that remain out there an like-minded individuals remain out there. we need to remember that. now, as i said, all about finding that balance. it is not either or. if the price of achieving our security is fundamentally becoming something we aren't. then they have won. and i have no desire to fundamentally capture the heart of what is america. and as the nsa director, i am always mindful of those right, and i'm mindful of what makes america, america. and i'm always mindful of the values of our allies and our 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. and you got see some of them here with us tonight.

let me conclude, because i want you guys to have something to eat. we will have a session after dinner where we will teak questions and answers and we will take it from there. but let me conclude again. thank you for being here tonight. thank you for your willingness to be part after dialogue because we need a dialogue. as a nation, we have to make some tough choices. and we want to have a well informed dialogue when we make those choices. and we've got to realize that there's a wide range of opinions out there. i understand that. but the dialogue has to represent multiple view points. that is at heart what is the strength of america. the idea that we can bring together lots of individuals with lots of different view points and yet we can still remain who we are and what 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 i believe in its men and women. i'm proud to stand up and say i'm director. i'm proud to stand up and say

i'm a member of the nsa team. and i will not apologize for that to anyone. i thank you very, very much for your time. have a great dinner. i look forward to the question and answer. thanks very much. [ applause ] >> so welcome to my living room. this is a nice little intimate chat. that we're going to have this evening. i have a few questions that i received from across the leadership, so i'm going to start with those. but i'm hoping that you will send cards and letters. some of you sent cards and letters already. but they are like two pages long. so help me out. and keep them nice and brief and punchy and we will get through as many as we can. welcome. >> thanks, again. >> first of all, i want to thank you for continuing do your engagement in unclassified environments so we can actually have conversations.

meaningful conversations. [ applause ] some of you may not know but mike rogers did his first session unclassified session with me back in 2011. he was the joint staff -- >> yeah. >> this is not something he is just doing because now he is direct over nsa or cyber com. so this is a continuation of something he's been doing for a long time. so i was just reading an article recently that the nato summit is -- >> really -- [ inaudible ] >> a nato summit in two weeks. and one of the items on the agenda is the cyber defense policy. and so i don't know if you are on 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 cyber com perspective should vis-a-vis some of our closest allies and nato. >> first, before i answer the question, thank you all again for hanging around. after 2100 i'm sitting in a beautiful comfy chair and part of me is going oh -- stay strong. so we are talking about what is the defense of a cyber defense policy. first thing that i think is important is the recognition that cyber defense is not something that one single entity will do. and in order to be successful in this area, it is about creating partnerships. how do we have the capability resident with the department of defense, department of government and commercial sectors. we are trying to figure out what should the vision of the cyber defense of the future.

number one, it is about partnerships. number two, it is about how do we enable those partnerships this year and what we are trying to do right now and where we need to be and not where we want to be. with the direction that i have is, upon the president or secretary of defense, not only do i do your day-to-day department of defense, but the cyber command mission is to be available for the secretary. to do that, u.s. cyber command can't do it alone. department of defense can't do it alone p. we have to have partners. that includes information sharing both ways. i'm quick to remind people, if i put on my nsa hat, and that information assurance mission i talked about, that's an important set of capabilities to help the government.

and in providing core defensive capability. the challenge for me is i'm not in those critical infrastructure is networks. would you necessarily want me in those network? i want to create partnerships. they are in a position to share information with us and i in turn can share information with them. hey, here's what i'm seeing in that red bottle space. here is what i think will come at you. these are the ttps i think, tactics, technique and procedures, you have to be able to defeat. i think individual groups will come at you. these are the things i think you need to look for. that's only one part that it takes to create good defensive structure. it is that two-way dialogue. great. i told you what i think you will see. tell me what you are actually seeing. one of the situations you see that i don't know because i'm

not monitoring your network, i look at what are the groups an individuals doing. i need that partnership to make this work. in talking to our nato allies, one of the things we try to highlight is this is about ultimately, i think you heard, one of my takeaways after four months in this job, quite frankly having been on and off for 11 decades cyber to me is the ultimate team sport. if there is any one group who thinks they have all of the answers and if there is one person who know everything, then that's probably. the answer. my experience is, that's not the answer. >> i will keep on theant national team for a little while. can you show how you were

working with director clapper and the rest of the national security team to build back plus with our allies an international trust in u.s. companies. >> so the first thing i would say is for the majority of our foreign partners, we don't have a trust deficit. but i will say clearly there are some with some very real concerns. collectively, we are attempting to ensure that we maintain an active dialogue with our foreign teammates. that we each, quite frankly, we need each other. those partnerships you keep hearing me talk about, those relationships, partnerships, the partnerships we have with key allies and friends overseas. i need them, and they need us. this is a two-way street. and can make the relationships work. we each have to acknowledge that

we each get something out of it. we will come to different conclusions. what with the different friends and allies, it is amazing what you can work through. there is no doubt in my mind that even as we work through challenges, all of us remember that ultimately back to my comments on br dinner. it is about funding citizens and the nation. i don't care if you're in europe somewhere, asia, south america, i welcome prtenerships. i also ask my partners what can nsa do to support you. not just, hey, here what i need to you do for pups that's not a partnership. that's not a true relationship. that's not what i'm interested in if i can avoid it. and acknowledge at times we will have a difference of opinion. all i ask is we've got to keep

talking to each other and work through this. >> you're over the first hyundais. >> here we go.uyundais. >> here we go.nyundais. >> here we go.dyundais. >> here we go.ryundais. >> here we go.eyundais. >> here we go.dyundais. >> here we go.hundred yundais. >> here we go.dyundais. >> here we go.ayundais. >> here we go.syundais. >> here we go.undais. >> here we go.ndais. >> here we go.dais. >> here we go.ais. >> here we go.is. >> here we go.s. >> here we go.. >> here we go. >> right now about now, you should have a sense of what your top priorities are for nsa and what your top priorities are for cyber com. >> that's my retirement speech. >> we want to know your stretch goals. >> so, my number one goal of the commander of the united states cyber command, is to create a cyber mission for us that the department is committed to. my view is, if you ask me, what do you think your legacy will be, as you are cyber command, i would say my tenure, we create the cyber mission for the department of defense. we enabled strong partnerships that we will build success off

large term and cyber is considered a very normal operation. not something specialized, unique, that hey a bunch of geeks do. hey look, cyber and the ability to operate and defend in the digital world that we're living in. aep are more likely to be involved in for the rest of our lives anyway. have you to be able to operate in some kind of environment. i try to tell operational commanders, look, you have to own this problem. we're way past the day where you can turn to your key indicator or chief information officer and say be with you know, the cyber network stuff will do good stuff. you just let me know when you fixed it all. that's not going to work. fz you got understand, how that cyber capability and helps the bodder op rigs yl vision.

and you've got to understand when you're taking a risk. in the end, it is all about risk. a couple things, first and foremost, making sure the work force understands we have a mission commit cal to this nation and its allies and we have to ex skies that mission. want do it with our head down, thinking whoa is me. we're going to get our head up an what we've go to remember. following the rule of law and ensuring accountability. as long as we do that, don't cut corners, stay focused on whatter with about, we're fine. second priority is making sure even as we lost capability because of compromises, make sure we can regenerate that. and the third thing really is, what did you hear me say in the opening remarks? what do we do now that won't pay for for 5 to 10 years?

our successors are going, what in the heck did roger do? because i believe you can see the future coming and i know under are things we have to do differently and partner with our broader intelligence partners. we are part of a bigger team. we are just one part. it is amazing what we can do when you think about immigration. i'm honored to partner with cia. and rogue dia, it is amazing what we do when we create strong integrated partnerships. i think that's the future in the intel jengs progression. >> so we have something going on at insa. in my own words, it's sort of taking stock of the national security arena in the digital age.

and how to you maintain relevance and impact in the digital age. and actually providing that extra "so what." so some of us, myself included, believe it might be a time when the paradigm is shifting starting with sensitive methods and seeing what else is out there in the open source or unclassified arena. and perhaps start with unclassified data and inside information and then focus sensitive sources and methods on the gap. is that a culture shift that you're thinking about? and if it isn't, you know, how are you approaching the digital age? >> the the comment i want to

make and i could be misunderstanding. so just tell me. >> sure. >> i'm leery at times when i listen to people, i'm going, you sound to me as if you're characterizing and it is one versus the other. >> nop right. >> one of the projects we are working on for fort meade -- [ inaudible ] >> what is that. >> [ inaudible ] >> right. >> this is a big cultural for them. >> there are unclassified things around you. in a way we don't normally do. very secure level. totally separate the class. go to a different place many times. the vision forness the future is how do we bring the two together? work them both simultaneously,

rather than a linear thing. start off on class five but start off at the highly classified level. the vision i think we have of the future is how to pro provide our analyst. and how do you use both sits of capabilities to generate -- it is amaze ppg the ones who have the clael with us, it ain't the young members of our work force. they look at it and say, this is how i want to live my life. what the the big deal? >> people that haven't been around for a while, oh. but part of me goes look, there's technical challenges. i think we can mitigate those. there is clearry risk. we have to go with eyes open. it is not either or. and living in the individual world we live in now, a single

officer, it just excites the heck out of me. there is opportunity out there. >> there are great opportunity out there to enjoy greater outsights to help the friendly nation and those are allies. that's opportunity for us. it is not a risk. a risk i guess, but not a threat, an opportunity. >> you were talking about the me linna. you have two of them and i have two of them. >> there are real challenges to recruiting, retaining, enabling them in the national security arena and having, as you talk about, the cyber force, you might not do it with military. you might have to have civilians integrated if there.

or you might have to have new ways of integrating contact for your support. there is sort of a die nam ek going on about manpower in general. what's your thinking on how you are approaching if? >> you need both. key components for us, in no particular order, i don't see that changing and civilians and if you look at the national security, they are in uniforms. and a uniform piece both active and reserve. you have to create a structure that harnesses capabilities of all of those. even the biggest thing that i'm interested in try doing as director of nsa is how do we create mechanisms. particularly given the technical

option. we need to work on this, whether it is outside, rainy, elements could come back. i am always amazed by the amount of people i talk to when i work and many of my ship mates are here, i'm a rogers at work. so start by tell meg about you. one of the things i always ask is tell me how long you have been with us and what brought you to us in the first place. i'm always amazed, how routinely these people have been with us 30, 35 years. i just did a dpsh-i'm doing a session next week, a young lady, been with us for 50 years. >> i'm glad you said -- >> i talked to leadership about it. hey. the flip side is, if we're not careful, he will be a very ancillary organization.

what do we do to create a membrane to bring people in and out. i want them to understand what shapes the corporate sector. what drives technical investment. the cutting edge technologies and r & b and if you're a venture capitalist, you are there right now. i never thought as naval officer i would be doing that. why? >> one of the best indicators you got out there. why. you want to invest money, no matter what they say, the technology. two, five years from now we have a baseline. they think it offers mon tirery return. i'm uninterested because i want

to think about the technology five years from now. you have to create a work force where you move back and forth. how would you like do internship at nsa? you want to spend people to work with us, two, three years. i can put in a good show, show them what we do. meet our security requirements. a sign of no compete because what we do is sensitive. but i want you to understand what we do. this will help in the partnerships. one of the experiences is we do not understand each other well and we don't know each other well. i would like to see what we can do to change that. what are the shapes? what are the things that they, that many of you, are concerned about? what shapes your world view? what concerns you. what is it about nsa that you want a better understanding of. based on everything you know,

you say, i'm a little uncomfortable. i want to have that dialogue. i want people to form their opinions from fact. not conjecture or a broad side view of the world. >> so let me poke at that a little bit. we, the royal we, hear a lot of government seniors talk about new kinds of partnerships, new kinds of relationships. with industry and ak demma. we don't see a lot of mechanisms put in place. i'm talking about the ability to have those open betting and sharing of ideas and getting folks within government who are are a fik lating oirmt to have those insights. is there any part of why you are

plan that's about how you put those now partnerships in place? >> okay, rogers sets. the limb knits the broader strategic rhythm. work force, the plen and women who have been doing if therefore a long time. you have great ensights. what i've done is provided the leadership team with a series of tasks. under is one of them. which i said, hey, you going to come back, tell me how you're going to do this. >> okay. we have great partnershipes with d & i. if you lock within the last six months for example, we have been granted authorities to change pay scale for the technical field. we approached a d & i partners. i said, look, we need to do things differently. here are the authorities we ask of you. it is great to see them come

back. that's very positive in the work force because many of the work force tells us, we love what we do. we want to stay with us. but, i could make a whole lot more money on the inside and work a whole lot of less hours. i wouldn't have any neighbors looking at me say willing, you work at nsa an i trust you. one of the reasons i had those men and women stand up tonight is because nsa is about men and women. about motivated people who want to make a difference. not who go to work everyday thinking about, you know, today i'm going to indiscriminately collect against people who i have no idea who we are. i just want to abuse the authority given to us. i could harness this technology and do things that having to to do with my mission. that is not what motivates those

men and women of fort meade aep around the world. they want to dot right thing for the right reasons. they are energized about the fact they tell them so. i go home every night thinking iep keeping them safe. they're not fperfect. but they are just like you. not some sort of tech no geek who has no idea what is going on around them and what doesn't think about the world around them. i'm willing to work with them. [ applause ] >> so i have quite a few questions about -- so i will rope them into one. and it's really about -- >> that is water. >> i thought it was -- never

meen. mind. they are getting established. you have the cyber source now coming on-line. since you've been both, i think you get that. >> clearly, under the current construct, the point i make is cyber command sets the standard. this is what the work force will look like. these are the skills we will have and training standard that it must meet. i and the command team provide that to the services and the servicers are tasked with generating capacity and capability. in broad terms, you have some authority. but in broad terms, under the current construct, u.s. cyber

command does not focus on acquisition. i don't generator buy capability. i have operational commander. don't go out and design them. don't go out and buy them. that's what services do. you know, much discussion, about hey is this a right and wrong term view. we will work our way through that. i just spent about an hour and a half with all of the service components and question i posed and i think we're coming up in about half way through this cyber mission build. we have a good mission for the future. . how are we going to generate through combat readiness?

i said, to me, it's like a ship. we spend, you know, eight years or so building it. the day it's commissioned, contractor turns it over to the united states navy. we have beautiful ceremony. turps out, there is nothing. we did everything we can. every member of that chew has qualifications to operate safely at sea. yet, depending on where they are all on their schedule, 12 to 24 months. a tough demanding operational arena. no difference. today was about how are we going to do that. we focused on commissioning the teams. that's great. but it doesn't get to war fighting skills. that's what we need and that's what department and nation is counting on for us. we are spending a lot of tile

focussing on that. and services keep harder than that. >> as you can imagine we have a few questions. related to snowden. but i think this one is the best. if so many elements of government media in the public seem to be displaying anti-nsa sentiment. how do you get the public to understand that nsa is clearly man tated legal roles and responsibilities and its commitment. you talked about that at a high level. >> right. >> are there some specific things that you and your team are doing? especially with, you know, the new onslaught of articles that

came out today? don't worry, your staff will have it all outline for you tomorrow. >> there we will be. >> so how are you dealing with whatever continues to come? >> so i think there's a couple things. quick, i'm quick to define the organization, look, i'm not going to spend my time, but what we need do is focus on the mission and doing the right thing for the right reasons the right way. follow the rule of law and always remember we are accountable to the citizens of the united states. keep that in mind. always remember that. and we're go tock fine. second thing that i say is that i think about, so, how do we address this deficit, and you can argue a trust deficit in some ways among some, i think

among the component, if you look, we probably declassified partner be with nia an others. i can remember as professional, i messed up my entier career. we are trying to ask ourselves, so, what with we do to make sure that nation has a seps of what we do and why. and i say, look, you got to be willing to do it. sometimes we get it wrong. when we get it wrong, we are going to report that. we have to be willing to acknowledge that. we are not perfect. but nog nobody is going to systematically undermine the rights of our citizens. or trying to systematically bypass the rlaws that we are required to execute. >> do that, i think we look at this in a very public way.

more information than we've ever done before. trying to engage in a broader public dialogue. tonight is an example of that. there's media here. fine, they need to be here. you need to ask what the audience has in mind and we will take it from there. >> another poent i try to make is that it just can't be about nsa, defending nsa. that's a loser to me. it needs to be part after broader dialogue and we are very fortunate and we have great partners out there who are willing to stand up and have that dialogue. i'm the first to admit, if it is just about nsa, we're missing the boat. from my perspective anyway. nsa needs to be a part of this dialogue but it needs to be much broader. people need to understand, there's a legal framework in position out there. we just don't un unilaterally decide how we do p.

we will shape what nsa focuses its foreign intelligence mission upon we have a set of court 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. notify in writing and testify as well as privately in front of an oversight committee. part of the challenge in all of this is, if we're honest with each mechanism of governance do not have trust from our citizens. that's a tough thing to acknowledge. it doesn't help us as a nation that that's the case. but it is the case. and so one thing i try to tell the team out of fort meade is, i'm not going to waste my time wishing the world was a certain

way. we will acknowledge the world and acknowledge the way we operate and be effective in doing that. and we just have toing a knowledge that this is part of the challenge. not so much of what we structured initially if you go back historically for us. we insured congress as elected represent tifs and citizens of this nation, among the primary tools to ensure nsa's compliance. and yet we find ourselves in the situation where much of our public doesn't trust many elements or have low confidence in. so what do you do when your strategy is found owned that approach? you have to broaden it a little bit. that's one of the reasons you're here tonight and hopefully you will see things over the next few months where we are trying to find a dialogue. i'm not out here to sell anything. i'm not out here to necessarily convince anybody. but i told the team, stick to the facts and let people make

well-informed decisions with what they are comfortable with. that's what we need do. focus on the mission and stick to the facts. >> one last quick question. >> yes ma'am. >> those of us who support and have worked with both the fort meade area and dhs was in roles and missions related to the cyber arena, what is the partnership that you have in place or are putting in place -- >> i would tell you, for me i'm very fortunate. i would partner with a cabinet secretary in the form of jay johnson who i have worked with before in my career. i love the fact that it is just, jay will just pick up the phone and talk to rogers and rogers will pick up the phone and talk to secretary johnson about hey, i think we need do this, we need do that. he and i meet regularry. we talk to our teams about what we need do to create stronger partnerships.

what i have argued is there is great capability for cyber missions p. but we have got do this in a partnership with others. and the federal government, too big as partner, and dhs and fbi. and that the way it's going to be. that's what we need do. i'm not about control. the team at fort meade has to hear me say, it is about outcome. i don't care who gets the credit. this is about helping defend america and its allies. it is about the greater good. nsa needs to do that as part of its partnership. i would only highlight from my perspective, i love our partnership with dhs. i remember two, three years ago, arguments about who waut to do what.

my argument to jay was, as far as we are concerned, we made the decision, let's execute, let's drive. and no longer interested in what i consider to be mindless deb e debates about who ought to do what. this is characterization, i apologize. but i'm not interested in control. i'm interested in outcome. that's what matters to me. >> can you come to my living room any time. >> yes ma'a, ma'am. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> this is great. your presentation. great. and at the table with us, director of national intelligence, director proper. director proper wanted to come up. >> wow. >>

. >> listen, i know this is a school night. it is for me. so i'll be brief. i years ago i did this with joe dempsey. what do you do with your legs? >> put them -- >> i was watching for that. >> secondly, i do want to thank the corporate sponsors because evenings like this wouldn't happen without the support of the corporate sponsors. so thank you. [ applause ] so mike rogers is a testament to the system that we have in the united states for grooming leaders p. and no one else on the planet can compete with that. and mike's passion for the mission, for all of his mi