems have an asymmetric advantage. everyone is looking for its asymmetric advantage. countries look to open eyes and in particular russia most speculate looks to denies information. we should expect and anticipate that as it involves an approved society and has these innovations people will look to waste to denies them. that comes in the case of drones and types of technology, ai is the next thing. so, what i would say there is as a federal government as a national security we are ill-equipped to date to deal with that next threat upon us. we still think in national
security act of 1947 ways of state diplomacy, big defense, you know, state of broad, big economic treasury and in fact what adversaries are fighting is the increasingly come below the threshold because either the threshold have an and defined effectively or because we don't want to ask. we haven't galvanized our stuff. we are bad at these bite-size approaches whether it is china or russia or iran. it's happening all of the world. i think we face this challenge of how to equip ourselves for the middle of the 21st centur century, at this point in terms of national security toolkit. one area where i think have done fairly well is in the personnel side. there are still americans deeply committed to serving their country and that is what ultimately draws people into
working, whether it's the military itself are working with the national security agency on the civilian side and if you talk to the leadership of those communities in the cyber realm that is what they will tell you. people are being attracted and they can make more money elsewhere and were not going to change that, although we can make it better but what they can do anywhere else is, we hope, the type of work they are doing on behalf of the us government to protect it. for instance, offenses cyber activity that they can learn and do that sense of national purpose. we have to continue to validate that in value that. >> ambassador. >> i agree. when we talk about going forward in the cyber age this really is a brave new world for all of us. as i mentioned earlier, social media has only been in full bloom for a decade and it is just now we don't know if you hit the venus. actually, with virtual reality, artificial intelligence we know that people keep moving forward in this world and how do you
keep off the threats of other nations and nonstate actors as we have essentially been able to keep up with technology but it has provided a platform away for russia and potentially other countries to hone their message and exploit this newness and the fact that we haven't come up with all the definitions that we need to and that we haven't updated old laws that need to be updated, that we haven't passed legislation on cyber security protection for our voting machines and that you can't as malcolm mentioned, you can't in the end legislate what people think or how they perceive things. remember that we know russia essentially put things into the social media bloodstream through facebook but after that the message was amplified in politics the way it is always implied, by other americans who share the names and pass on invitations to events and so forth.
it becomes difficult to pass legislation to deal with that. >> can i add -- only 5% of high schools through the united states have computer science class. that is terrible. we don't teach how the internet actually works. we don't teach how an issue gets propagated and leveraged through social media to talk about understanding sources and things. we teach internal combustion in science class but why are we teaching how the internet works. in texas alone there were 42 -- two years ago there were 42000 jobs that required some kind of computer science need that went unfilled. the tech point placed scientists and only 5000 kids to the ap computer science class. of those 5000 kids only 900 actually work latinos and
african-americans. those are terrible numbers and we have to make sure that more of our population becomes computer literate and coding will be required as -- in any job that you will get in into the future because the technological change will be the next two years will make the last 20 years look insignificant in some of these topics we have your now look like pillow fights compared to some of the big issues will have to deal with in the future. we have to make sure that we are educating our kids and our grandkids in these concepts. >> i strongly agree. [applause] >> we don't have a ton of time left so i encourage the audience to come forward and will get the first question to the gentleman in the spot. i plead for you to keep the questions brief and we will keep our response is short as well good morning. my name is david reyes i'm a us
veteran, served in the military for six years. national security is of interest to me especially and i wanted to talk about immigration and with the recent news on daca and the timeline and i wanted to ask congress when heard what is your opinion on this and is there a possibility that you would sponsor a bill to accelerate daca. >> this is simple. 800,000 young men and women who have only known america as their home. let's make sure they have legal status to stay here and guess what? now it is up to congress to put our money where our mouth is and actually get something done. so that those 800,000 are able to contribute to our economy, to our history into our culture. >> thank you. [applause]
>> yes, i have a question for you representative castro. i wanted to ask obviously russia is essentially a dangerous situation with the hacking. it creates a standoff with russia over cyber attacking has any potential to reignite cold war tensions and how do you hold russia accountable fall is still not escalating tensions to an unhealthy level? >> that's a great question. we certainly no one wants another cold war. we spent many years after the fall of the soviet union trying to help bring russia along into the fold of the nations of the world, trade with western europe, trying to become democratized and as vladimir really ascended into power and took more control of the country the country seem to fall away into this autocratic leadership basically and that is where we are now. you have a strong autocratic leader over there who want to expand his empire and is doing
that. i agree with the different sanctions that have been placed on russia for example and our allies who us with that, i think, we are slow to respond on these election violations. last year i think that the administration last year should have put the word out basically. i understand why they didn't and i understand there was a risk that it looked like they were disadvantaging the democratic candidate and of course, monday morning quarterbacking is always either been then in the middle of it. but all said, i think it would've been better to speak out back then and that the united states and the americans know about the threat that russia poses. >> we have entered the lightning round. >> i spent six years as a cyber intelligence analyst in the air force and i am now going into ip and cyber law and i have long
thought that there needs to be an equivalent of at 911, pearl harbor, digital cyber attack in order for us to get serious and galvanized. i now think that it was necessary but not necessarily sufficient for that to happen. my question is what do you think would be a sufficient cause to galvanize us to actually make the serious investment needed and were talking billions and billions of dollars to shore up our cyber defenses. what does that look like? >> i can spin out scenarios all day long and none of them are good. obviously, a severe attack on her baking system would be sufficient but again, i think of many such catalysts. i think one of the hardest things we work in us national security is as a democracy we are unpredictable and what will get the public behind the politicians to push in a particular area is not necessarily something we can pick up in advance so i think
the japanese learned that after pearl harbor. hopefully it won't take a major catastrophic event like 911 and pearl harbor to create that energy but sometimes i hate to say it does take something significant to happen and to date we have not seen that kind of energy. by the way, there's a significant budget budget law to that to just the money at it. >> i'm getting the signal but i'm using my moderating pledges to keep up and get the last question. >> , student at the university of texas and i'm a daca recipient. my question is for you congressman castro, thank you for cosponsoring the texas dream act and i wanted to ask you what are you actively doing to reach down the aisle to ensure that
the dream act is given time and consideration and more important lee, the ability for this piece of legislation to be on the floor? >> great question. look, the only way that daca will happen if with bipartisan. democrats are the minority parties we can ask every democrat to sign on to this piece of legislation and that is not enough to pass it in the house of representatives or in the senate. we have been reaching out across the aisle to our republican colleagues. will has mentioned daca earlier and we need a basically a few dozen republicans to join us in passing the dream act. we have a certain window of time here to make it happen. this is an issue that has strong support among the american people and really across party lines. it's not even a republican or democratic thing so, since the president's announcement this really has been the top issue that many of us are working on as our top thing. of course, on the intelligent side and north korea obviously we are working on that but in terms of getting legislation passed this is a top priority