less than 1% got their gun from a gun show. they get it because they steal it or using straw purchases someone else purchases it for them. and that trafficking and straw purchase bill is one i supported. you take a look at social security. two probably illustrated the best, if you look at the brian budget, and i have no -- the ryan budget, and i have no reason to doubt, but there's little that i can support. reductions in infrastructure and budget. you take a look at providing a different way of medicare expenditures.

the push for privatization of social security. that is the blueprint. that is not an agenda i can support. >> nor the code-7 many americans have ever been to. how would you describe yourself? >> it is stunningly beautiful. people who believe there is not anything they cannot accomplish. i say that is the biggest difference that i see. here, if you tell somebody an idea and you think you can work, they will say, that is a good idea but that cannot happen. i do not think that will happen. in north dakota, if you have a good idea and a lot of enthusiasm behind it, it seems manageable. we can get it done. you are sitting at the coffee table with democrats and republicans, green bay packers fans, lutherans and catholics, they may not agree on the issues of the day, but they figure out how to get the christmas lights up at christmas and the roof on the fire hall, and how to solve

problems that people at the very heart of it depend on everyday. that is north dakota. >> a couple of pictures in this room of your two children. what do your kids think about you being in the senate? >> from the time they were little, i was tax commissioner, right after ally was born almost.

nathan, except for the 12 years that i was not serving in public life. so there early experience in life, i was an elected official. i think they see this not from the standpoint of being in the senate, but mom is off doing that work again, whether it was tax commissioner or attorney general, trying to serve the public. as tax commissioner or attorney general. >> one of your colleagues said -- a compliment. >> he is an amazing colleague. i have not always agreed with senator corker. he is fighting every day to change the dialogue to we got to get it done. i have enormous respect for him. >> that picture behind us. what is it? >> you can't see it? it is the sweetheart of the rodeo. see his boots?

i do. >> he is riding a bucking horse. it is done by an artist who comes from a ranch family, rodeo family in north dakota. he made a name for himself doing amazing art. he is a very dear friend. it has meaning beyond that, though. this picture started out in byron dorgan's office. he was walking to minot state campus where walter peele works. he sought in the library and some place on campus and announced it should be hanging in the halls of his office, and congress and so byron brought it here. camp inherited it. and i inherited it after camp's retirement. this is a wonderful painting done by a wonderful, hard-working north dakotan who, that has been hanging. and every day when i look at it, i think not only of walter and

his values, i think of the values of the west and i think of camp and byron. >> what is this like coming to washington? >> frustrating. people get into how is the rarefied air? i did not come here to be a senator. i came here to do a job. it has been frustrating at times. the low point had to be when we went to the brink on the debt limit extension in october. i was shocked that people who should've known better were saying that it would not matter if we failed to meet our obligations. i think that changed the discussion, as you see today, being able to fairly easily extend the debt limit. but i remain frustrated a lot of days that things that should be easy, that everybody can agree on are hard to do because of the super power of minorities here.

>> some already have said that you may have higher aspirations. >> forget it. this is as high as it goes. you know, i'm 58 years old. when i decided to do this i thought, ok, do you know how much energy you have for this? and where do you go from here and what is the goal? kent conrad did something that every day he would get to the office and he would write down what you hope to accomplish. and what is great about what kent did, if he did not write past the farm bill or talk to so and so today. he wrote, fix the debt. it was always the big things. improve education in america. for me, this is a place where you can participate in that discussion in a very privileged way. we need to be worthy of the privileges given. and i hope that as we continue to build a solid core of people that want to get things done, that we will move towards results. i tell people all the time, did you hear what so-and-so said

about you? and is usually something on the 24-hour news network. ironically, it is usually somebody on msnbc and not fox. did you hear what they said about you? i care more about they will say about me in 24 years than what they say about me every 24 hours. we've got to take the long view of moving this country in the right direction. >> idle question. what do your siblings say about you? when do you fill in your brother -- for your brother on radio? >> are used to do a lot of talk radio. when joel was serving his term in the legislature, i did it for

three-month. it is something every politician should have to do. not just answer the questions, but host a show where you have a very direct relationship with the listeners and the constituents, because occasionally learn something if you keep your ears open. occasionally, you get your ideas challenged in ways that move you in a different direction. and so i'm grateful for that opportunity but my siblings remain my best friends. they are an amazing group of people. i could brag on and on about what everyone of them do. brag on and on about how about -- how proud i am. i have a sister who, give you an example -- i was in the state house one day and i ran into a guy that i knew pretty well and he came running to us and he said, i want to tell you. you get, you are politician.

you did something he really agrees with. and he said, your sister saved my family. she is a family therapist. she does a lot of work with kids who are troubled, trying to put families back together. she has done some very creative programming to keep kids out of the system with intensive family therapy. i have a sister who runs parks and recreation and is incredibly organized. i have a sister who is one of the greatest mothers and grandmothers. i have a sister who chairs the social work department at und. and every place i go in north dakota when i run into her students they tell me how she changed their lives. and so, it is a privilege to be here and important to be here, but what my siblings do every day is important. and i am proud of them. >> senator heidi heitkamp. thank you very much. thank you.

we spoke to him about his family and family name. we talked with him late last year. >> senator john thune, republican of south dakota, do you remember the first time he came to washington dc? >> i do, actually. i was in college and at that time, there was a member of congress from the state of south dakota, jim abner, who i had gotten to know when i was in high school. and he had me come out here and spend a week over one of the periods when congress was in session and just got acquainted with the town and with congress and sort of politics in general. and that was one of the first

times i guess i can remember actually starting to get a little bit interested in politics. >> what were your impressions back then? >> it was really daunting. like you said, i have never been here before. you've seen pictures of these things. you have studied it, obviously. but actually coming here and seeing up close and personal washington dc and seeing all the history, it is so rich with history. it was just very, you know, it was really an inspiring experience. >> did you grow up in a political family? >> i did not. my parents were in education. my dad started out in the hardware business but then sold that, when backing got his teaching degree. he taught high school. he was the athletic director, he coached. and he drove a school bus. my mom was a school librarian. that was not any where i could go to get away from my parents and high school. politics is not something we talked about. they were very conscientious in terms of voting and very respectful of people in public life and public office, but it was only because of an experience i had when it was a freshman in high school when i

really sort of started to get interested. i mentioned jim abner earlier, but i was playing basketball in a tournament that we have in my home town every year. and i was getting varsity time. so i got into the game on a friday night. and i got six attempts at the free-throw. i've made five then - of them. the next afternoon, we're playing again, and i was in the department store in my hometown of south dakota -- murdough, south dakota. as i was in the checkout line, somebody behind me tapped my shoulder and he said, i noticed you missed one last night. i was like, who was the smart alec? i'm a freshman and i made five out of six. he introduced himself as congressman jim abner. and he sort of follow my sports career, and i started to get interested in his political career, but that was my first exposure really to a political figure. and so that sparked my interest at least initially. i have never contemplated doing this as a career path until later in life. and that also was related to then senator abner.

but growing up it was not something that was really part of our daily conversation and certainly anything that i aspired to do at the time. >> where is murdo, south dakota? >> it is at the intersection of interstate 90 and highway 83. we always thought it was the center of the universe growing up, but 500 people. when i was growing up, it was about 800 people. great place to grow up, but when i was growing up, my life began and ended at the city limits. nowadays kids have access to so many different things. travel is easier. and with the internet, you can have the whole world at your fingertips, at your disposal. but i would not trade it for anything. like you said, i went to a small school. had just a very normal upbringing and in a really great community. and a place i try to stay attached to. >> how did your family end up there, and where does the name thune come from? >> my grandfather and great

uncle came over from norway in 1906. when they got to ellis island, they did not know english of -- with the exception of apple pie and coffee which they learned on the way over, but they were asked by immigration to change their name because they thought it would be too difficult to spell and pronounce. their name and nouri was g-j-e-l-s-v-i-k. when they got to ellis island, they picked the name of the farm where they lived near bergen, norway. the thune farm. my grandfather became nick thune. they got through ellis island and then they got a sponsor inside dakota and they came out to work on the railroads.

learned english, save some money and in due time bought a small merchandising store which eventually became the hardware is in us. and that is kind of how we got to south dakota. >> brothers, sisters? >> i have three brothers and his sister and one younger brother. two families. two older brothers and a sister. then i came along later in life and my younger brother. >> your dad is still alive. 93 years old. part of the greatest generation. >> he is. my dad was one of those guys they grew up in the middle of the depression. my grandfather, as i mentioned, nick, came from norway. when they moved to my hometown, you know, it was a hard time. and going to the depression really shaped that generation, but they had a real sense of sort of public duty and very conscientious about things. he became a very accomplished basketball player. so much so that he got an opportunity to play at the university of minnesota, where he was a three-year starter. and most valuable player his junior season. so got away from my hometown. went there for a while. and after he graduated, of course world war ii had broken out. so he decided to sign up, became unable aviator.

went through flight training and got assigned to the pacific theater of the war hero and was involved in the second battle of the philippine seas. where he flew combat missions off intrepid. he flew the hellcat. shot down four enemy aircraft, for which she was awarded distinguished flying cross. an interesting story about that. i did not make this connection and till i had read john mccain's book. but it turns out, i went back and checked this because the dates and the times and the places matched up. in the distinguished flying cross that my dad received was issued by admiral john mccain, who was john mccain's grandfather. he was the commander of the fleet that my dad was involved with. >> do you talk to him, or did you talk to him about what that was like, what he experienced? >> probably not as much as i should have.

we always knew it and my mom would tell us about it. my dad like most guys of that generation was very quiet. he had to be prompted to talk about it. so he's 93 today. to this day, he still is -- you kind of have to ask the questions, but i tried to do that, and there is a project called the veteran history project at the library of congress put on a few years ago. probably still has going on. but they encourage you to talk to world war ii veterans and veterans from other conflicts in our history. so we got -- that my dad down and i asked him a lot of questions. for four hours got a lot of that stuff on the record. and so many of the details and things that you just did not know about. and it is really fascinating. that generation was, they were just a remarkable group of people. to this day, we all owe them an incredible debt of gratitude. >> but you used the word humble, and that seems to transcend all who served in world war ii.

what was it about that time and those i rarely men but also women who served to try to help support the troops? >> you talk to my dad and even my mom before she passed away, and they always just talked about the common purpose, the sense of purpose america had at the time. the way everybody came together. people back here shared it. people who wore uniforms were very committed to it. i think when your country is attacked, you have an increased intensity to want to protect everything you love. but there is just something -- it really is -- it is in the dna of that generation. it is not unique to my dad. i talked to people all the time. and those guys that are still around, those world war ii vets, you really do -- they just, they went, they did their duty. they came home, they married their childhood sweethearts and they went about raising their families and trying to build a better future. it's a quality that's just really unique in american

history and culture. you know, something that i guess i was always grateful for. my dad, every year in high school they would get them to come over and share the story. but that is really the only time he ever talked about it. >> you mentioned your mom who has passed away. describe her. >> my mom was an incredibly sweet lady and very outgoing, loved life, always had a smile on her face. very chirpy. my dad had that scandinavian gene, and he tended to be more of a realist. they were a good match. they met when my dad was at the university of minnesota playing basketball. she was working at a soda fountain close to campus. she said she always gave him bigger malts when he came in. they met that way. when he went to join the service, they got married right before he shipped off. so they were apart for a long time, but when he came home, they ended up going out and settling down in my hometown

which was a real adjustment for my mom. she was kind of a city girl. she grew up in minneapolis-st. paul and was sort of a custom to many of the things you have been a more populated area of the country. at that time, my hometown had dirt main street. so i think she was taking the train back to minnesota to visit family on a regular basis, but she got to where she loved it there. and she raised me and my siblings there. she was very family oriented. and really kind of a softer side of the family. you know, us boys always wanted to play sports. we loved all the sports. anytime there was a ball around, we wanted to be out there tossing it and shooting it or whatever. you know, my mom ensured that we all understood other things. we all took piano lessons. i took six years of piano

lessons. that was at my mom's insistence. she wanted to have an appreciation for music and culture. and she was a big reader. she read all the time. she would make us come in and the middle of the afternoon during the summer when we were not in school and read a book for an hour. so just a really, really special and neat lady. and they were, like i said, good for each other. >> graduated from high school. you end up in los angeles at the bible institute of l.a., viola. >> viola university. it started out as a bible college and became a fully accredited liberal arts christian university. i had a couple of brothers that went out there. my oldest brother had wanted to get a christian liberal arts education. and my dad had a high school classmate who had moved to california. and they had stayed in close contact, and he said, you know, if wants to come out here, he said, my son howard is going to the school called viola. he can stay with us. if he likes it, great. if he doesn't, he can come back. my older brother and sister got undergraduate degrees out there.

my mom and dad liked the way they turned out. they were encouraged -- they encouraged me to attend there. it was a great experience. getting away from your comfort zone, from your support system can be a good thing. and california is very different from south dakota. and i certainly am a you know, was exposed to some things, learned some things out there. obviously got a great education -- christian liberal arts education -- and then came back to the university of south dakota where i got my mba. i then decided after having lived in california that i really wanted to settle down in the midwest and south dakota. i just never got it out of my system. and loved everything about it. so i came back to get my mba in south dakota, assuming i would end up working financial services or some field like that. and ended up on this career

path. >> culture shock from south dakota to los angeles? >> very much so. i'm sure i sort of looks like somebody -- when i got to california, maybe a little bit of a hayseed. when i got there, because it is, it is a dairy different culture. you do have, i think, a transitional period when you make a big change like that.

i was young, and came from a really good, solid upbringing and background. so pretty well grounded, but just an entirely different way of life. climate was nice, easy to get used to. but the traffic, the congestion, all the things you have in the big city were things that, in the end, i kind of decided i wanted to back to wide-open spaces of south dakota. where did you meet your wife kimberly? >> i met her at viola. she is from south dakota. she grew up on a farm. i grew up more towards the western part of the state. we did not know each other. she had been attending college in kansas. and then had decided that she wanted to transfer and had been looking at different schools and found out that viola had a good communications department. so she decided to come out there. she was a transferred junior when i met her. and we met at a new student reception. >> when you came back to south dakota, you said you wanted to get involved in finance, and yet you worked for congressman and senator adler, correct? how did that come about. >> after i got out of grad school, i was working for a short time for the state of

south dakota. i got a job working in the department of transportation they're doing some things, some financial stuff at that time. they were looking at trying to privatize the state owned railroad. they asked me to come up and work on financing options. it was a fun job. and i enjoyed it, but a couple of months into that, i get this call from jim abner's chief of washington, d.c. and said we got this opening. would you like to come out? i was like, eh. it really was not something i planned on. my wife and i were engaged, planning to get married toward the end of december and they said, can you come out and started job in january? so we talked a lot about it, consulted our family. and made it a matter of prayer and decided at the end that maybe it is a good thing to do. do it for a couple of years. check the box. he a great experience in learning a little bit more about how government works. so we came out here in january, 1985. and that was -- i think, i very much, sort of a life-changing

event in the sense that it sparked my interest in politics and having worked out here, i sort of decided that if the timing and the opportunity were ever right that i might want to try to run for elective office myself. but had it not been for that door opening and that opportunity coming along, i would probably be doing something in the financial services field in south dakota. >> that was the senate, correct? >> correct. >> you ran for the house in 1996. why? >> you know, i just decided it was something -- i did not want to get into my 50's and look back and say i really wish i would have tried it. i felt like i had had some opportunities that had prepared me for it. i could do -- having been on here i thought perhaps i had an aptitude for this kind of work. saw it as an opportunity to really make a difference. so my wife and i again at that time did not have any personal or family wealth. kind of, it was a bootstraps campaign, grassroots campaign, but decided to give it a whirl.

we sort of proceeded down that path. started going to the dinners and getting around state, trying to get acquainted. and jim abner was very helpful. he was a great retail politician. in south dakota, that really matters. >> you were the underdog? >> currently. what happened was tim johnson vacated his house seat to run for the senate. so it was an open seat. so in our stated does not come along very often. there is a lot of interest in it. a lot of people got into that primary initially. then our lieutenant governor decides to get in the race and that cleared the field, except for me and i guess one other guy.

and so we went into that campaign, in fact, i remember there was a poll published in roll call in april, 1996, that had us down i would have to say 69-15. it was a june primary, but you know, we had just started to get our message out, started to get on television. and we were able to pull out a win in the primary and ultimately in the general election. >> you ran for the senate in 2002. you lost by how many votes? >> 524. >> what was that like? >> it is hard losing. you always play to win. i remember, although i remember sitting in my living room after that election and it -- a very hard fought campaign. it is hard in a small state because you know so many people. and these campaigns can really take on a personal flavor. but, you know, i think you learn lessons from losing. and sometimes the adversity that you have come along in your life teaches you a lot more than some of the successes and the

victories. but i remember having a conversation with my wife in our living room in sioux falls after that election. and she looked at me and said, i am not going through another campaign unless god himself comes to the door and says he -- you have to run. over time, you process it and have an opportunity to get a little bit of perspective and we were having a similar conversation several months later. this would probably be the spring or summer of 2003. and she looked at me and said, you know, i finally concluded and realized that what we went through in that campaign last year was not just about the winning. it was about the race. for me, it was about the winning. i was in it to win. you always are. but i think she made a really important observation, and that is that it is important to be in the arena, to be out there fighting for the things you believe in. and yes, your goal is to win but you need to be out there. you know, it was a process to come around to decide to get back on the horse and run again. but we did. fortunately, the second time around it turned out differently.

>> but in the race in 2004, you ran against the senate democratic leader. and a party leader had not lost since 1952. so what were you thinking? >> we thought it was a long shot. we really did. we sat down. i tell a story around the kitchen table because we always did this. by 2004, our girls were older, at least old enough to have

involved in this discussion. we talked a lot about it, but -- so we had a family vote. secret ballot. should i run for the senate again or not? the vote came back 3 to one, and i was the no vote. the family was ok with moving forward. we were prepared going into that campaign have been once, we knew how it felt and we survived it. you go on. prepared either way for how it was going to come out. it just felt like it was something we needed to do and that was not anybody else out there. it would have been, probably, and uncontested or noncompetitive race. so we decided to take another shot at it, and it was a very, another long, hard campaign, but you know, it was nice to win it. and obviously, you know, as i look back on it now, if i had to do it over again, i always wonder what i'd move forward with that again knowing now -- if i had known what i know now? >> let me ask you about your brand of republican politics. how would you describe yourself politically, ideologically? >> i am a conservative. if you look at how you come off, and i was very influenced by jim abner, but also by ronald reagan. my dad in my coming up, my dad was a new deal democrat. he grew up in the 1930's and a very tough time for the country.

he liked harry truman. he eventually became a republican later in life. so i kind of have that heritage, but i was just really impressed when ronald reagan came on the political scene about the time i was coming of age politically. i like the purpose he had and the way he talked about our country. it was a combination and jim abner, who shaped the way i look at things through a political lens, but i am a right of center conservative. i realize you have to be able to get things done. you have to have a record of accomplishment, and sometimes in order to make that awful bull, work with people who may not

agree -- to make that possible, work with people who may not agree with you. that's something i learned as a staffer and something i tried to bring to my time i have been in office. >> i am going to make three statements, and i want you to finish how you feel. first, the state of congress today is what? >> some people describe it as broken. i think it's a little divided, a little filled with conflict, but we have got a divided government. people come here with different points of view about how to solve hard problems. i think our democracy is survived through various times in history, and i think we can use the time we are in right now to do some good things for the country, if people will be willing to come together.

the state of the republican party? >> it's evolving. i think the republican party is -- in terms of our principles, we are in the right place. i think the american people if we are able to articulate the things we for are very much on the same wavelength. i think people instinctively believe in a limited role for the government. they believe in personal freedom coupled with individual responsibility. i think those are american trait's, and understand if you are going to keep the country safe you have to be strong. i think those are core republican values and principles that to me are timeless and will transcendent, but often we don't do a good job of making our argument to the american people or explaining to them what it is the we are for, and i think we have are got to do much better job of that if we are going to be a governing party in the future in a country that is changing. the there is a lot of change in the country, and you have to be able to adapt to that. it doesn't mean you have to compromise our principles, but you have to figure out a way you can communicate in a more effective way why it is important for people to say this

is the direction i want to go and these are the principles i want to have moving forward. >> the state of the country today is what? >> i think the country is -- we are sort of at a crossroads. i think we have big decisions to make as a country about what kind of country we want to be, and that bears on the whole question about the role of government. how much government we wanted our lives? do we want to pay for it? do we want to be the exceptional nation our forefathers view us as. people like my grandfather who came here over 100 years ago came here in pursuit of the american dream, and that still animate people all over the world who want to come to this country, but we have to be able to take what is really great about this country and continue

to build on that foundation, and my fear is people get a little the spot and, a little discouraged, and they need leaders that can draw on what is best about this country. when i was coming of age we were in a time in our history when people were discouraged and despondent. president reagan had an amazing way of just pulling out what i think is uniquely american and what is exceptional about our country. >> you are named for a 2008 and the 2012 vice president candidate. did you go through the vetting process? >> i think i was on some list along the way, but i think in both circumstances there were

people who probably met more of the criteria that our nominees were looking for to bring the right balance to the ticket. anytime you have an opportunity to serve your country you want to be open to it, but i don't think it was ever on the serious consideration list. >> have you given any thought to running for president? >> i looked at it in 2012 as we headed into that election, and i think that i like the day job. i have 20 of work to do in the senate, but you always want to take your abilities and talents and gifts and put them to your best use to put them for your country and fellow man. we have due diligence. it is very enormous commitments in modern politics, and that was a barrier as we look at it. i think you have to have a burning passion to do something for your country, and i think that's a question you really have to do a

gut check on before you pull the trigger and proceed with a national campaign. i never quite got to that point, but it certainly was something we gave some consideration to. >> where are you right now? where is your god? >> part of it is -- where is your gut? >> part of it is i think you have to have an opening. we have members of congress who are taking a hard look at it now. many of them are going to be probably comparable to where i would be in terms of ideology and experience and that sort of thing. i think politics is all about timing. i have told people this. i would be less honest if i said otherwise. i never thought i would be doing this when i grew up in south dakota, but sometimes opportunities come your way, and you have to be prepared for that and think about how you can put your gift to their highest and best use.

>> how do you make a decision? what is the process? >> you have to have -- the issues we deal with, the world has gotten very complicated, and there is a lot of information coming at you on any given day. you surround yourself by good people who understand your basic philosophy and hopefully are keeping themselves informed on in a the issues, but you have to spend a lot of time getting informed. i think in most cases your decisions are shaped by two things. what is your core values, conscience, whatever you want to call it, and secondly formed by the people you represent.

you have to stay in step with and understand the core of the people you represent on any given issue, and that's a process of being out there listening a lot. we get a lot of e-mails, a lot of phone calls, a lot of mail in the office. you have a good sense of where your constituency is on any given day on any issue, and that factors into your decision-making process. then i think it is your core, your gut. it comes down to basically what's my conviction on this particular issue. >> you have two daughters, a son-in-law, and the future son-in-law? describe them. >> my daughters, i adore them. they have been the delight of my life. when we were having children, i wanted to have that little athlete, that little boy, but having girls i wouldn't trade it for anything. we have been very involved in their lives over the years.

they had to put up with a lot. they grew up in a political family and all that comes with that, the good, the bad, and the ugly. hopefully they are not too jaded, but they are just really good girls. we are very grateful to have had the opportunity to have them in our lives, and one of them is married to a great guy, and the other is engaged to a great guy. that's a new stage in life for us, a new chapter, but it goes fast. i always tell people, don't blink, because one day you're going to their offense and that piano recital or that soccer game or track meet, and all of a sudden they are in college and end up coming home and saying, i am engaged. those are special times, but i wouldn't trade it for anything. >> what's next for you? what do you want to do in the senate? what are your goals? >> like i said, i enjoy the work. when i was here as a staffer, i had an affinity for dealing with some of these national issues.

from the time i was a staffer, i did budget and tax, those types of issues. i have always had an interest in economic and fiscal issues. i would like to be a part of solutions to get our country on track fiscally. i am concerned about the enormous amount of debt we are piling up and handing to our children and grandchildren, about getting the economy back to a place where we are growing at a faster rate, creating more jobs, increasing take-home pay for people across this country, and creating a better quality of life. that's what my grandfather did for my dad, and my dad and his generation sacrificed so we could have a better quality of life. i really fear we may be the next generation of americans were you will that's not true. the next generation may have a the lower quality of life than

we have had, and i think we have got some big challenges. the it's going to require courage. it's going to require a willingness for people to come together around a common purpose , not unlike what has motivated previous generations when we face big challenges, but i would like to be part of that solution, and for me that is mainly focusing on fiscal and economic issues i think are so vital to the future of this country. >> let me conclude on a couple of personal issues. first, you are a pretty avid runner in high school and college. do you run today? >> i run when i can. i have a foot injury right now. i have been sidelined. i try to do those things.

running is a great outlet for me. i clear my head. i started running again. i ran track in high school and had some success with it, but i really took it up again when my daughter started running. they were competing in track and cross-country. i started running with them. my oldest daughter who became an accomplished runner, i remember running with her and having to break stride and allow her to keep up. i remember her having to break stride and allow me to keep up. that's a tough thing to get to that stage in life. i enjoy it, and i think that fitness and exercise is a great a. especially this lifestyle we have here. there are so many things coming at you every single time of day. it is a cleansing thing to be able to do it. i miss running day to day. i hope to be able to get back to it at some point and all that comes with it. >> in terms of logistics, south dakota is not the easiest place to get to and from, so how do you do that? >> the congressional schedule and in many cases those who do go out back and forth will go out. whenever congress is in session, i am here. when we are out of session i am traveling elsewhere in the country as necessary, but we go

generally through minneapolis into sioux falls, occasionally through chicago but you are always connecting somewhere. you get used to it. you develop a rhythm around it, but i have never -- travel is tiring, and i typically get asked what is the best part in the worst part of your job, and i will tell people the worst part is sometimes getting to and from it, but it's what i signed up for. like i said, you build it into your week in your schedule. it's something you do, and you make the most of your time. i use the time when i am on a plane to do a lot of my reading, some of the light work trying to catch up and get ready for

everything that is coming up in that week. >> if you have a chance to listen to music, what do you listen to? >> i was a rocker in the 70's and 80's, so a lot of those old 80's bands i really enjoy. some of them are reforming and starting to play again, so i catch a lot of those concerts. i really like country music. i really developed an affinity for that. i had a daughter who went to university down in nashville. you are around country musical the time, but my wife and i started to become country music fans, and we have been christian music fans. there are great christian artists we listen to. we are a family who likes music. i wife was musical. she played the piano. both of them saying. britney sings a lot. marissa does, too. it has been a part of our family. i enjoy all different varieties of music, but i suppose when you think of your formative years and the things you listen to, those are probably the bands that come to mind first, and that takes me back to the days of my misspent youth. >> finally you have a chance to read a book. what books are you reading now?

>> i enjoy reading -- we are wired in different ways, and i enjoy because my life is politics you live this life. it's more than just work. i read a lot of stuff oriented around political stories, history. i have always been a big fan of history, and right now i am reading the book "killer angels." his son jeff i have read several of his books. great writers of history. this one's about the civil war. the movie gettysburg was based on this book. a period that is of great interest to me. i always had an interest in the civil war as a kid growing up. that's the one i'm reading right now. i enjoy those types of books. >> senator, we appreciate your time. >> thanks. great to be with you.

>> a quick reminder. you can see all of these interviews on our website c-span.org. we have more live coverage coming up this afternoon. a former u.s. ambassador to venezuela will discuss prospects for democracy in that country. by the heritage foundation. it will be live at three clock tm eastern here on c-span. the beauty of america is that in this country we have the ability to write the script of our own life. seat ofn the driving our own future. our biggest decisions in life are made by us. america create the sense of you canity out of that become an activist, community organizer. what are you doing?

you are living out the great capitalist explosion of wealth that you did not create. know where toto begin. nobody said america is the most terrible place. assertions couple of you have to take that are astonishing. one is the idea that america's greatest invention was wealth creation, not based on theft at all. what about the theft of the entire continent? that was a theft. not mean 90% of the -- that means 90% of the residents were murdered. is so greatte what about america. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> telling a button :00 eastern, a town hall meeting with governor chris christie of new jersey speaking with residents about a range of topics including federal funding for

hurricane sandy. about hisked relationship with one of his favorite musicians bruce springsteen. here is a look. >> you go home tonight. i want to make sure he is not in the room. when you go home tonight, would you please destroy all your bruce springsteen cds? he's not a friend of yours, governor. [applause] [laughter] >> you see. the cds could be destroyed. i have it all my iphone out. -- iphone now. thank you. thank you for the kind words. secondly, i do not think i've ever been under the illusion the it meantce fan that he and i were necessarily simpatico on a number of other issues.

so there is a lot of people in new jersey who do things to make us proud. certain do things a things that make us proud and others that make us disagree with. despite the fact that you may be that has beeny too would hundred 32 bruce springsteen concerts, i do not do drugs. i do not drink. this is it for me. it is all i've got. i still live at home that someday, even as he gets older and older, he will wake up and go he is a good guy. it is all right. we can be friends. he told me we were friends a year and half ago. i live in hope of that.

when we get attached to certain people as youngsters, which i did, it is hard to let that go. sagere probably give me counsel that i should accept but my heart keep telling me not to. thank you very much. >> you can see the entire town hall meeting with chris christie tonight at starting at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. three-judge panel of the d c circuit court of appeals recently heard oral argument in the military sexual assault case calay v panetta. it was dismissed because of a law that shields federal officials from lawsuits. first a little background on the case. doyle is the legal affairs correspondent here to discuss the case involving

military sexual assault. clay -- ariana clay? >> she is a former marine officer who said that while she was serving in the active-duty marine corps barracks. have sued thewer former pentagon leaders and claims they fostered a hostile climate and retaliated against those who found the claims of abuse. what are they seeking? >> they are seeking damages. it means money and a recognition

by the federal court as well that the command climate was militarynd that the authorities in the pentagon were responsible for what happened to be women who were supposed to be protected while serving the country. >> this is not atypical lawsuits. can you explain what it is and why it does or does not matter? a 1971 supreme court case involving a mr. a -- sued aurf drug agent. generally they are immune. they enjoy sovereign and unity. in the bivens ruling from 1971, they said if there is a clear-cut violation of a constitutional right by a government employee, individual losses can be leveled. seeking ase they are

againstause of action individuals that work for the government. the oral argument that was held before a three-judge panel on tuesday suggested that the ofges are highly skeptical exiting this to the military arena. the biggest issue for the judges had to do with the special circumstance of military service. tended to be deferential to the administration of special institutions, military prisons and the like. they do not want to get into the habit or practice of fine-tuning something that needs to be managed by the professionals. from the questions and flat-out statements, it is clear there

will be very deep skepticism over whether judges should get in the business of second-guessing military management. possiblere some of the outcomes in this case? >> it could go anywhere from granting a right every view, sending the case back to the trial judge, to outright dismissal. possibility,ly judging by the tenor of the questions and the statements made by the judges, is that the case will be dismissed. second time an aseals court has dismissed not allowable a large case filings by former members of the military seeking redress for sexual abuse. >> you have been following the congressional side of this in conjunction with deliverance legislation that struck them from deciding whether or not to

pursue charges against those accused of sexual assault. casesould that have on like these? >> it would have a significant effect. right now senator gillibrand legislation originally cast as an amendment to the defense operation bill -- authorization bill as a stand-alone bill that could be voted on within several weeks sometime in march. currently it will need 60 votes deal with a potential filibuster. technically there are only 54 known supporters. the bill were to pass the senate, it faces a very rough road in the republican-controlled house. this would represent how sexual .buse cases were handled spared michael doyle is a

correspondent for the mcclatchy newspapers. >> now the oral argument for that case heard before the d.c. circuit court on tuesday. >> good afternoon. what your honors had before you is a difficult decision for the bench to make. what we have weighed out is a pattern of practice of executive branch officials ignoring what congress told them to do to fix the serious problem of rape and sexual assault in the military. do ifthat our job to congress disregards what the executive branch tells them to do? do we call congress to pass on this? >> it is the opposite here at it is the executive branch ignoring what congress told them to do. you do. congress is fully engaged in this.

at least reading the newspaper seems to suggest that. what thing they have not done is create a cause of action. they have not created a cause of action. it meaninglesse if you let go to the wayside proof that the executive branch officials ignore that engagement, ignore the direct mandates that told them what they were to do. our system have work, we have to have congressional engagement. >> you are asking us to do something that under bivens court has the power to do. where there is not a statue, creating a cause of action for violation of constitutional rights. that has been severely limited.

congress can do this. congress has the power to create to get yourction client the relief they seek. they have not done it. >> two responses, your honor. amst, the people i representing have been harmed by past action. even if congress decides to create a new cause of action, it will not help the people harmed inthis executive branch action. the supreme court itself, in the context of deciding whether or not there should be a bivens cause of action where military members were harmed said very essentially as is policy judgment. there is no scientific

demonstration of the right answer. you are writing on a blank slate with this particular problem. can stopt think you your analysis at that point. you have to go on with the supreme court case. >> they said in the stanley case, they argued that it was limited to the facts and obviously stanley is upholding as well. what we argue is those cases are ever to be distinguished by looking at it as to whether or not the context -- whether or not the activity at issue is something in the core of the military power. obviously there is tremendous deferenceifference -- when we talk about how many dropped, howng

many missiles launched. what we are looking at here -- the executivethat branch has admitted in their own brief is totally outside the scope of military deployment. we are talking about the crimes and sexual assault. not remotely related to military duty. for that reason we believe the deference to the military -- look atking is what we're asking you to do. we are not asking you to intrude on any military decision-making that is not expressly mandated by congress. >> [indiscernible] i guess the question for us is whether this is going to the .ight laius -- place

[indiscernible] the way in which the military is their facilitys -- [indiscernible] ifyour honor, i would agree what we were dealing with was a topic congress has not spoken to. but what we're dealing with our cases where congress has decided and acted, saying we have watched the military tribunal -- >> every time you make that argument, i think you undercut your argument. every time you say congress

acted, it brings to mind the question -- you say congress has not created because of action. you want us to do something that congress has not done, and the more you point out that congress is deeply involved with it, the more it persuades me, yeah, they are deeply involved and for what ever reason they decided not to create this cause of action. >> your honor, the reason why it is so important that congress be involved and we are here before you is the judiciary is the place to go when innocent people -- when people in the trappings of officialdom ignore congress. >> is that what we're supposed to do every time that happens? >> the judiciary is where you take people who are harms i official malfeasance. [indiscernible]

the supreme court said that was problembroad. not every this israised -- horrible -- not every harm that occurs is addressed by courts. >> this, your honor, should be redressed by the courts because this problem has been going on for decades. this problem has been addressed by our congress. to the officials charged follow these mandates ignored it in a way that directly cause harm to my clients. >> let me ask you about that. some of the mandates are to make awareness. to set up a panel. do some other -- i will call it administrative things. do they go to the harm of what

you're clients are complaining about? >> take something that is somewhat illustrative. what is a database? a database is a list of people. as a practical matter, what has ,appened time and time again crimes are committed by serial rapists. failing to follow the congressional mandate to create the database that identifies and provides information to law enforcement about who is doing the raping, they have created a that ends inress our clients being raped. if they had done what congress told them to do, they would have been able to fix the problem. >> p supreme court had a case not unlike that.

had a caseeme court not unlike that. they let the course step back. >> in that case, congress had not spoken directly to the issue of murder, serviceman murdering others. this is a different concept. -- iognize, your honor, think the service members who are defending our nation deserve that consideration and deserve policy analysis. the opinions that make your case did not persuade a majority of the justices. >> your honor, the dissenting opinion in that case, i find ultimately persuasive, but you're right, it did not persuade. we have a substantive difference from the stanley case. there the facts were this was

being done for military purpose, for military mission. to us involuntarily give lsd see what happens to people. it was done for military purpose. -- the complete flouting of what congress told them to do -- it serves no military purpose. it only serves the personal interests of the men in charge he did not want to do what they had been told to do by congress. >> [indiscernible] >> your honor, there you had a different situation -- >> i understand. but that is the point. and to the extent you are saying davis is controlling here, the argument is there is no remedy available in davis. congress set up a procedure. it may not be working the way

your clients think it should. spoken, has said a number of things about wanting the military to do better. it has not set up a cause of action for damages. >> but the military leadership did not do what congress told them to do. if you are looking for structural change, for the military to abide by current standards -- multiple issues. one is how do we prevent people from being hurt in the future? and that, of course, the ata, reform, yes. but i know human beings who were harmed. we cannot undo that harm in any

way. but we can say in the circumstances were you have congress acting, the military leadership ignoring what congress told them to do, and individuals being directly harmed by that malfeasance, should there be damages? >> [indiscernible] parts of your argument that -- [indiscernible] >> that is the path we are laying out for you. >> [indiscernible] the supreme court has said -- it is twofold. [indiscernible]

it is actually a reason to abstain from the court's opinion. significantetty hurdle, the way you are hitting home. >> i understand the thinking speaking, congress is we should do nothing. but the way the system is set up, there has to be a reward for individuals who are harmed when executive branch official ignores what congress told them to do. what is very troubling about the district court decision -- because this is where failure to inspire remedy leaves you. the district court rights if it could be shown the defendants intentionally refuse to comply with the congressional directive, reviewing this would require the court to analyze why military management decided to ignore the directive and whether

those decisions were justified. actually the district court has created a structure in which the military is so immunized from any sort of review that military ignorehip is able to what congress says. our view is you have to act and you have to issue a decision that says no to rid military leadership does not have the prerogative to simply ignore congress. they may think that what congress decided to do on the rape and sexual assault issue is stupid. they don't get to decide. the elected officials get to decide. they have lots of tools at their disposal right now to act. if someone is wrong, horribly wrong, that they should always have access to the courts? there are a series of cases where we decide, no, that is not to be addressed by the courts.

we have lots of cases like that. >> in this case, you should not slam the courthouse were shot on the service members. congress is looking at the issue -- , has congressn is ever opened the door? not that we are slamming the door. from is abstaining exercising a jurisdiction you have -- >> that is loaded language saying we are slamming the door on people who have been egregiously harmed. if the door is open to them, the place to do that would be across the street. >> your honor, i believe the door has been opened by the bivens case and by abstaining, you depart from the rationale at the bivens case needs judicial attention because we cannot -- if we have executive branch not conforming to the congressional directive, we are left with lack

of civilian control. >> and that is your criticism of the other circuit? >> [indiscernible] >> in your brief? is an instance of the two reasons -- this is one where it is appropriate to have a bivens cause of action. you do not sound quite sure about the analogy there. i will ask opposing counsel about it. you can answer if you want. do anyou want me to analogy or do you want me to respond on rebuttal? can respond. or rebuttal. >> i think this particular circumstance is unique in what ou have before you -- >> what is the analogy? prisoner --

the supreme court has repeatedly there should be deference to officials and administering their system and the court should not intrude. let the officials decide how to maintain order and discipline. all right? -- this actionrt were the lack of medical treatment and in the medical malpractice actually resulted in death. so, by analogy, the argument raped is cruelng and unusual punishment? all right. well you are serving your country.

military function associated with it whatsoever. that is not the argument the government makes. what is wrong with that analogy? -- i thinkthat because of the present context there are overlaps with the military context. the persons being harmed cannot exercise self-help. they have a level of coercion resident there. i think this situation cries out even more clearly for judicial attention and judicial relief, that case, you actually had congress seeking. congress saying, we have decided , having watched military leadership struggle with this issue, we have decided they are not managing it well. we are going to tell them what to do. and yet you had military management not doing that. innocent it would be akin to the bee -- in a sense, it would

akin to the case with the added actionf the judicial that is even more important, because in our direction. i think this case is even more so for a bivens action than you have there. >> thank you. counsel? >> may it please the court, i am from the department of justice, representing the defendants, who are all former or current serving underials the bivens theory. the district court declined to recognize probable cause of action on behalf of the plaintiff because each of the allegations challenges the military. it is clear enough by the supreme court cases -- do you get a pass on this

because of the rubric of the management decision? [indiscernible] in terms of the life of our service members, and what ever is then "management"? >> that is correct. >> who makes that decision? >> it what they are doing within the scope of their employment is military officials running the military, it seems what they are doing is managing the military. so the sweeping opposition is -- >> that seems to be what shearer and chapelle and stanley says. case whereolved a the military failed to supervise a service member who went out and murdered another service member.

buter is not covered, supervision of service members certainly is. maybe there is some hypothetical i can think of -- >> [indiscernible] --they want to >> let me ask again. >> which one? downe supreme court the allegations were not related to military service. garden-variety car accidents -- brooks, i believe, was a car accident. the allegation was not that someone had failed to supervise the one who cause the action. it was a claim against the government -- >> [indiscernible]

>> that allegation is marred by -- and maybe the other allegation, the allegation that the military is responsible for this, but then you would still have to do the service analysis. specifically analyzing the specific duties, the servicemember's duty status, the location of the injury, whether the activity in question was related to service. you do not have to do that here because it is clear enough that

if on the basis of the complaint they are challenging the management of the military -- you don't have to go through that. you know that there is a sort of intrusion on the military mission. the supreme court says it is impermissible and me bivens context -- the bivenssible in context. >> [indiscernible] one of the allegations is the defendants refused to implement a sexual offense database. that is part of their job in the databaseto institute a . they lacked the technical capability to do this database. so they went to congress and ask for an extension. the deadline.ded the dod met that deadline. the claim on its merits doesn't even work, because you can see for these defendants to be able

to be satisfied as to the condition involving military mission. it would have had to direct other members of the military to compile the database, and the allegation is they did not. the plaintiff's brief. on page 13, they concede -- or they actually affirmatively argued -- how you would authorize the bivens claim here is the defendants would not have an fca claim. i think that concedes the main issue in the case. it is the same test as to whether the court recognizes the bivens art of the action or allows the other claim. bivens part of the action or allows the other claim.

the decision from this circuit isd in this context it challenging the management of the military. the court said it was impermissible to create the cause of action. claimed that they were wrongly detained and treated with torture by the government. so, if the plaintiffs had been off duty, would that have changed the whole analysis? isknow, and the reason why the allegations are not that the defendants actually engaged in these acts. their allegations go to the management of the military. shearer says you do not have to go to the other type of analysis is -- ayzing affair feres tech case.

you know on the face of the complaint that the plaintiffs are challenging the management of the military and that is enough. >> if the allegation was that the management of the military was nonexistent -- people were dying left and right as a result rapes, andates -- nothing was being done in the if that weren't allegation about military management, that would be part of the case? >> that's right. >> has the supreme court looked at a case where the harm has nothing to do with the military objection? >> in the shearer case, the harm in the sure case was murder. the complaint is not alleging the defendant committed the

murder. the complainant is alleging the defendant negatively engaged in management of the military. >> i'm trying to get that hypothetical on the table. >> [indiscernible] mean, all of these high ranking military officials acknowledge this is a disaster. terrible. in that caseinants acknowledge what the military was doing was giving lsd and other drugs -- defendants trying to -- defend it, but it was in connection with managing the military. it was clearly part of the military mission to deal with hallucinatory drugs. made somecomplainant

allegation against the high-level military official that did not involve the management of the military, then that would be permissible. the case would not the barred by the special practice doctrine. i just can't think what this would be. that would certainly not be this case. special part of the doctrine as it applies to the military? >> sure. i think the basic answer is you do not have to argue by analogy here, because you have specific decisions from the supreme court regarding the military context. contextave a separate where you're trying to decide, well, should the military case apply or should the bivens case applied -- then he would have to choose. have a case that answers the analysis. you don't then have to leap over

and say, well, how does that jive with the prison case? that's an interesting question for the supreme court to address. even if you were to draw the lookrison, i think if you at the supreme court cases on the military context, the court defers more substantially in military cases been imprisoned cases. and maybe the best way to see that is to compare a case like goldman versus weinberger where the supreme court -- the charm thehe case where the -- chaplaincase where the wanted to wear the yarmulke. -- you haveon case cases that are certainly deferential, but to my mind they

are not deferential to that level. if you try to do the knowledge he, it doesn't work. i do not think you need to do that, because you have cases that answer the military context. so the supreme court closed the door? >> not necessarily with the -- access. but the question. basically, we think the district court's opinion is correct and is ineligible by the scores. [indiscernible] i am happy to answer any further questions. if not, you may rely on our brief for this court's opinion. >> thank you.

>> the fundamental flaw with the government's argument is it is more with the fact that management does not extend so far as to encompass things that are governed by congress seeking. what you have year is not military leadership just exercising the broad discretion that has been given to them. what you have here is military leadership opting to ignore congress telling them what to do . in our system congress has the power to tell the military what to do. the military does not have the power to decide that the congressional mandates are nonsensical some of the congressional mandates are to expensive, too much trouble, something they do not want to do. that is something that happened here. contrary to the decision, the

government has laid out the fact -- what we acknowledged to be the reality that you have these particular men a boring to do what they have done -- ignoring to do what they have been ordered to do by congress. >> you talked before about how had no interest -- they had tort actions. did they sue any of the assaulters? >> your honor, they have not. address the damage they are seeking. obviously they were damaged by the rape. but the damages were caused after they were raped. against inetaliated their careers. yes they can go after the individual rapist. but they cannot go after being

forced to give up their career. 10 years in the service. they can't go after that. there is no real remedy for these people other than bringing these constitutional claims, because the people that really hurt them the most are the people we are suing. the former secretary, they did not do what they were supposed to do that caused this damage, cost their careers, caused the ongoing retaliation. as the military has in fact admitted in oversight hearings, retaliation is rampant and they have not stopped it. i think the government argument proves too much. if they are arguing that laws passed by congress should be able to be ignored at the will of the military leadership, and that is not how this country operates and that is not how it should operate. when you look at the special factors and when you look at whether it is a policy matter or shouldent matter, you

see here. look at the context and the message you're sending if you say the military leadership does not even have to listen to congress. applying a remedy here is not intrusive on the military. it is a damages remedy. because of the unique circumstances here, it is a unique case and it is one where you should not abstain and you should apply and allow these people to go back down to the district court. obviously we will have our work cut out for us there on causation and the like, but we should be entitled to have our day in court. >> thank you. we will take the case under advisement. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] that we willminder be live from the heritage foundation for a discussion on political protests in venezuela. the former ambassador to the

country will offer his opinion on the protest semi-recent arrest of -- on the protest and the recent arrest of an opposition leader. that will be in about 90 minutes here on c-span. >> the beauty of america is in this congress -- in this country we have the ability to write the script of our own life. we are in a sense in the driving seat of our own future. and our biggest decisions in life are made by us. america creates a sense of possibility, and out of that you can become an activist, a community organizer. in a sense what are you doing? greate living off the capitalist explosion of wealth you did not even creates. nobody said america is the most terrible place. nobody. but there are a couple assertions you have to take on faith that are astonishing. is is the idea that america

a creation, not based on theft at all. what about the theft of the entire continent? not left at all. [applause] lived herets who were murdered. that was part of it, too. and dinesh this is a debate "what's so great about america?" tonight at 8:00 on c-span. will bring you a town hall meeting with governor chris christie. residents talked about a variety of issues including funding for hurricane sandy relief efforts and his relationship with one of his favorite musicians, bruce springsteen. you can see that tonight at 10:00 eastern right here on c-span. on c-span, the national governors association kicks off their winter meeting

live at 10:00 eastern with a news conference and throughout the weekend with panels on homeland security, early education, jobs, and drug abuse. live on book tv, talk to the "monuments men" author robert edsall -- edsal. of "history in america." archival films from the education and institution. watch live sunday at 4:00 p.m. the u.s. editor in chief for "the guardian" recently spoke about her paper broke the story about nsa contractor edward snowden. this event was part of a year-long project all "journalism after snowden."

this is about 90 minutes. >> good evening. if you are interested and care about the u.s. constitution and freedom of speech of the press protected by the first amendment or care about the role of and the press and informing the public about important issues, or if you care about the rights of leakers of government classified information, or the level of information the public needs to exercise our responsibilities of self-government in a democracy, or the role of the state in keeping its citizens safe and functioning effectively, or the problems of working out a global system of free expression in a new world defined by a truly --al communication system

truly global communication system in a world with nations with very different views of the press. you are interested in any of this, tonight is your night. we will hear from the leaders of some of the most important institutions in the world who have had direct recent experience in these issues. -- one ofl talk about the finest legal minds of our generation, a friend and colleague for years. the questions we have tonight are profound. among them this one in particular. in the united states we have worked out over the past half-century through major supreme court decisions led by the pentagon papers days in 1974, legislation through custom and behavior, through the government and the press, the

somewhat if unique and unwieldy, system. it goes like this. there is no official secrets regime in this country, as there is, for example, in britain. the government has full constitutional freedom to classify information as it wishes. for its part, the press may receive classified information from government employees who overisposed to hand classified documents. moreover subject to a variety of legal subtleties and nuances, the press may publish those documents with constitutional protection. the leaker, however, may be prosecuted with little if any first amendment protection. in practice over the years, not many leakers have suffered that fate. by custom the press will discuss what has typically been in its

possession with the government and make a careful judgment about what to publish and what would be too harmful to publish and the government intern does not try to push the legal interpretations that might support a breach of the first amendment protections to the press. every nation must reach some sort of balance and accommodation of these competing interests, and arguably up until now this has worked well in the united states. but what happens now should the balance be struck in the same way in a world in which hundreds of thousands of classified documents can be leaked in a second, by leakers who may wish to do harm, not good to society, and disclosed by organizations that are not necessarily public spirited in the sense of "the new york times," >> the post."n," or "the what now indeed?

involvingquestions state acquisition of masses of information about the activity of citizens that constitute the and bowl in which society ultimately defines itself, especially in the respective roles of the state and its citizens. tonight's discussion is a special moments in that larger sense. -- is a special moment in that larger sense. it is my pleasure to introduce steve. [applause] you.ank welcome. tonight's event marks the public launch of a project called "journalism after snowden." made possible by the -- foundation. i would like to acknowledge len

for his support. my colleague at the columbia journalism school faculty directs a program and it is being carried out in collaboration with the columbia journalism review, whose publisher liz spade is here with us tonight. lee so eloquently described and i will not attempt to discuss, the snowden incident has sparked debate, and it has also sparked an important and continuing debate about constitutional rights in the united states, globally governing the press and free expression. but it has also changed journalism and is in the process of changing journalism and has raised profound questions about

the practicing of journalism. that will be one subject of the panel tonight. these include shield laws and subpoena defense, that from line -- that frontline defense of reporters and their relationships with confidential sources. viability of the protection of information in the digital age. and the growing professional amateur -- for fashion a amateur divide in journalism. professional-amateur divide in journalism. all of these are serious questions after snowden. , research about changing journalistic conduct and a time of data insecurity and state surveillance. and we intend to carry out an in-depth

survey of the practice of and -- practice of investigative reporters. preclude ability to the working practices of working journalists. finally, we will make recommendations for the protections both of journalists and the people they collaborate with in and out of government. that all lies ahead. tonight what brings us together is the extraordinary panel that my colleague emily will direct. i thank you for your attention. emily, over to your. -- over to you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all. including students -- for turning out tonight. this will be a very important year of work for us, mostly.

my colleagues are very enthusiastic about the very long list of things we have to do. we are very lucky to have rate panelists with us here tonight. this will be a great opportunity to address issues we have already framed. before we do, i have an important piece of housekeeping. include columbia journalism style, full disclosure. i worked for "the guardian" for many years. if you are worried that this is too cozy a panel, i am here to tell you that is right and it is your job to be the opposition. really do have a great panel tonight, but there are many voices not included on the panel. there were the reporters involved with the story. green -- glenn greenwald, edward snowden himself. we wrapped up the panel.

will have a quick response, &a withn we will have q the audience as well. please have questions emma because i'm sure there are many i will not get to. on my left, we have the editor-in-chief of "the which broke the initial story. next to her, jill abramson. obviously, she needs no introduction to editors of the new york times. think it is fair to say the new york times is still the , the editorial voice that is most listened to by the establishment in the u.s. i hope that is not too controversial. have david, we schultz.

he is a leading first member lawyer. he is a partner in a law firm. "guardian" lawyer on links, ind wiki believe. he has been inside our two biggest stories of this kind. and we are very pleased to have my colleague here. one of the things we had thought was to get someone from the administration or the nsa to come talk to us. they are not quite ready for that yet. we hope they will at some point. he is one of the country for a leading scholars and constitutional law. he served in the obama administration, and the office of information. he's very excited to be on the panel. he is married to the u.s. ambassador to the u.n..

-- tonight he is here as a member of president obama's convened in response to the revelations by snowden. we are going to address what is the journalism after snowden, but i want to get to janine first. i think some of us are very familiar. some of us less familiar. could you tell us about breaking the story. what it was like for you, so you can set the scene. what is it like to deliver a story of that size to the world? >> it starts, like everything, it starts with a phone call from glenn greenwald. i should say "the guardian" is a 200-year-old news organization with a storied history of breaking large stores. wikileaks. --

in america, we are two-and-a-half years old. "guardian" running through us and our combined work history may be 80 years or so. in america we do not look like a 200-year-old news organization. we call ourselves g. i got a phone call from glenn greenwald who had been working for us for some months. he said, i think i have the biggest intelligence leak in a generation, if not better -- if not ever. [indiscernible] obviously your first thought -- of wikileaks and the various methods we had to take when working with wikileaks, i knew skype was not

particularly safe technology. and i knew he had a skype phone. i said, are you calling me from your rio residents on your skype phone? and he said yes. very much inlk that conversation. it became very clear the first thing he was going to have to do was get on a plane. he explained he had encrypted conversations with the source. because, you know, it's funny to remember now. you did not know his name. he was "the source." for quite a long time after we did know his name, we kept referring to him as the source. he was going to get his hands on this material. he would call me back. so anyway within five days he was in the "guardian" soho

loft. there were five of us then. laura, and ian mccaskill. in the entire world if you could office,ne to be in your it would be in mccaskill. he is not here, so i can say he "grizzled."-- he is the person you sent to the fire, what the fire is. air gap computer we had to send someone out to best buy to buy. you have seen what these look like. it looks like someone went

haywire with the powerpoint. you quickly realize -- either a huge, sensitive is the hitler diaries. it is a great big hoax. you have to verify it. >> how long was the verification process? >> it was really intense. and edwardand glenn on a plane to hong kong. they identified edward snowden by a rubik's cube in a hotel lobby. they could not believe he was 29. we thought from the description of the material this would be someone really senior, someone really highly ranked that nsa. then we could work out the psychology of it. glenn was in new york. we spent a lot of time

speculating to read what would cause someone to walk out with the crown jewels of the museum? they saw this kid walking through the lobby. they thought, that's not him. we were briefed on these standards of verification. spent three days locked in her room, interviewing him. show me this idea. talk to me about this area they were very convinced by him. talk to me about this. they were very convinced by him. and his motives. then he moved straight into what can we do? the first one was clearly, find a court order. 56,000 documents? >> no, there were many more than that. -- there was the

cache he gave to them, but there were several other caches. >> can anyone quantify what the size of the leak is? >> i don't think anyone can. at first the nsa said that they knew, and then they said they didn't. working -- there were six of us at this point. we realized the communications with hong kong were necessarily going to be sparse and very highly encoded. flyfirst thing to do was to james paul out to new york. --is a veteran of wiki links wikileaks. and freakishly young. young.ly annoyingly but really involved in all sorts of things with cryptology. very important. >> i didn't know that.

on theid not put him network, crucially. to properlyd us secure technology. then we had to teach glenn and ewan how to do it from new york. to be taughting how to doing crypto technology, be taught by the person who works at the nsa doing encrypts technology. -- doing encrypted technology. we were trying to provide a story about documents nobody has ever seen. you can't google "secrets file and court orders." [laughter] no, that's not funny. that is a genuine problem when you are trying to work out what it is. one of the crucial problems around this document -- if you are one of these subjects of a court order, you are under a gag

order. the first thought we had to make was verizon, and if they said no, there is no such thing -- we knew we would have to do that. but actually, they called back. , we will call you back. they called back really quickly. the said, can i ask what is name of the agency? and what is the date? we were listening to this and thinking, it is a bit like -- is at the pink one or the yellow one? so we started to think, up until that point, you put huge amounts of work into it, enormous amounts of money already. and you are thinking, this could all be nothing. this could be a massive, massive hoax. was tremendously important. we were working to scrips at that point, but we knew that was theg step in verifying

story. and we spoke to the administration. then it became very clear it was in fact a genuine document. we were point -- incredibly lucky at "the guardian." youe are only two questions ever need to ask yourself. is the story true, and is in the public interest? we spent time with several lawyers making sure our ethical, moral, journalistic interpretations of the optic interest matched up with the legal entertain and of the public interest both here and globally. so, it really did come down to verification. is it true? we basically tried to hold onto those two pillars ever since. if you are really hold on -- holding onto is in the public interest, and line by line that is what we are worrying about, it takes away from the enormous thing you are doing. >> at what point did "the new

get involved? were you approached by "the guardian"? >> i would say it was a delicate combination. we did not break the story of "the guardian." -- if we did not break the story ,nd "the washington post" did that caused indigestion for me. >> what about calls to the newsroom? >> excuse me? >> what about calls to the newsroom? >> i think the newsroom was disappointed, as was i, that we did not break these story. a concern of mine. , thet that we had had

times, had a very productive collaboration with "the guardian" on wikileaks. obviously "the new york times" wrote the pentagon papers story, which was eloquently evoked in the opening remarks. in 20 oh five we published the first story about warrantless 5, wedropping -- 200 published the first story about warrantless eavesdropping by the nsa. i thought that prompted, made a powerful argument that "the times" had a constructive role to play in these stories. so, actually, i heard from alan thefirst weekend after stories were published. the editor of "the guardian."

we had a chat in my office the following week. it was the somewhat vague conversation about collaborating, and maybe we could. as any aggressive journalist i saw the door was a little bit open and i tried to stick my foot in it and keep it a little bit wider. calltime to time i would him and say, we would love to work with you. nothing happened for a while. then he did get in touch with me. and the catalyst, i believe, for him reaching out to me was that had the sense that the british government was about to come down very hard on "the and probably demand the return of the materials. and he was deathly worried that

the public interest role she itke so powerfully about, would be yanked. >> [indiscernible] >> of course that was proved to be the case. >> exactly. sometime before the authorities actually came to the guard -- came to "the guardian" and they had to literally destroy their drives and what not, "the times" did obtain some but not all of the snowden materials from "the guardian" and we agreed to abide by all of the protocols that "the guardian" had established for keeping these materials as safe as possible.