battle of the crater, which took place in 1864 in southern virginia. tomorrow, remarks from rick perry on immigration issues. he will speak at an event hosted by the heritage foundation, beginning 11:00 eastern. see that live, thursday on c-span. now back to our issue spotlight programming, looking at the gm recalls with testimony from gm ceo mary barra. in front of a senate subcommittee last month. this portion is 45 minutes. >> members of the committee, before i begin i want to say those who lost loved ones and those who are injured i'm deeply sorry. i know we as a company and i personally have a responsibility to make sure this never happens again. i'm the general counsel of at general motors company. i have worked for g.m. for 37 years. prior to that, i was an

assistant u.s. attorney and before that, i clerked for the honorable vincent j. brennan of the michigan court of appeals. as you are aware, the investigation conducted by anton valukas revealed the failures behind the ignition switch recall including failures on the legal staff. when ms. barra testified before this committee on april 2, a number of you, including you, chairman mccaskill, raised serious and important questions about the performance of the legal staff. and our responsibility in this tragedy as general counsel, i'm ultimately responsible for the legal affairs of the company. and i'm here today to answer your questions. i first learned about the cobalt ignition switch defect during the first week of february of this year. i immediately took action. i wish i had known about it earlier. because i know i would have taken action earlier if i did. we had lawyers at general motors who did not do their jobs. didn't do what was expected of

them. and those lawyers are no longer with the company. i have taken and will continue to take steps to make sure something like this never happens again. the valukas report contains detailed recommendations for how the legal staff can improve. and serve an even greater role in meeting g.m.'s commitment to safety. i'm assuring the implementation of each and every recommendation. and i have made and will continue to make other changes to help improve. i have directed that before any settlement or trial of a case involving a fatality or serious bodily injury that the case be brought to me for my personal review with a focus on open engineering issues. i've reorganized the legal staff to foster sharing of information and the identification of emerging trends. including vathe a senior attorney to be the chief legal advisor to jeff hoyer, vice president of global safety, with a direct reporting line to me and a dotted reporting line

to mark royce, executive vice president of global product development. i've supplemented existing legal sources within -- with attorneys from two outside law firms to make sure that we have the proper level of engagement. i've also appointed a well respected outside law firm to conduct a zero-based review of our litigation practices. i've met with the entire u.s. legal staff to discuss the valukas report's findings and to set high expectations for the staff going forward. these changes and others will result in greater transparency and information flow on issues of safety within the legal taff, as well as the company generally. and i'm committed to make sure that i and g.m. senior management team have a full line of sight into all safety-related matters. g.m.'s legal staff is comprised of hard-working and dedicated professionals of the highest

integrity. they strive daily to help global g.m. achieve its business objectives in a lawful and ethical manner. they have expressed sincere and deep disappointment and regret because of the actions and inactions of some individuals within the company including some on the legal staff who failed the company and our customers. the g.m. legal staff is dedicated to helping g.m. become the leader in automotive safety. we now have to correct our mistakes. and we are. but this is only the beginning. all of us at g.m. are committing to seth a new industry standard for safety, quality, and excellence. we must do better. we will do better. i am personally committed to this. thank you. >> thank you, ms. barra. >> chairman mccaskill, ranking member heller, and members of the committee, when i first appeared before you, we were in the early stages of the

ignition switch recall. i promised you we would get answers. and be fully transparent in what we've learned. i also said i would not wait to make changes. today i worked to fix the mistakes that led to the ignition switch recall are well under way. as a result, we are building a stronger company that places customers and their safety at the center of every aspect of our business. in a town hall meeting before thousands of general motors employees and several thousand more around the world jay satellite we accepted responsibility for what went wrong. i told the men and women of g.m. that our actions would be guided by two clear principles -- first, we would do everything in our power to make sure this never happens again. and we will do right for those who were hurt. and it is on this point i want to begin. i want to recognize the families who lost loved ones and those who suffered physical

injury because of these mistakes. to each of them i extend my and our g.m. employees sympathy. we will not forget them. nor the special responsibility we have to them. we are committed to treating each of them with compassion, decency, and fairness. that is why ken feinberg will independently administer a compensation program. mr. feinberg has talked about his compensation program. it is, however, worth noting that he has complete and sole discretion over all compensation awards to eligible victims. and this is very important. there is no cap on this program. as i stated earlier, we want to do all that we can to make sure this does not happen again. we created this compensation program as an exceptional response to a unique set of mistakes that were made over an extended period of time. the valukas report was only a start and many changes were in

motion even before we received the findings of of the report. i will use the reportaries findings and recommendations to attack and remove the information silos wherever we find them and to create an organization that is accountable and focused on customers. i'm committed to acting on all of the recommendations contained in the report. actions we have already taken include elevating safety decision making to the highest levels of the company. i've created a new position, vice president of global safety. he has full access to me. we removed 15 employees from the company. some for misconduct, and incompetence. others because they didn't take responsibility or act with a sense of urgency. we've instituted a speak up for safety program to encourage and recognize employees that bring issues, potential safety issues forward quickly. and we've added over 35 investigators to identify and addressed issues much more quickly when they relate to safety. we've aligned the legal staff

to help assure greater transparency and information sharing among the staff and across all business units around the globe. and most importantly, we created the product integrity organization. which brings a complete systems engineering approach to the safety of our vehicles. overall, we are dramatically enhancing our approach to saflte. you can see it in the aggressive stance we are taking on recalls with the redoubling of our efforts. we are bringing greater rigor, discipline, and urgency to our analysis and decision making. we are mining every source of data available to us from the factory floor, warranty information, customer calls, legal claims, and social media. we are not waiting to see if a trend develops or updating spreadsheets. we want our customers to know when we identify an issue that could possibly affect their safety, we will act quickly. yes, we have recalled a large volume of past models and a

result of our exhaustive review coming out you have also conducted 12 recalls of less than 1000 vehicles in four of less than 100 this year. this demonstrates how quickly we are reacting when we see a potential issue. i also know that the recent efforts and the current frequency of recalls have garnered considerable attention. lacing the highest value on or customer safety is what our employees want to be known for. we want to stand as a company that is setting the new industry standard for safety. our employees will not forget what led to the ignition switch recall but they also don't want to be defined by it. after my town hall, i could hear it in your voices, i could read it in their messages. they're all in to make this a better company. i believe in them and together we have been working hard over the last few months to address the underlying issues that

caused this problem in the first place. been at town hall, i have inundated with calls and e-mails him employees telling me they are more motivated than ever to make gm the best possible company for our customers. this is our mission and it won't happen overnight, but i can tell you we are holding each other accountable to do exactly that. .e are 100% committed i appreciate the opportunity to be here today and i welcome your questions. >> mr. o'neill, thank you for being here. >> thank you. chairman mccaskill, the ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify. i am the chief executive officer and president of delphi automotive. first and foremost, on behalf of myphi, i want to express profound sympathies to the victims and their families.

people were hurt and lives were lost. we must work together to avoid tragedies of this nature going forward. the subcommittee's work is an important part of that effort. members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to address the important issues that you're considering. we fully support your efforts. i would like to discuss three main points. first, delphi's efforts to provide replacement parts and support general motors in connection with the recall. with theur cooperation subcommittee and other governmental bodies as well as gm am in third the review and reinforcement of delphi's safety policies and procedures. my first point, i would like to provide some information pertaining to delphi postured a reduction of replacement parts for general motors. the vehicles that were recalled

were not in production several years ago. as a result it has been a monument task to build over 2 million switches in a matter of months. we have installed three new production lines and trained additional workers. at this time we have shipped over one million new switches and we're on track to deliver more than 2 million switches by the end of august. we have done all this so that consumers can have their vehicles repaired by general motors as quickly as possible. a second point is that delphi fully supports the subcommittee's efforts as well as those of the house energy and commerce committee and other governmental bodies. our support has included conducting an exhaustive review and providing relevant documents and meeting multiple times with the subcommittee and federal agencies. in addition, we have cooperated with general motors in the recall and its investigation and

our cooperation includes entering into a reciprocal document sharing agreement and we have provided relevant documents and of course with that agreement. , we have conducted a thorough review of our current policies and procedures related to product safety which we believe are robust and which we are continuously working to improve. for example, and at my direction, we have reinforced our global engineering team on the importance of raising safety concerns so that they can be handled roughly. we have strengthened our procedures to ensure that safety concerns are communicated across all relevant functions within our company, and that includes reports to our senior management and to our customers. we are committed to acting upon all such concerns in a timely manner. the industry has created a new standard to focus on how these

complex safety systems work together instead of looking at safety on a part by part basis. we support this new standard and given what we have learned from these tragedies, the new standard should be very helpful going forward. a written statement provides additional details and i will be pleased to address any questions you may have. again, thank you for this opportunity to testify today. -- mr.k you, mr. of deal o'neill. >> chairman mccaskill, ranking member heller and members of the committee, thank you for having me here today to testify about the cobalt ignition issues. , generalof this year motors board asked me to determine why it took so long to recall the cobalt and other vehicles that contained the faulty ignition switch. my explicit mandate from the board was to provide an unvarnished report on how and

why this occurred, pursue the facts wherever they took us, and to put those facts into a report. that is the report which we submitted to the board. general motors board also directed me to make recommendations drawn from the facts to help ensure that this did not occur again. unfettered was given access to general motors witnesses and to their documents . we interviewed more than 230 witnesses and conducted over 350 total interviews. some of those interviews lasted over two days. the collect -- we collected more than 41 million documents, all in an effort to find out why the cobalt recall was delayed for so many years. in that research in terms of the investigation, we looked at every ceo, we looked at all of the engineers, we used search so no one was exempt from

that review. i will not summarize the report, you have it. i will however note that among the issues we specifically examine are the issues that are the topic of this hearing. accountability and corporate culture. we ask questions of dozens of witnesses from top executives to line engineers about these topics. we examine the decision-making process is that related to the ignition switch issues and whether there were broad cultural issues that may have contributed to the delayed recall. the story of the cobalt is one of a series of individual and organizational failures that led to devastating consequences. tookghout the decade it till motors to recall the cobalt, there was a lack of accountability, a lack of urgency, and a failure of company personnel charged with ensuring the safety of the company's vehicles to understand how general motors vehicles were

manufactured. in our report reviewed these failures including cultural issues and that may have contributed to this problem. board'sal motors request, we provided recommendations to help ensure that this problem would never occur again. i'm happy to take your questions. thank you. >> i want to say to the committee, many members of the committee have worked very hard in preparation for this hearing. so we can try to get two rounds of questions in before we have to leave for boats. mr. milliken, i want to spend my time on my first row with you. i want to make sure everybody understands what punitive damages are. four lawyers, that is a blinking red light. and you mr. belugas

will confirm that punitive damages in our system are designed to punish corporations. conduct that is outrageous and egregious. it is a method by which justice can be done by punishing bad behavior. atattern was emerging general motors for almost a decade about these cars. there was some confusion on the part of at least one engineer. 2010, yourber of lawyers -- this was not the plaintiff's lawyer that was out there making a frivolous lawsuit. saidlawyers that you hired you are possibly subjective -- subject to punitive damages over the way you have handled this problem in this automobile.

that was in october of 2010. i believe you were general counsel been, correct? , in july 2011, your that there is a potential for punitive damages because of this factual scenario. are also general counsel then, correct question mark at that point in time, lucy clark authority in july of 2011 was general counsel for north america, correct? i believe she began in that position in march of 2011. thinking it was 2012, but i could be wrong. 2012, anotherl of one of your outside lawyers that youur department were subject to punitive damages.

which could be millions of dollars for corporation the size of general motors. factclark authority was in general counsel for north america. in april 2013, almost the same time you had the bombshell dropped on you in the definition -- in that deposition , showing the switches had been switched out, the part had been change, once again you are warned about punitive damages. . >> as a company, that is correct. >> see you have a legal obligation -- legal obligation to report it to the securities and exchange commission. did you ever do that about this issue? andhe issue of this product the problems surrounding it, have you ever reported to the

sec? .ot your legal department your legal department knew it. >> am talking about from the time i knew forward and excluding that, before that, no week have not. subsequent to that we may have made a filing with the sec about the ignition switch recall, that is correct every >> what about the legal obligation to inform the board of directors. or they were that your lagers retailing you this car was going to cause you to to damages? >> they were not given >> what about financial reserves? were you entering in the books of financial reserves necessary to cover this liability which is your obligation as general counsel? >> we were not entering any reserves to color -- cover punitive damages, no we were not. how you andt get lucy clark authority still have your jobs. can you explain that to me? >> i think you have done a lot

of good work century to go over. i think you handled this with courage and conviction. i cannot for the life of me -- this is either gross negligence or gross incompetence on the part of a lawyer, the notion that he can say i didn't know. craig senator mccaskill, i respectfully disagree. as you know, i have made a promise to fix what happened in the company to make sure that we are dedicated to safety, dedicated to excellence. we are well on our way and we have made significant change to do that -- to do that, i need the right team. might milliken is a man of incredibly high integrity who has tremendous global experience as it relates to the legal profession. he is the person i need on this team. he had a system in place him unfortunately in this instance it wasn't brought to his attention from a frankly by people who brought many other issues forward. he is a man of high integrity. >> was there a system in place that says your lawyer is telling

you your subject to punitive ?amages how is that not incompetent? she says we have our lawyer telling us for different times within a couple of years on something you had not even talked about recalling, punitive damages. how do you have a system in place it doesn't look out for that? >> we had very senior lawyers who had this information did not bring it forward who are no longer with the company. detailsnt through the of the lucas report very carefully, and i would say when in doubt we reached further to take action, there are many lawyers that are no longer with the company to >> i think there has been a blind spot here. my time is up. think the failure of this legal department is stunning and the notion -- you look around government, when something like shinsekiens, secretary

did know about those problems and canceling. nobody told him. he is gone. >> madam chair, thank you. being here today and taking the tough questions. of complete the circle here. i would like to ask you just a couple of questions regarding your products. time, soave a lot of the short of the answers, the better. the complaint as they started piling up in 2000 on your product, did delphi conduct any internal investigation to determine whether your part was at fault? aware of thet deathson in terms of ,ntil february of this year

2014. quick so you are saying obviously not. he didn't know until february of this year. was there any reason to believe that anyone in your company may ?ave known >> in the exhaustive review we have done in our documents in talking with individuals, it was clear to the delphi team in working with the general motors team when this particular situation, we were concerned about customer satisfaction and what it cost and quality issues. >> is there possibility that any individual in your company simply did not take it to the top? very hard,d very, and there is no evidence of that because it's quite clear the mindset was based on information that they were given. they were working on quality issues, not safety issues. >> did anyone ever raise concerns about keeping it the

same with this part? quick standard protocol in our industry is that the car manufacturer may determine the part number and they control that part number. so if that part number is ever to change, the car manufacturer would dictate the change and we would automatically up rate it. next do you feel that delphi shoulders any responsibility here? me explain some important information and i think it would lead to that discussion. a productroblem -- that we work with general motors to develop and that was the switch. that's which started with a certain set of requirements. often in development working with the customer, general motors in this case, those requirements can become more

stringent. they can become less or they can stay the same. in this particular case -- i it was athe report very european-style switch. bywas ultimately approved general motors and that part met the requirements that was dictated. otherart then met with parts and became part of a subsystem called the ignition assembly. >> i hate to interrupt you but i don't have a lot of time. product met the requirements of the customer. >> so no responsibility. >> no. >> mr. belugas, understanding was a sharing agreement with delphi. was it as forthcoming as you would have liked it to have been?

do you think the limited information you receive from delphi prevented you from providing a complete report? >> no, i believe at this point having had the chance to put the extra six-month -- six weeks or month by way of what we had in materials, i think the report is complete. comfortable with the delphi aspect of it that we have that information. >> is there anything we don't know that is relevant? >> i committed and promised to an earlier committee that if we found something i would go to the board of directors. if interface anything factually so we learned that would alter it in a significant way, we would supplement the report and i would make that commitment to this committee. right now believe that everything we could know about this issue we would put in that report or a supplemental letter. next do you feel that delphi shoulders any responsibility? deaths?13

>> i can tell you this. approved thes switch knowing that it was below pork values and that was an approval that was given to delphi, and delphi manufactured the switch in accordance with that approval. that delphilieve shoulders any responsibility for the 13 deaths? iswe are the company that responsible to integrate the parts into the vehicle so it is our responsibility. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, all of you. i spoke earlier about growing up in minnesota [indiscernible] this story is not just tragic because we have constituents and because the facts are tragic. it also turns out to be an important art of mr. valu

kas'report. the wisconsin state trooper conducted an investigation himself after the crash and clearly made the link between the defect is -- defective ignition switch and the failure of the airbag to deploy. he cracked the code that seem to have evaded gm engineers and lawyers for years. he wrote in his report that was in the legal files as of february 2007. he wrote "the two front seat airbags did not deploy. it appears the ignition switch been turned to accessory prior to the collision with the tree." did you interview people about this report and did you figure out why no engineers had read it at gm? >> what happened with this report was that the report, and i believe correctly analyze the situation back as far as 2007,

was collected by gm as part of into what iss put called a rumor file and at some point it was accessed by a paralegal who then sent to -- at no point did we have it frantically reviewed by outside experts. at no point was it access of 2014then and march when the investigation was undertaken. so during that time it was in those files, that rumor file, and know when i gm look at it other than back in 2007 when a senate. it seems to me it is somewhat official and there is also an indiana university study, they were commissioned to look at the crash as well. was that also in the rumor file? next they actually did not even have that. even though is publicly available, it gm did not gather

that public information. that was not something they had until 2012 when it outside expert made available as part of their report. be that you guys , you'reor seven years starting to see all these airbag non-deployment cases that nobody saw this report and looked at it ? you are seeing an example of what the report identified. file ismation flow, the not one that was searchable by the normal terms that people would use when they were looking for documents. it's my understanding from the report, and we're doing what we can to make sure we do have this honor going forward basis. this is a tragedy that cannot happen again and i'm dedicated to making sure we make the changes we need to ensure that. panel, i dofirst

appreciate you have come forward out front and set up this compensation fund. knowsaid were not going to if justice is done until we see with the outcomes are and i appreciate the work that has been done on the recall as the owner of her he gm car. one of the things mr. lucas wrote in this report, he said although everyone had responsibility to fix the problem, nobody took responsibility. he said a top executive described it as the gm not, when everyone nods in agreement to a proposed plan of action. steps have you taken to implement, to get rid of what we call the gm nod, and how do you ensure we move from confusedure of responsibility to defined responsibility? >> in my career at general motors, and never accepted the gm not and frankly i have called people out on it.

it is not appropriate. we make very complex products and it's important that all voices are heard. the way you change culture is by demonstrating the behavior, making sure people understand what your expectations are, and calling them out when they don't. i've been demonstrating that, i direct leadership team is 100% committed to that. i have talked openly about it. employeesk to all globally on june 5, after i read the report, which i found deeply troubling, i told them that and i told them that behavior was unacceptable, we were not going to tolerate it. the true change will be by behaviors. i am intent on making sure the right behaviors continue going forward. q. >> we have a custom in this committee that when that chairman of the ranking member shows up they can cut in line. i'm going to abide by that

appropriate custom and recognize the senator for his questioning. cuts that makes you really popular here, madam chairman. i appreciate it and i thank you for holding this hearing and staying on these issues. it's important that we examine the developments following this recall issue. i know you have been working very hard on this and we all share the desire to get the answers and ensure this does not happen again. minted it failed to report the safety-related defect in a timely manner and the report is called gm's delay in addressing the ignition switch defect. as we all know these delays cost lives and i know i express my deepest sympathies to those who were injured or lost loved ones in car accidents involving gm vehicles that have now been recalled. , i welcomen i have

the very public steps you have taken thus far to address the needed changes within gm, some of which you have discussed in your written testimony. i'm also reminded of statements that your immediate predecessor also discussed in his efforts to create a culture of accountability at gm following the company's bankruptcy in federal bailout. somealukas uncovered troubling findings and my in your view isn't a sign that a cultural change has yet to take hold at gm? >> culture change happens over a long time. i would say mr. ackerson did extensive work to make sure he drove the right behavior but i think we are on a continuum of making that cultural change.

the very open and transparent way we are dealing with the issue and sharing it with employees, they want to change. they want to make sure we have the right systems and processes in place. i would say mr. ackerson started on that journey and we are continuing and accelerating it. >> how do you plan to measure that change? >> on a couple of fronts, one on the very real part from a safety perspective, we've already broken down the silos and we are mining data is in using some of the latest analytic egg links to make sure information comes from across the company. we have engaged employees and they are participating in our speak up for safety program. of choicerkplace survey every 18 months and we have seen improvements in that. that will be another key objective way to make sure we are driving the right openness. i get hundreds of e-mails from our employees on a weekly and monthly basis and they are

engaged, and that to me is the best sign. is actions, not words, that will change behaviors. >> what role do you think the board of directors has in changing the culture? question role of the board is to clearly state their expectations of how they company should operate. as ceo it's my job to make sure we are living up to their expectations. valukas is based on the report. the problems were not limited to the switch as specified. from 2001 mention quite a bit of frustration on the part of gm in dealing with these delphi switches due to electrical failures and delphi's inability to deliver parts for testing purposes. taken together, this evidence

would seem to indicate a problem for greater than we were initially led to believe. now with that ignition switch, these issues have come to light, have you gone back and reviewed these concerns and determined what delphi will do in the future? >> we did go back and look extensively at all the documentation, and we found nothing that was abnormal in terms of product development. and ultimately how the problems were addressed that you sometimes run into as you move from development to production, etc.. as i said, our product has met the requirements. it injured and ignition assembly products,t had other i'm assuming the other products

met their requirements, but when they come together they form a saidm and as mrs. bauer earlier, it's someone else's job to make sure that those products work in total harmony when they come together. back ande gone understood our role in that. ofhink the new legislation how safety systems interact from , and we perspective will work diligently with general motors over this issue. >> in 2006 gm authorized a changed in the ignition switch but did not change the part number. as a supplier, is it a common practice for delphi to allow him a new factor to change apart and not change the part number? about 120,000had engineering changes and only

about 40% of those actually had a part number change, so it's quite normal not to change the part number. >> do you allow the manufacturer to do the same thing? >> yes. >> my time has expired. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madam chairman. report, when your did the legal team know about this problem? back tonk you could go their investigators, it would have been in the range of 2007, it was called to their attention . there began an inquiry about who wasinvestigator assigned to the gm legal team. >> when did they know about the ignition switch problem?

period ofloped over a time and the first time i can recall the matter was being called to their attention in some way, it may have been as early as 2009-2010. >> mr. milliken, how long have you been the chief counsel? quick since the middle of 2009. forve been with the company 37 years. >> that you were in the legal side of the company before that. >> yes sir. >> when did you first find out about these two problems? >> i first found out about the ignition switch recall situation the first week of february of this year. >> how is that possible that nobody would have told you before the first week of february of this year? >> my information is based valukas report. there's a long time when there was not a connection made between the ignition switch

problem and the non-appointment of airbags. in terms of looking at the results of the report, i think it all came together for the lawyers at the time of the milton deposition in 2013 and from that point on there was enough information in the legal staff for people to have taken action and to have caused the engineering organization to take action. tragic,.'t, that was >> give me those dates again from the time you think that enough information to take action until the time you found on with five i'm basing it the definition in april of 2013. >> and you didn't know until february of 2014. i'm going to ask mr. valukas this as well, but with this kind of problem be allowed to happen again? what have you done to prevent those same set of circumstances from happening again?

>> before any case can be , if it or taken to trial involves a fatality or serious bodily injury it has to come to me regardless of the amount of the settlement postal and i want it brought to me with full explanation of the case, with a focus on any open engineering issues, so that i have an opportunity to cause open engineering issues to be addressed if they are not being properly addressed. >> is there anyway to trigger this before you have a serious bodily injury or fidelity or lost sock -- lawsuit? it would bring to my attention cases on a more regular basis than were brought to my attention before. >> is it your view that the changes that have been made would prevent what happened from ever happening again? >> ugly based on what i noticed taking place that the answer is yes. one of the things that is happened here is the flow of

information which you are able to identify quickly enough so that the engineering department was not acting on it and going back to comments that have been made earlier, the legal department of be in a position to force that to take place. >> have employees been let go because of this? mr. milliken, have employees been let go because of this? are anythey have to >> of them challenging their dismissal? >> they are not. >> you are selling lots of cars. also recalling lots of cars. i think 25 million is the number in the last 12 months. why would there still be so many recalls? i'm not suggesting that is necessarily a bad ink, but why's that number so high? >> will we learn what happened with the ignition switch recall, we went back and redoubled our efforts. places.d at a number of

we tackled all of those. we went back extensively and looked at information we had to see if we could more quickly put together any trends. as it relates to every safety giorgio hadr. do responsibility for, we looked and assessed every single one of those. in some cases there's not even any field information to suggest there is an issue, but as we get our systems engineering analysis, if we saw that by adding an insert into a key we could make the system more robust, we did that. we are intent on being a company known for safety. this was an important step and we will continue >> you have been watching our special look at gm recalls. we are joined by the washington bureau chief of the "detroit news." what is the status of the investigations?

>> they are ongoing, especially in the case of the house, which has had several issues. they are poring through 2 million documents and trying to come up with proposals for new legislation. chairman fred upton has said he expects to introduce reform legislation early next year. senator rockefeller and senator mccaskill have both introduced several -- separate measures to give the government more power to more quickly get unsafe vehicles off the road and impose much tougher fines. those bills are likely not to come up until early next year, and most likely will be rolled into the highway bill, given that the current highway bill will expire next may. >> gm continues to deal with the recall issue. a headline says that mary barra is sending letters to 1.9 million car owners in the

ignition switch recall. what is in those letters, and why she's earned them -- did she send them? >> gm is working overtime to try to get people to get the vehicles fixed. recalled 2.6 million, in the u.s. roughly 2 million. of the vehicles they fixed 800,000. in this case, it is about ensuring that people who ordered the parts actually come and get the vehicles fixed. some have not bothered to follow through. if you remember, when this issue first came to light in february and march, they did not have any parts, so gm was paying for thousands of loaner cars. they are still building parts in mexico through supplier -- the supplier, delphi, running malt lineses basic -- multiple basically 24 hours a day. they will not completed the production until the end of october, and in the meantime

they want people to quickly get into the dealerships. the letter also advises owners of the new and more in-depth website where people can get detailed information on what specifically the issue is with their individual car. >> the other issue is the victims of the crash is caused by the faulty parts. kenneth feinberg, in the senate hearing we showed, talked about "as first. being as of last week, 100 more. where do things stand with the filing of claims by victims? feinberg told ken 87they had received claims, of which were from fatal injuries. the key thing, there have not been any approval. this is the first stage of the review for simpler claims.

non-fatal claims, it will take them 90 days to make the determination. fatal claims, it will take up to 180 days. since the victims compensation fund will accept claims through the end of december, potentially the fund could be running through the middle of next year. at the same time, there's a federal court in new york overseeing over 100 lawsuits covering more than 1000 plaintiffs for a variety of ignition switch-related claims. not just injuries, but lost claims. >> meanwhile, recalls go on. the headline in the piece you co-authored, gm add recalls. for saturn vue. the total is 66 so far. what is the company doing in terms of adjusting recalls? >> it is staggering.

industry,u.s. auto all companies foreign and million, recalled 30.8 vehicles. the industry today has recalled 45 million vehicles, and we are only in august. so the entire industry has shifted gears. gm is moving far faster to recall vehicles, in part because the ceo has said that they have changed the culture. they no longer look at cost when assessing whether something should be recalled for a safety issue. but also, in may the national safety transport ministration impose a record-setting fine on gm for failing to recall ignition switches in a timely fashion. agreet of that, gm has to to up to three years of intensive monitoring with the government, which means

sometimes daily phone calls to talk about what potential safety issues are upcoming. way before they can get to the recall states. you have intense government oversight and a company now that recalls first, asks questions later. as a result, that's what you see so many campaigns. it is a huge number compared to historical averages. >> a reminder to our viewers. you can see all the gm hearings, house and senate hearings, on our website, www.c-span.org. our thanks to the washington bureau chief of the "detroit news." >> the annual new york ideas festival held in may buy the atlantic and aspen institute. a cancer biologist spoke about the drug development industry. here is a look now. >> even though drug development technology, it is not giving

us medicines we need. last year, only 27 new drugs were approved. 27. for all diseases, not just cancer. thebusiness model of pharmaceutical companies is not hard to understand. it's basically the same one used by hollywood. they go out and find interesting projects, bring them in-house, polish them, get them through thenrs, the fda, and marketing and advertising teams work to deliver them to the public. expensive, risky, which is why, like hollywood, drug companies seek blockbusters. when you think about it, targeted medicines are more like the indie art films. not a big audience. the problem is, it costs the same amount of money to make a indie art film as a hollywood

blockbuster and get it through the process. so if you are making a targeted drug for a cancer, the result is it ends up being phenomenally expensive. the more expensive it is, the harder it is to get insurance companies to pay for it or for an individual to pay for it, so the best medicines and of helping the fewest people. >> a portion of the annual new york ideas festival held in may. you can see his entire remarks .m. eastern8:00 p tonight on c-span. while congress is in recess, we're showing you both tv in prime time. tonight, books on living in the tech age. first "the second machine age," then "igods." later, "the zero marginal cost society," and after that, "privacy in the age of big data."

tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on his band2. -- c-span2. american history tv, with programs on the battle of the crater, which took place during the siege of petersburg, virginia. after weeks of tunneling, union forces detonated explosives under confederate lines. u.s. colored troops played a key role in the attack, which mostly failed and ended up costing the deaths of hundreds of union troops. these events tonight on c-span3. >> this month, c-span presents, debates on what makes america great. evolution, and genetically modified food, irs oversight, student loan debt, and campus sexual assault. spector is on issues including global warming, voting rights,

fighting infectious disease, food safety, and our american history tour, showing its and sounds from america's historic places. find our schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org, and let us know about the programs you are watching. email us at comments@ www.c-span.org. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. nsa director mike rogers stressed his agency's commitment to following the rule of law as he gathers intelligence. he spoke at a session hosted by the intelligence and national security alliance. this is close to one hour. [applause] >> good evening. can you hear me in the back? can you hear me in the back?

excellent. first, i want to thank you for taking the time out of your busy lives to spend a little time together this evening. to be honest, i am somewhat shocked. ien i was asked to do this, said, do you really want to do an event in d.c. in the middle of the august? i thank you for taking time out of your busy lives. i'm also grateful, because i'm here for several reasons. many of youremost, heard me talk about this as director of the national security agency and commander of the united states cyber command, i'm a firm believer that public dialogue and transparency is an important part of executing our mission today and in the future. we have got to be willing to have public dialogue. so when i was asked if i would be willing to do this, i said, no restrictions on media, no restrictions on questions. if we are going to do this, then he has to go into this with eyes

open. that is important. there is no doubt that one of my missions as director of the national security agency is to represent the hard-working men and women of that organization and help the american public understand who are they, what do they do, and why they do it. because frankly, we have not had much discussion about that. at the national security agency, is tasked to defend the nation and its allies, to comply with the rule of law, and to ensure that we always remain accountable to the american people. that is what we are about, defending the nation and our allies, following the rule of law, and always remembering that we remain accountable to the citizens we defend. much debate about many of the capabilities has been highlighted about what nsa can do. but what we have not talked about, what is the context in which those capabilities are applied?

what are the policy and the legal mechanisms that have been put in place to assure those capabilities are not misused against the very citizens we would defend? what leads us to believe that the things nsa does are in the best interest of the nation and our allies? small part job in no because i believe in the national security agency, and i believe in its mission. it doesn't mean we are perfect. you will not hear me say that. but you will hear me say, we are committed to the rule of law, and we will be accountable. and when we make mistakes, we will stand up and knowledge that. we will use the very compliance mechanisms that have been put in place both internally within the agency, but more importantly, the broader set of external compliance, whether that is the congress, the courts, the department of justice, our teammates in the dni.

much of what you have read has flowed from nsa self reporting where we have made mistakes and not wrongfully followed our own procedures. i highlight that in the course of the last few months you have seen multiple public reviews of what nsa does, for example, in compliance with fisa 702, the 215 section, by external organizations who have looked at us and said that nsa is complying with the law and has a robust set of mechanisms in place to make sure we don't abuse the information that we collect and that it is appropriately protected. it doesn't mean we are perfect, but i am proud of what we've put in place. in no small part because we have learned from our past mistakes. we implemented a pretty extensive compliance organization back in 2009,

because we realized we needed to do things better. my compliments to general alexander and predecessors for his commitment to the idea of compliance and oversight. to do our mission, we have to do that. there is much debate and it is a good one as a nation to talk about the right balance between the needs to ensure our security and the needs to ensure the recognition of the rights of our citizens? and it is not either or. we have got to address the valid concerns. the harder challenge to me, in some ways, is the acknowledgment between secrecy and transparency . that is the challenge for me as an intelligence professional. if i am honest i have spent my

whole life thinking about protecting sources, methods, making sure that what we do is not compromised and that our ability to continue to do it remains intact? i realize that as an intelligence leader in the 21st century -- rogers, you have to be willing to talk to a broader set of people and in broad terms about what we do and why we do it. i am very comfortable with what nsa does and why it does it. because i believe that we defend the nation and its allies. we follow the rule of the law and we always remember that we remain accountable to the american people. accountability comes in many forms. it could be the congress that execute the oversight of our functions, the courts to grant us the authority to do what we do in many cases -- we have to make a case, in many cases, to a federal court to get permission to do what we do.

nobody writes us a blank check or gives us permission for a finite purpose for a finite. of time. if we want to continue beyond that, we go back to the court to make a case again. when we make mistakes, we've got to make sure that we report to the court of we have failed in our compliance. the other challenge i have is the director of nsa, as i tell the organization about its new director, we cannot be trapped by the past. we have got to learn from the past and drive. there is a mission that the nation depends on. almost every major operation that i can think of that we as a nation have done in the course of the last year, for example, many other elements of the intelligence committee -- community have played a role. that is a good thing for the citizens of this country and for our allies. don't ever forget, we are not only about supporting the united states, but we are also about

supporting our allies and i spent a great deal of my time as director ensuring that those partnerships remain focused on the future, remembering what it was that brought us together in the first ways. my challenge is -- how do i make sure that nsa remains effective in executing its mission? how do i make sure that we are positioned as the world around us changes to make sure that we maintain relevance and capabilities, always mindful to obey the rule of law as citizens of the nation that we defend? and that what we need to be doing now that if we don't do in five years to 10 years, we will be in real trouble? another area i would give general alexander great marks is i was always impressed, early in his time as the director, and can remember talking to him about and him telling me about the efforts we needed to make now that would not be a factor for five or 10 years but if we

didn't do it now, the person behind him will challenges. that's hard and hard to do in an environment where the budget pressure is increasing, not decreasing. we have enjoyed relatively steady increases in funding over the course of the last decade. a reflection in large part on the strategic situation we found ourselves in as a nation and the two wars that we fought in which many, many of our countrymen made the ultimate sacrifice and came back fundamentally changed. not only sacrificing in many cases their lives, but they became fundamentally different individuals. i think about them all the time. as we move into the future i am constantly thinking to myself -- what do we need to do to make sure that we remain relevant to those men and women around the world?

average citizens, traveling the world who find themselves in dangerous circumstances and bad situations? we are here to try to make a difference in all of those scenarios. nothing to apologize for. when we do it, we always remember to obey the rule of law and be accountable to the citizens of the nation. everything we have done to date, it has been about the law being correct. you could argue that the policy is or isn't something we need to be doing, but no one has come back to say that nsa has failed to follow the law or meet its obligations in ensuring that we protect the information that we collect in the course of our duties. it does not mean that we are perfect. but i fundamentally believe in what we do.

i fundamentally believe what we do and how we do it. will you stand for a minute if you were formerly an employee? i know there are some of you here. the reason i ask you to stand is because rogers gets the attention as a director, but what really matters to me are the men and women like this who have dedicated themselves to ensuring the defense of our citizens and allies. i just wanted to say thank you very much. [applause] as i think to myself about how we build the future, partnerships are incredibly important to the future. i have always agreed that the future to me is about integration and maximizing partnerships. another reason why i am here tonight, i want to be public in saying that i need the help and capability that many of you in this room and others around the world bring to bear. you can't do this alone. the u.s. government being the

driver of technology? that's not our scenario for the 21st century. the nsa needs good partners. they have two primary missions. to gain insight about the world around us and nations who would like to gain an advantage over us and groups, who if they have their way, literally every one of us would be dead. we don't think about that much in this society, but think about what we take for granted. a stable society in which the rule of law is respected and the rights of individuals are codified in law. we have been blessed with that for 238 years. and we take it for granted. you go around the world today and it flat out doesn't exist in other places.

there are groups and individuals who if they have their way the entire idea of the inherent right of the individual to make choices in their lives would not exist. there are groups and individuals who believe that everything we stand for as a nation is diametrically opposed to their view of the world and the only way that there've you can triumph is if we aren't here anymore. i am not someone who jumps up and down and says -- see how terrible the world is? know i am sometimes amazed by people who act as though we have no significant challenges out there . we have been fortunate as a nation that since september of 2001, we have managed to forestall foreign terrorists on u.s. soil.

we have had some domestic issues, but we have been able to foil those external to the united states who attempted to create in some form the events of 9/11, but we have lost citizens from around the world, not just u.s. citizens, people from around the world whose only mistake was they picked a particular day to go to work in an office building or a particular day to do business and office will bring. but they went to work at the pentagon. or they were on the wrong aircraft. almost 3000 of them lost their lives. the individuals who perpetrate that remain out there. we need to remember that. now, as i said, it is all about

finding a balance. it is not either/or. if the price of a cheese and -- achieving security is becoming something we are not, then they have one. and i have no desire to fundamentally compromised the rights at the heart of what is america. as the nsa director i am always mindful of those rights and am always mindful of what makes america america. i am always mindful of the values of our allies and partners. we aren't in this alone. as i said, i need your help. i need strong partners. the men and women of the national security agency need strong partners. you got to see some of that here tonight. once we conclude we will have something to eat and a session after dinner where i will take questions and answers and we will take it from there, but let me conclude again by thanking you for being here tonight, thanking you for your willingness to be part of a dialogue -- because we need a dialogue and as a nation we have

to make some tough choices and make a well-informed dialogue as part of those choices. we've got to realize there is a wide range of opinions out there. the dialog represents multiple viewpoints. at its heart that is the strength of america. the idea that we can bring together lots of individuals with lots of different viewpoints and, yet, we can still remember who we are and what we are about. that is what makes me so proud to be the director of the national security agency because i believe in its mission and its men and women and i am proud to stand up and say i am the director and stand up and say i am a member of the nsa team and i will not apologize for that to anyone. thank you very much for your time. have a great dinner. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> so, welcome to my living

room. it's a nice, little intimate chat that we are going to have this evening. i have a few questions, we will start with those, but please send cards and letters. some of you have already, but they're like two pages long. help me out, keep them nice, brief, and punchy, and we will try to get through as many as we can. so, welcome. first of all, i want to thank you for continuing to do your engagement and unclassified environments so that we can actually have conversations. some of you may not know, but mike rogers did his first unclassified session with me back in 2011. this is not something he is just

doing because now he is the director of nsa. this is a continuation of something he has been doing for a long time. so, i was reading an article recently that the nato summit -- >> really? >> [laughter] a nato summit in two weeks, and one of the items on the agenda is the cyber defense policy. i don't know if you and your team, how directly involved you are, but what do you think some of the key points of a cyber defense policy from a commander's perspective should be? >> before i answer the question, again, thank you very much. 2100 a beautiful company chair here.

what do i think might be the elements of a cyber defense policy? verse thing that is important is a recognition that cyber defense is not something that one single entity is going to do, that to be successful in this area it is about the partnerships i talked about, about harnessing the pardon -- harnessing defense in those sectors. one of the commentaries made within our own department is trying to figure out the division in the future and reminding everybody that it is about partnerships. number two, how do we enable the partnerships to share information like how we are trying to do right now? as cyber command, the direction i have from the secretary of defense is that they are on order, so be prepared to a devise critical -- critical infrastructure. to do that, cyber command cannot do it alone. we need some partners.

the partners often include information sharing both ways. if i put on my nsa hat, there is an insurance mission that i talked about that has an important set of capabilities to help the government in providing clear defensive capabilities. the challenge for me is i am not in those critical infrastructure networks. nor would you necessarily want me. i want to create partnerships where the people that operate those can share information with us and i, in turn, can share information with them. these are the tactics and procedures. these are the things i think you need to work for. it that two-way dialogue. so great. what are you experiencing on your networks? i am interested in taking a look at those nationstates. >> when talking to my nato

allies as a member of the alliance, one of the things we always try to highlight, and what you heard from chuck in this job, over the last decade it is the ultimate team sport. my experience leads me to believe that this is not the answer. >> i will keep on the international theme for little

theme for little while. can you discuss how we are working, the royal we, how you are working with the director and the rest of the national security team to build back trust with our allies?

and international prep for u.s. companies? >> the first thing i would say is that for the majority of our foreign partners, we don't have a trust deficit, but clearly there are some real concerns. we each realize that we need each other. the partnerships that you keep hearing me talk about? those are those relationships and ardor ships that we have with key allies and friends overseas. i need them, they need us. this is a two-way street.

to make the relationships work we each have to acknowledge that each of us, though it sounds like different viewpoints, will come to a different conclusion. when you are a true ally, it's amazing what you can work through with some of these challenges. in the long run, we all alternately remember that it goes back to my comments before dinner where i talked about defending our citizens in this nation, and our allies, and that we need each other to do that. it doesn't matter if you are in asia or south america, i welcome partnerships and asked my partners what nsa can -- what can nsa do to support you? that's not a partnership or to relationship. i really want a partnership technology that there are times when there will be a difference of opinion. all i ask is that we keep talking to each other and work through this. >> the first 100 days. >> there you go. >> right about now you should start to have a sense of your top priorities are for nsa and

for cyber crime. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> we want to know your stretch goals. >> my number one goal as the commander of the u.s. cyber command is to create the cyber mission force for the department. if you asked them -- ask about the legacy of cyber command i would say that we created and operationalize the force and enable the strong foundation of partnerships for long time. creating a long-standing foundation where cyber is considered a normal operation. not something specialized. look, cyber and the ability to operate and defend, something we are likely to live in for the

rest of our lives, you have got to be able to operate in that kind of environment. i try to tell it to operational commanders, that they have to own the operational set. with your chief information officer you say -- go and do good stuff. as a commander you have to understand the risks you are taken and how that enables your broader capabilities. in the end it is all about risks. it is critical for this nation and its allies. we can do it with her head down. we have got to get our head up

and focus on the mission. it is about following the rule of law and showing accountability. as always we do that we don't cut any code -- we don't cut any corners and we will be fine. the second priority is making sure that even as we lose capabilities because of compromises, that we can regenerate those capabilities. my third thing, really, as you heard me say in the opening remarks, these are not going to pay off for five to 10 years, but if we don't do it then, our successors are going to go -- what in the heck were rodgers and those guys doing? i believe you can see that future coming. i know that there are some things we have to do a little differently we are part of a bigger team and just one element

of the intelligence community and it is amazing what we can do when working together on immigration. i am honored to partner with -- further with john brennan at the cia and it is amazing what we do when we create strong, integrated partnerships. that is the future of the intelligence profession. >> we have something going on that we call the icu imperative. in my own words it is sort of taking stock of the national security arena in the digital age. how do you maintain relevance in the digital age? actually providing that extra. we believe that it might be a crime when the paradigm shifts, starting with sensitive sources and then seeing what else is out there in the open source arena,

perhaps starting with unclassified data, analytics, inside information, and then focus sensitive methods on the gaps. if you are not thinking about this, how are you approaching the digital age? >> i could be misunderstanding, but it sounds to me as though you are characterizing this as one versus the other. >> right. >> one of the projects we're working on right now -- how do we do signal intelligence in our

own environment? it is a cultural issue for us. with unclassified connections around you, what do we know we are going to say? we hide on a secure level and go to a different place many times. the vision for us in the future is how we bring those together to work on them simultaneously. starting off unclassified with a vision that i think we have for the future, which is how to provide analysts and workforces with simultaneous access to both .

it is amazing -- i will be honest, the ones with the challenge are not the young members of the workforce. they're like -- this is what i do at home, what's the big deal. part of me says -- look, there are clearly technical challenges and risks but we want to go in with our eyes open. but we have got to bring these together. it is not either or. living in the digital world we have now it excites the heck out of me. there are great opportunities out there to generate greater insight amongst our allies. technology is going to help us with accountability. it is not a risk. it is an opportunity. >> you were talking about the

millennial's. you have two, i have two. there are real challenges to recruiting and retaining and enabling them in the national security arena and having, as you talked about, the right skill set. you might not be able to do it with military only. you might have to have civilian integration there. or you might have to have new ways of integrating contractor support. there is a sort of dynamic going on about that power in general. what is your thinking? >> you do need both. the kuiper palance for us, in no particular order, i don't see certain things changing.

civilians -- if you look at the workforce for national security, we have got to create a structure that harnesses the capabilities of all of those. the biggest thing i am interested in trying to do as the director of nsa is -- how do we create mechanisms and structure that will enable the workforce to work with us on the outside, silicon valley or other elements, potentially coming back. this idea for the future, many of you shipmates here tonight

will tell me to start by talking about you. i am always routinely amazed by these people. i am going to do a session next week with a young lady who has been with us for 50 years. >> i'm glad you said young. >> one of the things i spoke to leadership about was -- hey, that has a lot of positives to it, but on the flipside if we are not careful we will be a very insular organization. what do we do to create a more permanent membrane?

i want them to get experience in the industry and in the corporate sector. i want them to understand what drives the technical investments and the cutting-edge technologies. i never spoke -- never thought that as a naval officer i would be spending time with venture capitalist. why? i want some of the best educators they have. they're willing to invest money into what they think will be the technology that two years, five years from now will form a baseline. they won monetary return. i am interested in understanding the technology that will be out there in a few years. i think we have got to create a workforce where you can move back and forth. how do we go to the public sector for internships? you want to send some people to work with us for a few years?

i can put them to good use, show them what we do. we will have to sign nondisclosure agreements, essentially, but i want them to understand what we do. this will help them in those partnerships. one of the corporate sector challenges is that we don't understand or know each other well. i'd like to see what we can do to try to change that. what shapes the corporate world? what things are many of you concerned about? what shapes your world view, what concerns you? what is it about nsa that you want to get a better understanding of? they sell everything you know, you think you are uncomfortable. i want people to form their

opinions from fact, not conjecture. not from a website view of the world. they have got to make up their mind as to what they're comfortable with. >> the royal we hear a lot of government seniors talking about new kinds of partnerships, new kinds of relationships with industry and academia. but we don't see a lot of new mechanisms put in place. and i am not talking about the acquisitions. i'm talking about the ability to have the open betting and sharing of ideas. getting folks in government to articulate the requirement to have those insights. is there any part of your plan that is about how you put those new partnerships in place? >> as you set the left and right limits, rogers is not the guy who sits here and tells you

every step. we have been doing this for a long time. but i have done is provide the leadership team with a series of tasks, and this is one of them, where you come back to me on the phone. we have got great partnerships with the undersecretary of defense. looking at most examples we have been granted authorities to change the pay scale on most of the technical fields. we approached our partners and said -- look, i think that we need to go about doing this differently. it is great to see them come back and say, make a case for what you want to do there. very positive and the web for us. we love what we do and want to stay working, but i could make a lot more money on the outside and work a lot less hours. frankly, i wouldn't have my neighbors looking at me and

wondering if they could trust me. one of the reasons i have those men and women stand up tonight is because nsa is about motivating people that want to make a difference. not to go to work everyday thinking about in discriminating -- indiscriminate collecting data against people they don't know. that today they want to abuse their authorities in a way that has nothing to do with their mission. that is not what motivates those men and women. they want to make a difference. they want to do the right thing for the right reason. they are energized by the fact that they tell themselves that they go home every night trying to keep america and their allies safe. they are just like you.

that they don't think about the world around them. i am honored to work with them. [applause] >> i had quite a few questions that i will roll into one. it is about the backlash. it has been getting established and they are putting the relationships in place. you have the cyber forces coming online now, but where is cyber crime fitting between the lines of authority, acquisition, capability, train and equip

roles? >> clearly i currently have a construct around what i'm making. >> where is ciber come sitting >> u.s. cyber command sets the standards. these are the skills you will have, and this is the training needed. i provide that for the services. the service are tasked with the responsibility to generate capability. in broad terms, we do have some authority. under the current construct, u.s. cyber command does not focus on acquisition. i don't buy or generate it ability. i stayed operational requirements. i don't go out and design them. that is what services do. i say that as a guy who just finished two and a half years at the navy, component commander

for cyber. much discussion about, is that the right long-term view to change that, is there a model we want to look at? i just sat down today and spent about an hour and a half. the question i posed to the team was -- we are coming up about halfway through this cyber mission. have a good vision for the future. we have a good set of standards. i think we have a broad operational concept. how are we going to generate true combat readiness?

to me, it is like a ship. like a carrier. we spent eight years or so building it. the day it is commission, contractor turns it over to the u.s. navy and we have a ceremony and on that day we certify everything on that ship works. contractor has met their obligations. crews manned at 100%. every member of that crew has achieved qualifications that enable that ship to operate safely. we spend 12 to 24 months to train that carrier. ciber is no difference. so, how are we going to do that? we focus on commissioning the teams. that is great, but it does not get to war fighting skills. the nation is counting on us. we are spending a lot of money focused on that. >> as you can imagine, we have a few questions related to snowden. many elements of government media and the public seem to be

displaying an anti-nsa sentiment. how do you get the public to understand that nsa is clearly mandated legal roles and responsibilities, and its commitment to ensure -- we talked about that at a high level. are there some specific things that you and your team are doing , especially with the new onslaught of articles today that came out? >> i think there is a couple things. this is not what is going to define us. i'm not going to spend my time focused on this. we need to focus on the mission

and do the right things for the right reasons the right way, defend the nation and our allies, follow the rule of law, a laser member we are accountable. keep that in mind, and we will be fine. the second thing is that i think about, how do we address this knowledge deficit amongst some? among the components are -- we have probably declassified, partnering -- we have probably declassified more stuff than i can remember in my entire career. we are trying to ask ourselves, so, what can we do to help en sure the nation has a sense for what we do and why? you have got to be willing to do it. when we get it wrong, we [inaudible] we have to be willing to

acknowledge that. we are not perfect. nobody is trying to systematically undermine the rights of our citizens, trying to systematically bypass the laws that we are required to execute. we are looking at disclosing more information than we ever have before. there is media here. they need to be here. i'm not screening questions great you need to ask what the audience has in mind and we will take it from there. another point i try to make is, it cannot just be about nsa

defending nsa. it needs to be part of a broader dialogue. i am the first to admit if it will just be about nsa talking about nsa, we are missing the boat. nsa needs to be a part of this dialogue. it needs to be much broader. people need to understand, there is a legal framework and position out there. we just don't unilaterally decide what we're going to do and how we are going to do it. we have a set of policy mechanisms that help shape what nsa focuses its foreign intelligence mission on. we have a set of core directed compliance requirements where we have to make a case, in many cases, to get the authority or permission to do what we do. we have regular congressional oversight, where we have to

notify and i have to testify as well as privately for our primary oversight committee. part of the challenge in this is if we are honest with each other, the mechanisms of governance within our nation right now do not enjoy broad trust and competence among our citizenry. that is a tough thing to acknowledge. it doesn't help us as a nation. it is the case. one thing i try to tell the team out of fort meade is, i am not going to waste my time wishing the world was a certain way. we are going to acknowledge the way the world is. we are going to be effective in doing that. we just have to acknowledge that this is part of this challenge. much of what we structured

originally was we insured congress as the elected representative of the citizens of this nation will bring the primary tools to ensure compliance. we find ourselves in a situation where much of our public does not trust many elements or has low confidence in many elements of our government. what do you do when your compliance strategy was founded on that approach? hopefully you will see some things over the course of the next few months -- i'm not here to sell anything. i'm not here to convince anybody. stick to the facts. let people make well-informed decisions as to what they are comfortable with. that is what we need to do. we need to focus on the mission and stick to the facts. >> one last quick question. those of us who support and have worked with both the fort meade area and the dhs have

[inaudible] in roles in missions related to the cyber arena. what is the partnership you have in place or are putting in place? >> for me, i'm very fortunate. i partner with a cabinet secretary who i have worked with before in my career. i love the fact that jeh will just pick up the phone, and rogers will pick up the phone and talk to secretary johnson about, we need to do this or that. he and i, we meet regularly. we talked to our teams about what we need to do to create stronger partnerships. what i have argued is that nsa and u.s. cyber command have great capabilities, but we have got to do this in a partnership with others. in the federal government, our biggest partners are the dhs and fbi. that is the way it is going to be.

that's what we need to do. i am not about control. the team at fort meade has to hear me say, it is not about control, it is about outcomes. i don't care who gets the credit. we are going to provide manpower and capabilities to support others. this is about helping to defend america and its allies. it is about providing capability for the greater good. that is what we are doing in the cyber arena. if they need to do that as part of a broader partnership -- i would only highlight for my perspective i love our partnership with dhs. i can or member 2, 3 years ago arguments about who ought to do what. -- remember two, three years ago arguments about who ought to do what. no longer interested in what i consider the mindless debates.

[indiscernible] i am not interested in control. i'm interested in outcomes. >> you can come to my living room anytime. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you. [inaudible] [applause] >> thank you. i know this is a school night. it is for me. five years ago i did one of these with joe dempsey. what do you do with your lead? >> [inaudible]

>> secondly, i do want to thank the corporate sponsors because evenings like this would not happen without the support of the corporate sponsors. thank you. [applause] mike rogers is a testament to the system that we have in the united states for grooming leaders. no one else on the planet can compete. mission,ssion for the all of his missions, i think you would agree with me is manifest. so, hats off. [applause] a end, i have to do this. mike, thank you

for that. [applause] >> we thank you. we appreciate that. on the 18th the 19th of september we will have a summit partnering with fc. >> there is a cyber track. >> please look at our website and sign up. join us that day. thank you. >> thank you. [applause]

>> here is a look at our prime time schedule on the c-span networks. instituteic and aspen hold the annual new york ideas festival. on c-span 2, authors and books on living in the tech age. 3, programs on the civil war battle of the crater which took place in 1864. tomorrow, elizabeth of the atking's institution looking u.s. poverty. then a discussion on the air quality act of 1967. our guests include assistant administer jeff homestead and robin juni. here comments and tweets.

hear comments and weeds. delivered aobama statement on the heading murder of james foley by isis. he spoke from martha's vineyard. >> today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of jim foley. jim was a journalist, a son, a brother, and a friend. he reported from difficult and dangerous places, bearing witness from a world away. he was taken hostage nearly two years ago in syria and he was courageously reporting on the conflict there. jim was taken from us. he was 40 years old, one of five siblings, the son of a mom and

dad who worked tirelessly for his release. earlier today, i spoke with them and told them we are heartbroken by his loss. jim foley's life stands in stark contrast to his killers. let's be clear about isil. they have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. their debt women and children -- they abduct women and children, said that to them to -- subjecting them to torture and rape, killing sunni and shia by the thousands. they target christians and religious minorities, arriving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a

different religion. they declare their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. so i still speaks for no religion. -- so isil speaks for no religion. no just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. isil has no ideology or any value for human beings. their ideology is bankrupt. they may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the united states or the west. the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing than endless slavery to their empty vision. the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

people like this ultimately fail. they fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy. the world is shaped by people like jim foley and the overwhelming majority of humanity is appalled by those who killed him. the united states of america will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. we will be vigilant and we will be relentless. when people harm americans anywhere, we do what is necessary to see justice is done and we act against isil standing alongside others. the people of iraq who have taken the war to isil must continue to come together to expel these terrorists from their communities. the people of syria, the story that jim foley told, do not deserve to live under the shadow of a tyrant or terrorists.

from governments and peoples across the middle east, there has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so that it does not spread. there has to be a clear rejection of these kinds of i at -- kind of nihilistic ideologies. a group like isil has no place in the 21st century. friends and allies around the world, we share a common security and a common set of values that are rooted in the opposite of what we saw yesterday. and we will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and read lace it with a sense of -- and replace it with a sense of hope and stability. that is what jim foley stood for. a man who lived his work, who courageously told the story of his fellow human beings, who was

like and loved by friends and family. today, the american people will all say a prayer for all those who loved jim. all of us mourn his loss. we keep in our prayers those other americans who are separated from their families. we will do everything we can to protect our people and the timeless values that we stand for. may god bless and keep jim's memory and may god bless the united states of america. >> here is a great rate for your summer reading list. a collection of stories from the nation's most influential people

over the past 20 years. risk.re is a i decided to take it. whether it is an illusion or concentration,my it stops me being bored. it would keep me awake. to enhance the moment. if i was asked what i'd do it again, probably yes. easy for me to say. not nice for my children to hear. it sounds irresponsible. the truth is, it would be hypocritical to say no i would never touch the stuff if i had known. i did know. everyone knows. >> the soviet union and the soviet system contains the seeds of its own distraction.

many problems we saw the end begin at the beginning. i spoke about the attempt to control all institutions and all parts of the economy and political life. one of the problems is when you do that, when you try to control everything then you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. if you tell artist you have to pay the same way and once as i don't want to think that way, you have made him into a political dissident. if you want to subsidize housing in this country and we want to talk about it and the populace agrees that it is something we should subsidize, put it on the ballot. make it clear. make everybody aware of how much it is costing. when you deliver it through these third-party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, three public company with private shareholders, and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves,

that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. now available at your favorite hook seller. -- bookseller. coming up, conversations from this year's new york ideas festival. we will hear from cancer biologist andrew hessel, hbo ceo richard pleplar, morgan stanley ceo james gorman. from the annual new york ideas festival, cancer biologist andrew hessel on how dna technology may help cure cancer. this event is hosted by the atlantic and the aspen institute. it is 15 minutes. before lunch, i will give you a quick rundown of some of my