You’ve called for ending bulk data collection, while at the same time defending its legality. Is that all a public perception issue?

Unfortunately, because of the irresponsibility of the national media putting out false information. Listening to national talk shows, [you hear] “the government is listening to you. They are listening to your phone. The NSA is listening to you everyday.” Totally false information. It’s the lead headlines. It’s the sensationalism.

The good news is that Chairman Rogers, Sen. Feinstein [Dianne Feinstein, (D-Calif.)], and Sen. Chambliss [Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)], they have the same jobs we have in the Senate, we stood up and said, “the NSA is not breaking any laws and the NSA is there to protect you. They don’t care who you are talking to.” We lost control even though we went out and tried to explain. We had to find a way to change the system, so that the public would have more confidence and yet not take away our ability to protect us. Our new bill does that.

One of the hardest things to do was to get out staffs working together, because for 10 years they were fighting each other and not working together. Ours staffs now work as a team. We also have the members of the committee, it’s not a big committee, the Republican members and the Democrat members come together. It’s about relationships and trust

We have a lot, left and right, who have been working with us. I’ve also been working very closely with the White House. The only difference we have with the White House, and I’ve been working with them for the last eight months, is that they want pre-judicial [oversight]. Rogers and I are concerned that if you have pre-judicial, we want the flexibility to act right away, and that might slow it down. So, we’re still negotiating with the White House on that one issue. If we work that out, for the first time the White House, who wasn’t in favor of our CISPA bill even though we passed it overwhelmingly, hopefully we’ll get the votes to pass this and move on. We’re dealing with privacy, with Constitutional rights, and we need to say to the public, “the people who work at the NSA are good people. They get up every morning, They’re smart people and they’re trying to protect you. They’re not interested where you’re going to the store, what your personal life is about. And if they do [spy on private citizens], they are breaking the law.”

 

During your keynote you mentioned your close working relationship with Rep. Rogers. Rogers is scheduled to retire at the end of his term in 2015. Do you see any impact of his retirement on the work of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence?

What Rep. Rodgers and I have done was make a commitment to each other that we’d be totally bipartisan. But, it had to go further than just Rogers and me. One of the hardest things to do was to get our staffs working together, because for 10 years they were fighting each other and not working together. Ours staffs now work as a team. We also have the members of the committee, it’s not a big committee, the Republican members and the Democrat members come together. It’s about relationships and trust. All the members of the committee, whether you’re far left or far right, understand how important it is that we work together. I think whoever takes his place will continue that relationship.

 

How do you overcome some of the skepticism from the intelligence community toward your transparency efforts? They’re secretive by nature.

The issue is sources and methods. Snowden has blown a lot of that out of the water. What Snowden did is make our country less safe. It’s going to cost lives in the short term and in the long term. It’s giving away millions of hours and money on our research and development, whether it’s space or other areas. Ninety percent of what he has given to Russia and China is military secrets.

You have to maintain sources and methods to protect us. Look at al Qaeda right now. We’ve lost many targets who are out there everyday plotting to attack us or our allies.

 

What can the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence do to improve oversight of government intelligence efforts? You mentioned the public perception issue.

Our bill. We have to find ways in order to be able to do as much as we can and be more transparent. An example, just in this whole Snowden issue, the courts are not rubber stamps. These are U.S district court judges who have been confirmed by the United States Senate. These are qualified people, just like any other judge. Because somebody said they are a rubber stamp and the media is putting it out there. What we have to do is be more transparent. What I would I would like to see, and some of the suggestions I’m putting out there, is maybe after the court renders an opinion on the RAS test, [for example] the terrorist calling in from Yemen … maybe six months after the case is over, publish the opinion.

You have to maintain sources and methods to protect us. Look at al Qaeda right now. We’ve lost many targets, who are out there everyday plotting to attack us or our allies.

Another thing we are doing, is when the courts are concerned whether we should go forward with the FBI once we get a phone number, the court can ask for an alternative opinion, a master or an expert, and give the other point of view to argue the issue of privacy versus security.

Transparency is very important, but we are way over-classified. We can never violate sources and methods. Americans could be killed because of the fact that information goes to your enemies. You can’t let that happen. That’s why you have privacy. We have too many people who have clearances. That hurts us from a public perception of learning more and having more openness and transparency, but as I talked about during my speech, … businesses need people to work and build satellites, rockets, and that type of thing. It takes forever to get clearances. We have to focus on the clearance process.

 

You mentioned the “cyber security divide” between government and industry. Government can’t share information about cyber attacks. Should all relevant industries be required to have standard high level protection if they are working with the U.S. Department of Defense or intelligence community?

If we pass our CISPA bill they will be able to. If they want to work and communicate they are going to have to have people who are cleared if we give them that type of information. What people don’t understand is that 80 percent of the networks in the U.S. are controlled by the private sector. Yet, our intelligence community is one of the best in the world in seeing these attacks coming in on a regular basis. We have to educate the public to know that we must have this partnership. Under a 1947 law [National Security Act of 1947], the intelligence community can’t share information with the other side until our CISPA bill is passed.