>> tonight at 10 p.m. eastern, coverage continues with a debate between taxes and governors candidates. abbott.vis and gregg this is the first time in 14 years that taxes will elect a new governor. the texas governor candidates debate, starting in about an hour on c-span. tomorrow night, live coverage of the iowa debate. shows the governor with a wide lead. live campaign 2014 coverage from burlington, iowa starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> our state's was $900 million in debt. today we have a budget surplus. 140,000 new jobs. unemployment has been reduced 30%. the governor is just getting started. i will is back. -- iowa is back. >> is compassionate. he is a visionary. he is always looking forward. where do we go next. bring great jobs. we are seeing that. the jobs are there. unemployment is low. we're seeing young people moving back. iowans working today than in any time in our state's history. i am really optimistic about the future. he has a passion for this date. years, people are

tired of governor branstad. there is the $110 million deal. taxpayer money given to an egyptian billionaire. it's called the dumbest economic decision made in iowa. they even tried to abolish preschool funding. that's while giving tax rates to wealthy interests. it is tight for a fresh start. -- time for a fresh start. >> are two men running for i will governor. branstad, jack hatch. governor branstad has given way to hundred million dollars to well -- a well financed a different company. there is only one thing they have in common. for jack, that is one thing to many. i am jack asked. i am ready for a fresh start. , campaign 2014ht

coverage of the iowa governor's debate. it starts at eight ago p.m. eastern on c-span. next, a discussion about national security with house intelligence chair mike rogers of michigan and dutch ruppersberger of maryland. then a debate with the candidates in the text six governor's race. -- texas governor's race. after that, a new effort by the president to combat -- >> they discuss combating the islamic state, cyber security legislation, and the balance between privacy and national security. this is about one hour. >> i guess everybody is looking

at me. good morning, everybody. [laughter] thank you for being here. this is an awesome opportunity to do a little bit more than we usually do in the media. , those questions, they don't want to answer. we have two of the preeminent minds and intelligence a national security with us today. we are going to hear from them what their thoughts are on some very significant issues that are taking place in the world, not the least of which is what is going on in washington. we all know the white house is the capital of the world, but the congress of the crossroads of the world. anything that takes place in the

national security space has to go through there. first, we will hear from the chairman of the house intelligence committee, mike rogers. then we will hear fair -- from his partner, the ranking member of the house intelligence committee, dutch ruppersberger. then we will take some questions but i will be the moderator. i will ask for your patience. >> thank you. , beingpreciate your work able to flesh out those stories. that is pretty fantastic. if you had not at the chance to hear them, look them up. i want to take a minute. we had longer remarks prepared. we decided to get the questions. , on thet to say this oversight fees and accountabilities. for those of you in the freshly, thank you very much for what you do for your country. yesterday brought it home to me.

how important oversight was. in the processes of it we can spend an hour talking about, but from the generalization that we have a civilian, publicly elected body, with all the classifications that is responsible for all the oversight policies and budgeting for the 16 intelligence agencies. that sounds like a lot. if you throw congress in there, that is enough to scare people. 100erday we met with parliamentarians all across europe. fairly here to aggressively about how bad our u.s. intelligence services are. why are we doing what we are doing. isn't that a terrible day for america. one thing struck me in the course of that dialogue is that ofch and i have a good idea what all 16 of those agencies are doing. littled very

understanding about what their own intelligence agencies are doing. not even close. -- yes, esquivel exam used to describe it, the lawyer brush treatment. part ofvery important allowing the credibility of our intelligence services to do what they do. a stamp of approval, if you will, on behalf of the american people. again, i could go in for an hour about all the processes. we decided that this is so important, the world is falling apart in front of us, that we better do this in, not just the bipartisan way, a nonpartisan way, if we can do it. we decided we were gone to do that. we did it. we reformed the way the committee operates. we believe that it is a functioning oversight body that actually provides a service to the intelligence community and to the american people.

it doesn't mean we always agree. it doesn't mean that we don't disagree with the intelligence community sometimes. anddvocate and push legislate for changes in that figure community. at the end of the day, when they are doing really hard work and somebodyrld, bumps in the somebody, we can honestly and in good conscience come to the markovic on say, yes, that meant -- may not have been a great but we knew about it. we budgeted. we are overseeing a pretty we approved of. we are overseeing it. can say all the things we may have bumped into all along the way in that very difficult space of intelligence. i think you find that dutch and i are in 100% agreement, stood behind our decisions and the intelligence community's decisions as they went out into their work. it homeesterday brought to me completely.

they will go back and have all the politics surrounding what the nsa did are what the contractor that stalled american secrets and ran to russia did to -- i for them, with them refuse to say. [laughter] at the end you that of the day when we look back, when we'd walked out of that meeting, we thought, what a great system. it is not perfect. what a great system. we as members of congress can advocate for the good things we do and we have the leverage and ability to change the things we disagree with in the intelligence community. i think this is the right way to do it. i think that that those changes togethero gather -- have been an important step for providing some cover for for those of you doing the great work that you do. for that, i want to say thank you. i will turn it over to dutch.

>> thank you. -- as to say that mike is chairman has done a tremendous job. we were on the intelligence community. we were very concerned about our past history on our intelligence committee. we cannot get budgets passed. we had a lot of partisan politics. we were not doing our job to oversee the 16 committees that we oversee. it is about oversight wrigley we decided that we would work together, and also get our staff to work together. our staff do a lot in working with all the communities and committees we deal with. as far as what our challenges are, as far as oversight, oversight is important. we do a lot of our oversight. we do a lot of the intelligence budgets.s -- agencies we have hearings. we come in we talk. what mike and i also tried to do -- in the past it seen the

congress was always trying to knock somebody does -- knox of a down. our philosophy is that we will build you up to we will hold you accountable. believe me, we have so many issues that are out there right now. whether it is the terrorism issue. the isis issue. whether it is cyber security. people say to me, and mike and i are in a gang of a, what get you up at night? >> spicy food, weapons of mass destruction, and cyber attacks. billions ofg american dollars because of the cyberattacks that most of all our companies, even fertilizer companies, because china has fertilizer companies. ashave a lot to do as far our priorities did another issue that people don't talk about anymore is space. what we do in that regard.

stop, it is, i will important to answer the questions. the issue of oversight in what think the 9/11 commission talk about having another group together, another committee. i don't think my can i see that as a way to go, because it is just another level of getting to the bottom line is quickly as you can. i think the important thing that we need to do is when you are dealing with, as an example, dealing with issues involving terrorism. it is important for the leadership of the armed services committee, of the foreignaffairs committee, of the homeland security committee, and intelligence committee, to come together. we talked about the issues to make sure we are not missing anything good by the way, we do that now. we might want to formalize that a little bit more. i am not in favor of -- you know, congress people are running around trying to go to committee hearings.

a lot of them have so much to do that they collapse. it is important that we create that system that is necessary for us to do the oversight that is necessary. lets get to the questions. questions one comment on that. part of the problem is that people believe if i don't see the oversight on the from page of the newspaper, no offense to my media friends, that is not oversight or that there is not any oversight happening. that is where we take exception. to give you two interesting --bers, last year 100 and 30 one to the national security agency. this year we have done 100. hopefully you don't see any of those. you haven't seen any of those. that is the way the committee is designed to work. we have to be a would protect the classification of those programs. it does not mean that there

isn't oversight. it doesn't mean we haven't made changes. we have the we have made changes. we've asked for changes. the policy decisions we make on the committee. i think it is very important to understand that just because you don't raided on the front page doesn't mean there isn't that oversight happening. snowdent to say after -- lack of oversight. >> we have a tremendous amount of oversight with the nsa. cia ande same at the other agencies. there was oversight. the good news is that senator feinstein from the senate intelligence committee, mike and i, we were close together. we went to afghanistan together. we came together and said, all of these national media viruses out there -- it is ridiculous. it is not true. the perception was there. mike and i realize that you have to do with perception. we changed the major law on ball collection. we took all the book collection

and itom the government is now a different process. you have to adjust, especially for the american people. they worried that are worried about transparency. we have to make sure that all the laws balance out to see and what we need to do in intelligence good questions? favorite duos. >> we feel like we've been married. [laughter] i the real -- the reason why like this do so much as they actually get their work done. they are from different political parties, but they actually work together. what they are saying is that as a national security theespondent, i've had opportunity to observe them for a good part of that time. watch them work together. -- in the view of what i

have watched and learned, i have some questions. a couple of them are written down here on these no cards, but icouple are based on the time have had to observe you and your work. i know that you know significantly more about what is going on internationally than you often discuss. i know you can't, produce reasons. there is a question this morning in my mind. isknow that the world spinning faster and faster. responding to all those threats is getting more and more difficult every day. in the middleeat east has emerged. it is kind of hard to get people to talk about that, at least within the last day or so. what can you tell us about this new threat that is emerging from the middle east? >> it is all with a new twist. let me put it that way. we knew -- i think this is what you're talking about -- al qaeda

had forward deployed a group of whose soindividuals purpose was to put together an operation -- i'm not trying to i'm -- i look bad in those orange jumpsuits -- i'm trying to get this right. [laughter] it is very unflattering. [laughter] -- sorry about that. >> it's ok. >> this particular group -- we take it as a serious threat. gets lost based on the threat of isil. the other thread is more immediate. what concerns us most about it other alrking with

qaeda affiliates to put together an operation that is successful, mainly targeting aviation targeted all of that has been public. interesting that where you see these operatives is not where you saw them before. you might see someone in iraq and syria and northern africa putting this plan together in conjunction with another ability that is a new twist. the way we see it. immediate threat that we continue to push back on, al qaeda. we encourage our intelligence invices to do it they can, addition to what is a growing national security threat, which l and her ability to get people back into the united states. >> with this new threat, what is your goal? what is one specific goal? or is there a bunch of them? >> the best defense against

terrorism is intelligence. we need to get as much as intelligence as we can. we have unique resources that no one else has. we also need intelligence on the ground. we need to know who we are going at, where they are, how to do with them. concerned, we is knew they were there for years. the most in syria, dangerous place in the world, you had bashar al-assad and chemical weapons issues, and you had a moderate group, they all of a sudden got reinforcements. unfortunately reinforcements were al qaeda and isis. everybody was focusing on the side, but then you have problems with al qaeda and the moderates. happened that al qaeda kicked them out because isis was so severe. isis is strong. they have close to a billion dollars. most of who they were was the

thataddam insane military was fighting iran. remember, when we came in to iraq, one of the worst things we did was get rid of their military. militarytary was the , closed over hired 100,000 of them. that was the insurgency. we resolve that and we were able to get out of iraq. the reason we came out of iraq because nouri al-maliki wanted us out. they would not give us a an agreement to protect our soldiers. we are not going to put our soldiers address there. then we had this issue with isis. they had momentum, they are smart, they're good. them.not fighting with hopefully we will be able to turn that around. getting back to the whole question, we have to show the

world we are strong, we will not take it. we will protect the homeland. it is rare that our country, 60% of our country -- now our strategy as a coalition we have to get the arab countries involved trade we have to get the arab countries to put boots on the ground. our country and citizens do not war in iraq another or afghanistan to what we have to do to coalesce our governments. >> both of you voted yes for the money andion for the everything the president and the administration asked for to train and that the syrian opposition. it is clear that it will take more than the authorization and the money to do this. it is going to take, in some people's minds, herculean effort .

to get it on the ground. to get it operational. to get into a place where he can make a difference. and all of the things they are fighting against in syria -- bashar al-assad aside. when you look at this situation -- you kind of slice this up and do something that has been going on for a couple of years. you are talking about 5000 fighters trained up within a year or so. >> i don't know. >> is it enough? and it happens soon enough? what's needs to happen in order to make it effective? severalan look at it ways. dutch and i are at a disadvantage because we have watched the betting prices develop over a year and a half, probably. how you would bet those individuals worried how you would get into a training camp or the logistics that would be involved in all of that. it is complicated. it is not easy.

this is not an easy solution. i believe that the only part of that this was only a part of the plan, i would not have supported it. we do have to have, i argue, individuals that are trained under our standards, under the that have the interests and capability. you just have to be a little better in the enemy than -- than the enemy in these cases. if we can give them the skills and they will take some directions on the coalition, which is incredibly important, and the united states. we think that you could probably have the first individuals back into syria within or months to five months. that is not 5000. it can be a unit that is cohesive, has good command and control, has the ability to move on intelligence to selected targets, take kate -- can take a little direction. that will take -- the whole

boots on the ground thing makes me nervous -- if that unit would be effective, you have to have you address personnel with spatial capabilities downrange. -- special capabilities downrange. you have to have the ability to move intelligence collectors down range with these units. people who can help them with command-and-control and the just six, and other sustainment issues. if we do not have that, it won't work. the second part of that is that there has to be other kinetic action happening in syria that should not wait for months. it should not wait two months. it should not wait next week. if we don't finally send a theage to isil and thousands of people who are sitting in canada, the united states, great britain, germany, thinking this looks good to me, they are winning.

i believe in the caliphate. maybe that is where i need to be. which is why they have thousands of those people there. it is astonishing when you think of those numbers. 15,000. you have to cut up like line-up you have to show they are not winning, they are not 10 feet tall, they are a bunch of criminal thoughts is that people's throats, rape women, the most brutal things you can think. we need to treat it like that. i do believe it can work. it is not going to be perfect. it's all notion that we should stop saying moderate rebels. when you look at the books that are fighting there, we will prefer anyone that does not hate us out right when they wake up in the morning. i'll take that. [laughter] that would be a good day for us. there are individuals there -- this is important to and is lost in the debate -- they are fighting isis. they are taking casualties. elements.ighting isil

they are taking casualties fighting the islanders up front -- i'll nusra front. can be veryfriend helpful in those particular circumstances. here is the other part of this that i felt was so critically important to get media and others to look at. the saudi arabian government is publicly acknowledged and they will be a part of this fight. that is huge. relationshipsng with the saudi's for a long time , a public and knowledge met, i think you will see some other of these partners step up very soon. very engaged. publicly acknowledging. if we want to defeat them, that is the path to do it. had we not voted on that and not voted yes, i guarantee you we would have lost all of that. they are already a little gun shy. take those elements, this

is not the plan i would have put forward, giving the circumstances wherein, this is important step to defeating and dismantling. >> the military is not the only component of what we have to do. if you look at iraq the we were in there militarily. we did not get the hearts and minds of the people. what mike is saying about the sunni, especially saudi arabia -- who will bring the rest of the countries in. that is what has to happen. we are working right now with sunni tribes. when the sunni say, another is enough, this is ridiculous, that will make a big difference. the other thing that concerns me -- we do all this intelligence and have a military to protect american lives in the homeland. mike and i are really concerned about americans who have passports and are going to syria to get radicalized but we had a situation where an individual went to syria to become a suicide bomber. he came home. he blew himself up and killed other people.

that could have happened in the united states. there aren is that other groups out there, al qaeda -- there's a lot of people out there planning and plotting to attack us. we are the ultimate goal right now. we have expert bomb makers who in putting plastic bombs laptops and trying to get them to airplanes and that's everything good we have to keep our eye on the ball. not just ices. isis. just if you want to be the leader, you have to show strong leadership. i think it made the american people feel better. i think it made our allies feel good. they argan to give the resources we need to do the job. is our job to make sure they don't make a wrong turn. >> the best way to demonstrate

professionalism is to demonstrate it. thank you for bang with me on my questions. i appreciate the opportunity to do that. lets get to your questions. you mentioned, boots on the ground. if we want to avoid assuming a ground combat role in iraq, don't we have to retrain and reequip the iraqi armed forces? you -- is the one that since me into orbit. it was a leadership problem in iraq military. you had a political problem that .as disintegrating he was clearly deciding to go and put his emphasis on his shiite friends. he corrupted the leadership channel in all these military units. whene this was happening, isis was on the move, rather

than issuing orders from the civilian government to the military chain of command, which is the way we do it here, he decided to pull all of his senior leadership away from those units, while they're under siege, back to baghdad to have a discussion about the way forward. you take your leadership away from those units at the point where you are getting into contact a there's some uncertainty about who my friends my or not, if it's government or somebody else's government, it's going to collapse. which is why you see the is -- administration on fixing the government.

they melted away. the kurdish fighters in the north. the problem was a running out of ammunition. they were outgunned. these are military units that were in strategic retreat. they were in freefall. they said we have to move back and rearm. when you look at these problems, it frustrates me a little bit that we found this money and they just melted away. that is a very simple high-level argument about what the problem is. we can reengage some of these units. it is all about leadership. when the united states military is standing next year's side, it is amazing how much courage, conviction, and effectiveness you get on of those units. we have seen a time and time again. we have to reengage it. you can't just walk away from the units. they are going to need a little help. i think that is a component we can fix.

we have to fix the leadership portion of it. the officers and senior nco corps -- there officers need to be at the fight constantly and showing leadership. that these goes away, we will never get back to that back? nobody can do that like the united states military. can getnk that equation back to you saw what happened to the peshmerga once they were .rmed u.s. moves were standing behind them. they evidently agreeing to do in the fight. that peace can come back. i am not a believer in telling the enemy what you won't do, can you imagine fdr mentioning the five things we would not do to be to japanese. i is not a good plan during argue we ought to stop doing that now. we ought to stop saying what we won't do. if we believe that this is a threat to the united eights, we all to say what we will do,

which is dismantle them and beat them. callingthink anyone is for big military maneuvers. i survey not. i think there is a way forward. this coalition, i think we are in a good position if we don't lose are no moving forward to have an impact. a lasting impact. why you'rethe reason dealing with what you're dealing with is because there are so many voices out there. at least i'm your from both sides to talking to the administration and talking to the other side as well. say youe those who should do this. and there are those who say you should do that. at the end of the day, it is , yourob in congress oversight function, that guides most of what the government does and all of these situations, especially the situations like this and hotspots. there is a need for the congress

and the american people to be involved in all of this. do you get the sense that there is enough oversight or not enough oversight? >> on our committee, yes. again, we try to build up our agencies. we sit there and talk to them what your priorities? what do we need to do? unfortunately, sequestration really hurts. you don't cut everything across the board. that causes a problem, especially in a intelligence of national security. -- unfortunately, it depends on the committee and the relationships with the leadership it starts with the leadership. mike and i made a decision to work together. i think if you look at the record, we are passing budgets and doing other things right now. let me get back to what the issues are that we are talking about, as far as what we need to do is to win the war. one of the things that we can't do, and mike said it, we cannot tell our enemies what we can't

respond to national media because that's with the people are hearing good we have to do the right thing. we have to make sure that when we are going to focus and take some of the out and bring them to justice, we do it our way, and we do it based on solid intelligence. that is where our strategies are right now. >> time is slipping away. we have about five minutes left and i have 48 questions. [laughter] i am assuming, i will shut up in a second, if we don't get to some of these, maybe you guys can respond to these. question, you mention the balance between privacy and national security in the intel space. what is the position about the balance? you mentioned a little bit about it earlier. what guidance is provided to the agencies? >> we spend a lot of time on this issue. i think we have found the right balance. there is more protection than i

think people realize when it .omes to what the nsa is doing i think in a lot of cases, if they found out what the intelligence can't do, people would take the breath away. including u.s. citizens who are traveling to syria and fighting. if we don't reset certain level of legal probable cause, good luck. i hope nothing bad happens when they come home. i do think that we found the right balance. privacy.t the we need to debate privacy. there is no question about that. in the end, we have to have a bill. we need a balance there. to haves don't want their fourth amended violated. all the laws he put together and balance them. we brought in other groups to listen to them. based on other countries, we have more protections for privacy and constitutional rights in any other country. you look at britain, france,

they don't have the checks and balances, including the special -- a privacy now group that oversees what we do. there is oversight there. the into intelligence committees, justice department, the administration, the courts. you have all of that there together. now we are into the lightning round. >> we talk a lot about war, other elements, privacy. what about private security? when is are going to be some meeting of the minds it is going to actually manifest itself within legislation? >> i do believe we have a short window here to get this done very -- done. dutch and i have had good discussions. we passed a bipartisan bill twice on a pretty difficult subject. we did that by bringing all our stakeholders in in the room and working it out. our problem was that it was only

a 13 page bill. it is hard to take anything serious in congress if it is anything short -- we got 300congress, votes. that is a miracle. what people don't realize, 80% of the network is controlled by the private sector. our intelligence community is as good as anything. we can't really share the information. it is like being a weather forecaster and seeing sandy coming up the east coast and you can't warn anybody. the other attacks that are occurring are becoming more and more frequent. we need to pass this information. it is a voluntary bill. we have addressed the issues of privacy. if we don't, we will keep this happening. believe me, china is very aggressive. ofy have stolen billions dollars, not millions, billions of dollars from our businesses. sometimes some companies are getting 2000 attacks a day.

>> congressman rogers just leaned over and told me what we all love to hear from editors, that you can run long. >> thank you sir. guy isidering that this leaving the venue of congress and going to become the competition, i'm afraid of that. >> he is divorcing me. [laughter] questions,ack to the thank you so much. we have a few extra minutes if you're willing to stay with us. the question i'd like to ask you president view does obama require a new congressional authorization for the operations against isil. >> look at the time. [laughter]

you have got to stay on time. i believe that congress should do it. step out andshould provide the authority to the insident to go after isil any shape or form wherever they are. i believe that congress should play an affirmative role in that decision. we are going to put people at rest. we will put people at wrist in -- at wrist in places. we should do this from congress's perspective. wish the administration -- the administration is saying, if you'd like to do, that will be fine. needs to sayhe that i need to have this great at the same time, congress ought to have the curse to stand up and do it. il is aagree that is threat to the united states and

our allies did i don't think anybody disagrees with that. it's going to be hard. we may loose of people. we ought to be serious about this. aref going to do that, we to give the affirmative authority to do it, i think. [applause] thank you, mom. [laughter] --ce the president using president is now sufficient to protect lies. we are going to be there for the duration. we hads a test, the vote a couple of days ago. mike and i had to work hard to get the vote to get that passed. there were a lot of people on on oure -- we both caucuses, democrat and republican, we had more votes in our caucuses then they vote. -- then no votes.

you have to understand the problem in congress, because somebody else as it avoided giving him a that does not mean they're the enemy. what mike and i had to do was given the facts and let them know why and what we need to do in order to protect ourselves. congress has to be involved. we are a great government because the checks and balances between the congress and the president. plants you are a knowledgeable -- you think the intensity of the intelligence community on counterterrorism since 9/11 has led to insufficient attention to issues such as face technology, weapons of mass destruction, and other elements? as i am worried about straight through it when we responded to , jfka when they came out put a lot of money, and we became the most help country in

the world. we had rocket science really went to the moon. that was great. everyone in the country to the astronauts. it has now changed. we have passive. nasa. had we need to let the american people know how important spaces. -- space is. had to keep their resources with a need to keep from an intelligence perspective. like and i have worked hard to evaporate sooner or later, china and russia are very aggressive when it comes to his taste. it will be space and cyber for the next war. we need a younger generation to go into space. -- younger generations don't know a lot about space. china are coming is countries. it is an important thing we do our country.

tps systems. things like that. when it comes to events and intel, play are the best in the world. that is why we have resources and we can get intelligence that no one else can get. closely protected this phase investment part of our budget. we work hard to do that. put a little more in there. we went $500 million over the presidents budget. last i checked, the constitution says of him united states. i am not very bright, whatever that these. #direct that the experience [laughter] [applause] worked to some issues. i think we have put us on a path that we can have both at the same time. the profits it does not get the attention it deserves.

space is rapidly becoming contested space. that is a problem for the united states. we need to make sure that our resources are leaking that next generation jones. speaking of the next generation challenges, there have been some person to ask about cyber security. believe the united states can this get the message to china to russia and other countries that once to infringe upon intellectual property and has been accused of one occasions, and there has been .ome significant proof how you get the message to them? to leverage it. dining in the united states. i have had this conversation with china. citizens see what you're doing to us stealing trillions of dollars, you're hurting our

out -- will put the word he will put the word out. when you have billions of dollars stolen from your , you have to do something about it. i think the president needs to understand that. he has got to stand up. global type of a program, where people and .ountries cannot steal if they do, there is accountability. you have to ask china nicely. it is diplomacy. head.ng them over the there are ways to communicate with different countries did i don't trust russia and an underdeveloped china to go to bed with russia.

i am going to tell china not to go to bed with russia. >> it is going to the comedy. >> ciber is the greatest national security threat that america is not ready to handle. it is ramping up. now you have international criminal organizations performing at the nationstate cyber actor level. we want to have an impact on china and russia, we have a whole post of things to do. i argue that we are to go after used the who have stolen information from united states. all of that. the number one thing we should do is protect ourselves. -- if it is an canmissile system, we

protect the united states. and he percent of the networks have their private networks. -- 85% of the networks are private networks. we need to come up with a system to embolden our private sector, to private and protect itself. and we hope it is built on his hair, the whole process starts over. i guarantee you it will take another two years to get it done. that is the first have in protecting ourselves, allowing the intel community to provide in a classified way delicious source code that the private sector can protect itself. he had gotten caught up in this debate at it is a privacy issue. it is not.

today, you don't have to privacy -- have that privacy. al qaeda is recruiting individuals who have the ability to do that. we do or pick his history. call your senator. [laughter] pressed the white house has been working a lot closer to us. usy have in communicating to on a pad of jesus i think they understand that threat. yesterday, we use the expression "immaculate collection." [laughter] that his pedantic. you know what the senate has?

pages that term to describe the expectations of the intelligence community behavior are kind of informed congressman who to explain the intelligence is not a perfect science? rx you take that one. correct thanks. -- that one.e >> thanks. we have to protect those programs, make sure they get those resources. as part of what we do. this isublic side of probably has frustrated have anything.

just trying to give proprietary have with the opinions. it has been even silly challenging. this stuff is not easy. we are always that little bit ok making a mistake. we have tried to apply the facts, i'm not sure i know the answer. did you just say? >> i have no idea. what we are trying to do is add please americans know.

after they watch a little bit of tv, some movie somewhere, and , based newspaper article on one's life out of a thousand slides. they are clearly not going to do it right. i really we are listening to every phone call. they believe we can type in an afterword and figure out what that code for his have a terrorist operating in cleveland. it is really frustrating to understand that we follow the law. have very high standards. overseas, it is nearly impossible. you are dealing with billions of communications in our intelligence services or else you are down. don't care and days of onions. it. not interested in

in america focus on what the real challenge is? we're looking at it. is growing.y we have to maintain and stay ahead of russia and china on that quality. technology, with the only attacks. the teenagers in savannah. passionately need to be leaders and stand up. as peopler coming out are saying have the nsa is listening to you. careless about whether you are ordering a visa or having an affair. they are focused people that are upset about the criticism. they were able to answer issues. it is a very negative.

we have lost a lot of information. we have lost paris because he gave out sources and have history. viruses --y clearances. as a challenge. is our challenge. we won the war. is an a, professional person. --d passionncle

>> how dumb was that? here is the problem. -- there are nuclear missiles pointed at us. that is pretty dangerous. there are a new fleet of nuclear submarines that are completely nuclear capable to mark the united states. by the way, several of these governments have been not acting

is good moral citizens. at russia and china, what they have done. russia has nearly doubled its nuclear submarine fleet. it is deciding to go after is in space and cyber. look at what the russians are doing with their tactical nuclear arsenal. very concerning stuff. the public does not see any of it. of the worker intelligence community does, they think everybody is fine. all we have to worry about is what kim kardashian tweeted today. [laughter] that is a problem for us. have people take that position, we have got a lot of work to do. not to scare people. to clue them in. what are the real threats. what is the intelligence community doing to keep us safe and night? that is a long-term challenge. >> this is the precise reason

why i personally believe that news is not what people are talking about. know.s what people don't it is our job as journalists to bring it to them. i congratulate you for having me here. -- a pit in a penny the -- i thank you so much. [applause] give them a hand. >> rank you. -- thank you. >> the a debate with the candidates in the texas governor's race. after that, president obama unveiling a new effort to combat actual assault on college campuses. then vice president biden and former secretary of state hillary clinton speaking at the dnc form.

>> here are a few of the comments we have received from our viewers. >> president nexen and his resignation -- the only thing that i was hoping to watch was the super sabre restoration, that first supersonic jet fighter. no big deal. that was interesting. if it was supposed to be the super sabre, i am hoping they were show that again. will show it because it did not get shown this morning. anyway, looking forward to seeing that, but this weekend

-- c-span3, so many good shows. a show called the benghazi hearings on c-span three. i have no way to receive it. i don't have a computer. anyways, the fact that there is no embassy of any description in libya. how come that is not being addressed? what are you make that a topic? i think this and is our favorite station to we can't get c-span3. i morning if you could tell us how you get to do that? we are calling because at 10:00 there is supposed to be a show on c-span3 which is the hearings, but we can't get c-span3. we feel this is a very important program to watch.

we would like to see that. maybe you could repeated on c-span one or two. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. democratic candidate for governor of texas wendy davis and republican candidate greg abbott met for the first debate in edinburg, texas. cook political report as the race listed as likely republican and the latest poll from real hasr politics also mr. abbott with the lead. this is about an hour. >> this is a texas gubernatorial debate live from the rio grande