continue@ @ @ $y@ "'@ @ @ @ h@ p what it allows us to do is sort of almost a bottom up, self forming of analytical networks. instead of going through meetings of collection boards, which you have all been through and which the cia and dia

provide in an assay provide four, on a space, we come together and we have found their his men some real analytical breakthroughs in a quite different way than what we have in the past, so i think this business of concentrating on the people, concentrating on information technology to empower them, if we do that good things will happen and we will get better in the future. >> you mentioned north korea and end the sea bed of missiles i think is the way you put it but you have had the missile tests, you have had the nuke test, you had the trial of the journalist. what is your assessment of what they might be up to now? are they testing this new administration? are they trying to risk-- provoke a response of some sort?

>> the character of the north korean behavior that we are seeing is a fairly familiar pattern of doing something our wages and then expecting to be paid for stopping doing it, and we have seen that, we have seen that often in the past. i think the actions that they are taking though bush using more dangerous sorts of weapons, intercontinental, potential intercontinental missiles and nuclear weapons, so although the pattern is familiar, i think bill level of, the level of risk is high here. i think overlaid on that is, are the succession concerns of the current leader, had a stroke

last summer, recently designated his son as his successor so anytime you have a combination of disobeyed year of doing provocative things in order to excite a response come up plus succession questions, you have a pretty dangerous, potentially dangerous mixture. so, it is that, i think it is that intelligence judgment that is forming this serious activity the united states is involved in now, working with the other countries in the six-party talks to try to put a ring around north korea and handle it. i am interesting in hearing your views on how you maintain that balance-- some would call it the need to protect the country for

a strategic supplies and would never corridor it might come from, be it china or russia. >> you have to do them both. i mean, you can't, you can't just say i don't do strategic surprise, and you have got to, if you have got to be dealing with these most limited extremists who are still trying to think of ways to come at the united states, so it really is a case of priority and emphasis. i think we can discern these sort of countries and issues which are of potential long-term, serious threat to the united states.

or a serious interest to the united states. it is worth putting an effort into trying to understand those countries and a very deep and complete way. the same kind of effort we spent on the soviet union during the cold war, the cold war years. there is an area of, there is an area of other concerns. because the consequences might not be quite as catastrophic, we can economize a little bit on the resources there but then if one of them takes a turn that we don't expect, then we are going to have to pile on. dealing with things like these malls of national groups with a great deal of destructive power, with extremely tight security also requires a kind of a long-term effort. so, it is a constant balancing act. the trade-off is really between

long-term, steady effort, years to pay off and the ability to flex one something pops up and you really have to take care of it, and i think that we have got the capability to do both. there will be, there will be surprises in the future, but i have a sense that the outfit that i inherited has the inherent flexibility to be able to move from the ones that we know are important and i think we do need to emphasize these enduring concerns, so that i can turn it over to my successor with better insights into them and a voice in those surprises. >> hi, pam with ap. how are you? i have two questions for you and the first one everybody in this room should did because it is an insider question.

you seem to be exercising or flexing their muscles as dni, perhaps more than their predecessors using the powers given to your office and i'm wondering if you think that is what you are trying to do and what you are hoping to accomplish by that? there are some acquisition authority that you are looking four, some reprogramming you are looking for that is more muscular and the fight with the cia over your personal representatives. so he could talk about your approach and what you are the key to accomplish that would be interested. the second question is, if he could elaborate a little on why he said the warrantless wiretapping program was not illegal because it is not getting a -day in court so far, so people will have to take you and your board and would be good to hear a little bit more about why it wasn't. >> right. [laughter] on the second question, you are just going to have to take me at my word.

on the first question, i am simply carrying out the duties of the office, which are to lead the intelligence, lead the intelligence community. i think all of us to a been involved in the intelligence community, whether to a small degree or spent a whole career in it, realized it is at its best and most effective when it is working together, when we are putting signals intelligence together, human intelligence with geospatial intelligence and having a combined attack on a gnome mission and producing results. that is when the magic happens in this world, and we have all seen great examples of it. it is happening, it is happening now in the field and in an incredible way. in afghanistan and in pakistan. i will go into an intelligence

center and there will be some analysts to a computer that is coming back to the united states to reach into databases with years of data and connections. there will be another one who is getting, right next door, who is getting adel link from a satellite that has just taken a picture. there will be somebody else to is actually-- is getting reports from humans and analysis there and they are right next to my commander who needs an answer to a question and bang, there does. it is just incredibly powerful and inspiring. the modern intelligence is not held by distance. you don't view-- communications go around the world. you can find the right person no matter what time zone it is, wherever they are around the world to answer that question and be involved. these sorts of self and teams

that are forming from all parts of the intelligence community are giving it power and effectiveness to operations we were only dreaming about years ago and the job of the dni is to make that happen more naturally, more often, more power fully and to raise a generation of people who think that is the normal way of doing things, and that i think was inherent in the vision of the job when the dni was created by the legislation that put the office into being. i think we have all seen flashes of that and i think my job is to nurture that, multiplied it and leave a lot more of that that i found when i got here. ..

trying to keep their secrets, whether by trying to fool electronic technical collection or trying to keep us from recruiting spies in them we need more of both and its -- and that's -- and really we should be pushing on all fronts to understand what's going on in those places.

on busbee 20 in the areas of action i was talking about when we get into a country and doing something whether military force or with civil forces, you really need a lot of the technical intelligence because it has to be very precise and up to date and cross correlated and that seems to put more emphasis on intelligence and geospatial intelligence. you do want -- you do want people talking to you in those areas that seems to provide more background when it comes to an actual operation you really need something that can help you put a crosshairs on a target. so it seems to be a balance. i don't really know just where the balance of to come out. i think we ought to continue to push -- to push the human intelligence, technical intelligence by and large is more expensive, so we have to

make choices based on the budget for that and i think there's a lot of judgment involved in that and fortunately i've had a lot of good experienced people helping me to make those calls. >> [inaudible] >> i recently had a conversation with a senior intelligence defense officer and said today most of the analytic expertise for the intelligence industry reside in the industry that supports this community which has clearances, goes through the same setting process and is held to the same level of standard as government employees is able to keep focused on the long term and that which challenges while government employees are answering questions and tailoring intelligence to policymakers. i don't know if this is true but

i think we would be interested in hearing from you what your perspective is on the balance between government staff and the industry and how we can best support this community. >> five i have heard that characterization and a am trying to look to see if we have gotten the balance out of whack. it is absolutely true that there are more -- there are more policy makers, commanders tall levels, who asked for an awful lot of intelligence support and analysts are tasked often to do them. on the other hand, i think it is a positive development to have intelligence analysts close to policy makers so they know -- policy makers so they know -- they know what the@@@@@@@@@ b)@"

the sort of difference between analytical skills and expertise. i think it is true the intelligence community realize a great deal for its expertise on going outside the intelligence community think tanks, academia, and yes -- yes, contractors.

i am not sure that is all bad as long as we keep contact -- to contact with the world, keep current says current and we can bring them in. a typical example our national intelligence estimates, the premier intelligence community judgments on major and important topics for virtually all of those we sent them to a group of sight readers after the government does its work and these are eckert experts in the field who do spend their whole life worrying about just that one country or that one group and then we take that on board and included in the group. i think it is true we probably don't have too many analysts who have quit that level of expertise on the subject but if we can get to it and maybe that is not -- maybe that is not so bad. when i -- during the time i

spent outside of government i got to know more of these outside experts, and by and large from outside their experience with intelligence community was one of mutual respect. it wasn't that they had all the expertise and work just rookies writing papers. they were in the intelligence community, serious analysts. they could call on a wide group of outsiders, so i think that's probably okay. it might be nice if we had more of those in the government and we could maintain whose job it was too low pour, long term trend without having to provide current intelligence, but i think given the demands we have and legitimate demands we have to go to the outsiders. i think almost all of the

outside experts we call on our happy to help and willing to contribute their expertise. they tell us where we are wrong and reinforce where we are right so i think it is a pretty healthy relationship, and it's worth taking a look at but isn't one of my top concerns right now. >> one more. >> stay right there. >> [inaudible] -- matter of national security, in particular our debtors, china. >> i'm sorry, at what point does -- >> does it become national security. you made reference the treasury's when-issued and intelligence community is another. at what point does the amount, the interaction with our debtors sort of get to your point of concern?

>> it seems the united states and china if that is what you are talking about are in sort of a mutually dependent area and it's hard to tell where the leverage is in that relationship. it is certainly not strongly on the chinese side or on the american side. and in fact, i think it is in a way is probably causing them, us and the chinese ways of cooperating rather than using financial jujitsu against each other. if certainly that is the pattern that i seem to see in our

relations with china. i was at the shangri-la of dialogue and had a long conversation with the chinese counterpart and most of that conversation was about mutual concern, not about checking the size of each other's biceps and then try to figure out who would win if we got in an arm wrestling contest. so i think in that particular -- in that particular case it's leading to sort of concentration on things we can do to get there. it's not to say the smart economists and government leaders on both sides are not trying to figure out how they can become less dependent and minimize some of those risks. it just seems the way it is playing out right now is it is forcing us to look at other things. let me then finish up by saying it has been a fast for months on

the job as dni and a discreet see friends who can understand just how fast that time goes and i think that we are -- i think we are moving along well, those of you that left the community can be proud where it is and you probably know we are voted one of the top places to work in the federal government recently and as i mentioned i think that is a great accomplishment given the character and the newness of the work force. there's the young people that joined after 1911 for the right reasons and are in there because they want to be, and i think that working in the national security area and intelligence communities in particular is becoming something that's a noble and these lawyers and we are all proud of. so we are happy that its being fault of in that light. and there are a few of us with gray hair and a lot of young ones who've come in and we can put it together a way the

country can be proud of and we will do important work for the country. i would like to see the intelligence community and those that work and it have the same support by the country that is enjoyed by the armed forces and others who serve their country or firefighters or policemen, and i think they should be. they can't always tell -- they can't always tell their story that it's a proud story, dedicated people and the american people can be awfully proud of. and those of you who have association with the community i think can appreciate that and the party play in supporting us is extremely important and i think that you can think of yourselves as part of this team doing the right thing for america and that we all ought to be proud of and can share. thank you very much and it is a pleasure to be with you. [applause]

to the podium there. we'll watch live coverage here on c-span3. >> thank you.

ladies and gentlemen, please welcome congressman paul ryan. good evening, everybody. thanks for coming to washington, d.c. ladies and gentlemen, we have a special guest with us tonight that will be emceeing our program. in our current culture, one of the most courageous acts in society today is for a hollywood actor to stand up and declare that he is a conservative republican. you know, what's even more surprising is he keeps getting prominent roles.