time and other penalties and they should know that.il it's part of the journalist lti. responsibility to make sure thaa the source is aware of the riskn that they're taking.si >> i think i would agree with both of you that best practices, making sure that your editors cs are behind you, and the only e thing i would add is more of a cheerleader point which is keep doing it. i mean i think that what inspires me about jim horizon he is did not come to me and say, t you know what? i would actually like to cover, you know, the agriculture kno department now. i just wanw,t to do something different. he remained in the thein realm national security. r he continues to break stories. he's hampered but he is still in the game.ham i think that sends a tremendous signal to the people who want to show his reporting. wan it also sends a tremendous portn signal to other peopleg. that dm that kind of reporting.

>> i think that is an importantd point. it has auld happened. and will always happen. gets >> one thing that is really encouraging even for this room is at least the younger at journalists and the journalists coming from the businesses i'vee been meeting are amazingly intrepid and investigative and have tools that we don't have. they're really good at using social media. they're really good at searchind on the web and figuring out what's going weon. there are people working for vice and all sorts of ll organizations. they're doing really exciting work. and i think that's a very positive indication ore the world is heading. evenft's insightful, some ome organizations, there are so many people out there trying t get that information that i think it's a real positiv tohat -s this plays ly omething steai ear.plrls th abilietspecially for ntnational vestigive

ories, mean some o instigive workf of any news orzagaon over st couple oninte stigvee reporting. so public also, youe trngo cor,so ow, knamount to war ys to report s tat ear an, country organization can you behavey kp going to be going ways. in fact, let's not forget the restrin restrictions, there have been some -- i wouldn't include the twori news organizations on my left and my right. there have been some remarkable disclosuresme in the last couplt of years that show that the press is still in the game and t in a big way. >> this has been terrific. i want to thank you all again. i think we have time for some questions from the audience. so please, you know, step up to the microphone and ask your questions.

someone help her get that on. >> hello. good day. university of virgin islands, aspiring journalist. research is hard, it's expensive and requires copious amounts of work just in depth work. you did touch on stacy. i have a question in regards to that. you art e talking about burn phones. but if abo you really are into authority, is there a way for you to be as careful as you can possibly be?ful like what would you advice us? e if somebody is out to find you and stop you, most likely they'll do everything in their power and sometimes that's a lon of power.t's a so if you're on a case, it is a

dangerous case, as i said before, espionage, it seems liki we're trying to get information because you have connections with cops, government officials. you want to take yourself as f well as your sources. can you elaborate a little bit u more on that? i'm very intrigued when you listed burn phones, what else? what else? >> there are all sorts of toolsf to incrypt things. i think your point is very often they won't work, right? so, you know, the question are , you talking about being in you t physical danger? are you talking about somebody getting a story?or >> you know, as you said before, we're entering as we excel in technology, we are excelling in ways we can be caught.ways although we are getting better at social media, there are moree ways to be caught through sociae media. they can get your l e-mails and facebook accounts. a lot of people don'tness it.aco but whatok you pull from faceboo

employers and anybody else in the future can go in there and per rues and say that's what he's about. that's >> again, i operate under the he assumption that everything i sat somebody is listening to. and i think that's worked well. obviously here we're on television, i know i'm being looked at. but wli talk on the phone, i assume that, okedtoo. whether my parents who are 91 years old ask me what i did this week, i tell them i can't really tell you right now on the phonel because literally, i'm fairly confident that whether it's thea syrian government orir somebodyn china or somebody in iran, there is somebody listening.ere's a lot of it is changing your t s habits and thinking about the facts that there are people listening. but if you are doing journalism in thisburn country, we don't w to overscare people.e to my knowledge, there is one d person in prison in the united n states in jail in the united states for doing journalism. so it's very rare that it ends up that you're in jail. in one thng i always found helpfuls

particularly whether i work with small newspapers was to write bout when it somebody is giving you a hard time. in other words, maybe public blm what the problem is.inves if you're being investigated, av write about it. we have power. have we have tools. we own the presses. t we own the ability to distribute. so if threatened, that threat i newsworthy. so it's just a couple thoughts. >> hello. my name is wanna brooks. i'm a producer for the department of defense. i have a question.hese [ no audio ]

there is a lot in the wikileaks document cli was involved in. t and we were in an awkward ous position because lateram on tha same time a reporter for "the new york times," david rode, haa also disappeared. and we were nervous about too much detail about his case coming up. so whether the government asked about burgdal, i think they made a con advivincing case that if wrote about it, it would affect his life. i can think of cases where i made a mistake. i can think of a lot of cases where i made a cas mistake and too cautious. by and large, those are the ca standards. has to come from somebody high up. has to be very specific. don't use -- don't -- i don't want to hear i have blood on my hands.

i don't want to hear the vague we'll help the terrorists. i want very specific stuff. v >> in the case of the foiled terror plot that led to the justice department scooping up n the records, that story was lel for five days at the government's request because the request is based on the fact that the separation so on going. and so the story was held.t w it was only after the governmeni said it will be safe now it wouldn't jeopardize the information that story was publi published. >> that's the classic one. it's an on going investigation. and they make the case and very specific and it comes from somebody high up. that's a harder one to refute. >> thuk. professor lou fris ucla, former news anchor. i just have a pretty general question for each of the

panelists. i'm won i'm wondering should we as w journalives, educators, et cetera, be concerned about s, relationship between the government and journalist ws wh we see more and more in the news, we hear about journalistsh covering stories and other countries, being held as s potential spies, being accused of spying, you know, for the u.s. and among other things. should we be concerned about th fact that, you know, the cia and the fbi have boots, recruiting boots here at various journalism organizations.uiti various ones. doesn't that sort of beg the gaa question what are they here for? being that, you know, these are journalism conferences and what is the interest?e should we be concerned?

>> we have journalists in 200 locations around the world, almost 3,000 journalists. it is a not uncommon problem. it's a fairly frequent problem where foreign governments acc e accuse -- haul in our reportersm and accuse them of being spies and often for the u.s. and so any ambiguity, and we always say we have no association with any government we're entirely independent, youd know, whatever accusations ssoca entirely untrue.ment. but any ambiguity that any government has about whether they're using people who per nt. port to be journalists as spies really puts lives in danger. an so i'my extremely concerned abo it. that's not to say that cia n doesn't need people with journalistic skills to do things that they need to do. so i'm not saying recruiting people for other things who hae journalistic skills is a rec problem. but any time an intelligence organization uses a journalisti cover, it puts our people and ne journalists around the world in

enormous jeopardy. >> thank you. >> and many of the countries where our news organizations operate, the explanation that we're independent and not to attach to any government just doesn't resonate. the notion of independence n doesn't exist in a lot of doesn countries around the world.'t you know, particularly for newsn agencies. i think the standard definition of the news agency in most countries is something that is . tied to the government. and the type of agency that reuters and ap are is sometimes hard for people to comprehend. i was based in asia and had to explain to government officials that ap doesn't stand for american press and we have no of connectionte to the u.s. government. i think intellectually we understand the difference an between government and independence. but there arepre countries in w, every entity is controlled by the government whether it's, yot know, industry or education or u media.st andre

>> fouthank you for being here. my question is and for all the panelists, what other loopholesu exist nowes in the law that you can enlighten us on? for example, from the patriot c act, is it -- can electronic equipment be searched without a warrant, things of that sort?utr >> to be honest, i'm not actually familiar with them enough to sort of go through the list. i don't know if you guys are. i'm not sure.list >> i think we need a media lawyer. >> yeah. >> that's the next panel.lawyer >> i can speak specifically to e the guidelines surrounding l ri seizure of phone records.eak there is still a loophole. the loophole would be that the attorney general needs to sign off if this poses a threat to national security or that it an

would compromise the integrity investigation and still do what they did to the ap. it that loophole is smaller but it's really good. >> i think the federal laws on t that are broadly in the area of attacking surveillance sometimes get wildly overused. there was an internet entrepreneur who downloaded a bunch of documents from the mito store and d ended up being indicted on very, very serious felony charges, ultimately committed suicide under e indictment. and hets was in some ways operating a way that would be ry parallel to the way many journalist was operate because he wasn't planning on selling them. he just thought the information should be free.ment. so there are some pretty draconian laws around the uses of electronic information right now that are still on the books. >> hi. something i've noticed over the past few months buzzing around social media, especially more recently around the conflict is

this impression among the general public that somehow the u.s. government or other governments are putting pressurr on your organizations to color coverage in general not thinkino about the cases. but in the departments or the as u.s. b military or the obama t administration is pressuring "the new york times" or associated press to runry certad stories, to not run certain stories, to cover a hospital hir or was hit or not hit for you and compound.s. can you guys speak to that t hio specifically. >> because there something which, of course, try to corret among my colleagues.sp but maybe coming from your moute it may or may not be more bu persuasive. can you talk com about what con you guys have from the administration or other governments about your general o

coverage of certain issues or at topics or conflicts? >> that which you just described and i suspect my two colleagues will say the same thing, that doesn't happen. i mean i've never had -- i was the washington bureau chief and then the managing editor and tha editor.as i never had many kblants abocom about coverage. the obama administration is very sensitive. but in terms of how to cover ama things, how to place photos, how to -- i never had a conversation like that.ce none at all with anybody in the government. i bet these guys have not either. >> no. i think if that were environmenter to happen the obvious answer is no.. that is subject to our own happ editorial judgment and decision making. >> therer is no harder story to cover than israel and palestine.

both sides think all of us are biassed on the other side. and so we get enormous increasei in complaints whether that store is flaring up from people on te both sides. and that leads to some conspiracy theories about who in influencing the coverage. we haven't experienced any pressure on that eeshither. >> sometimes i wish i could take the e-mails from each side and t just send them to each other. because they're completely -- im mean on both sides they're completely unrelenting and not at all understanding the difficulty of it or the fact that each side -- actually sides, have hard -- very hard views' don't see the other side at all. i wish i could sort of just exchange nasty e-mails with others and then just get out ofh the way and watch the

discussion.ut of w >> today we discussed a lot of issues facing our industry. question for each of you.g have journalists done a good enough job of explaining to the public what it is we do and whye we do it?enough >> i would argue no. that we've not. i think we're much better now than we ever were.i thin but i come -- sorry, i come from a tradition of whether i worked in a regional paper in the daysm when newspapers had made so muc money that you didn't have to court readers. if a reader called up, i just hung up the phone.t i think we're much better at it. i think we sort of tried -- i try to answer e-mails from of readers. we invite people into our page one meetings. we talk more at n. sessions like this about how we make people

decisions. but sometimes i think p we takes for granted i think people are always stunned and in fact the federal government does not call up and say isn't it time you use a gaza picture?re it amazes us that people think like that. but i think some people think like that. pi i would -- i can certainly do a. better job of explaining how we make this decisions. >> i agree. it's hard to get an audience fo it.decisi people have so much informatione flyingn at them, so many pretty distractions. it's sort of the ideal role of m the media is not what interests people outside of our industry.i >> i think we're much more interested in the topic than ou anybody else. the best thing question do is dh our job vigorously and well.resi but i do think there is sort of ae, humblingsing that occurred adds our industry has done much less well. and there was an arrogance in our industry that we just felt we could go out there and do

what we wanted and the public aa would just soaknc it up. i do share the view that if we w can be more transparent that that's helpful and also consistent with who we want to be as an organization. >> that's right.pful a >> as we wrap up, i'd like for each of you for some of the journalists out there to give af sense of how you try to inspire the people that work with you, your colleagues through mind, h through the difficult stories yr and why it's important. steve, just go from left to right, please.c >> i say i've done a lot of work over the last 3 1/2 years at ths reuters to try i to encourage en more excitement about the bigger and more veinvestigative storie. can you be tempted to be covering and chasing every story that occurred.gger but there is a enormous ies. satisfaction in trying to get to the bottom of things and find ht out why things happen.oc what is really going on and what's going to happen next? i think as people have done mord

of that, we discovered it's mo enormously satisfying and that e there is a big appetite out disr there for it. when i talk to customer wlz they're financial customers or news organizations or individuals, i think what they're saying is we have so ete much information we'rer floode with information but what they t always say is help me make senss of the world. i think journalists get exciteda when they're helping people maki sense of the world.en and when they see the results, s lot of the journalism that we do has results, has positive results in society. you see things happening. lab so i think it's up to us to encourage it, talk about it, incentivize it and share the excitement with them on doing the job and doing it really well. >> i think to encourage the bigger more probing pieces, i actually deeply involve myself in them. i think the best way to send a

signal to the newspaper to your staff is that you really, really care about it. when we do big investigative stories, i want to be in on them from the beginning. i want to play on the editing of them. and i think people walk away immediately with a sense of, important. wa because you get time with the s, scuff editor. t >> think abouthi all the case w talked about today from snowden to the sec case to verizon and e the d doj thing, all the revelations were really important for people to know and hugely competitive stories. and there's an imperative to do that. journalists have not been doing that kind of work, then we wouldn't know about it. and it's, you know, these are disclosure that's are important for the pub tloik know about. there is also a huge competitiv comparative in doing this work.l

we spoke early better how many different media outlets there te are out there now and to some degree they're covering the same story every day. many so the things that are exclusive and distinctive are established more important because that's rh what you have that nobody else s has.t are there is no better way to set tt yourself apart. and whatever news organization you're working in to b be someb that breaks news that readers and editors can't get from any other source.sows that >> this was a great source conversation. i want to thank each of you, steve, dean and brian for joining us. thank you to the audience for r coming. we're going it take a shortjo e break. but at 2:00 we have a newsmaker with dnc chair debbie wasserman shultz. thank you.

>> monday money has one member of the house of representatives and he's leaving the house to run for the senate. republican ryan zenky is in line to replace him. they met for the first debate over the weekend. here's a few minutes of that. >> my opponent called for economic sanctions against isis. how do you put economic sanctions against a nonnation state? maybe beshould write a tersely worded letter. the issue is isis is a danger. it's a danger to hear. you have to have a three pronged approach. we have to shut down our southern border. it is no longer an imbrags issue. it is security and immigration threat. a nation that can build a panama canal in the 19th century certainly can build a fence in the 21st. secondly, unfortunately, it's going to call for america to lead. and you cannot control isis by air alone.

in the words of general conway, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that air operations will work. and i agree. secondly, it limits our ground forces to special forces, to supply and support. we make sure our coalitions are watched and efficiently changed and limit our involvement but make sure that isis is destroyed. >> quick follow up. no one answered how we're paying for. this we already put two wars on the credit card. are you wlg to support a war tax? to support as he said a perpetual war that we're in? >> there are two clearly different approaches to this situation here on this issue. and i'm saying we need to be thoughtful and responsible in decisions. no, a letter is not going to get the job done. this is somebody that called for invading mexico in a few years.

that's not the kind of judgement i want representing me in congress. and it is instant reaction to the president's announcement that we have air strikes and we said a couple years ago that when we said women should serve in combat roles, he said that is nearly certain to cost lives. nearly certain to cost lives. women serving in those roles. that is not the judgement we need in congress. and it's a good question, jake. how much is this going to cost? >> a navy costs money, bridges, schools, infrastructure. but it all costs money. paying for medicare, social security. we need a robust economy. i know you didn't serve.

tiramasu is a marine that is languishing in a prison in mexico for over six months. every woman, and i served both, and i've commanded both. everybody that serves in this country is not sure that america has their back. when america doesn't have their back, like benghazi, like mexico, what happens is it sends a signal to everybody fighting and i did not advocate invading mexico he could. i advocate the president doing his duty and doing all available means to get the young marine back. >> more campaign 2014 debates on c-span tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern, pennsylvania's republican governor tom corburt and democratic challenger tom wolf meet for the final debate. that is live from pittsburgh and 7:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. tomorrow, live on c-span at 7:30 p.m. eastern, a debate from the 17th congressional district of

illinois. democratic congresswoman sherry bustos debates bobby schilling. here on c-span3 we kbliment coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series, the civil war's 1 autoth anniversary, visiting battle fields and key events. american artifacts, historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf, the best known american history writers. the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief.

lectures in history, top college professor devilling into america's past and our new series, real america featuring our government and educational still a films from the 1930s. c-span3, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local satellite provider. watch us on hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> national security agency director michael rogers talks about the nsa's mission and efforts to increase transparency. he spoke atten event hosted by the intelligence and national security alliance in august. it'scuri 50 minutes. good evening. can you hear me in the back?can can you hear me in the back? excellent. first and foremost, i want to thank you for taking the time out of your busy lives to spend

a little time together this evening. i got to tell you, to be honesti i'm shocked.your when i was asked to do this, i said you really want to do an event in d.c. in the middle of s august? i justas didn't think there wer going to be many people here th tonight. i thank you for your willing noo sir take time out of your busy a lives to spend some time. i'm also grateful because quite frankly i'm here and many of yoi heard me previously talk about this as director of the nationae security agency as commander of cyber command. i'm a firm believer that public dialogue and transparency is any important part of executing our mission today and in the futureg we have got to be willing to have a public dialogue.lic p and so when i was asked if i would be willing to do this, i l said no restrictions on media, no restriction onz questions. we're going to do this.o and rogers has to go into this with his eyes open. because i think that's important.don

there is no doubt that one of mt primary missions is to represent the hard-working men and women of that organization and to helt the american public understand who are they, what do they do and why do they do it?rican because quite frankly, we haven't had much discussion do about that.ion ab >> the national security agency in simple terms is tasks to defend the nation and allies, comply with the rule of law, ane to ensure that we always remain accountable to the american people. that is what we are about. defending the nation and our tht allies, following the rule of law, and always remembering thar we remain accountable for the citizens that we defend. much debate about many of the e capabilities have been highlighted about what nsa can do. but what we haven't talked so much about is what is the context in which the capabilities are applied? what are the policy and the legal mechanism that's have been put in place to ensure those capabilities are not misused a

againstnd the very citizens thac we would defend? what leads us to believe that ts the things nsa does are in the best interest of the nation andh ourat allies? bel i took this job in no small pard because i believe in the national security agency and i believe in its mission. it doesn't mean we're perfect.u you will not hear me say that. but what you will hear me say is we're committed to the rule of law and we will be accountable. we will stand up and acknowledge that. and we will use a very compliant mechanisms internally with the agency and it is external der se compliancet teammates whether e that is congress, courts, the department of justice, deem mates in the dni. with we make a mistake, we will acknowledge it.eammat and in fact much ofes what you have read has flowed from nsa's

self reporting where we have made mistakes and not properly f followed our own procedures. i highlight that in the course of the last few months you have seen multiple public reviews of what nsa does, for example, in compliance with 702, in the 215 section, by external organization who's have looked at us, said hey, nsa is complying with the law. nsa has a robust set of comply mechanisms in place to make sur we don't abuse the information that we collect. and that we appropriately protect them. it doesn't mean we're perfect.rm but iat am very proud of what wd have put in place. in no small part because we have learned from our past mistakes. we implemented a pretty extensive compliance organization back in the 2009 p time frame because we realize we need to do things better.

i compliment general alexander, my predecessor for his commitment to thidea of compliae and oversight. to do our mission, we have to do that.r miss there is muchio debate and it's good one for us as a nation to talk about what's the right balance between the need to ensure our security and the nee to ensure a recognition of the rights of every one of our citizens. and it's not either/or. ensur we have got to address both vern valid concerns. the harder challenge to me in we some ways is what is the right balance between secrecy and transparency? and that's the challenge for me as an intelligence professional. i literally if i'm honest, i tr spent my whole life thinking lle about how f i do protect source and methods?ho how do i ensure that what we doe is not compromised and our ability to continue to do it in

the defense of the nation remains intact.hat i realize as an intelligence leader that roth erdz, you haven to -- rogers, you have to talk to a better sest people. if you're willing to talk about what we do and why we do it.t and i am very comfortable with what nsa does and why it does it. because i believe we defend the nation and its allies. we follow the rule of law and we always remember that we remain accountable to the american and people. that accountability comes in many forms. whether it's congress that executes oversight of our ble functions or, whether it's the e courts that grants us the authority in many cases to do ts what we do. i mean we have to make a case i many cases to a federal court and get permission to do what wn do. and nobody writes us a blank check. we're given permission for a at finite purpose, for a finite period of time. we want to continue

beyond that period of time, we have to go back to the court and make that case again.if and what we make mistakes, we have to make sure we report to the court if we have failed in a our compliance responsibilities. now the other challenge i have as the director of our nsa is a tell the organization is the new director, we cannot be trapped by the past. we have to learn from the past. and we got to drive. we have a mission that the nation depends on. in almost every major operationv that i can think of that we as n nation have done in the course of the last year, for example, f nsa and many other elements of the intelligence community played a major role in our nsa ability to do that. that is a good thing for the citizens of this country and itr is a good r thing for our allie. and don't ever forget we're nota only about supporting the united states, but we're also about supporting our allies.t a good

they're insuring they're for the future. so my challenge is how i do makh sure they remains effective in the execution and how do we make sure the world around us is changing and we maintain our an diligence and owe and what do we need to do if we don't do in five to ten years that we're going to be in real trouble?re e because another area that i would give general alexander tn great marks in is i was always impressed as a director, i can remember talking about him s telling me what are some of s invest. s we have to make thater will bd factor in five t ho ten years? if we don't do it now, whoever t

comes behind sme going to have o challenges.that n that's hard.eeon't b and it's hard to do it in a environment in which the budget pressure is increasing not indecreasing. we've enjoyed relatively steady increases in funding over the es course of the last decade.creasg that's a reflection in large part of the strategic situationl we have found ourselves in as a nation and the two wars we have fought. in which many,ade. many of our countrymen made the ultimate sacrifice and came back for thh fundamentally changed. they sacrificed their lives and became fundamentally different . individuals. i think about them all the time and as we move into the future,i we'rdue constantly thinking to myself, what do we need to make sure we remain relevant to those men and women the deployed arouw the world whether they're ed wearing a uniform, whether they're working in an emphasis somewhere or whether they're average citizens traveling the world who sometimes find ng themselves in very dangerous

circumstances. we're here to make a difference in all of those scenarios? that is nothing to apologize for.to and whether we do m it, we alwa remember we obey the rule of law and accountable to the citizens of this nation. and every review that we have had to date has come back and said hey hilook, yous can arguee law correct? can you argue is the policy whau we need to be doing? but nobody has come back and i said nsa has failed to follow w the law or nsa is failing to meet its obligations in ensuring that we protect the informatione that we collect in the course os our duties.nforma it doesn't mean we're perfect. but i funneled. ally believe in what we do and why we do it and how we do it. if you're a current employee ofp nsa or you were an employee do before, will you stand for it?

the reason i ask you to stand is rogers gets all the attention as the director. but what really matters to me is men and women like this who have dedicated their adult lives in many cases to trying to ensure the defense of our citizens andn those of our allies.de i just want to say thank you very, very much. [ applause ] >> as i think to myself about how we build that future, think partnerships are incredibly important to theth future. i have always agreed with general flapper.futu future to me is about integration and about maximizing partnerships. that's another reason why i'm l here tonight.ral clap because i want to be very publii in saying i need the help and i thewa capability that many of yi in this room and others around the world bring to bear. we can't do this alone.is room

i wish i could tell you this is the 1960s and it's like the apollo space program and the l u.s. government is the driver of technology. that is just not the scenario wo find ourselves in the 21st century, i don't see that changing.just not nsa needs good partners. because remember, nsa is two primary missions -- the foreign intelligence mission to gain insight about the world around us, about nations who would like to gain an advantage over us, groups that if they had their way literally every one of us e would be dead. we don't think about that much d in the society we live in. think about what we take for granted. abo stable society in which the rule of law is respected and thh rights of individuals are codified in law and are practices in society. we did less with that for 238 plus years. and we take it for granted.s. you go around the world today

and it just flat out doesn't exist in many other places.we g and there are groups and individuals who if they had their way, the entire idea of ad the inherent right of the individual to make choices in wt their lives would not exist. of there are groups and individual who believe everything we stand for as a nation is die met rickly opposed to their view of the world and the only way their view of the world can triumph is if we're not here anymore. i don't jump up and down and say see how terrible the world s but i'm surprised by people who acts like we have no significant challenges out there. we have been fortunate as a nation that since august -- gnic excuse me, since september of 2001 we have managed to forestall foreign terrorists on u.s. soil. we we've had some domestic issues. we have been able to foil those

external to the united states who would attempt to re-create in some form the events of 9/11t where we lost 3,000 men and women, citizens from around the world, not just u.s. citizens. people from around the world whose only mistake was they picked a particular day to go to work in an office building. they picked a particular day to do business in an office building. or they went to workom a at the pentagon. or they were on the wrong aircraft.ilding and almost 3,000 of them lost ng their lives. the individuals who purposeal traited that remain out there and like minded individuals remain out there. we need to remember that. now as i said, it's all about finding that balance. it's not either/or. if the price of achieving our security is fund amally becoming something we're not, then they i have won. and i have no desire to

fundamentally compromise the rights that are at the heart of what is america. no and at the nsa director, i am always mindful of those rights. i am always mindful of what makes america america.se and i'm always mindful of the values of our allies and our partners. we aren't in thindsfu alone. as i said, i need your help. i need strong partners. the men and women in the national security agency need og strong partners. you got see some of them with us tonight. let me conclude because i want you to get something tohe eat. we're going to have a session after dinner. i'll take questions and answerst we'll take it from there. but will he me just conclude again by saying i se want to thn you for being here tonight.and w i thank you for your willingness to be part of a dialogue becausa we need a dialogue. as a nation we have to make to e tough p choices. we want to have a well informedd dialogue whether we make the

choices. and we've got to realize that there's a wide range of opinions out there. i understand that.ces. but the dialogue has to ere's a represent multiple viewpoints.tt that is at heart, what is the strength of america. the idea that we can bring together lots of individuals with lots of different viewpoints and yet wthe can sti remain who we are and what we are and what we are about. and that is what makes me so proud to be the director of the national security agency because i believe in its mission and i believe in its men and women. and i am proud to stand up and say that i'm the director and en i'm proud to i stand up and say that i am a member of the nsa p team. and ind s will not apoloapologi that to anyone. have a great dinner. i look forward to the question k and answer. thank you very much. >> so welcome to my living roomr thisy is a nice little intimat chat that we're going to have. i have, you know, a few

questions that actually i received from across the leadership. i'm going to start out with tha those. but i'm really hoping that a you're going to send cards and letters. some of you have sent cards and letters already. they're like two pages long. c so help me out. keep them nice and brief and punchy and we're going to try to get through as many as we can. so welcome. keep >> thank you. >> first of all, i want to thans you for continuing to do your engagement in unclassified ant environments so that we can yo actually have conversations, ncs meaningful conversations. so some of you may not know but mike rogers did his first session unclassified session with me back in 2011, he was with the joint staff. so this is not something that he's just doing because now he'e the director of nsa or cybercom

this is a continuation of something he's been doing for a long time. so i was reading an article recently that nato summit is -- >> really?icle nobody talks about us in articles. >> a nato summit in two weeks and that one of the items on the agenda is the cyber defense policy. and sot iin don't know if you your team how directly involved you are. but what do you think some of o the key points of a cyber are. defense policy from a commander cybercom perspective should be vis-a-vis some of our closest allies in nato? >> first before i answer the question. thank you all very much for f or hanging around. i got to tell you, after 2100 w i'm sitting in a beautiful than comfortable chair and part of me is going -- but i'll stay

strong. we're talking about what do iis think are the elements of a cyber defense policy in the first thing that is important is a recognition that cyber defensr is not something that just one h single entity is going to do. that in order to be successful in this area, it's about e creating the partnerships i talked about. it's about how do we harness the capability reds dent within the department of defense and the u.s. government and within the civil and commercial sectors? so one of the comments i always make within our own department is we're trying to figure out what should the vision of the defensive system will be in the future to remind everybody that it's about partnerships. number two, it's about how do we enable the partnerships to share information in a way that we're trying to do right now? quite frankly, we're not where we needho to be and we're not where we want to be. ayou at cyber command and all the direction that i have is upon order for the president of the secretary of defense, not

only i do do our day to day or department of defense things but u.s. cyber command is on order from the president of the secretary. bens prepared to provide assistance in the defense of t e critical infrastructure in the un secretary.n is t be prepared to provide assistance in the defense of critical infrastructure in the united states. to do that, u.s. cyber command can't do it alone.to do the department of defense can't do it alone. that partnership has to include information sharing both ways. because i'm quick to remind people, if i put on my nsa hat, nsa under that information rmato has an important set of the g capabilities to help the government and, by extension, the civil sector and par tick larly in providing core defensive capability.cal in the challenge for me is i'm not in those critical infrastructure is networks. i want to create partnerships

where the people that operate those networks are in a positioa to share information with us anr i in turn can share information hey, here's what i'm seeing in that red battle space.he here's what i think will come at you. these are the ttps i think, u ht tactics, techniques and procedures, you will have to be able to defeat.oups this is how the individual groups will come at you.you. these are the things i think you that's only one part of what it takes to create good defensive e structure.struct it is that two-way dialogue. great. i told you what i think you will see.eat. tell me what you are actually seeing.tell me what are you experiencing on your network? what are the conditions that you are seeing that i don't see because i'm not monitoring your network. a look lo at whatok some of those nation states groups and individuals are doing. i need that partnership to make this work. in talking to our nato allies, as a member of the alliance, one of the things we try to

highlight is this is about ultimately -- cyber to me, as you heard me say to chuck, after having done cyber on and off for the last decade. cyber to me is the ultimate team sport.s, if there's anybody who thinks that one group has all the answers that there's one silver bullet technology that it's juss going to defend everything, i don't believe it. that's not my experience. i could well be wrong, but my experience leads me to believe that's probably not the answer. >> so i'm going to keep on the international theme for a little while. can you discuss how we are working or meaning the royal weh how you are working with director clapper and the rest of the national security team to build back trust with our nterna allies?trus and t international trust in u.r companies? >> so the first thing i would say is for the majority of our t

foreign partners, we don't have a trust deficit. but i will say clearly there are some with some very real there concerns. collectively, we are attempting to ensure that we maintain an i active dialogue with our foreign teammates.that w that we reach realize, quite frankly, we need each other.e those partnerships you keep outt hearing me talk about, among those relationships, among those partnerships are the partners p partnerships we have with key allies an friends overseas. i need them, and they need us. this is a two-way street. and to make the relationships work, we reach have to acknowledge that each of us will get something out of it even though we have to also acknowledge at times we have we different conclusions, but with your true friends and allies, it's amazing what you can work through. there's no doubt in my mind that even as we work through some ofo these challenges, that in the k long run all of us remember thab ultimately it goes back to my

comments before dinner where i talk about it is about defending our citizens and the nation andc defending our allies and that we need each other to do that. and i don't care if you're sitting in europe somewhere, ifn you're in asia, if you're in south america, i welcome partnerships, and i also ask my partners, what can nsa do to support you? need not just hey, here's what i neet you to do for us. that's not a partnership. that's not a true relationship. that's not what i'm interested in if i can avoid it. i really want a partnership, acknowledging that there are times whether we'll have a d difference op opinion. i don't think any less of my partners because at times they p have a difference ofin opinion. all i ask is we keep talking ton each other and we'ved got to wok through this. ou'r >> so you're over the first goy hundred days. >> there you e go. here >> right about now, you should h be starting to have a sense of what your top priorities are fo

nsa, top priorities are for re r cyber com. can you go over those? >> that will be my retirement speech. >> well, we want to know your stretch goals. >> so my number one goal as commander of united states cybe missioncy force that the department has committed to. if my view is if you ask me, will rogers, what do you think your legacy will be as u.s. cyber command, i would say during my tenure as commander, we created and operationalized the cyber mission for the department of defense we enabled the strong foundational partnerships that i willll provide success longterm. and be created a longstanding is foundation where cyber is considered a very normal eratio operation, not somethingn. specialized, unique, that hey, a he that hey, look, cyber and the ability to operate and defend in the digital world that we're

living in and i think we're likely to live in for the rest of our lives anyway, you have e got to be able to operate in this kind of environment.nt. i try to tell operational , loo commanders, look, you have to own this problem set. we're way past the day where you can turn to your sics, your communicator or your chief information officer and say, you know all this cyber network stui stuff? go do good stuff and you just w let me know when you fix it all that ain't going to work. as a commander, you have to understand the risk you're taking, you have to understand how those networks and that cyber capability helps enable your broader operational vision and the end state you're trying to achieve and you got to ion. understand where you take a risk. because in the end,'re it is a about risk. on the nsa side of the house, a couple things. first and foremost, making sure the workforce understands that we havender a mission that's critical to the defense of thisa nation and its allies.

and we've got to execute that ot mission we can't do it with our head down thinking woe is me. we got to get our head up, we oe got tomb focus on the mission aw always remember,in it's about i. following the rule of law and ensuring accountability.as l as long as we do that, we don'tt cut any corners we stay focuseda we'll be fine. that's probably party number on for me. the second priority is making sure that even as we have lost e capability because of the e of compromises, i need to make sure that we can regenerate that e capability. and the third thing really is what do we got to do, as you heard me say in my opening in e remarks, what do we need to do ? right now that won't pay off for five to ten years but if we don't do it our relief, our successors will go, what the heck were rogers and those guys doing? because i believe you can see u the future coming. know i know there's some things we have to do a little differently and investments we have to make partnering with our broader

intelligence community partners because we have to remember we're part of a bigger team and we're one element of the intelligence community and that. it's amazing what we can do when we think about integration and working together as a team. i am honored to partner with john brennan of cia, tisch long and it is amazing what we do ct when we createe strong i thin integrative k partnerships. that's the futurein t in the intelligence profession. >> so we have something going oh at nsa that we call the ic impair it avs. in my own words it's sort of taking stock of the national e i an age and how do you maintain relevance and impact in the digital age and actually g th providing that extra so what.som so some of us, myself included,f believe that maybe it might be a

time when the paradigm is shifting from starting with sensitive sources and methods ad and then seeing what else is ou there in the open source or unclassified arena and perhaps start with unclassified data, in information, then focus sensitive sources and methods on the gaps. is that a culture shift that ou? you're thinking about? and if it isn't, you know, what -- how are you approaching the digital age and the impact? to >> the first thing i want to di. say, and i might be g, you misunderstanding what you just o told me. when i listen to people, you opg sound as if you're characterizing this one versus the other. >> no. >> one of the projects we're ofs

working on at ft. mead right now is mow do you do signals intelligence in an unclass r fom environment. >> how -- -- intelligence in>> an unclass environment. that's a big cultural issue forr us. so how are youal going to do si work in a wireless environment with unclassified connections >t around you in a way we're not used to. we normally do everything in a t secure level totally separate the unclasshe e world. we go to a different place many times. the vision for us in the futuref is how do we bring these two arenas together so that you can work them both simultaneously rather than a linear, i do one and i do the other. i start off unclassified or i start off, you know, with the sci highly classified. have for the future is how do we provide our analysts and our workforce simultaneous access to both and

how do we train them about how s to use both sets of capabilities to generate insight.capabi it is amazing -- and i'll be pg honest, the ones who have the tl challenge with us, it ain't the young members of our work forceo they look atrk us and they go, well, this is the way i live my life, this is what i do at home. what's the big deal? the the it's generally people like me have been around for a while wh are ooh ah, but there's clearly technical challenges, but i think we can mitigate those. there's clearly risk, but we want to go into it with the eyes open. but i think it's the. future. we have got to bring these two s together. it eit is not either/or. living in the digital world we're living in now, as a sig ha officer, there are greatre opportunities out there, i don't mean for nefarious purposes. technology is also a vehicle that's going to help us with that compliance rule of law and accountability piece. you know, that's opportunity for

us. it's not a risk. it's a risk, i guess, but it's not a threat. it's an opportunity. >> okay. linn millennials. you have two of them and i have two of them. >> that's right. >> challenges to t recruiting, retaining, enabling them in thee national securityna arena and en having, as you're talking about the cyber force, the right skilr set mix. you might not be able to do it with military only. you might have to have civiliani integrated there orli you mightf have to have new ways of integrating contractor support. so there's sort of a dynamic that's going on about manpower general. y what's yourour thinking on howe you're approaching it? >> i make the same comment. it isn't either/or.

you need both. the key components for us are -- in no particular order, contractors that remain a key o part of the future for us. i don't see that changing. civilians, if you look at the i sig at workforce, russia we have more civilians than uniforms anb in the uniform piece both activc and reserve. ha we've got to harnegather a stru capabilities of both of those. what i'm trying to do as do director of the nsa, how do we create mechanisms given our focus set, how do we create mechanisms that allow our workforce to work with us, to k work on the outside, silicon valley, other technology , elem elements toen potentially come back. this idea, for the future, mike rogers' opinion, i am always azd amazed by the amount of people t talked to in the workforce and many of the nsa shipmates will

tell you if you meet admiral rogers at work, he says, you have to start by telling me al about you. one of the things i always ask,e tell me how long you've been ine with us f and what brought you us in first place. i'm always amazed how routinely people who have been with us 30, 35 years -- i just did a -- i'm going to do a session next week with an employee, young lady, who has been with us for 50 years. >> i'm glad you said young. >> one of the things i talked to the leadership about is, hey, that has a lot of positives to it. but the flip side is if we're not careful, we'll be a very be insular organization. so what do we do to create a more permeable membrane that tr will allow us to bring people in and o out. i want long-term employees to understand what shapes the corporate sector, what drives technical investments, what are the cutting edge technologies that are working in r & d and if

you're a venture capitalist you're willing to bet on right now. i'm a bit surprised.st, i try to spend time with ventur. capitalists, i never thought as a naval officer i would be doing that. why? i saidg to the workforce, ventua capitalists are one of the bestr i & w indicators out there. why? they'ree. willing to invest mon on whatty this thi they think wa technology that two,y, five yea. from now will form a baseline.sr they invest because they think it offers monetary return. hey, i'm interested because i want to understand the technology that is going to be out there, two, five years from now. again, that thought about what are the investments that we need to be making now. so i just think we've got to create a workforce that you can move back and forth. i'm in the process of figuring out how do we go to the you like to do internships at nsa? you want to send some people to work with us, two, three years? i can put them to good use.

i can show them what we do. they'll need to meet our them security requirements, we'll have to sign a nondisclosure agreement because what we do is sensitive. but i want them to understand what we do.what w and this will help us in those partnerships. because one of the challenges for nus the corporate sector, ie my experience is we do not do understand each other well and we don't know each other well. i'd like to see what we can do to try to change that. i need to understand what shapes the corporate world. what are the things that they, that many of you are concerned w about. what shapes your world view? what concerns you? what is it about nsa that you sa want to make sure you get a better understanding of that based on everything you know, you say to yourself, i know i'mr a little uncomfortable. i want toalog have that dialogu. because i want people to form their opinions from fact and nom conjecture and not from a one-side view of the world. and in the end, they got to make up their mind as to what they're comfortable with.

i understand that. >> so let me poke at that a little bit. we, the royal we, hear a lot of government seniors talk about f new kinds of partnerships and new kinds of relationships with industry and academia, but we ry really don't see a lot of new mechanisms put in place. and i'm not talking about the 'e acquisition aprocess.e. i'm talking about the ability to have those openpe vetting and sharing of ideas and getting folks within government who are th right, to have those insights. is there any part of your plan a that's about how you put those u new partnerships in place? >> so what i have done is tasked the team and said, okay, rogersr sets the left and right limits on the broader strategic mission. rogers won't sit here and say , here's every step of how we do it. you're the ve bworkforce, the m

yo time, you have great insights. so what i've done is provided the leadership team with a ta this is one of them.h i in which i've said, hey, you'reo going to come back in the fall and tell me how we're going to do this because we got great partnerships with dni, with the under-secretary of defense for intelligence, if you look in the last six months, for example, wa have been granted authorities to change pay scale for some of thy technical fields where we're concerned about recruiting and retenti retention. we approached our usdi and dni partners and said, look, i think we need to do things a little bit differently. d here's the authorities that we . would ask of you.ties w and it'es great to see them com back and say, okay, we think you've made a case and we'll se that.ba been very positive in workforce because much of us, the workforce tells us, hey, wew love what we do and we want to stay with you, but boy, i could make a whole lot of money on the outside. i could work a whole less hours

and quite frankly, i wouldn't havees my neighbors looking at hey, you work at nsa? can we trust you? one of the reasons why i had isb those men and women stand up tonight is because nsa is abouts men and women. it's about motivated people that want to make a difference.ant not who go to work every day thinking about, you know, today i'm just going to indiscriminately collect against peopleoi i have no clue who the are. or you know, today i just want e to abuse the authority that's given to us. you know, i could harness this technology to do some neat things that have nothing to do with my mission. that is not, that is not what th out at ft. mead and in the broader enterprise we run arouns the world. they want to make a difference.e for the right reasons.they wan and they are energized by the fact that they tell themselves, hey, i go home every night thinking to myself, i'm trying l to keep america safe and i'm s. trying to keep our allies safe. and i'm trying to do it in the

right way. they're not perfect. but they're just like you. they're not some sort of techn geek who has no clue what's t of going on in t the world around them and who doesn't think about the world around them. i'm honored to work with them. [ applause ] >> soit i have quite a few ons questions about -- so i'm going to rollin them into one. about cyber com. and it's really about cyber com me established. >> that is water. >> it's been getting established. they're putting the relationships in place with thet services. you have the cyber force. now coming online. but where is cyber com fitting between the lines of authority

acquisition, capability, man, train and equip roles vis-a-vis the services. since you've been both, i think you get that. >> satellite worlds.arly, un currently i have a current construct, the point i make is u.s. cyber command sets the at e standards that this is what the woe workforce will look like, the standards it sets. i provide that to the services se the responsibility to generate capacity and generate capability. u.s. cyber command in and broadm terms, we do have some authority, but in broad terms, under the current construct u.s. cyber command does not focus on acquisition. i don't buy or jeb rate capability. i as an operational commander.ratn but i don't go out and design m them. and buy them. that's what services do.that and i say that as 'sa w guy whot finished 2 1/2 years as the navy

component commander for both cyber and sig in nsa. much discussion about hey is is that the right long-term view, do we have a model we'll work our way through that. i just sat down today as a matter of fact and spent an hour co components and the question impn posed to the team was, so i i think we'rne coming up halfway through this cyber mission, bill, we've got a good vision for the future.n build. we've got a good set of standards. i think we've got a broad operational concept.how how are we going to generate true combat readiness? to me it's like a ship. take a carrier. we spend, you know, notionally eight years or so building it. the day it's commissioned, , contractor turns it over to ther united states navy, we have a beautiful ceremony, and on that day we certified that everything on that ship works as designed.

contractors met their obligations. crews manned it 100% or as clos. to it as we can and every membec ofan that crew has achieved bas qualifications that enable that ship to operate safely at sea. and yet, we then spend an additional -- depending where w they are in their schedule -- n months training that carrier up so it's able to deploy in a combat environment in a tough arena. cyber's no different. but what i talked to the team bh earlier about is so, how are we going to do that?e we focused on commissioning thei teams, that's great. but that doesn't get to operational capability and we don't get to war fighting skill. so we're spending a lot of time focused on that. that. hey, the services are key partners in that. it isn't going to be just us u m cyber. >> so as you can imagine, we have a few questions related to snowden. but i think this one encap sue i

lates it the best.. so many elements of government p media and the public seem to be displaying an anti-nsa pu sentiment. how do you get thebl public to understand that nsa's clearly mandated legal roles and responsibilities and its commitment to ensure?u talked you talked about that at a high level. >> right. >> are there some specific s things that you and your team ei are doing especially with, you know, the new onslaught of article today that came out w ol through -- >> i don'tau know. to be honest with you -- >> through wired don't worry.y,u your staff willr have it all w outlined for you tomorrow. >> when i come in tomorrow morning, there it will be. >> so in other words, how are you dealing with whatever continues to come? >> so, i think there's a couple

things. first, i'm quick to remind the q organization, lookui, this is na going to define us.look, i'm not going to spend my time focused on this. what we need to do is focus on i the mission and doing the right things for the right reasons the right way. defend the nation and our allies. follow the rule of law and r always remember that we're accountable toacco the citizensd the united states.ber keep that in mind, always tock remember that, and we're going . to be fine. the second thing i say as a th component, i think about how do we address this knowledge deficit and you can argue a trust deficit in some ways amonm some? i think among the components nti are, so if you look, we have probably declassified partnering with dni and others we probably declassified more stuff in the last 90 days than i can remember as a professional sigat officer

in the last 20-some years. that the nation has a sense for what we do and why.y. and that is -- and i say, look, you got to be willing to do it warts and all. there are sometimes we get it wrong. when we get it wrong, we're when going to report that. and we've got to be willing to acknowledge that. we are not perfect. but nobody is trying to systematically undermine the rights of our citizens or trying to systematically bypass the laws that we are required to execute. so to do that i think we're cut. looking at disclosing in a very public way more information thai we've ever done before. trying to engage in a broader public dialogue. tonight is an example of that. hey, so there's mediaed mmedia . fine, they need to be here. i'm not screening questions. you need to ask w what the hasi audience has in mindn and we'l take it from there.

another point i try to make is but it just can't be about nsa that that's a loser to me. it needs to be part of a broader dialogue. we're very fortunate that we have some great partners out are there who are willing to stand up and have that dialogue. because i'm the first to admit if it's just going to be nsa at talking about nsa, we're missing the boat, from my perspective anyway. nsa needs to be a part of this t dialogue, but it needs to be people need to understand, hey,a look, there's al legal framewo and position out there. we just don't unilaterally decide what we're going to do and how we're going to do it. we have a set of policy p. mechanisms that help shape what nsa focuses its foreign ssion intelligence mission on. we have a set of court directedr compliance requirements where we have to make a case in many to t cases to get the authority or permission to do what we do. we have regular congressional or oversight where wesi have to notify and i have to testify, i

have to notify in writing and testify publicly as well as privately before our primary an oversight committees.er you know, part of the challengen in all this is if we're honest t with each w other, the mechanis of governance within our nation right now do not enjoy broad trust and confidence among many element of our citizenry.ackn that's a tough thing to acknowledge. it doesn't help us as a nation n if that's the case, but it is the case. and so one thing i try to tell e the team out at ft. mead is i'm not going to waste my time wishing the world was a certain way. we're going to acknowledge the way the world is, we'll make sure we understand the context in which we operate and we're going to be effective in doing that. and we just have to acknowledges that this is partt of this rt o challenge. much ofe what we structure rucd initially, if you go back hist historically for us was weor ensured congress as the electedd representatives of the citizens

of this nation were among the primary tools to ensure nsa's compliance, and yet we find ourselves in a situation where much of our public doesn't trust many elements or has low confidence in many elements of our government. so what do you do when your compliance strategy was foundedu on that d approach?? we've got to wrbroaden this a rn little bit. that's why you'll find me here tonight and hopefully you'll se we're trying to have a dialogue. i'm not out here to sell anything or necessarily convince anybody. the team was stick to the facts and let people make well informed decisions as to s what they're comfortable with. that's what we need to do. we need to focus on the mission and stick to the facts. >> one last quick question. >> tiyes, ma'am. ma' >> those of us who support and have worked with both the ft.

mead area and dhs have sensed a tension over the years in roles and missions related to the cyber arena. so what is the partnership thati you have in place are are ould t putting in elplace. >>fo for me, i'm very fortunate. i partner with a cabinetcret secretary in the form of jay ave johnson who i worked with before in my career. and i love the fact that it is just -- jay will just pick up the phone and talk to rogers and rogers will just pick up the wil phone and talk to secretary johnson about, hey, i think we need to do this, we need to do . that. he and i meetwe regularly. we've talked to our teams about what we need to do to create strong partnerships. what i have argued is nsa and e cyber command bring great capability to the cyber mission set but we've got to do this ins a partnership with others.nershi and inp the federal government probably our two biggest partners are dhs and the fbi.

and that's the way we're going to be, that's what we're going to do. the team at ft. mead has to hear me say, it's not about control, it's who gets the outcomes. i don't care who will get the credit. helping to defend g america and its allies. it's about providing a capability for the greater good. that's what we're doing in the cyber arena. and nsa needs to do as part of broader partnership. and i would only highlight fromg my perspective, i love our partnership with dhs.th we're way past -- i can remembe, two, three years ago arguments about who ought to do what. my comment was to jay, jay, this is aner opportunity, we're both new in our jobs, let's execute, let's drive. no longer interested in what i n consider the mindless debates about who ought to do what.. mindless is too strong a characterization. i ize.apologize.n

but again i'm not interested int control, i'm interested in terst outcomes. that's what matters to me. >> you can come toome my living. room any time. >> yes, ma'am. there you go. [ applause ] >> thank you admiral rogers.at. this is great. the presentation, your q&a with terry is great. i was sitting on the table with the director of national intelligence jim clapper. director clapper you want to come up and personally -- >> all right. [ applause ] >> thank, i know this is a school night.. it is for me, so i'll be brief.. so these with i joe dempsey. one of the things i labored ove was what do you do with your legs? >> >> you put them in way. >> that was the lesson for today.o

>> secondly, i do want to thanks insa and the corporate sponsors because evenings like this wouldn't happen without the support of the corporate sponsors, so thank you. so mike rogers is a testament to the system that we have in the e united states for grooming ers . leaders. and no one else on the planet can compete with that. and mike's passion for the mi whether asss drnsa or commanderf agree with me is manifest. so you know, hats off. and i have to do this as a commercial, but as you heard

and, you know, i wouldn't have listed this if he weren't an advocate for integration so mike, thanks for that. >> one team, one team. >> sir. >> admiral rogers, your leadership of nsa, we thank you, we appreciate that. one plug also on insa on the 18th and 19th of september we'll be having a summit partners with nfc. it will be great. >> and there's a cyber track. >> and a cyber track. so please look at our website, sign up. join us that day. admiral rogers, thank you, sir, for your leadership. thanks to all of you. >> thank you. [ applause ] north carolina senator kay hagan is running for re-election and polling shows the first-term democrat in a dead heat against

her republican challenger state house speaker thom tillis. they debated last night and here's a look. >> the problem that we have with washington is it's broke. the people are not communicating across the aisle. senator hagan over six years has not authored a single bill that's gone to the president's desk. that's a problem. we need people that are going to bring people together in areas where we can agree don't take the time and move into areas where we can agree. take time to find policies that can create jobs versus kill them like obama care. 2.5 million jobs equivalent. 600,000 jobs. let's reduce regulations and create jobs. that's something i got to believe we can all agree on. >> on which issue would you take on your party's leadership? >> i don't know at this point it's kind of hard to say because in the senate, which i'll speak for the senate, not for the house, harry reid hasn't allowed anything to be passed.

george, you know this better than most people. when you have the house and 350 bills to the senate and you only have a few dozen votes in the house and only a few dozen votes in the senate, it's hard to figure out where the differences would be because they're not debating. there's no such thing as regular order. senator hagan has rubber stamp harry reid's policy i'm sure requested by president obama to shut down the senate. save all these tough votes until after the election. you need to understand, delaying the mandates and delaying amnesty are all election issues that are on the ballot and you have an opportunity to stop it. >> you want to ask him your question again? >> that's against the rules. you go ahead. >> the keystone pipeline. i disagree with the president. i think we need to build the keystone pipeline. trade deals. i have voted against trade deals because they've sent too many north carolina jobs overseas. and i voted against my own party's budget because it had

too deep of cuts to our military. speaker tillis, on the other hand, would have supported a budget that would turn medicare into a voucher program. he would have supported sequestration. he would have supported a government shutdown, and when he would have supported the government shutdown in north carolina when that took place, it was the height of our fall leaf season out west and our fishing season in the east. that is what speaker tillis would have done. >> 30 seconds. >> more campaign 2014 debates on c-span. tonight at 7:00 p.m. eastern pennsylvania's republican governor tom corbett and his challenger tom wolf meet for a debate. that's live in pittsburgh on c-span. tomorrow a debate from the 17th congressional district of illinois. incumbent democratic congresswoman cheri bustos debates bobby shilling.

pat quinn debates bruce rauner. that's at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span's 2015 student cam competition is under way. this competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven-minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20th, 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started "n "new york times" reporter jamen swa risen was subpoenaed talk about a cia officer leaking information on iran's nuclear program. in augustr. mr. risen spoke abo

freedom of the press at an eveny hosted by the institute for public accuracy. you'll hear from former talk show host phil donohue.talk this is about an hour and ten minutes. >> good afternoon, i'm president of the national press club. and i'm pleased to welcome everyone on a day that is important to press freedom in this country. both regarding the james risen case and what is happening in at journalists are once again t ono the front line courageously news di developments in the most difficult of circumstances., late last night, the national t press club issued a statement expressing its deep concern about reports that at least two reporters from "the washington post" and "the huffington post" who were covering the unrest inn ferguson were manhandled and detained by police officers there before being released.de other reports backed up by videc taken during the disturbances e

show that some television crewst were hampered by authorities ews from doing their professional duties. this is all unacceptable. and we urge the police and othen authorities in ferguson to let e the journalists carry out their professional mission to report the newss in an unfettered manner. m to do otherwise is a violation of the freedom of press enshrined in first amendment of our bill of rights. also unacceptable, very much also unacceptable is the threatm of prison being faced by james risen of "the new york times" because of his work as a professional journalist. this morning a petition signed by more than 100,000 persons was delivered to the department of justice declaring, quote, we support james risen because we support a free press, unquote. those petitioners, significantly include 20 pulitzer prize winners who declared their

support for mr. risen who is refusing to name a source for information about a bungled cia operation in iran that appeared in his 2006 book "state of war.d we are pleased and honored that james risen who's still under threat of prison, could be with us today.al pre the national press club ss presented mr. risen its domesti. freedom of the press award in 2012 for a career of reporting material the government would ml prefer to keep from public viewi from warrantless surveillance tw the botched program to give iran flawed nuclear weapons designs. he was also honored for resisting government attempts to get him to reveal his confidential sources. i'm proud that the national is press club through its active ii freedom of theal press committe under the leadership of john donnelly has continued to upport support mr. m risen as well as today's petition. t i would like to introduce normad

soloman co-founder of roots tioo action.org and executive the director of the institute for pub lib accuracy. he's the author of a dozen pooks on media and public policy and is a recipient of the annual rubin salazar journalism award aw award. mr. soloman has been coordinating the petition campaign in support of james risen. mr. soloman? [ applause ] >> thank you. thanks. here we are in the murrow room, and i think that it's very it's fitting so because it was 60 years ago that in perhaps his n most well-known and well-remembered tv broadcast, edward r. morrow said, we cannot defend freedom abroad by adcast deserting it at home. he said that at a time when it t was essential forim journalistso step forward to lance a boil off

fear and intimidation that had h gripped official washington forh years and the entire country as well. that was 1954. here we are in 2014. and the events today are part of, i think, a very strongly t accelerating effort across thisc country to lance a boil of fear and intimidation. we don't talk anymore so much et about a chilling effect. a freezing effect. we talk about ice cubes that congeal. that we talk quite properly and accurately about an obama administration that seems determined to gut the meaning of nhe first amendment. as the petition that we out, i

presented this morning to the department of justice spells out, it's really the functionality of the first it'sa amendment that matters.would it's a brief petition that i would like to read the entire re brief text to you. to president obama and attorney general holder, your effort to compel "new york times" reportee james risen to reveal his sources is an assault on freedom of the press.f the without confidentiality, journalism would be reduced to u official stories. the situation antithetical to the first amendment.anti we terms to halt all legal action risen and to and safeguard the freedom of journalists to mainton the confidentiality of their sources. , as well, as myron mentioned, and ie wasd 14 on monday, statements released on that day by pulitze

prize winners. since then there have been six more who have approached us to add their individual statements. all of them are posted at rootsaction.org where people can also find a way to sign on to gn the petition which is ongoing.ae let me briefly emphasize that n the names on the petition we wf dropped off and that are on screen, they're not just names,n they're an activist network. we know how to reach them, we dt reach them, we have everybody'se e-mail addresses, and we're just getting started here.izing it's all about organizing at rm this point in terms of mobil mobilizing the kind ofiz social understanding and political pressure that's going to be resu necessary to turn around what in truly a deteriorating, dreadful situation. the many organizations involved are only part represented here and folks that we're going to

hear from today are speaking for just one of the or a few of the many groups that are involved. and i want to emphasize really that we're embarked now on something that might be unprecedented, a collision between an administration that talks good and does bad and a mobilized citizenry that increasingly understands what's at stake. today really marks the culmination of one phase of than growing effort and the initiation of the next. so we're going to move ahead now with this news conference. the n another part of this effort to lance that boil of fear and s intimidation that's been doing so much damage to journalism anj

to democracy in our country. i would like to now introduce greg leslie.l defe he is legal defense director for the reporters committee for freedom of the press.ith he's been an attorney with reporters committee since 1994 d and served as a legal defense director since 2000. he supervises the committee's amicus brief writing effort and journalism hot line services and is regularly interviewed by lot journalists on media topics.s, i'll mention a couple. association's fair trail and free press task, chair of the d.c. law media bar's committee and many other positions. before and during law school he worked as a journalist and research director for a washington business and political magazine and here he is, greg leslie. >> well, thank you, and i'm happy to be here to support

james risen and to encourage the department of justice to stop its efforts to compel him to testify.re at the reporters committee, we w have been actively involved in n the case from the start and we a have been working with the rking department on reform of its ownn guidelines regarding media subpoenas, and while that certainly can feel like a sissy feen task, it's critical to engage the government on these issues even incremental progress is something. but threats like these from the federal government must be addressed by enactment of a meaningful shield law that ngful recognizes that reporters need to be independent of the judicial system.s not because they're above the cs law or because they want to avoid the burden of participating in the legal system, but because journalists need thatjo independence to trut help hold the government the reporters committee was founded in 1970 over this very s

issue, the threats to reporters from subpoenas that led to the l bransberg v. hayes case and the need for a federal law. there were over 100 journalist o shield bills introducedur in congress. the issue was taken up in earnest after the valerie plame incident in which "new york times" reporter judith miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to disclose her confidential sources. though shield law efforts that started then are undergoing. it takes a while to get these erwhelmi in 2007, the house overwhelmingly approved a shield bill. and when that didn't pass through the senate in 2009, a rl similar bill passed on a voice vote under a suspension of the rules, meaning it was so noncontroversial that a roll call vote wasn't even needed. the senate hasn't passed such a bill yet, but in 2009, the comms commission did send a bill to o the floor and failed to win a

place on the calendar as debater on something called obama care suddenly took over the agenda, that kind of sidetracked thingsa for a while. kind but the latest attempt at the passage of a shield bill came under disclosure after a massiv' subpoena of the associated press' phone records to track dt down the leak about a cia abou operation in yemen and the yemn revelation that the department of justice that successfulle suc obtained a search warrant of a fox news reporter's gmail account by saying that he was involved in a crime -- by telling a court in order to get the search warrant, that he was involved in a crime, quote, at e the very least either as an n aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator. end quote. that was really something for the government to come out and say a reporter by asking a source, asking a government employee for information was guilty of aiding, abetting or co-conspiring in an espionage charge, what is essentially an espionage charge.action

so when this came a to light, president obama ordered attorney general holder to review ident policies for subpoenas of journalists' work and a policy statement was released as a sub report to the president in july of last year.rn while the media representatives involved in that process foughth for provisions that would make s such efforts more difficult for prosecutors and at least lead to greater notifications to journalists before their third party records were subpoenaed, we knew at the same time that, a of course, the department of he justice was saying that it fully intended to subpoena reporters y in the future if they really ind needed the evidence to prosecute a leaker.ed the ap and fox news incidents also prompted more congressional action on the shield bill. a and a bill was approved by the e senate judiciary committee lasts september. so almost a year ago now. although it still awaits senate floor action. the house hasn't taken up the . legislation at all yet this year and of course, the current ye makeup of the house is not quit the same as it was in 2009.

so we don't know what will happen there. was09, s but the fight over the right to keep journalists' sources confidential is literally olderi than the strepublic. th john zanger, a colonial printer refused to disclose the thofrs l tax against the colonial governor of new york in 1734 and thus was himself charged with seditious libel. a century later in 1848, news oh the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo ending the mexican-american war was first reported to the lgo american people after a newspaper reporter, john nugent of the new york herald, was told of this still-secret terms. nugent spent a month basically under house arrest in the capital.e 50 years after that in 1896, john morris a "baltimore sun" reporter reported that a number of leekted officials and police officers were taking payoffs from gambling houses. when he refused to name his source before a grand jury, he was imprisoned until the grand

jury's term expired.ance the significance of this case ie that this jailing prompted jail baltimore journalists to push for the then-unheard of legislation that would protect w them frooum having to reveal al sour sources' identities in court.ivg a reporter's privilege. much like the spousal prism or the doctor/patient privilege. the statute has been amended a few times but the state has hasn never felt the need to rescind the protection. in the century since then we've seen another 38 states and the e district of columbia enact such shield stlaws. it is those state shield laws s that provide the real shie protections to journalists as te the right at the federal level is weaker than ever.l i thanks to the state efforts, wef know that shield laws work.t shd now more than ever it is time ts nand that congress pass a meaningful shield law.ngress congress must act now and acknowledge that the government's accountability to o the people comes primarily through independent watch dogs,

including not just journalists but whistle blowers as well. one of the greatest things those in power can do is enact limits on their own powers. and congress must take that bold step now. gelecte thank you.mit th [ applause ] >> next speaker is ahmed kapour, who is outside counsel for the r freedom of the press foundation. he's professor at uc hastings rs law school where he directs the liberty, security and technologe clinic. his case work there addresses constitutional issues that arise in espionage, cyber security and counterterrorism prosecutions. ahmed was lead counsel in the ae first criminal case to challenge bulk metadata collection by the nsa after the snowden disclosures, and he currently represents journalist barrett brown. formerly he taught at the national security clinic at the university of texas school of law and he was a staff attorneya at repreef uk where he

represented guantanamo detainees in their habeas corp aus proceedings. ahmed kapour. >> good afternoon.ood afte it's really an honor to be here today, not only because i admirs mr. risen's journalism but because what brings us together transcends mr. risen, it transcends the freedom of the press foundation, it transcends the roster of reporters that have spoken and written in encouragement. it brings us together today is the first amendment of the t amn united states constitution andd specifically the portion of that amendment guaranteeing the freedom of the press without persecution or unnecessary it w it was thomas jefferson that once claimed that a democracy cannot be both ignorant and free and the framers of the and constitution believed thatth if u.s. citizens failed to take tun good care to share information t completely amongst themselves, n

they would beform worse off thay they had been as subjects to the british monarchy. to that end the first amendment recognizes that freedom is not r just a luxuryde but a necessity. in order for a democratic form e of government to function and continue to exist, the people vm must be informed.en a simple mantra for a great fre nation and indeed the development of our free society is the result of the public debate and disclosure that journalists like james risen fre provide and the core of our free society is the press. and forgotten amidst a particular reporter's public persona or front page scoops isc the crux of their profession, and that is news gathering. t at the heart of our freedomsaeft and the freedom to publish the news is the freedom to gather the news. and as justice sutherland wrotea in 1936, the newspapers, magazines and other journals this country it is safe to say has shed and continues to shed more light on the public and nus to than any other s instrumentalit

of pub lissy. publ since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon this government, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded so i so it is with grave concern thac we gather today to confront a rr real threat to our nation's security. for who are we if we are not arn secure in our ability to hold b the government accountable? now, of course, these freedoms e are not without limitation, butt to be clear, mr. risen broke no law gathering the news. he broke no law in proliferating the news and publishing his articles and books. nor can the justice department make such claims.h indeed, there is no law thatw mandates a press to obtain government approval about lawfully acquired information. there is no dispute that such au law would be unconstitutional on its face as a prior restraint or speech and would threat been tod transform this great country from being a democracy to rom becoming a totalitarian state.

yet mr. risen delayed publication for years out of an abundance of caution until it wa government's desire to censor him was not a matter of national security. rather it was a matter of national embarrassment.t oit was to be clear, the government does not seek to compel information n from mr. risen to put an end toe an existing threat to stop a t terrorist attack or even an ex crime. the government seeks informatioi in order to investigate an rs alleged leak that occurred years ago by someone else.and qu and quite frankly, i am puzzled as to why the doj needs to use w mr. risen to make their case for them. make you would think with all the wil resources expended on federal t law enforcement, the fate of our nation would not rise and fall e at the feet of a 59-year-old reporter revealing his sources.n and i'm sorry to give away your ag by initiating and executing int investigations that monitor

e-mails, phone calls and even credit reports of journalists, the government has made it clear that it does not fear the chilling effects to our free to press and does not value the v dogged investigative reporting that has contributed not only to our great democracy but to the history of mankind. either way you look at it, mr. o risen and indeed all journalisth are faced with a hobson's choice. either to practice a form of alm journalism consistent with the first amendment and risk prison or potentially bankruptcy or practice a form of journalism he that the executive wants them to. to release only information tha the executiveth permits them to and to tell people only those facts which the executive deems co prch mr. risen has chosen the pathine consistent with the first americ amendment and it's not likely that many will follow in his t h footsteps.k you.

in the end, it's the american people that have paid and will continue to pay the price. thank you. [ applause ] >> our next speaker is joycelyn national rights program at the government accountable project which we also know as g.a.p., so which the nation's really leading whistleblower organization. it's a program that focusing wi specifically on se cressing, surveillance, torture and sky, discrimination. she's been at the forefront of defending against the government's unprecedented war g on whistleblowers which, of stle course, has also hit journalists among her clients, she cl represents seven national security and intelligence community employees who have be been investigated, charged or prosecuted under the espionage act for allegedly mishandling classified information including edward snowden, thomas drake and john kariaku.e se

previously she served on the legal ethics committee and u. workeds. at the u.s. justice a department for seven years firsr as a trial attorney and later as a legal ethics adviser. jocelyn raddick. on anyone who doubts that the war on whistle blowers is a backdooi war on journalists should study the case of jim risen. threats to reporters are the undercurrent in the obama administration's record settingf espionage act prosecutions of ad so-called leakers. one example

senior levels of the u.s. els of government. the press, i would submit also needs whistle blowers. without whistle blowers, journalists would struggle to unpack government and corporates perspectives or in o many cases documentary evidence. as a whistle blower attorney, there are a small but essentiale handful of reporters i feel ha confident will accurately record information and protect their i sources. jim risen is one of them. and if he is jailed, or forced a to pay harsh daily fines, the

pool of reporters who know whistle blowers are essential ws for accurate reporting will become even smaller.the the threats to jim risen, are ae attack on the entire first amendment. most prominently, the right to a free press, but also the right to speak and associate with thg whistle blowers and reporters. government surveillance of reporters, subpoenaing of reporters to testify against their own sources and threatening them with contempt s of court create a freezing atmosphere where neither whistlh blowers nor reporters are safe to hold the government e accountable and keep the publict informed. committing journalism is not a n crime. the notion that it is is a it dangerous trend we should isd deprive of oxygen. it demands that the government

withdraw the subpoena of nt reporter jim risen immediately.f thank you. >> our next speaker courtney ragg is a journalist, researcher and free expression advocate who writes and speaks often on the immediate and technology of human rights with a particular h emphasis on the a middle east. currently advocacy director at the committee to protect journalists where she is leading the right to report in the digital age campaign aimed at ending surveillance and ha harassment of journalists. of she was at unesco are she created the freedom of expression strategy in the arabx region. dr. ragg also previously managed the global freedom of expression campaign at freedom house. and she's also worked for al

arabiya, the daily star.oing courtney ragg >> thank you. the committee to protect journalists is seriously concerned about the actions taken by the department of justice and the ongoing efforts to subpoena jim which could have an affect on the u.s. media and journalists if it has not indeed already has that impact. sts tht cpj was founded in 1981 by a group of u.s. correspondents who realized they could not ignoreg the plight of colleagues abroad whose reporting put them at ris on a daily basis since then cpj has defended the rights of journalists to report the news without fear of rightso reprisal. last year we decided that the crackdown on leak investigationi and revelations about the extent of surveillance in a post-9/11 world necessitated us to look inward and weigh in on the

threats to press freedom in thee united states.pr and this is why we are here leae today in support of jim. as a former colleague of jim's at the "new york times," i'm also personally happy to be here in solidarity with his efforts to protect his confidential sources and the integrity of the to barlistic practice. the obama administration has pursued eight prosecutions of leakers under the espionage act, that's less than the total number of such prosecutions than any other administration all combined and the subpoena requiring jim's testimony as part of the broader crackdown on leaks and whistle blowers as you have heard, a cpj report publiced last october concluded that the obama ave administration's aggressive prosecution ofhe leakers of classified information, ance revelations about broad ves surveillance programs and moves to stem the rue dean disclosuret of information to the press that shows that the president had t

fallen far short of his campaign promise to head the most open government in u.s. history.se several journalists interviewed for the report told cpj that int leak investigations and surveillance revelations had ga made government sources fearfula to talk about sensitive bout information and prosecutions atn such as those of jim have had a profoundly detrimental impact on the practice of journalism and as you have heard on the first amendment. publicly speculating about ging bringing charges of espionage more generally of journalists for doing their job serves to intimidate not only the individual journalist, but st journalists more broadly. and has a serious chilling effect on the press. this is likely to be even stronger among journalists who do not have the backing and protection of a major media organization with legal resources.resour revelations about targeted

surveillance and hacking ofed journalists at media outlets is also problematic. and you heard about those earlier. and having read jim's affidavit explaining why he cannot testify and detailing the extent of government harassment and surveillance of his electronic s communications, it is clear that if he is forced to testify, he would likely put to risk the confidentiality of his source.ni further more these type of p aggressive prosecutions send a dangerous signal to governmentse elsewhere that would seek to us national security and anti-statt charges as a cover for clampingy down on journalists and press freedom.ovng according to cpj research, nearly 60% of imprisoned journalists world wide are imprisoned on anti-state charges, such as subversion or terrorism. that is far higher than any other type of charge such as defamation or insult, and it is a favorite of repressive regimes who see little value in a free press. furthermore, under mining the

principle of source protection n and the idea that journalists ts like doctors and others have tha right to keep sources confidential has implication s for the robust practice of journalism. indeed in 2012, the justice n12, department argued that reportert privilege should not apply in national security cases and na compared journalists to someonei receiving drugs from a dealer.md preventing journalists from being able to promise confidentiality to their sourcer undermines the key aspect ofce journalism that is essential to so much reporting on issues thao are central to issues like national security and antiterrorism and are central to holding government accountable to the democratic process. the u.s. government's ongoing legal pursuit of jim sends a rn terrifying message to the 124 journalists jailed worldwide on antistate charges and detracts