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 didecause 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 is working together, when we are putting signals 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 -- they know what the requirements are. there's no use doing an eloquent piece of analysis on something that is not going to -- the united states is not going to take action on, so i know that a great deal of analysts time is being spent near-term questions. that is not all bad. the question though preserving the corev expertise on areas you only developed by working on for years is also -- is also

important. 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 yourselvess part of this team doing the right thing for america and that we all oug to be proud of and can share. thank you very much and it is a pleasure to be with you. [applause] >> this week, on c-span is newsmakers, senate minority whip john kyl assesses the senate agenda. >> i was reading last night. there is a lot of reading involved. i was reading some troubling things last night about her views towards international law. in effect, she said you can

interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing to do with what our constitution means. if that is her point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she said that on several occasions. when people talk about a filibuster, republicans probably could not filibuster this nomination on our own. there are not enough of us. none of us are talking about filibuster. it is all in response to questions from media. we are not proposing this. it would be difficult for us to pull off. >> centre jon kyl at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> and now, the federal

communications commission holds a conference on the digital television transition which took place on friday. all rebroadcast television signals are digital, requiring a converter box. this is about 10 minutes. >> are we ready to go? >> good afternoon. i am from the federal communications commission. this is a historic day here at the fcc. it is a historic day or around the country as we transition from analog to digital television. it strikes me as kind of the end of the dinosaur age and the beginning of the digital age. there are a lot of benefits that millions of american consumers are beginning to enjoy today. i think that we will find that this is good for consumers and good for the country.

the transition is far from over. we are in the midst of it. there will be some dislocation as we have said over the period of the past several months. we are hard at work what teams in the field. we have a call center. it is a lifeline for consumers that are experiencing problems. we will keep moving ahead and make this transition complete. everybody should be read scanning their television sets. >> -- should be scanning the television sets again >> things went about as smoothly as we could have hoped. it looked more like y2k then the bay of pigs. we have been getting a lot of attention on this. we are not done. we have a long way to go before this is over.

this is because we had a delay. if we had not have the delay, this might have proved to be a disaster but we got the time that we needed and we got the resources that we needed to address the many concerns that we got from members of the public and now the public is and a position to benefit from the digital age. they get better quality picture, better quality of sound and more channels for free over the air. maybe this is the time to cut the cord and stop paying for tv and enjoy the benefits of digital television that looks more like pay television than anything else. you get more channels, you get a program guide, so why pay for television when you have this wonderful digital television available for free over the air. we have a ways to go. we have a major operation in the field. calls are pouring into the call center. we are now in a position to answer all of the concerns that we are getting from the public.

we have people in the field that can help them in their homes and answer questions. we are ready. we are getting a large response and we are now able to handle it. that is why things went as smoothly as we could hope. >> i had robert mcdowell, commissioner of the fcc. now, the fcc moves into its search and rescue mode. we need to find those that have been left behind and we need to remind people to scan of their televisions -- to scan their televisions. make sure you re-scan your box. we said that the transition would be messy, regardless.

it is too early to tell. we are continuing to reach out to thousands of volunteers across the country and local governments and broadcasters and they are all working together to get this done. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you said a long way to go. how long is a long way to go >> well, i think we will consider the digital television transition over when we have responded to all of the consumer complaints. we will consider the digital television transitioned over when we have made full utilization of that new channel capacity.

it means a lot of new programming and covering local culture and local music and arts and politics. that is a part and parcel of the digital television transition. will be looking for that to be completed, too. >> it could take a few weeks or months for this operation. some people are just starting today. it will take him awhile to get all of the parts in place and to get their box hooked up. we are trying to find those people. we want to help them get hooked up. we hope we can wrap that up in the next few weeks and certainly in the next few months. everything went well. >> we heard that some got off of analog in time but did not get on digital. >> this is a work in progress

and we are not delivered any verdicts at this time. >> the economy is down right now and beget more options on digital television, is that going to affect people to get rid of their cable? >> with better picture quality, sound quality and more channels offered free over the air, part of this is to gegive consumers a more competitive atmosphere. >> the consumer's benefit from this transition by freeing up analog spectrum for more applications for these wireless devices that we all carry around. we are freeing up the spectrum for public safety and to build a public safety network and to put our country squarely out front in broadband where we are supposed to be but we are not. >> in the short term, it has

been a boon to cable and satellite because they have been able to get more customers. this is an opportunity for consumers to cut the cord and stop paying for tv. >> i heard a rumor that a lot of the televisions inside this building are analog. >> we are pretty much all digital hear it in this building. i have had a digital television for years. we are prepared for the digital television transition. >> i think that is everything. >> when the digital transmission happened yesterday, people that normally had their analog signal, once they switched to digital, they might have lost what they normally would have been able to see in terms of distance. some people in the new york

market live on the french and switched to digital and may not be able to get that signal any more. how is the fcc addressing the loss of stations? >> you have to identify what the problem could be. they might not have the converter box put up right where they might have they antenna problem. boston might have an antenna problem. -- they might have an antenna problem we are going to be working with them -- and can a problem. -- they might have an antenna problem. we are going to be working with them. we often rise, albeit very belatedly, a transmission system but should have been done three years ago instead of seven or eight months ago.

there are solutions for most of these problems. we will be working with them. these are local situations. tip o'neill said all politics are local. this digital television transition is local as well. >> are analog repeaters an issue? i was told that albuquerque was not as prepared because they have so many repeaters. >> only poll broadcast companies were to transition to more. low-power stations are not yet transitioned. some of them are transition and some are not. it could be years before all of the transmission facilities in the united states are operating in digital. that is going to be a long-term

transition on top of what we did for full power stations to date. >> we thank you very much. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," michael f. linder and john lot -- michael ettlinger and john lott. the nathan guttman washington journal, a lot at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span.

this week, on "newsmakers," senator jon kyl prepares for senate confirmation hearings. >> i was reading last night. there is a lot of reading involved. i was reading very troubling things last night. she said that you can interpret the united states constitution by looking to see what public opinion is in europe. public opinion in europe has nothing to do what our constitution means. if that is really her point of view, that is very troubling. i could not vote for a judge who believed that. she said it on several occasions. i am going to have to ask her what she meant by that. >> when people talk about a filibuster, a understand that republicans ab