tv Today in Washington CSPAN August 8, 2013 6:00am-9:01am EDT
>> look forward to working with you guys this weekend. >> our pleasure. >> ours also. >> thank you, sir. >> you're welcome. my pleasure. speedwriter. that also helps. >> it does a good job. better than i can. certainly. >> a phone call from peter jennings telling me he finished the book and he loved it and thought it was the most effective battle scenes story he'd ever read. >> great. >> my son finished the book last week and he loved it. he's a history buff. he is a junior at carson college
in tennessee and he loved civil war history and reenactments and all that. >> that's great. >> we loved it. coming back here tonight. we'll be back. we've got plenty of books. >> how is it going? >> we just set up here about 25 minutes ago. >> i've done good the last couple of days. >> this gentleman behind us just bought it. >> i understand that went pretty well. >> that went well, yes, sir. i found my page, believe it or not. could i get you to sign this yes man -- sign for this gentleman over here? >> thank you c13 >> thank you very much, sir. >> what is your name?
>> great job with make-up and everything. >> that does look a tad like him. he's either gotten heavier or added some weight. >> put the mustache on. who was he playing? >> one of the delegates of the virginia convention when they first decided to cease from the union. he was a nondescript general sort of in the back when they
had the big council with robert duvall which was going lee. >> somebody liked duvall as lee. >> he looked so good. he just look sod good. the make-up and everything. >> i see you have colonel turner up there. >> jeff daniels. >> ted came into my office and explained that they just now finished filming and it was in editing. he h a day and suddenly had to practic day and suddenly dives onto my couch. daniels speech from gettysburg is the best explanation of freedom. >> it's very interesting. >> very powerful. >> the first time i saw it, i mean -- >> we used it when i taught. >> he does such a great job. >> ready?
>> we are ready. >> all were done on glass and you had to do this whether it was in the studio or the field and you had to do it just before you were ready to shoot a photograph. this was known as flowing the plate so any dust particles, any bugs, anything that happened to flight into the plate when you are doing this are part of the finished picture. what happens is that smell that you are smelling is either. that is evaporating. what that is going to do is create a film on there. that is where the word film comes from. this is all the more traditional film was invented. >> film originally meant film on a glass plate. >> right, exactly. and this substance we use was actually a liquid bandage in the crimean war and it's still used for that today some.
some operating procedures use this rather than stitches because it coagulates and forms this film or that covering over the wound. that was an englishmen who came up with this process in the mid 1850's. by 1875 they were off to something else called dry cleaning, much easier, and that is where photography starts to become a hobby and less of a profession. you still, of course, had the professional, but now common folks it was much easier to do. with this type of photography, you need three things. you need the mind of a chemist t eye of an artist, and the patience of a saint. if you don't have all three of those, you won't do it. now it is evaporated. it goes into a bath of silver. hang right here. i'll be right back. i have to put this in the dark room. >> interesting experience, isn't it? >> oh yeah. >> this is the first time you are doing this picture? >> yes.
never done it before. >> one of our formula folks right here. this is 1862. this is where we get a lot of the formulas from. the neat thing about this is it has photograprom. the neat thing about this is it has photographer's handwritten notes in it in various places. these are the actual photos we are using today. it doesn't have his name in there. he has written everything else down. we did get it at a rare bookstore in upstate new york. what i'm going to show you over here is with our cameras. >> how long does the silver plating take? >> about three minutes is all. >> actually immersed in the silver plate? >> slid down in there and looks like a tall, thin aquarium, if you will. >> it's sill veer nitrate dissolved -- it's silver nitrate dissolved in salt water is what it is. there was a photographer in the 1860's and this little page out
of a book here explains about what he did, but he was from baltimore and in the early months of the civil war, he went to richmond and photograph add number of confederate dignitaries, including jefferson davis. he comes back to baltimore and selling these and charged to the loyalty disunion. after signing the allegiance and spending time in jail, he agrees not to sell them. he takes the name off the back and continues to sell them under the counter to confederate supporters, if you will. there is a famous photograph of jeff davis taken by mr. walters, but no name on it. >> did anything happen to him? >> other than he was in jail for 60 days and that was it. >> he is a photographer in baltimore. >> from baltimore, yes, and went to richmond. >> and goes back to baltimore?
>> he literally pulled them out in volume two and sold them publicly. >> the interesting thing is i have his lens. >> that is the same lens? >> that is what we will be using on you today. >> you're actually going to get a photograph by his camera. perfectly still. no movement, please. very proud now. chins are up. it's ok to blink your ice. just can't move. ready and counting. you can move. this is yours of the negative. you want to watch this.
watch closely as we put it into the fixing solution. you want to get this on camera. >> wow. >> that is so neat. >> is that unbelievable? >> wow. that looks good. it turned out very nice. there you are 140 years ago. >> what do you think? >> what a shot, right? >> that looks great. >> going to frame this all up for you and run whatever copies you want also. and also some of the visiting cards were very popular. >> isn't that great? >> one more quick one. do we have time? >> pleasure meeting you.
>> good to see you. >> member of the senate commission. >> good to see you. how are you doing? my wife. >> thank you. >> hello. i think we are supposed to walk up this way. how are you? is this fun? good to see you. how are you? hi. how are you? hello. hi there. how are you? hi. hi, how are you? how are you? hello. >> a real pleasure. >> good to see you. >> let me thank you all of you for coming out on a warm day. i am delighted to be here.
i wanted to say for a minute that i was born up the road in harrisburg and my father went to gettysburg college before he went in the army, so i have some long-term ties here. my co-author will also say something in a minute. we are delighted to be here along with our families and talk about ideas and have a chance to sign some books. i to want to recognize tom lagore who is a remarkable historian of carol county, maryland, and who dramaticcally -- [applause] -- when we worked through our version of gettysburg with experts in the army war college and concluded that the really decisive battle could have been fought in carol county between tawny town and westminister, we were very, very nat to find tom who's had 40 years of looking at that county and putting together
ideas. the time he spent with us going across the county was absolutely invaluable. any of you who read the novel, i think, will see how much it's enriched by the knowledge that tom brought to bear and how he helped us feel about the county and then the toe cal communities and what could have happened in that time period. we are thrills to be here. we road gettysburg as the first of a three volume series in part because we think all too often people just memorize facts and dates and places with no understanding of what they mean. and so we're trying to develop what we would call active history of taking any particular moment in time, whether it's churchill in 1940 or it's george washington at valley forge, or it's the current moment, for that matter, but taking any moment in time and saying you have all the opportunities and you have all the information.
you have to operate within the technology and within the organization of the times. if you look at our model of the army of northern virginia and the army of the potomac, we believe and military experts believe it's very technically correct about what could have happened and the pace they could have moved and what the matchups might have been. we also tried to stay within the frame work on the personalal tis. we think getting people to look at history in terns of not just what happened, but what might have happened makes it a much richer and a more exciting kind of experience. of course, you're here at one of the great sights in american hustry and have a chance the next couple of days to go out and see how challenging and close fought the battle this was. it's pretty hard to argue the gettysburg couldn't have had other outcomes. this is one places where you see
a series of events that could easily change history. there are a lot of other versions that could have occurred, but those who do decide to take a good look at the novel, i hope you'll find it interesting and useful and sets the stage for volume two of n which lee is faced with the challenge of what to do with the victory because it hasn't been enough to knock lincoln out of the white house and out of the war. the last page of this novel ends with lincoln's telegram to gren grant con grate lating him on winning at vicksburg and ordering him to bring 3/4 of the corps to his east. lee's got to decide being in number two, how does he continue to put pressure on the north? we think that is a very useful
exercise to go through in both thinking about military history, but also political history and diplomatic history. what would have happened with france and britain and there were riots in new york city and elsewhere against the draft after winning at gettysburg on the union side. what might have happened if all the page one headlines had been a union defeat? we think there are a lot of interesting things to explore and examine. our hope is people will be try in and realized how powerful and dynamic kit be and then learning more about the country and coming to places like get tuesdayburg where you see what role and price people paid. let me turn it over to my coauthor and bill and i have formed both a very close friendship but also a professional team work that is a lot of fun as well as pretty
creative and pretty dynamic. bill, why don't you come up? >> thank you. [applause] >> >> his first comment was "this is heavy." those of you in modern garb were a little envious at the moment. others -- i will be making a couple of quick comments. my great hero joshua chamberlain has often refered to as gettysburg as the vision place of souls. of course, when we worked on a novel fo of course, when we worked on a novel for five years, a lot of research went into it. we hope you read it, but also i urge all of you across the next couple of days to visit the vision place of souls. to me the great miracle of gettysburg is simply this. if i can see a show of hands here, how many are from the south or defining themselves as
southern in their viewpoint? from the north? where else? where else is in the world today could such a war have been fought with 600,000 dead and yet only 25 years later the men who fought in that war would come on this very track for a reunion, arriving by train. again, at the 50th and 75th reunion and now today on the 140th anniversary of gettysburg, we all meet here as brothers, sister, and fellow americans who honor both sides. i will simply close with of silent reflection or prayer for those who gave their last full measure at gettysburg and all the american wars of history that today we can celebrate the anniversary of our independence.
>> does this train go parallel to the route that he came down or hill came down? i think so. you may want to get on and explain that at some point or have bill do it. you do have a narration? you may want to have somebody actually do the narration if that makes sense. >> it was just over that hill where the fighting took place very early in the morning july 1, 1863. >> i think either you or bill should give the narration. bill knows vastly more about the details than i do. but it's your train. i will say something general.
>> walk through the park. hi, how are you? good. aren't you wa-good. aren't you warm? >> very warm, sir. >> saw you on bill o'reilly. big fan of yours. >> i'd like to get your autograph. >> all right. i'll be around. all right. you want to blow the whissle? . eventually. maybe on the way back. hey, guys. you guys have a lot cooler ride.
this is nice up here. pretty ride, isn't it? how are you all doing? good. fun to be here. this is neat. how are you doing? >> lot cooler on the train. >> the closed cars are not this cool. this is very nice up here. >> i'm used to that. this isn't hot. june, july, august in georgia, that's hot. where you all from? >> baltimore. humidity. >> get a little muggy in the humidity over there. actually, in volume two of our book, lee is going to capture baltimore. >> really? >> we're coming up i think in august to spend a day or two with a historical society
looking at different things that might have happened back then. >> wonderful. >> that's going to be a lot of fun. >> i think lincoln sent up some troops early on. >> i think they snuck him through baltimore to get to washington. they were so worried about the effort there and fassnate on the way to washington. >> he sent up troops to keep a rebellion from happening. >> maryland came very close to us is seeding and lincoln kept it away. he knew he had to keep maryland and kentucky and delaware in the system. that was really sort of the balance of power. it is part of why we are intrigued and will go to northern maryland and now lee is sitting in northern maryland and southern pennsylvania having to decide what does he do and how does he do it because if he can
>> what i would say, when women negotiate for themselves, when they do the same thing men do, they might or might not win but they will be disliked and then they will pay a penalty in terms of future advancement, the relationships. this is really important. spent they will pay a price? >> not every case but on average. when women negotiate for themselves, they have to legitimize it. i don't like this advice. i would rather men and women were treated equally but we might as well understand the stereotypes and use them to make sure we get those and get paid fairly. so what women have to do is legitimize the advice. a woman can say something like, i do this in my book with more from this is going to will be on opposite sides of the table, you remember you are hiding me, you want me to be a good negotiator. i'm about to negotiate. reminding the person these are
skills i'm bringing to the table. i think people do, i say in the book, the data shows you can legitimize your advice i think someone else told me to do. i talk to the supervisor. one thing it's been funny since the book there are all these articles that people are marching in and saying sheryl sandberg told me to ask for a raise the threat. >> leading to a profound seller escalation. >> when i suggested that you legitimize it i didn't have me in mind. i had my like someone in the company. >> the best investment you ever made. $14, 40% off at your local bookstore. >> but when they say sheryl sandberg once they get a raise, i do. women get paid 23% less than men for the same jobs in this country. that's the problem and does not just proper people to work in industry.
>> 23%? >> women get the 23% less. again, that's not from just for the women who come to the computer history museum. 30% of our children in this country being raised by single parents. almost all single mothers. at 23 cents is a big deal. what "lean in" is about is equality and equity throughout our economy and our country. we have to change that. >> you talk a little bit about career advice and views -- >> no, no, no. [talking over each other] >> the best career advice i got was from eric schmidt but never with eric schmidt on the stage. so the weight when i was thinking about joining google,
and google, i loved it and i really was excited to work with eric and larry but there was this totally non-job. so i had a chart of my criteria. >> this by the ways typical of shia. she of all of the detailed analyses. >> i came to eric with my chart. i really want to take the google offer but look at my chart. it doesn't meet any of my criteria. there's no job. it's unclear what a day. i have no results. i have no goals. i have no responsibilities. and eric put his hand on my paper and he said, don't be immediate. which is excellent career advice. [laughter] i mean, that alone was worth the price of admission to this. but then he said what is the best -- he said get on a rocket she. he said google is a rocket ship. yes, you're right, we don't know
what you're going to do exactly, bigger offered a seat on a rocketship don't ask it what seat. because what eric said is that when industries are doing well, everyone -- when industries and companies are not doing as well people don't do as well. extrapolating from that, go where your skills are needed to not have one can join the high-tech rocketship industry but there are areas of every company, of every interest, different specialty where your skills are more important and there's a growing need for them. i think that it's been the most important career advice i got, and i'm so grateful. >> thank you very much. let's return to the book. i want to go back, i'm still upset about this 77% number. >> i am glad that i am, too. >> we agree. when you talk about childcare and to talk about the decision to have children, which is a complicated decision for
professional women, one of the problems that you describe is come and lecture in high-tech and your stock options and so forth, the math doesn't work. to me when i look at single moms with kids and so forth, i can imagine how tough their lives are. it any simpler of their life in a day breaks down, like a car or whatever, it's a major crisis as oppose to me, you get a taxi or what have you. is the solution to that ticket salaries up? how do we solve this core problem women feel? i've got two of the family, and deployment in the book the women are doing the majority of housework and his work, for better or for worse. how do we solve that problem? the biggest area that i worry about is a single mom who is that all this pressure on her, it's amazing to me you're making through this. >> is true. so the childcare issues exist on both ends of the income spectrum. at the lower end it's very clear that many public policy reform.
and institutional reform. we need jobs that a more flexible. we're the only developed country in the world that doesn't offer one day of federally paid for a mandated maternity leave. something like 40-50% of women in this country, and men, don't get a single sick day paid to take of themselves or child to do with maternity or paternity. we must provide affordable childcare and solve some of these basic issues, and nothing else is as important. on the upper end of the spectrum i think what happens to women is they sometimes do the math wrong. can look at what they're making today. these are college educated women whose salaries are going to go to afford the childcare they need overtime and to look and they say right now, if i pay for childcare i'm barely breaking even. why do it? i have a story in the book from my friend, was about to drop out and someone said to her, wait a second, you stay income you will make more money. so she stayed in and 10 years
later, her salary covers plenty of childcare and all kinds of other things. we need both, the public policy reform and better negotiating for women, and women to look ahead at what is coming, not what they have right now. >> and in the book you talk about this in the context of choice of a husband. use it a true blue the single most important career decisions that will make is whether shot a life partner into the partner is. you go on, and let me quote you, when looking for life partner my advice to them is to date all of them. the bad boys, the cool boys, the crazy boys, but do not marry them. [laughter] >> correct. >> the good thing is that what makes bad boys sexy does make them good husbands. >> very good advice. [laughter] >> i'm just reading from your book. you must read this. >> i stand by my dating advice, absolutely. you can date whoever you want.
it's marriage or love commitment, for one gets to do if you'r you're a woman nothingt making that life commitment to a woman, you don't have a problem because two women or two men will split household responsibilities fairly evenly. it's when you get a man and a woman and ongoing relationship. ago in the world when do the majority of childcare and housework. here they did 30 or 40% more than men. as a couple and man is one job and a woman has to. 70% of mothers are in the workforce and they are full-time and they can't leave because they need the money to support their family. they are doing two jobs while the husband has one. i know no women of jobs like whether any of the women who occupy leadership positions. most of us have husbands and children, and all of us have supportive husband. >> and i can having -- indeed you made the right choice. he is indeed perfect. [laughter] as she goes into his perfect -- this is true.
but in the book you also describe algorithms, sorry, procedures that women can use -- [laughter] you quote an unfortunate woman who were probably unhappy a quarter by me by name that she explained the way should be dating is, to determine if the boyfriend would support the cartridge would arrange a date and then she would at the last minute rescheduled and see how he handled it. and if he passes that test, the next day would be scheduled and then it would turn out that she had to fly somewhere like brazil and he had to -- did this work? >> she is very happily married and she was happy for me to share her story. that was more of a story than advice. [laughter] however, it is a really important point, which is ideal women date whoever you want, as you said, that marry someone who wants equality to the things women should be strong, who, if you want to be in the workforce,
and that women should work on who's going to support you and support a stunning say yes dear, i goes for you to get a job as they sit on the couch. it is getting up in the middle of night to change the diapers. that's what this takes. men who have had successful careers have had wives were helping them all a long. i think it is -- >> charge interrupt you, you point out that there is a myth that female ceos are, in fact, not married. the vast majority of enough ceos are not only happy married but have kids, and they work it out. >> lightning. so what happens, and the reason this partnership is so important is lessons and expectation went about men and women are so deeply held. if you're in men, please raise your hand and you work and your children, please ration if anyone has ever said to you, should you be working? [laughter] don't be shy.
exactly but if you're a woman and to work and get this, please ration and if anyone has ever said to you, should you be working? our assumption is that men will do both and women will not. women have to choose. that assumption is in wrong because most women have to do both. have an economy and a society where most women have to work and most women have children. so they are doing both. all of our narrative is about how women can't and shouldn't do both. that's unfair to women. >> so at the point at which a woman makes a decision to have a child, she is now confronted by the reality of his very limited amount of time off which i've always heard is way too short. i thin think you would agree cod to sony western europe. these women are forced to come back to work with all this tremendous childcare and staying up on life and all that and they show up at work. you talk in the book about how eventually solution is to give up sleep.
>> a bad solution. >> clearly that solution. furthermore, you give advice about life. this is another one of these core messages i think, that the way you would argue and perhaps your projecting yourself, that it worked when kids didn't exist but now you have to accept, embrace the messiness of life, embrace them as the rejoice in the complications. don't be frightened. you can always change your mind. i know, i've had for careers and three husband. so in this particular case you ultimate in the book said, under the enormous pressure of this, your running this extraordinary structure at google. you decided to sort of knee-jerk your time. you have to give something up. did you give the organization? your work performance doesn't
suffer i know because i would've told you, so he managed to sort of pull it off. how do you do at? >> i think what happens, i was in europe and the man said to me, you want to hire the most efficient person other, higher aim of the. it was something you could measure, and he said she is. i thought i was relatively efficient before i had children. i was not that efficient the ones i had children -- >> by the way, you are really efficient. >> every minute became precious. when every minute became precious for me it became precious other people. my tolerance for unnecessary meetings which was never that i went way down. i think what's happening to women, working women, is working mothers is that we compare ourselves unfavorably on both sides of the ledge. we compare ourselves to appears at work, largely men, who have fewer home response those than we do and we fell short. it's easy for them to take the
true. it's easy for them to stay live. we compare ourselves at home to the women who are at home full-time and we fall short there. as a working mother you can spend your entire life feeling bad. and when you don't, people will do it for you. site a story in my book about dropping my son off at a local public school we go to and i dropped them off in kindergarten on st. patrick's day wearing his favorite blue t-shirt. a woman opened the door and says st. patrick's day. is supposed the wearing green. i think, really? really? i'm lucky he has a t-shirt. [laughter] now, this would never happen to my husband. if my husband drops her son wearing the same t-shirt, that same woman would open the door and say you are such a wonderful father for driving her son to school today. but i'm a woman but, of course, it did happen to me. i did what anyone would do which is spent my entire day worrying about the green t-shirt. would i be the annoying mom?
>> by the way, the man would've forgotten the entire transaction about five minutes after, right? [laughter] >> about halfway through this episode of panic, i called my husband and i explained i caveated green t-shirt, he will never go to college. [laughter] and it will be my fault because i'm a working woman and all the other women, they don't work so they remembered the green t-shirt. my husband laughed and he said, our son learned something so important today. he learned it doesn't have to be like everyone else. and that is the difference, because my husband and i, i feel guilty all the time to the date even having written a book telling evan else myself not to feel guilty. my husband thinks he is a hero. [laughter] he's a hero. a hero of blue t-shirt. and the difference is about
letting ourselves off the hook. most of the things we do, we do 80% of them -- >> the way i would express that is redefined the situation you're in to be success or that's what your husband -- >> success is 80%. doing the best you can spend one of the things you talked about was primary caregiving expectations for mothers, stay at home and working mothers have gone up. somehow we think that people are spending less time with their kids, but, in fact, over the last couple decades the number has gone up by 60% by my math. >> the other side of the ledger. working women, working mothers but all of us, expectations are going up on both sides due to the wonderful technology eric and others here, people work longer hours. my mother said it was 95. no cell phones. you couldn't be bothered on the weekends and that's change. were all work longer hours. mothering has gone through the same expectation the if you think about what parenting was,
my mother was at work at home, stay-at-home mother, full-time. we didn't have play dates she arranged. she didn't arrange a single plate. there was no such thing. we rode our bicycles down the block and plate. sociologists call it intensive mothering. the data shows a full-time working, full-time of the working outside the home today spend as many hours engaged in direct child interaction as a nonworking mother did in the '70s. it's an amazing thing to understand. when i think about -- >> that's a pretty hopeful statement. >> absolute. when i figured spend as much real-time with my children working full-time as my mother did, we talked about it. boy, was that a relief. so these expectations a full-time in more than full-time work and then it intensive mothering, it's not possible to do both of those.
>> i want to finish up and get to you also questions. i have a couple more questions. utah can book a little bit about how women treat other women. you also, when you went to facebook, you faced it let's call it increased scrutiny because, truthfully, quickly as some of you will become a very significant power force in industry overall, marissa was of course talented has gone through this at yahoo!. we told her to stay at google, too. [laughter] >> you train is also well. >> they don't listen to me at all. and to me you have a quote in here from alan albright to there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women. what is the message? what you want women and men who are supporting women to do based on this sort of set of criticism? >> i think there's a lot in the
workforce and a lot in a general narrative about women not helping other women. some of it is true, particularly historically, that in the world were on one woman's going to get to the top and only one woman, then it makes sense those women were supercompetitive. but i don't think that's true anymore. every company i know wants more women not less. i think we need to just -- the other thing that's happened is we have different expectations for men and women at work. if a man is asked for favorite work and he does it, everyone our supercritical. what a great guy. if he doesn't do, he faces nobility. he is busy, you stuff to do. everyone is as for favorite work and she doesn't do it, she faces real penalties in terms of promotion, salary increase. issued does the, known as particularly grateful. women have been legitimate mean to other women because they feel competitive. i think a competitiveness that is rooted in her own insecurity or need to face the and support each other. some of it is different
expectations but i think the final observation, turns out we are 50% of the population. >> shocking. >> and if we work together, if there are no more mommy wars, i've been working with one of the most important mommy blogger sites about bringing women who work and home and women work in the workforce together. where publishing this week led to thank our mothers for mothers day. we're all doing it. some of them are beautiful. women need to support each other because when i think about the women who are at home, i can even feel insecure because i don't feel like i'm as good a mother, or i can feel grateful for everything you're doing at my kids will come in my community. and i think the same thing for those mothers looking at mothers like me who are working. if we can feel better about ourselves, and stopped beating ourselves up so much, we can also be more generous to each other. >> let's talk about the book and the book tour and the reviews and so
with a typical courage that you have, you have managed to launch into this at full blast, and number one, bestseller list for the last two months. essentially at least a global conversation. let's start by asking, what's the stupidest criticism that you've ever heard of you and your book? [laughter] the stupidest one. >> you don't criticize my book. [laughter] everyone loves my book. >> i think the criticism that i don't think is that thoughtful these same that i don't believe that other things need to change them other than -- is acquitted him that i think is not grand is i'm blaming women. if you read my book it's very hard to find i'm blaming women.
>> for those of you who didn't read the book at all. >> i'm very clear we need institutional policy and public policy. i also do a lot to explain why we're holding ourselves back. encouraging women is not the same thing, and i think the distinction is one that -- >> so then the semantic question is what's the most sophisticated criticism lacks what's the criticism has been the most accurate that you said that person is pretty smart. they read the book, but interested. either missed that or they're right or something i need to go explore more. >> the best criticism of my book, and it is one i struggle with a lot, is that, it's sophisticated, is that in trying to change stereotypes i am embracing the stereotypes. so for example, i to women in that book to smile and say we, and justified their acts for promotion and raises.
that is embracing the stereotype. i am acknowledging that you will be more successful getting a raise if you smile. i don't want to embrace a stereotype to change and i struggled with it in the book. i decided that in pretty much, the world is what it is but it women smile, say we, they will get raises. the next generation won't have to smile and say we spent this is feminism to porno. services. feminism 1.0 was a specific day which is i think a larger and correct one. feminism 2.0 is there's a way to do this which gets you into power. speak what happens when, and i really struggled, i think is fair criticism. i struggle with giving advice on negotiating committee said the following. i decide that when a negotiator when the people taught me how to negotiate i always tell my teams
you go in that room, you win or lose before you go into that room, and it's how much you understand about the other side. so i decided that powering women to understand the stereotypes and use them to their advantage was part of preparing well for negotiation and an unfair world. but it is still hard for me when i gave that advice, and it is fair criticism. >> let's ask some of the obvious question. how do you feel about the book's reception? did your point really get across? did people really understand and? >> eric makes an amazing point in the book, which is revolutions are hard, easier to start and maintain. and so i don't know if there's a revolution, but i wanted people to notice that women were stagnating, to understand the stereotypes that are holding us back, and for men and women to try to change them. look, if you're a businessperson can you write a book, a real risk that no one read it or
care. i'm gratified that some people have rated and it is doing so well, but it's been eight weeks. so the real question is, what happens now? does anyone remember that when to me women are called aggressive, two years from now, 20 years from now? my book can only do so much. i will do the best i can. started leaning.org to try to help women all of us come together. we do hope you join us. we are this close to 175,000 participants. so to go on facebook unlike us, we are there. but we want men and women to join. it's unclear what happens from here. this is going to take so many more voices. men and women, men as well trying to change the stereotypes. another question of how have you respond to the critical feedback of your book in the movement received? hasn't change anything about your approach? have you modified anything based on reception?
>> i don't think there's anything that's been said about my book that i didn't actually try to address in my book. so i think what people said wasn't surprising to the volume, positive or negative, you know -- >> but your book talks about that because you point out that women face greater scrutiny. therefore, your book and you face greater scrutiny. >> that's right. >> it's called recursion. >> goes on and on. last night i think what "lean in" is doing advisory best of all, i set this up with debbie and others as a book but also a community. and we did a very open way. the community exists on a website, leanin.org and the committee exists on facebook. i, the community is created by the committee. one of the things are helping people do is set up a circle.
they are starting all over. it's been exciting to see. a circle is whatever people wanted to be. so we envisioned them, probably as women who are meeting them may be missing interest, maybe a different entity and they would meet once a month and they would support each other. i heard today that for a group of circles been started by fathers and mothers. fathers with her daughters are starting a circle. never thought of that. brilliant love those fathers. those dollars are so lucky. what we did is we create a platform. we put out ideas and people are running within the as your book says so well, we don't control them. your book is very clear. the internet is the first thing we didn't and don't control. >> you have unleashed the movement. >> we have tried. and where it goes people go and we will follow and try to support. >> another question, what was the pivotal transition moment in your grid that define who you
are or what you did with your career? wasn't something you anticipated, or did it occur sort of randomly? >> there are many of them. certainly joining google with you, understanding the nation and how important the mission was to me and what i was doing. when eric recruited me to google, all of our initial conversations were all about what google was doing. you kept saying -- >> one of, what one of the simple secrets to motivating people is given permission to change the world and it will work for you hard. >> that's right. when eric and i first met at google and he had been an asset chairman, you're about to be ceo but the world did not know yet, eric kept saying, look at what google is doing. my greatest hope for "lean in" is not about the microscope as all those women have gotten raises, and those daughters whose fathers are having monthly meetings with them to give them
the self-confidence to believe they can do anything. >> would get at the same success with women mentors that you have had with male mentors? and the corollary question, how do you make yourself available as a mentor and will you be my mentor? [laughter] speaks of this person has not read the book because in the book i say one of the worst questions you can ask anyone is, a strange, is will you be my mentor? it is interesting but i only work for men, eric is among them. i've had a couple of female mentors but mainly me because i worked for me. one of the points i make in the book is that if we rely on only women to mentor women, we will never succeed because there are not enough women at the top. there are unspoken things that are holding us back from entering women. a man and a man in a room having a meeting alone or at a bar having a drink, looks like business mentoring. a man and a woman meeting alone or having a drink looks like.
in older men and a younger woman meeting alone, but let's be clear but if we're talking of getting more women in positions of power, you know, 86% of people in power are men and their older than the woman we are trying to get there. so this is all about not just making it safe but cheering on men speak you tell the story where bob, good friend of mine comes with front half of the city of new york says that he treats men and women equally this practice and lunches. >> when he was at goldman sachs many years ago, i did not and when i wrote the story, but i've met him since, 15 years ago goldman sachs communis one day that he didn't accountable having dinner with women. so he would have no dinner. and speeches by the way, he had dinner with his family. >> but he had no dinner's at work in his basically saying i understand this bias no one wants to talk about. so what i'm singing here is
let's make it a sequel. sum him up dinner, and he was asked would have been alone with women? he said absolutely. it's a part of my get to some men will say yes and have been with men and women, and some men will say no, but either way let's make it explicit. >> and i think we may have more questions from the audience to we have one over here. additional questions you guys have, let's get them. what tips do you have to women and men who have taken time off and are finding it tough to get back into the workplace? >> yeah, the issue of reentry is a big win. it's usually an issue for women because they are the ones are more likely to take time off. but with the recession it's also been an issue for men as well. my best tip for this are again looking for areas where your skills are needed, and being adaptable and your skills.
actually think silicon valley and you in particular, eric, we set our real good example for the country to a lot of people higher based on experience. and silicon valley hires based on skills. if you are only based on experience as industries to change them experience is less relevant. but if you higher based on skills, you can adapt. and i think of it into she's look to silicon valley which is done very well by basically adopting the practice and a lot of people get back in the workplace. >> one of the other was to promote women's interest in getting promoted in companies is to have a growing economy. there's lots and lots of ways, the simplest way in my view to help solve this problem is to have hiring going on. it was sort of a terrible recession. it's been difficult to get hiring going on and so forth. forth. >> that's a problem that is very relevant to we are struggling with immigration reform. they're directly related. i think your point is we should
make the whole becoming a rocket ship and then there's plenty of seats. >> revenant solves all known problems. >> antistatist for very long time but he also would say -- cash in the bank are not hypothetical cash but in the bank. but what's interesting is that where the really big question facing our country which is, is our economy going to go at the same rate it is going historically? and answer right now is no. the reason if you know is we do not have the workforce we need to grow our economy, and there are only two answers to there's education and immigration. we do not educate our children close to what other countries are educating. look at the computer sciences, coming out of india and china, there are more of them and they're better educated. we are graduating 11% of her kids not knowing, not being able to read. and immigration, a lot of the great companies of silicon
valley, were built on immigrants. >> indeed, there's a forward group that was set up which is trying to get this done, we may break the logjam. in the spirit of another audience question, have get much response from washington for in other words, you're sitting on an agenda, is anyone listening to? >> i think people are listening. i think the private sector moves faster than the public sector. so the fastest change we've seen from the book our people in companies and individual women and men. so we are seeing women start circles all over. men, fathers start circles. we are seeing a lot of engagement, people asking for raises. men, like which is great, pleased to tell him, i want to all the races. on the corporate sector men like john chambers, john chambers
assigned the book goes top for people and publicly said i thought i was good at this. were not so good it does. we are going to get better, and he stood on the stage and he said, the way to the best company in order to have the best talent. women are 50% of population. warren buffett at the annual meeting for berkshire hathaway talked all about women this year and talked about women as a competitive advantage. >> the other argument is asia continues to discriminate against half of their workforce. it's pretty clear you want all of your assets in order to compete. so the globalization argument favorite is your argument for women. >> that's right and there's been studies and economic growth over the last 30 years has been called by women entering the workforce pics would want that growth will have to continue to
do that. >> my favorite question so far, what made you so brave as to call eric schmidt for a job? was your mother and dad affirming you possibly as a child, or did she chastise incorrect you all the time? [laughter] >> i would say both spent that's what the question says. i'm not making this up. >> it's mother's day. i think might parents were incredibly encouraging. when i was that my dad would be in my room, you're well enough to go to school, fever doesn't matter to out the door. if i think i'll get a drag a little, my father would say that this could be for any of the -- hangover, is run. we would go for a run. my parents would go out and do them but they're also incredibly supportive. >> many political problems in be driven by old men in politics
is. [laughter] climate, health, gun control and environment, dot dot dot. where women have different views. how does your advice applied helping get more went into politics. >> i'm passionate about getting more went into politics. more women in positions of power and more positions in government are important. i happened to be in london to steal when baroness thatcher was buried. and she was elected 34 years ago. she was the only female head of government in the world when she was elected. fast forward 34 years, there are 17, the hundreds of countries, and that's just not good enough. i believe if we had more women in politics we would have less wars. >> i agree with that. [applause] >> so following up, question from the audience, do you think it is hillary clinton's time to
lean in and win the presidency? [laughter] >> that's what the question is. [applause] >> yes. i want hillary to run. i told her, i will tell you. one of the reasons i wrote "lean in" is because my daughter, we brought home a song for my kids for presidents day. my daughter was for, my son was six and we played this on. she listened to the song and she said money, why are they all voice? and i think hillary can be -- i hope it's not too long. >> do you think an increase in fema entrepreneurship could solve the issue of women not receiving promotion by giving women the power to make these decisions? >> yes. i believe very strongly women in leadership positions help not just those women at it helps all women. countries with more women in senior roles have better workplace policy for women, smaller pay gaps when. we need more women in our big
companies come in congress anymore women entrepreneurs. we have a lot of female entrepreneurs in silicon valley. we don't have been nearly as many as would men and they don't get funding at the same level. interestingly but if you look at the return, there was a study done that the return on investing in a female entrepreneur is higher, and they ask for the money they need, not the money they might need, and so we need more feel now entrepreneurs but we need as but we need at some are funny and the need to get it spent and a more catchy this year spin and their mark as efficient. >> excellent. you build the hype machine as i described, google, your legacy in the company, i see every day. i'm sure you feel the same about facebook. i know you did the same thing at facebook. a lot of question, what you look for when you're hiring someone? how do you actually make the decisions? >> the most important thing i
look for when hiring someone, these skills. skills. not experienced the expense is great to you can get the -- our and she changes so quickly that almost none of us have done anything we do now before. it's all new. so you have to have skills. i ask people how they would handle specific situation and am looking for flexibility, and am looking for the skills they can and do. one of the other things are looking for is flexibility, anyway whether summer internship, a lot of them were in be a student again asking all about the career path and you said the worst question you can ask is what is your career path. that was very good advice. because they want to be flexible still when people call me up and they say, i'm a vp now and i need to be from you, senior vice president or chief operating officer, whatever, in your company, and i would say, click.
that's not how we operate. we want you to join our cause if we want you to believe in what we are doing and you will do just fine. that advice has worked well for all the people who manage not to screw up, and had shown up and said how can i help. >> based -- they still remember. >> but the point about, i give this advice in my book, titles are the wrong reason to take a job. titles don't mean anything to every job i've taken, as you point out when you talk much but you can i was offered jobs with senior titles else are but the google was a way better job. when i went to facebook, i came into work with mark titles, that doesn't matter as much as the opportunity to have an impact. you need to focus on the. >> you should to do new country
to get a bigger role at facebook from google, does it take leading to take, ma to get an opportunity to speak with yes. the data says that for women it often does but not always. for all of the negotiating reason we talked about. as educate ourselves on the biases we can change that. i don't think takes moving on. sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. i think it takes solving problems but i think the right way to approach a grid is to look at this and say, what problem can us all. one of my favorite stories is in the book. a woman was at ebay. i just joined facebook but she called and she said i think i want to come work with you at facebook. i thought about calling and telling all the things i'm good at and would like to do but i figure everyone is doing that. so instead i want to know was your biggest problem and can i solve it. it. >> exactly. >> my jaw hit the floor. no one says that. i biggest bomb is recruiting because i didn't anyone running recruiting to regard to every interview and have not found
anyone to hide it, and she consulted. now she runs all human resource and she's been magnificent because she's trying to solve our problems, not hers. >> this is a great question. pay attention to this question. do you think that part of gender biased behavior, men and women, maybe genetic as well as social? >> it's such a profound question. anna tried to -- i do nothing men and women do not have genetic differences. that's silly. >> too many negatives. >> sarver i think many women have genetic differences. i have a son and a daughter, and my son will take any toy, and my daughter will take toys and make them kiss. there are differences, but speak and you're trying to solve this by forcing. >> but here's what we know. i believe there are genetic differences between boys and
girls and men and women. i cannot believe leadership is one of them. leadership, leadership can have typically -- the best leaders have both and has been document over and over. the best leaders have both. so we can associate what is the many with leadership, much as we can associate masculinity with learning spent another one of the interesting and the question. what is your opinion about a woman's physical appearance workplace and how it can help or hurt her career? >> the physical appearance, is a real issue but it's much more of an issue for women than for men. i used to to women at google to dress up properly. again, dress for success. i used to give come we would hide these amazingly smart women from great places with great skills, and sometimes they look like they're going to a nightclub. that wasn't what happened at
work. it was the same kind of advice negotiate it but i don't like telling them maybe she dressed little more come is silicon valley. i was suggesting genes, not shorts, right? by accident thought was nsls asks his professional which in the silicon valley area can mean genes, was pretty important. so i don't overly focus on. i'm not like someone who is very into fashion in clothes but you think that presenting ourselves appropriately the same way we wouldn't walk in and say something dumb. we want to care about the perception to another question. how do you get more women into real and perceived places of power such as public company boards of directors? should we do with some european governments are doing or mandating, require a certain percentage of women be board members? >> so the issue unquote is is a very raging debate. and i think the issue is that each country is to pick what it wants to do. i am not arguing for quotas in
the united states because of the biggest and most important intervention. and for a slight nitpick the reason i don't think is the most important intervention is because if you look at the countries that are put it in, such as norway and some scandinavian countries, it hasn't ask of any other number. so easily if you look at know what they put into law in 2006 required quotas for women on corporate boards, they up to over 40% and it has moved any other number. having both, and i think what we really want to do is move the numbers all the way throughout operating jobs to ceos. and i want us to see us do things the the numbers throughout, not just in one place. >> how do you react to internal signal such as messages like you are too aggressive at work? how do you handle it when it comes about? how do you behave? >> it's probably the most important thing "lean in" is trying to do. i'm trying to help it easy for people to address that.
part of me is gratified to think it's working a bit. i notice that jill abramson who i know is undermined, very, very county woma woman competitor of newtown from the article written about her somewhere which criticize her for these things in the whole bunch of other people wrote, wait a second, she's been told she's too aggressive, that happens to women, not men. so the awareness speakers the ability for the crowd to respond to mitigate. >> i'm hoping that "lean in" and other people are doing are helping to change the. whereas before you would have to going to start from scratch and say i appreciate it comes what other ways i'm too aggressive trucks we're getting help. i think training our managers is so important. is a man who works for me, start this conversation off by saying i didn't read your book, which is a little weird, right? when should at least pretend you read my book? [laughter] is that i haven't read your book but i have listened to you for the last five years. i've been working for you. i listen to what you say and we
just had our performance reviews and he got feedback from a woman who said too aggressive. so he went back and said i want to ask you what did she do that is to aggressive, specifically. and they answered and then he said, if a man had done the exact same things, would you thought he was too aggressive? and they said no. so the best thing we can do is i want men to read my book and men to engage in this. about the people in power to understand that. >> the core message here is men have to police -- >> and women will be able to say there's a lot of data that says i want to ask you specifically, i mean, the best thing that feedback is never be defensive, men or women will know when you're trying to get some feedback, you want them to be open to so you continue to give it to them. give them feedback but say, let's talk about this. how am i to aggressive and can we give specifics. i do think it's appropriate to
bring agenda and say i'm engaging for my behavior. i'm grateful for the feedback, but let's also talk about if a man had done those same things, would he have been too aggressive? >> let's do a couple more and we will finish up. "lean in" gets lots of practical advice for solving internal issues. what can we do to solve the external issues, which i think is referring largely to public policy, institutional issues. >> i think there's a lot we can do. we can pass better laws. we can elect more women. i think, and i also think we can run those companies and change the policies ourselves. so the book starts with a story that happened at google. i was pregnant, very pregnant as eric and it would also remember. they told me that a project was named after me to this one particularly since it continued to it was a fair comment. one day i was late for a meeting and i had to park was far away and i was really sick because i tried to run and that didn't work. i talked to my husband at the
time who was at yahoo! and he said where is the pregnancy parking? i never heard of pregnancy parking. he told me yahoo! had in front of every building to i marched myself into the office and i said -- >> surrogate at the time was doing yoga. >> correct. doing yoga in the clinton and i said sergei, when you pregnancy parking but he looked up at albany and he said we sure do. [laughter] but then what he said was, i never thought of it before. let's do it immediately. i never thought of it before. pregnancy parking is still there. so my point is that if we get more women into these jobs, we will make the -- >> and in the book you actually say that you have to ask and it's okay to ask. you use this as your example spent i think i felt more accountable asking because i was you, i'm sure a lot of other
pregnant women at google wanted pregnancy parking but they weren't in a position to march into surrogates office and interrupt his yoga. he would've looked up and said who are you? circuit is so nice. dicky pride would've said the same thing. but they would have had the same compensate my point is that we need all the institutional reforms one of the best ways of getting it is the women in this audience. run these companies, put in pregnancy parking. pay women equally. help women negotiate, train your managers, not to kill women there too aggressive. i think women can be a huge part of the answer. >> the final question from the audience. are you giving up for political run in 2016 to help shape the some of the policy decisions you speak about? and if so, which offers? >> i'm not running for office in 2016.
>> i think the trainin trend wie open. >> again, i'm rooting for hillary to go for that job. i'm not running for office by giving more women need to run, and i think that women need to run companies. unhappy at facebook. i love the influence is because on the world. and want to both to much of the also a more women to get in those positions. >> is a been a treat for me for reasons that you all don't know. in 2006 from sheryl and i were chatting come and we thought it would be really fun to have distinguished people come by and talk in the company. and so in her typical organize way she put together a series which are fortunate to be interviewed for. and in all of those years i never had a chance to interview sheryl at google. i did, in fact, by virtue of your initiative end up interviewing extraordinarily famous people, including the current president of the united states. so for me this is been just an
amazing an amazing personal expense. i thought it would be sort of interesting if maybe you could read a little bit of your book, if you choose the link in there to give people a sense it and i hope you all understand the unique and extraordinary area to share represented if we can all in the is stopped with a much better place. >> i want and by thanking eric for everything is done for my career and everything is done for silicon valley but it's interesting, i haven't read from a book ever actually. so this is new to me. >> you didn't do your own audio book? >> i did not. >> did you choose the person? >> i did. she was fabulous. >> if you don't like printed books and to don't like electronic books, why the audio book. >> i'm going to be a little bit of the end. i've written this book to encourage women to dream big, forge a path the obstacles, and achieve their full potential. i am hoping that each women will set your own goals and reach for
them. and hoping that each man will give each man will do this doctors were women in the workplace and in the home, also with gusto. our institutions will be more productive, our homes will be happier, and the children growing up in these homes will no longer be held back by narrow stereotypes. critics have scoffed at me for trusting that once women are empowered to help one another. since that is not always been the case, i'm willing to take that bet. the first wave of women who us into leadership position were few and far between, and to survive many focus more on feeding and then helping others. the current wave of female leadership is increasingly willing to speak up. the more women attain positions of power, the less pressure though be to conform and the more they will do for other women. research already suggests that comes with more women in leadership roles have better work like postcodes barge in the
gaps and executive compensation, and more women in mid-level management. the hard work of generations before us means that equality in women, we can close the leadership gap now. every individual success can make success a little easier for the next. we can do this for our cells for one another, for our daughters, and for our sons. if we push hard this next wave can be the last way. in the future there will be no female lives. there will just be leaders. [applause] >> i think we have seen what it takes to be a global phenomenon. first, and extraordinary business. a second extraordinary business, and then the level of impact on
the global stage that all of us would love to have. and i think with sheryl, you can see it's not just her intellect. it's not just her experience, it's the whole show. it's all over. it's her charisma, her leadership. i'm proud to have worked with her, and am looking for to working with you and all the things you're going to do. what an extraordinary leader. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> what are you reading this summer? booktv wants to know. spent right now i'm reading "where'd you go, bernadette?" by maria semple. it's a novel that is told in the form of mostly e-mails as a daughter tries to keep together clues about why her mother disappeared. the mode is quite eccentric and the story is set in seattle with
some really interesting, quirky characters. it's a lot of fun but i don't know where it's going but i'm really looking forward to finishing it. after that i'm going to be doing something of a book club with my son, miles, who is 16. this is something we did a couple of summers ago. we pick a couple of books and we read them and then we'll go to our local diner to discuss them with breakfast. this summer we picked two books so far. we reading a biography of bruce springsteen, which i think should be a lot of fun. we are both springsteen fans. and interested to learn all of it more about his background in new jersey and how he got to be who he is. and we're also going to read dan brown's "inferno" which i think is the ultimate summer beach book. i've read the other dan brown books, and i think miles will enjoy this one. he has a real knack for ending his chapters with cliffhangers
that make you turn the page. and so i think miles will enjoy that a lot and i think will have lots to talk about. so should be a fun summer of reading. >> let us know what you reading this summer. tweet us at the booktv. posted o on a facebook page, or send us an e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. >> all this week on c-span2 we are bringing your encore presentations of q&a. today, our conversation with former ohio congressman bob may. he talks about serving in congress from 1995 until his resignation in 2006. and the 12 months he spent in federal prison for corruption charges. that's at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> tonight, primetime on c-span2 features booktv programming about the kennedy family.
>> booktv on the kennedy family, 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> we have more coverage of nonfiction books in the book industry every weekend on booktv. including this saturday at 6 p.m. eastern, in 1997 book notes interview with the late katherine grant spend what you did your father by the book? >> in 1933, had just gotten out of the government. he'd been out about three weeks. he'd been governor of the federal reserve board and it started a corporation under hoover. he stayed as federal reserve chairman for a little while under roosevelt and then he resigned. because he didn't like or felt monetary policy. the post came out three weeks
later for auction on the steps of the building. and he bought it anonymously. spend what did he pay for? >> $825,000 spent how many newspapers were in washington at the time? >> there were five, and the post was the sixth. and so it has about as replace a 50,000 was in a pretty broken down building. .. >> well, at this time we planned to bring you live coverage of the reserve officers national
security symposium. unfortunately, we are having technical issues with our signal from the event this morning, so we will record the program, and we will have it for you later in our schedule. right now, though, a discussion on national security and liberty from the annual aspen security forum. nbc investigator reporter michael his cough moderates a panel that includes jane harmon, former defense department general counsel jay johnson and u.s. attorney and the head of the aclu. from aspen, colorado, this is about an hour, ten minutes. >> with that, the title of this panel as you see is counterterrorism, national security and the rule of law, and i think this one sentence that i drafted, the tension between what the law demands and what the national defense requires is, in essence, what this panel is all about. and to moderate this panel, we're very pleased to have one
of america's premier investigative journalists. mike joined nbc news in 2010 as the national investigative correspondent where, as we all know, he covered among other things the boston marathon bombing and the newtown shooting massacre. he appears regularly, and he's also the author -- speaking of books -- of two new york times best selling books, "hubris," cowritten with david corn and also "uncovering clinton: a reporter's story on the monica lewinsky matter." with that, mike. >> thank you, clark, and i want to thank you again for assembling such great panels. every year you get newsmakers and future newsmakers to serve on these panels. last year, for example, i served on a panel with paula broadwell -- [laughter] and while i don't expect any of our distinguished panelists to be making news quite like that
this year, i think they'll all be in the spotlight in some form or another. >> raj day is the general counsel of the national security agency which puts him right in the hot seat of all the issues that have been front and center since the snowden disclosures. before that, raj was the staff secretary for the president, president obama, and my understanding is that gave him access to everything that went to the president's desk which is pretty ominous when you think about it. i first encountered raj when he was a counsel for the 9/11 commission investigating what went, what happened there. to his left, neil mcbride is the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia, and which has put him at the fore front of investigations on terrorism and quite a few media leak investigations, leak investigations involving the media, a subject i want to get
to on this panel. before that he served in the justice county in the -- justice department and was come to then-senator joe biden. jay johnson was the general counsel for the defense department until last year, and that gave him legal overview about everything the u.s. military and defense department was doing, a lot of which we're going to discuss here. before that he was general counsel for the air force and assistant u.s. attorney, i understand, hired in new york by rudy giuliani back in the day that he was, served on that. jane harmon needs no introduction to anybody here. she's now the executive director or director of the woodrow wilson center, served for how many terms in congress? >> nine. >> nine terms in congress, was ranking member on the house intelligence committee for many years and then the homeland security committee. and anthony romero is the
executive director of the aclu and has been a consistent voice for civil liberties on all the issues we're going to talk about. so let's start right off with the nsa program. i know some of it was covered in the previous panel, but i want to get into it, raj, a little bit how it actually works, and i'm talking about the metadata which was probably the biggest disclosure by edward snowden, the fact that millions and millions of records of americans' phone calls were being collected/stored. i'll let people use the word they want, by the nsa under a provision of the patriot action, section 215. raj, walk us through exactly how this program works in practice, who has access to it, what those records can be used for.
>> sure. well, thanks, mike, and thanks to the aspen institute and to clark for pulling this all together. what i wanted to start out with is i firmly believe the u.s. government intelligence community, nsa in particular needs to be as transparent as possible consistent with our need to protect national security. and, obviously, it's that last piece that's the rub, and it makes it so difficult to talk about classified programs. but i would like to be as inform ty and help -- informative and helpful in this discussion as possible. and the reason i say that is my job as the general counsel's to make sure our activities are lawful. but i think that the legitimacy of nsa's activities are just as important as the lawfulness. let me turn to the program you asked about. even on the prior panel, there's some conflation between the two major programs that were exposed. a number of issues have been in the press, but there are two major programs exposed, the 702 and 215 programs.
the 702 program is about the collection of content of communications, e-mails and phone calls that can only be targeted at non-u.s. persons reasonably believed to be located abroad for intelligence purposes. that is not what we're talking about with respect to the 215 program. to target the communications of a u.s. person under fisa anywhere in the world requires a showing of probable cause to a federal judge. turning to the 215 prpl, we call it the 215 program because it's conducted pursuant to section 215 of the patriot act. that provision allows the director of the fbi to a apply the fisk to obtain business records that may be relevant to an authorized national security investigation. the fbi uses this provision for lots of different things. the only program nsa uses it for in connection with the fbi is
the business records metadata program we're discussing today. so what is that program all ant? before i get into the details, i think it would be helpful to understand what is the point of the program and why did it evolve. so in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, one of the major issues that was exposed was a seam between our foreign intelligence collection and our domestic counterterrorism methods. do the u.s. government over the past decade has taken a number of efforts to address this dwield, some of them institutional, some of them utilizing certain programs like the telephone metadata program. the idea behind the program is to help connect when there's a foreign threat that may have a domestic nexus. so how does it work? this program is about the bulk collection of telephone metadata, and what that means is things like numbers dialed, date and time of call and duration of
call. it does not include any subscriber identifying information, there's no names associated with the numbers that are submitted to the fbi and to nsa. there's no locational data that is provided whether that's gps data or cell phone location information. and most importantly and probably most obvious, there is no content. i say that just so everyone has a level set on the facts here. as to how it's implemented, pursuant to court order, this data comes to nsa on a daily basis. it need to be put in a segregated database, so it can't be comingled. it has strict access controls imposed by the fisk, so let me walk through some of those for you. >> can i just, you talked about transparency here and understanding, and this is called the 215 program because of the provision in the patriot act. jane, you were in the congress when it passed the patriot act,
and 215 was definitely one of the issues that people were debating. did you understand when you voted for it and supported the patriot act that it would be used for the bulk collection of everybody's phone be records in the united states? >> i understood that we needed to collect records in order to, through all the means we've discussed on prior panels today, in order to find those people in the united states or outside the united states who were linked to people in the united states who were trying to harm us after 9/11. and i voted for a provision that authorized people under strict supervision to figure out the best way to do that. i don't think as a sitting member of congress and somebody somebody -- i certainly know a lot about the intelligence business -- that i'm the best person to decide the parameters of the program. but when i voted for it, one, congress narrowed some of the initial proposals and, two, we sunsetted this thing. this thing has to be renewed every three years.
and can i just add a little historical context, because i think it's important -- >> i just want -- did you you said that it would be used -- did you understand that it would be used for the purpose that raj is explaining here? >> i understood that all -- >> all phone records? >> exactly how it would be implemented, i trusted people to implement it fairly because those in congress who were on the relevant committees played, certainly i did, major role in overseeing what was happening. now, my knowledge -- i left the intelligence committee at the end of 2006, but then i headed the intelligence subcommittee of the homeland committee for another four years, so i stayed in this game. did i oversee every single bit of it? no. do i think that maybe now, now that there's a much more public debate congress should narrow some of these provisions? , yes. there was the so-called library for peace of 215, and there was
a human cry about grandma going to the library and taking out a book and who could see that. and the reason the library provision was added is that there are often internet, internets at libraries, and in case anybody missed it, a lot of the way communication works between bad guys to bad guys is through the internet, and those sites maybe ought to be subject to the provisions of section 215. so once it was narrowed to clarify that grandma was exempted, congress did that in response to public outcry. people have known about this program. it was revealed in "the new york times" in 2005. george bush then finally partially declass fried it, and i learned for the first time to my extreme dismay that in the first three and a half years of this program which was developed by the bush administration, the president had used his article ii authorities. he's the commander in chief, to
run the program rather than the provisions of law, fisa, which congress enacted in 1978 -- a fact you ought to all know. the foreign intelligence surveillance act was passed in 1978 in response to the abuses of the nixon administration and a recommendation of the church commission, and it set up a careful system of a fisa court composed of federal judges and intelligence committees on the hill which were set up then to monitor these fisa applications. and it worked very well, in my view, through 2011 -- 2001, and then the bush administration yanked it and ran it a different way. congress after that pulled it back under fisa, and i think, i believe strongly that maybe the amount of metadata is excessive. i'm sure my buddy here anthony thinks this, and that ought to be debated. and maybe the program should be narrowed. but there has been robust
oversight over these years. >> let me come back to raj about the actual implementation, because i want to be very clear on this. who can access this data, and for what specific purposes? >> certainly. and so just to add one fact, because facts are always good. [laughter] we sent a -- i think this is in a letter that went to the hill yesterday from the justice department. white papers, classified, were sent to congress in february 2011 expressly describing the bulk use of this program. i can't speak to any individual member of congress currently now as to their knowledge of the program, but i think that fact is an important one. getting to the use of the program, in the terms of access, access is strictly controlled. and what does that mean? in order to query the data, one has to have a reasonable suspicion that a particular selector, which is a phone number, has a tie to a specific terrorist group that's identified in a court order. >> so just a terrorist group.
so if neil mcbride calls you up tomorrow and says i've got a foreign be espionage investigation going on right now, and i think my target might be about to leave the united states, i need to check out this phone number to see whether he's in communication with a co-conspirator, are you going to give him the information? >> no, illegal. >> you tell him he can't have it. neil, how do you get the information? >> ask again. [laughter] please? >> we're friends, but not that close. >> how would you get the information for that investigation? that you need? >> well, the -- you know, let me back up from the specifics for a minute and quickly get to that, mike. so in any investigation post-9/11, the fbi and the intelligence community and other government actors are working seamlessly in a way that really didn't happen before 9/11. i mean, i -- when jay was
general counsel, we would have, there were weeks when we had many occasions when we had to talk. we work closely with the military, with admiral mcraven's community, with admiral mccourtney down in nor fowk, with various command forces. so there are conversations occurring across the defense, intelligence, law enforcement communities in ways which are helpful in terms of permissible information sharing and doc connecting. to your specific question, if there was a, as i understand your hypothetical, if there was an operational terrorist within the united states, i would hope that we would already have their number -- >> not a terrorist. i said a spy. >> a spy. well, there certainly have been examples where there were individuals in this country. we prosecuted a couple in my office just in the last year, so one who was here as an
unregistered agent of the isi from pakistani intelligence, another who was here at the behest of syrian intelligence. and those individuals came to our attention, investigations ensued, and we were able to -- >> but i'm asking a specific question about how you get records of phone numbers onion going investigations that have -- on on ongoing informatis that have consequences. could be a spy, could be a drug cartel that's selling drugs on the streets of alexandria and were used in murders. you need this information right away, and you need to know who's making these phone calls. how do you get the information? >> well, it's -- >> you can get it, can't you? >> yeah, and we do get it. >> and by a subpoena? >> by a subpoena, from an informant, from any number of ways. so that, our ability to identify
where an alleged bad guy lives or their phone number or their e-mail address, our ability to find it is not all that difficult. >> not all that difficult and not all that time consuming. you can get it pretty quickly if you need it for an ongoing investigation operational, somebody's about to leave the country, you need that phone number in order to get a search warrant, you can get it pretty quickly, can't you? >> well, it would depend on the particular case, but in contrast to what raj is describing which is sort of, you know, macro issues and bulk collection, your example -- i think -- contemplates a known individual who's been under the scrutiny or the view of law enforcement or other agencies. and so at the micro level it's, it has not proved to be a difficult thing in our investigation. >> so i guess the question, raj, is since neil can get the information he needs pretty quickly for a lot of really
serious investigations that have operational components, why can't you use the same method for the terrorism investigations that you're collecting this data for? >> so i think the question bigger picture is why can't the data stay with the providers and then on a one-off basis -- >> which is what happens when neil needs them for his investigations. >> just using a hypothetical example that i think will be helpful, instructive for me anyway, this came about after the 9/11 attacks. one of the operatives who had been living in the u.s. for some time, it turns out after the fact had been receiving calls from a known al-qaeda safehouse in is saw a that, yemen. -- sana'a, yemen. we know there's a yemeni number, for example, that is a bad number, has a reasonable suspicion that it's tied to a terrorist organization. if we wanted to in short order try to figure out where that number may be connected to other numbers in the u.s. because we
may have intercepted under another program, the way that would play out in practice today if we went with the traditional law enforcement model would be the need to go to multiple providers to ask them to search what number that number had been in contact with so as opposed to a subscriber of one of those companies, this would be a situation where they don't have the records hannity for a chemny -- handy for a yemeni phone number. it's different than the hypothetical you posited earlier. so there's operational consequences there. two, in order to do the sort of analytics that need to happen on that data, the data needs to be aggregated to most effectively do that in a short time, so with three different providers, there would also be the additional step of bringing the data back and analyzing it in short order. and today there's no legal obligation for any of these companies to hold on to data. they do it for their own purposes.
so tomorrow we could turn around and any of these companies could decide that, you know, business purposes they don't want to hold on to these records. so we could be faced with a situation which would equal hi impact the types of investigations neil deals with where we wouldn't have that data available. >> anthony, i think what i was getting at is probably what the aclu has been saying, there ought to be specific, targeted requests for this information. raj has just said, well, that would create all sorts of problems, we don't know how long the phone companies would hold it for. does he have a point? >> no. [laughter] i mean, it's great to be back at aspen, i should say that. i was last here debating alberto gonzales and john yu, and now i'm debating friends who served on the obama administration or not served, and so much has changed and so much has not changed. the program, whether it's legitimate in the public eye, the answer is it's illegitimate
and illegal in our minds both section 215 and section 702. let's break it down. the 215 standard is really important to read the law, statement of fact showing there are reasonable grounds to believe that any tangible things that they conceive are sought are relevant to foreign intelligence, espionage investigation. relevant. now, it defies the knowledge or the understanding of the word relevant when you are collecting every single phone call, metadata -- we'll get into metadata. how is that, how is that limited to relevance when you say we've got all the phone numbers that are made to and from american citizens? i don't think of the word relevant that way. my training at stanford law school that had we think that it was a bit more circumspect. metadata. they say that's not content. well, you know what? metadata can give a lot of
content. how long i stay on a phone call, how often i call my mother as he struggles with breast cancer, how often i struggle with my office. who i call in the government whose private cell phones i happen to have who i don't call at the office because we don't want a log from me to blank official at the justice d., but i have a private cell phone because we want to keep that somewhat between us. that metadata when compiled in complete information can give you a very full picture of what my day is like. so i think that the fourth amendment does cover the protection of my metadata that. now, let's also talk about section 702, right? phone calls from overseas, from foreigners that don't have the same kind of standards that we have under the 215 program. well, foreigners call americans. let me give you phone numbers
that i have in my rolodex, in my blackberry over there. the way they have my phone number and i have my phone number, and i have called them in my 13 years of the aclu. i have direct cell phone numbers for yasser hamdi, the subject of the supreme court case, david hicks in the guantanamo, mr. awlaki's father, anwar al-awlaki who was killed by the government by drones including his 16-year-old son, also an american citizen, killed by drones. let's get jay into this game. i happen to have the phone number of mr. awlaki's father in yemen. i have the phone numbers for khalid sheikh mohammed's wife and brother-in-law in iran. we represent mr. mohamed in the 9/11 commissions, the 9/11 trials at guantanamo. we have contact with his wife and his brother-in-law and
mr. al-masri who was also held, rendered and tortured. those are all individuals that i have legitimate phone numbers. these are all cases in which i have been involved with. i call them, they call me. as an american citizen, i have a right, an expectation that my mine cases with individuals -- communications with individuals for which i am doing my zealous work for their rights autonot to be intercemented. if you were to tell me that my communications have not been caught up in the ns is a surveillance program and none of these phone calls that i've a made and they've called me are not part of your vast database, i wouldn't believe you. because i actually think that these are exactly the types of people that you're targeting. i have a legitimate right to interact with these individual, and i have a right and expectation of privacy that my communications ought not to be intercepted by the government. >> jay, why can't anthony communicate with his clients without you collecting, you in
your former job and raj in his current job, collecting the records of those phone calls? >> i would say that anthony absolutely can communicate with his clients. he has a right to do that, his clients have a right to do that, and, look, i think -- i disagree with anthony to say the program is illegal. in his opinion, the program is illegal. >> hopefully it's -- >> in the opinion of all three branches of government, the program is not illegal. and, you know, the people's representatives in congress, the court, the fisa court and the executive branch all believe this program is legal, and it's important to, i think, to put in per perspective two things. first, as was alluded to in the prior panel, there is no expectation of privacy in metadata by itself. the fact that 212-373-3093 makes a phone call to some number in
the 202 air code is known to the phone company and lots of other people. there is no expectation in the facts of that phone call itself. clearly there is an expectation of privacy for content which which you need a warrant. second, the reality is that the nsa surveillance program is probably the most regulated national security program we have. the two programs that have been declassified that we're talking about are egg hate -- regulated by the executive branch, congressional oversight has been aware of how the executive branch has interpreted section 215, and the judicial branch because it has approved it. that branch, that aspect of the judicial branch that has been designated by congress to hear these applications has approved of the manner in which this program is being implemented. so there's the equilibrium.
and if our national political leadership decides they want to change the equilibrium, that is their prerogative and responsibility -- >> i want to move the discussion along, because we've got a lot of other subjects to go to, but i have two more quick questions for raj on this subject. number one, the verizon order that was disclosed by snowden that sort of kicked off this whole controversy is due to expire tomorrow. is the nsa seeking a renewal? >> i have nothing to say today about that. >> will you have something to say tomorrow? >> i think there will be something to say tomorrow. >> will it be modified in any way? [laughter] >> tomorrow. i -- nothing further i can say on that at the moment. >> okay, one more -- we'll get back to you tomorrow -- [inaudible conversations] >> could i say something in defense of anthony? i want him to continue to love me. i think -- >> i adore you.
>> -- there should be an expectation of lawyer/client expectations, and that has always been the tradition, and it is generally respected. there was a 1979 supreme court case, it was referenced this morning, that upheld a maryland supreme court decision that there is no constitutionally-protected expectation that phone numbers called will not be disclosed. that's the basis on which we should begin to talk about this. but coming back to congress, congress can narrow or the whatever is the standard to go before the fisa court. and there was something called the safe act which i am sure will be revisited, and i just put it out here since we're reading stuff, it would have
provided, it would have required that the court deal with -- that the case deal with specific and articulable facts creating a reasonable suspicion that a particular person is an at of a foreign power before the phone records could be seized or monitored. and that's a tighter standard. and i think congress will be looking at, in some near lifetime, tightening the standard. and i think that's totally proper. and i think we need a national debate about this. and we're having one right now. >> regardless -- >> but let's -- let's unpack something for a moment. the '79 case that was referenced this morning and just now -- >> really quickly. >> 1979, i mean, how many years has it been, right? think about it. it was a very primitive register. it would track only the numbers being dialed. it didn't indicate which calls were completed, let alone the duration of the calls. our capacity to connect the dots is vastly different than what we saw in 1979. let's let the court decide whether or not that decision is
relevant, upholds the metadata program. that's a exactly what the purpose of our lawsuit will be that we filed. now, let's also unpack the three branches of government, excuse me. and, you know, i love jane, but a pox on all the three branches of government. fisa court, come on. twelve judges, 11 of them republicans, right? no adversarial, all appointed by chief justice roberts. there's no one representing the privacy interests of the people. it's only the government who represents in the fisa court. 35 years of jurisprudence, three opinions published. >> all right, anthony, you've baited me here. is this any form of surveillance that the nsa can conduct -- >> sure. >> -- that you would approve of? >> sure, absolutely. >> what? >> it's got to be focused on the subject of the surveillance. i mean, the probable cause. who would approve it? i mean, we can talk about it. whether it's a fisa court -- >> in secret? >> yeah. a revamped fisa court, totally
fine. even the chief justice of the fisa court says we need an adversarial process. there is no adversary y'all process. >> who's the adversary when the government goes in and says we've got a phone number that's being called by an al-qaeda operative in pakistan, we immediate to see who that person is right away? who's the adversary? >> you could easily appoint an ombudsman whose job it is is to preserve and present the privacy rights of the individuals. that should not be the aclu, it should be a government official. >> okay. last question for now on this subject. we can debate whether the privacy rights, metadata are covered by the constitution or not, but americans do have an expectation that their public officials are going to tell them the truth. >> the truth. >> so when in march senator wyden asked the director of national intelligence, james clapper, if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question with does the nsa collect any
type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans and he answered, no, sir, did anybody from the nsa come into your office and say we have a problem here? the director has just misled the congress and the public about what we're doing? >> i think, yeah, let me make a couple of points -- >> answer to that question. >> i'll give with it to you. >> i think he has a right to privilege -- [laughter] >> the first point is just -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> i agree with jay. >> he's the director of national intelligence, not at nsa, so he's not my client. >> he was talking about what your agency was doing, is doing. >> i think it's available in the public record, director clapper has send a record -- a letter to the senate intelligence committee explaining what happened in that moment. >> [inaudible] >> what i would say, and i don't want to speak -- i don't know and don't want to speak to what director clapper said, but i
would say as a general matter when longtime, honorable public servants make a mistake, sometimes it's a mistake. however, the premise of your question is true. the public expects honest answers. both of those can be true. >> yeah, i would just add, i have the highest regard for jim clapper. i wish we could roll back the videotape, and his answer had been i cannot answer that question in a public setting. if we move into a classified setting, i will answer that question completely. >> um, let's move on because there are other subjects that we need to cover here and, neil, you've been very involved in leak investigations by this administration. your office has overseen quite a few. in fact, as happen widely reported, this justice department has brought more leak prosecutions than any other in american history, and the record shows with very little to show for it at this moment.
you've got one, i think, success. last week when the justice department and attorney general holder issued his new guidelines for the press and how it will handle leak investigations involving the press and saying that many of the -- a few of the tactics and techniques that the justice department has use, the secret subpoena of the ap phone records, the use of a search warrant to get private e-mails from a reporter under the pretext that he was an aider or abetter of violations of the espionage act will not be with used anymore. and in the last paragraph of their new statement, of their new policy they said cases involving the unauthorized disclosure of classified information are inherently difficult to investigate and prosecute, they are time and resource intensive, and they require a careful -- [inaudible] of the universe of individuals privy to the information and may
itself result in further harmful disclosures. it sounds like a recognition that much of what this justice department has been doing including your office has been misplaced. >> not surprisingly, i didn't quite read it that way, mike -- [laughter] happy to, happy to answer those questions. let me step back for just a second. it's true, my office in the eastern district of virginia has been involved in several leak investigations and prosecutions. the context for that is that for those of you perhaps from the west coast who happily do not have to travel east to the nation's capital, the part of virginia that my district covers is home to the largest footprint of the u.s. government in the country. we're home to the pentagon, to the cia, to much of the intelligence community. we have the world's largest naval base down in norfolk, we have hundreds and hundreds of federal government installations scattered across our district e
we have thousands of acres of federal land, and that partially means we have a bit of a national security bull's eye on our back. it also means that when there are issues involving the unauthorized disclosure of national defense information which i'll talk about in a second which is a subset of a much broader group of classified information. that my district is just sort of the obvious place to bring the investigation. so just a bit of context. as to why we are frequently involved in these cases, number one. number two, i think a little context in terms of numbers is helpful. the numbers are not as large as some of the numbers thrown out in terms of various collection systems. but in the average year the justice department opens
50-75,000 investigations. so in the last five years, the justice department between the criminal division and the 93 u.s. attorneys' offices conservatively we've probably opened 250, 300,000 investigations. against that backdrop, there have been a half dozen or so investigations of the, into allegations of the unauthorized disclosure of national defense information. so i think it's helpful just to put in context that there's a whole lot else that occupies our time and attention and our day jobs beyond this, you know, small but important aspect of enforcing the law. just a last sort of data point before getting to mike's specific question. so there's been much that's been written and talked about about the overclassification of information in the last decade since 9/11, and i think there's really no daylight between people of all, you know, all sides and viewpoints that the
government classifies too much information. i believe the president has called for lower amounts of classification. that said, when you're talking about leak investigations and prosecutions, we use that term really as a term of art because a common misperception that there is a federal statute somewhere that criminalizes the release of classified information. that is not the case. there's lots of information that's classified that may even be sensitive that you read about in the papers every day, and it may be an annoyance to government officials, it may cause, you know, some level of alarm and concern by various constituents, but that doesn't mean that it's a violation of federal law. the handful of cases that my office is focused on are a very small subset of the overall universe of classified information. and as the folks here on the panel know, that is referred to as ndi, national defense information. so in order to bring a criminal
case for the unauthorized release of ndi, it's a fairly high threshold. you need to show that this is information that is critical to the national defense, that the release of which can benefit a foreign government and/or hurt the united states. and so -- >> have you gone overboard, neil? >> no, i don't believe we have. i think that the attorney general, others have talked about the reason for the increase in leak investigations. again, against a backdrop if we're talking about a handful of investigations out of hundreds of thousands that have been done in the last several years. but i think the reasons that have been given are a couple. number one, referrals from the intelligence community from the cia and others has increased in recent years. that, i think, is a reflection of a couple of things, and i think there's general agreement about this. number one, a whole lot more people have access to classified information today than they did before 9/11.
number one. number two, this has been discussed on the hill in various public fora, and i'm not tech-savvy enough to use technical terms here. but, you know, essentially, internal i.t. systems within the government and private sector make it somewhat easier to be able to, you know, determine who the source of a particular leak was. that's more, that is increasingly true today in a way that it wasn't 10, 15 years ago. so the number of referrals to us from the intelligence community has gone up. >> neil, in one of those cases, jerry sterling, you've sought to compel the testimony of james rosen of the new york times. he has said absolutely under no circumstances will he testify, and he'll go to jail if he has so. you've appealed to the fourth circuit arguing there is no reporter's privilege period in criminal cases, and -- which does seem to be somewhat at variance with the attorney general's comments last week about strong support for a media shield law. if you prevail, are you prepared
to put a new york times reporter, james rosen, in jail for refusing to testify? >> so let me say a couple this things about that. [laughter] first of all, the administration including the attorney general strongly supports and has for several years a media shield bill which has been pending in congress. >> pending argument there is no reporter's privilege. you've argued that to the fourth circuit. >> right. and if you'll allow me, my understanding of the reporter's privilege, reporter's shield bill -- which i'm told was actually reintroduced yesterday by senators schumer and graham, a bipartisan bill has been introduced in the senate which would codify the new doj media regs, but my understanding of that bill and i haven't, you know, read it carefully -- >> i'm not asking you about the bill. i'm asking you about the case that your office is bringing. >> right. but i think i heard in your question is there an
inconsistency that you support the media shield on the one hand and say as a matter of law there's not an absolute right for any person, you know, reporter, nonreporter to not provide evidence of a crime. my understanding of that shield bill is that it sets up a test where a federal judge based on the type of case such as is it a sensitive national security case, garden variety criminal case, the bill does not say the reporter has no obligation to ever go into court and testify, is my understanding of the bill. a test would be applied into that specific determination. but the media regs that you mentioned, michael, i think are really important, and they're significant, and they certainly are going to change the way we do business to some extent in these investigations. those media regs were a
reflection by the attorney general that, you know, often times in washington and elsewhere policy debates are really as much about means as ends. many times actually there are shared ends, both sides agree to, but we may have friendly disagreements about the means to achieve those shared ends. so what the ag did over the last month or so was to have six or seven personal meetings, sit down with 30 or 40 members of the fourth estate to sort of roll up his sleeves and hear, okay, what is it that is giving you heart burp about the way we're -- heart burn about the way we are doing business? what are the means we have used historically that perhaps should be, should be revised? and there are a couple of them which are significant, and my, i've not sort of canvassed the editorial pages of the nation's papers and magazines, but the response seems to have been more generally positive to these new regs. i don't know your own view, mike. but here are two real big
changes in terms of how we will do business. number one, if the government -- well, let me back up. it has always been the case that seeking records or testimony or information from a reporter is an absolute last resort. that has -- there has to be a compelling need for the investigation. if i can get the information through another source, i'm not allowed to go ask the reporter a question or to ask them to testify in the grand jury. so there's an exhaustion requirement which has been strengthened, and it's more robust. the attorney general, you know, himself or herself needs to, needs to now sign off. it's not a delegated down to somebody in the department. but critically, the department now if we wish to issue a subpoena, you know, for cnn, you know, for a tape of a demonstration outside an embassy -- and that is the usual situation in which we're subpoenaing -- >> i bring you back to jeffrey sterling and james rosen?
do you really want to win this case and be faced with whether you -- >> so the case is pending -- >> and if you win? >> it's a hypothetical, i need to wait to see what happens. >> do yaw wont to win -- you want to win? >> i'm sorry, can i just finish -- >> >> yeah. >> so here are the two big changes. number one, if we're going to subpoena a reporter, we now need to give advance notice to that reporter, and the reporter whether it's to the reporter directly, well, obviously, you have received the subpoena, but if we're going to a third party, we now need to tell the reporter, and then the reporter has the ability to object, to come into court, to litigate it if they want, and a judge will work it out, number one. number two, and this, i think, is reference to -- >> the search warrant. >> the search warrant. so it's the new reg says that unless a reporter is him or herself the target of the
investigation, that there will not be a search warrant sought for e-mails, phone records, etc. and the ag has made very clear the regs make very clear that reporters are not going to be prosecuted ever for simply going about their very important business of reporting on the news. >> can we each speak for a second? >> very quickly, because we've got to -- >> all right. >> yes. >> i mean, i served in congress, and folks -- do you want to go first? >> no, no. >> anthony will rebut what i'm about to say. and focus on a lot of this for 17 years, and i still focus on it. i think the press is by is and large very responsible. i personally participated in a few phone calls to heads of offices saying, please, don't publish information about the x, y, z program, that would be harmful. let's understand what harmful mean. sources and methods, when revealed, can result in people dying. they can also result in our capability going forward against a target, let's say the iranian
nuclear program, being compromised. it is not okay, certainly not okay with me to have public -- published information which reveals sources and methods. >> i agree. >> and i'm extremely worried about some of the snowden stuff that hasn't come out yet which may show some sources that we have in our current efforts to keep america safe, and those sources could be killed. so let's understand that. that does not mean a reporter should go to jail, michael, but the context is there's a responsible press, by and large. i certainly respect that. i strongly support and did support the press shield law. we have the find a better way to stop leaks of material that compromise our sources and methods. >> okay. i want to move on to another subject here that's very big and important, and that's drone strikes and the future of our
war on terror. now, it has all been predicated on the authorization to use military force passed after 9/11. which identified our enemy as al-qaeda, the taliban. the taliban, al-qaeda and associated forces. jay, you gave a major speech in ox toford last year looking -- oxford last year looking towards what the future is going to look like, but i am hung up still on the phrase associated forces. who are the associated forces of al-qaeda who are our enemy right now? >> well, you're correct that for the last four years while i was in office the interpretation o. aumf -- of the aumf that we adopted in the executive branch referred toal child, the taliban
and associated forces. that was ab interpretation by the executive branch that was endorsed by the courts in the habeas litigation brought by guantanamo detainees, specifically to include the concept of an associated force. and it was also an interpretation of the aumf that the congress last year in section 1021 of the ndaa embraced. there were some in congress who believed, you know, we shouldn't just rely on the lawyers' interpretation of our prior statutory authority, let's codify it expressly which they did in section 1021 which engendered some litigation. the second circuit yesterday vacated the injunction in that case. when i was in office and i want to point out that when we conducted military operations pursuant to that authority in places outside of iraq and afghanistan like yemen, the horn of africa, every strike was
briefed to congress after the strike, and i would talk regularly to the lawyers on the armed services committee and the members about how we were construing that authority so that they understood how their statutory authorization was being applied. and so during the time i was in office that authority generally worked against core al-qaeda -- against core al-qaeda, you know, os ma bin laden being the most prominent example, other members of core al-qaeda, al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula and al-qaeda-affiliated elements offal she bob. >> so three, there were three associated forces when you were in office. >> well, i don't know that i would -- those were the three that i had the occasion to evaluate most often. there were other instances where i would conduct a legal evaluation of certain other organizations where we didn't go forward with a specific
operation, but those were the three most prominent examples that were public that we regularly briefed to congress. now, you referred to my oxford speech. i think that we are at an inflection point, as one journalist put it, where we should no longer consider ourselves in a traditional armed conflict against al-qaeda and affiliated groups. and i think benghazi is a prominent example of what i'm talking about, because you can't label the benghazi attack as something conducted by al-qaeda and associated forces. it was more of a mixed bag. and so in this period where i think we're headed in a new direction, we need to evaluate many congress what new authorities our counterterrorism professionals might need, and we're not just talking about drone strikes. we're talking about ability to conduct national security interrogations pre-miranda and
other types of things that domestic law enforcement, that the intelligence community should have to go forward with the future,. >> i add something to this? >> very quickly. >> i just want to give a shout out to jeh who has been fearless. this is not -- while he was in government and since in talking about this, harold coe's another example of somebody who has been fearless, and it's not easy. at the wilson center last week, we had one of our national conversations about the aumf whether it should be mended or ended, and bob corker -- a republican from tennessee, senator, the ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee -- came down to the wilson center and said congress is being irresponsible. this statute, which i sitting here voted for, every member of congress but one voted for it in 2001, was never anticipated to be in effect 12 years later and be the basis for all of our tactics against bad guys forever and ever. and this is a debate congress
should have, and if congress isn't having it, it's a debate the larger society should have about was the basis for our going forward view of who's attacking us and what tactics are appropriate and what's narrative. let's not forget that. what does the united states stand for? so i doubt anyone in this room really disagrees with that, and i just think it's time to get on with it, and i want to applaud jeh for what he has done to set the stage for that. >> jeh, my former colleague, dan clydeman's excellent book, "kill or capture," he describes you being buyed about a u.s. military -- you being briefed about a u.s. military drone strike in yemen, learning about it and afterwards saying if i was catholic, i'd have to go to confession. what'd you feel fundamental about? >> well, look, anytime, anytime i or any other national security official has to sign off on
something that leads to lethal force, that should leave you with a heavy heart. period. irrespective of who the objective is. and i want to talk about the op-ed in the times today written by mr. awlaki sr.. i read it, and the reality is that in a congressionally-authorized armed conflict, on occasion people who are not targeted by the strike are killed. the good news to the extent there is any in armed conflict is with our modern technology we are more precise, collateral damage is minimized, it's -- and so our government in may because a number of officials including the president, obviously, believed that if the u.s. government takes the life of a u.s. citizen, the government should acknowledge that,
acknowledged that the u.s. government was responsible for mr. awlaki, for his son and for others. and so, and the way the attorney general put it, they were not specifically targeted. so the point i want to make is that for any responsible official of our government can involved in counterterrorism, and there are a number of hem in this room -- of them in this room, you read an op-ed like that, and you get a pit in your stomach, and you read it with a a heavy heart. and if you don't, you should not be involved in making these decisions. >> absolutely. >> we have, anthony, i'm going the let you answer, but there are -- there's limited time for questions from the audience, so if anybody wants to pose one, now is the time to do so. and i got one right over here. >> harrison -- [inaudible] from foreign affairs magazine.
the new york times has likened the fisa court to, quote, almost parallel supreme court in that it's issuing decisions and constitutional interpretations that will shape intelligence practices in the future. should the -- do you agree with that characterization? should the fisa court be playing that role, or should the supreme court be taking on some of those cases? >> raj. >> so fisa court is operating as congress established it in 1978. i think one important -- i think everyone knows how it operates. these are federal judges, article iii judges. there is a federal fisk court of review that has ruled, rarely, but it has. i think the narrative generally set out there is that the fisk is a rubber stamp, so few applications are rejected. and there is a handful of people in this room, including myself, of who have practiced before the fisk, and it is -- there is no
way that that is an accurate representation. i think the challenge for the government is how do we improve public confidence in a process that at least from where i'm sitting is working as intended, is working pretty well. the fisk has a full-time staff that is very competent. and if i can address the issue of the applications, because i think that's something that's out there, a certain number of applications are never rejected. a couple of points. one, if anybody worked on the criminal side, it's pretty rare that a title iii application is rejected as well. that's just the nature of the business because applications are so well put together through the process. but two, in recent weeks we've started to open up a little bit more to discuss how the fisk process works, and there's something that many of you have probably heard of called a recopy. before we file an application with the fisk, we file, effectively, a draft application that can be days, week withs, months before a final application is submitted. and there's an iterative process with the court and with the judges as to what improvements
they would require, what improvements they think need to be necessary, and the government takes that into account. so when -- and a final submission may not be made, and even when it is made, it pretty much accounts for what the judges would have put in originally. and so it is a legitimate debate as to whether reforms should be made, but i think it's a canard that the number of applications rejected is somehow reflective of the process, and i just would like to make that point. >> question right here. did you want to -- [inaudible conversations] >> okay. before that, let's let anthony briefly chime in. >> to the extent to which there is a vigorous process, then let's make it real rig having rouse. -- vigorous. if you think it's tough to practice before it now, i would love to be opposite you. i think that's the way our courts normally work.
i think the fact is the numbers have not been revealed. i think it's fascinating, google and all of you co-sponsors of this lovely institute forum are now asking congress and the foreign intelligence surveillance court to release more data on that information. finally, you understood that your self-interests as corporation aligned with your consumers' privacy interests. congratulations on being late to the party, but good that you got there. and let's look at this information. now, i want to go out on a limb, right? because i've been a little bit watching this. let me fall off the limb. [laughter] i've been watching this whole debate about edward snowden, maybe we can goose the question. i think he did this country a service. i have not said that publicly until this point. i think he did this country a service by starting a debate that was anemic, that was left to government officials where people did not understand fully what was happening. i think regardless of where you come out on it, we have now a vigorous public