last parliament and i said no. because you don't make society fairer by cutting the money that goes to nurseries colleges and schools. >> i think they're both blaming each other and they're both right, julie. the thing i would say to david cameron is of course his scares about free schools are wrong. we do not want a system in the future which has unqualified teachers, 17,000 unqualified teachers in our schools. but there's a bigger issue because rebecca, who asked the question, was asking about young people going into the world today. and you've heard david cameron and nick clegg defend a system which ensures that young people leave university with 44,000 pounds' worth of debt. he didn't have to leave school with 44 pounds' worth of debt. nor did he. nor did i. but the difference with me is i'm going to do something about it. i'm going to cut the tuition fee. would i like to go further than 6,000 pounds? of course i would. but it's a costly plan to reduce the tuition fee. and nick, you're describing a broken promise as the next best thing. i'm sure i'll remember that for the future. but you know it was a broken promise. you betrayed the young people of our country. >> can i reply? i get this sort of pious establishment from ed miliband. he this is a man who said 2340 boom and bust in our economy and crashed our economy jeopardizing the future life chances of millions of people in this country. i've apologized. i've taken responsibility for the mistakes i've made. why don't you in front of the british people, ed miliband apologize for your role? nothing euphemistic. say i'm sorry for crashing the british economy -- >> ed miliband. >> you've got it wrong on bank regulation. [ applause ] absolutely. in relation to the banks. and the banks were underregulated. but let me just -- those are global financial -- let me just point this out. david, when you were in opposition at the time as leader of the opposition you were saying the banks were overregulated. so i'm not going to take any lectures from you about the global financial crisis. [ applause ] >> ed miliband still thinks the last labour government didn't borrow enough, didn't spend enough, didn't tax enough. i mean, that is the truth. and young people suffer the most. when you have an economy with out-of-control welfare out-of-control debt, out-of-control spending, young people suffer the most because the deficit and the debt is -- >> a conservative prime minister make unfair -- that's why they suffer. >> thank you. natalie bennett. >> i think we were talking about education. perhaps we can go back there. and to come back to the point about education and particularly the point that david cameron raised about free schools, we have a system brought in, supported with the academies of the former government that were based on competition the ideas that schools compete with each other, they fight against each other. the green party we don't believe that should be the foundation of schooling. we should have cooperation. we want to bring free schools and academies back under local authority control, have an overall cooperative system. and much more than that we need a school system that isn't focused on exams, that isn't an exam factory that shoves children through exam after exam after exam. children need an education for life. and that means a much broader education, an education that includes things like first aid cooking, sex and relationship education, personal finance education. we need a much broader education that prepares our young people for life. >> thank you very much indeed. leanne wood. >> there will be more cuts to education. there will be a difficulty continuing the tuition fee grant beyond 2017. if labour win they will cut the welsh block grant by 2.2% according to the ifs. that's a billion pounds over the course of the next term. and the tories will more than double that. so affording good education and job creation will be difficult under those circumstances. that's why we must end austerity. and if we are in a situation where there's a hung parliament, made cymru will do all it can to end austerity, to rebalance power and wealth, and to win for wales parity with scotland, and then we too can afford free tuition fees for students in wales. >> nicola sturgeon. >> i think we've seen tonight from this discussion why we really need to break the old boys' network at westminster because frankly none of these guys can be trusted when it comes to tuition fees. nick clegg shamefully broke his promise. but when you listen to ed miliband remember that in 1997 tony blair promised no tuition fees and then introduced them. in 2005 he said no top up tuition fees, and then after the election top-up tuition fees were introduced. if you want ed miliband, if he does get to be prime minister, to keep his promise on tuition fees and on the other progressive policies that he's now promising thenppp there are? smp mps in the house of commons keeping him honest. >> let's return to the question because rebecca put a lot of issues into this question. it wasn't just about education. it was about housing too. it was also about possibly the younger generation paying for other people's mistakes. >> on the housing point, it's a very important point because rebecca i'm sure is in keeping with lots and lots of young people, worried that you're not going to be able to get your feet on the first rung of the property ladder. the liberal democrats, we've got i think an idea which might help rebecca, and it is this. at the moment lots and lots of young people can't afford the deposit to get a mortgage on a property. so what we would do is introduce a rent to own scheme where you wouldn't need to find the deposit to buy a house but every time you rent, pay your rent at market rates, you'd build up a share of ownership in your home. so by renting you'd become over time an owner in your home. i think that would be a great, great way, which we could introduce in the next parliament, to give people like rebecca the -- that tangible belief that they can hope to live in a home which they can call their own. >> i think this is about demand and supply. markets are about demand and supply. if you're having to build a new house every seven minutes to cope with 300,000 people a year net coming into britain, you have a problem. so that side of it, a government, an independent government, can deal with that and reduce the numbers coming. but we need to build lots and lots of houses. the problem is that developers want to build on green field sites. it is cheaper for them. it is better for them. and indeed changes in the planning laws mean it's actually much easier for them to build on those sites. i think what government needs to do i don't always want government to intervene but i do think here government should supply grants and actually make decontamination of brown field sites something that is a big opportunity for developers. and we could build 200,000 new houses a year on brown field sites and solve much of this problem. >> nicki sturgeon. >> in scotland as in other parts of the uk in investing with steemz like help to buy, ensured equity, in taking out a range of steps to help people, not just young people but young people in particular get their first step on the housing ladder, but we're also protecting affordable housing as well and investing in greater numbers of affordable homes because there are some people even with the help of shared equity that will not be able in the short or medium term to buy a medium home and we have a duty and obligation to make sure we're providing good quality houses for rent as well and that's really important. >> thank you very much. ed miliband. >> i want to pick up on something that's very important to young people which is renting in the private sector. lots of young people have this experience. it's incredibly insecure. it's sometimes substandard accommodation. we're the only party with a plan to get a fair deal on the private rented sector. three-year tennancies not one-year tennancies. rent stabilized during that time. and stopping letting agents charging tenants because at the moment they charge tenants and landlords fees. and that is a massive issue for young people all across our country. and we will act. but it's all part of saying, look, we've got to stand up to some of these powerful interests and make our country work for young people. >> thanks, ed miliband. let's return to the final element of rebecca's question. she took in an awful lot of ground with it. if you're elected what will you do to help my generation feel optimistic about our future? david cameron. >> well, i think obviously it's been a very difficult time recovering from the appalling recession that we had. it has been tough. it has been difficult. but britain has still got some great strengths. we've got a strong and growing economy. we're creating jobs. we're part of all these important networks in the world whether it's the g8 or nato or the european union. we have clout in the world. we can get things done in the world. think about what some of our people are doing right now. we've got nurses in west africa helping to deal with ebola. we've got some of the most brave and professional armed services anywhere in the world and tonight's a good moment to say thank you to them for all they do. we're a nation of great inventors. >> [ inaudible ]. i'm worried at the end of the day there's more -- >> thank you very much indeed. >> the lady makes an important point, which is there are people who come out of our armed services who do have difficulties and that's why we should be putting money into the armed forces charities that help homeless people and people also with mental health problems when they come out of our armed forces. she makes an important point. >> let's return to the issue about providing optimism for a younger generation. natalie bennett. >> well, i think i made in my opening remarks reference to climate change. and that of course is one of the critical issues that we have to deal with to provide an optimistic future. but much broader than that, we have to stop trashing our planet. we think about in britain today we're currently collectively using the resources of three planets when we've only got one. we have to build and invest in our economy to deal with that. and just to think about what my generation, the kind of legacy we're leaving your generation -- >> thank you. >> world wildlife fund figures. this is really important. the fact is in the last 40 years in my lifetime the world has lost 50% of its vertebrate wildlife. half of the wild animals have gone. >> nigel farage. >> may we return, please, to the issue about optimism for the younger generation. nigel farage. >> it's interesting. our own leaders aren't optimistic. our own leaders don't think this country is good enough even to make its own laws. what i want to see is a self-governing, self-confident united kingdom, a country in which we've got pride. and for young people we're living in a global economy. we've got to forget this obsession with our frankly failing in many cases next-door neighbors in europe and let's re-engage with a bigger, wider world and the best place to start would be the 2.2 billion people that live in the quaemt and that are our real friends. let's have a britain that governs itself and -- >> leanne wood. thank you. >> the best way to provide optimism is to create the conditions whereby everyone can have a job, whereby we can create the conditions of full employment. made cymru wants to create 50,000 new jobs with our jobs creation plan by supporting small businesses and also changing the way the public sector contracts out to the private sector to guarantee more jobs to be local jobs. >> thank you very much. a note of optimism for the younger generation. >> i think the only way we're going to instill optimism is if we wipe the slate clean for the next generation. we have to release rebecca and her generation of the debt and the deficit of this generation. i don't want rebecca -- i don't want my own kids i don't want any of our children to pay the price for this generation's mistakes. and if i can leave rebecca and everybody with just one figure in mind, one statistic, 46 billion pounds. that is what we as a country will spend next year just paying off the interest on our debts. just imagine the hundreds of thousands of homes we could build for 46 billion pounds. 46 billion pounds is the same as 700 pounds for every man, woman, or child in this country. that is why when i hear some leaders imply we shouldn't somehow get rid of our deficits i say look if you don't do that, it's a bit like miriam and me saying we're not going to pay off our credit card bill and we'll get our little kids to pay it for us. we must let the future generation be relieved from this generation's mistakes. >> ed miliband. >> i want to be more practical about this. what's one of the most important things for our young people? the quality of jobs. we've got 700,000 people in our country on zero hours contracts. probably some people watching tonight at home waiting for that text message to say whether you have work 20r78. david cameron says he couldn't live on a zero hours contract. nor could i, david. but the difference with me is i'm going to do something about it. i'm going to legislate. if you do regular hours you get a regular contract, not a zero hours contract. and it goes to what kind of country we build. do we build a country with security for working families and our young people or based on insecurity? >> ed miliband -- >> in wales they voted against an amendment to end zero hour contracts in the care sector. so why should people believe what you say on zero hour contracts? >> but also i think leanne makes a good point because we discovered today there are about 70 labour mps who employ people on zero hour contracts and they haven't gotten to the bit about practicing what you preach. but there is a big err why point here. yesterday hundreds of business leaders from some of the most iconic business brands, large and small said that the plan that we have is getting the country back to work is getting the country on the right track and if we go off that with ed miliband's plan we put the country at risk, the recovery at risk and jobs at risk. >> there you have it. >> and for young people that's the most important thing of all. zero hours contracts necessary for our economy to succeed. >> you're saying that -- >> zero jobs approach that we don't -- >> you're defending zero hours contracts -- [ speaking over each other ]. >> he thinks as long as a few corporations and individuals do well the richest and most powerful the wealth will trickle down toefrn else. we've tried that experiment. it's failed. >> your comments on that very comprehensive question from rebecca. ladies and gentlemen, we've come to the end of our free flowing debate. there's been a lot discussed here over the last two hours. a lot for us all to reflect upon. before we conclude tonight i'd like to invite each of the leaders to make a final and brief statement on why they think you should vote for their party on may the 7th. and i'll turn first to knicknicolea sturgeon. >> tonight the choy in this election has been clear. you can vote for the same old parties and get the same old politics. more cuts and more misguided priorities. or you can vote for something different, better, and more progressive. i went into this election with a clear message. none of us can afford more austerity. none of us can afford an additional 30 billion pounds of cuts. and none of us can afford the 100 billion pounds that the tories, labour, and liberals intend to spend on nuclear weapons. their priorities are wrong. but they won't pay the price. it will be ordinary people across the country who pay the price. the snp offers an alternative, a clear alternative, a plan for investment. yes, it is fiscally responsible but it will also allow us to invest in infrastructure to protect our public services and to lift people out of poverty. to people in scotland i say vote snp for a louder voice for scotland. to people elsewhere i say ours will be a voice to help bring about change for you too. >> nicola sturgeon thank you. nick clegg. >> well, thank you for sitting through this two-hour political marathon. i just have one more thing to ask of you. and it is this. when you vote, make sure you that decide what's right for you and your family. make sure you do what's right for our country. but above all make sure we don't lurch this way or that. make sure we don't borrow too much on the one hand or cut too much on the other. in other words, make sure that when you vote we keep our country stable and strong and fair. and the only way we can do that is by finishing the job finishing it fairly, balancing the books, doing it fairly, and putting our main into our public services because that's the only way that we can create the society that i imagine we all want, a society where we have a stronger economy and a fairer society where there's opportunity for everyone. >> nick clegg thank you. ed miliband. >> you've heard from seven leaders tonight but there's one fundamental choice of this election. do we build a britain that puts working people first or do we carry on with a government that's not on your side? if i'm prime minister i'll make sure we reward the hard work of everybody in our country not just those who get the six-figure bonuses. if i'm prime ministerkrnqñ i'll take on those energy companies that are ripping you off. if i'm prime minister everyone will play by the same rules. we won't give the green light to tax avoidance. and if i'm prime minister we'll cut the deficit every year, balance the books, but we'll protect health and education. there is a big choice at this election. i believe that it's when working people succeed that britain succeeds. if you believe that too i ask for your support. and let's bring the change that britain needs. >> ed miliband, thank you very much. indeed. leanne wood. >> i hope that what you've heard here tonight doesn't fill you with too much despair. despite what you've heard, there is an alternative to the westminster consensus in favor of more cuts. austerity he is not inevitable. it's a choice. we can have a future where everyone has access to decent public services where everyone can have a decent standard of living. but not if we keep doing things the way we always have done. for a stronger more prosperous, greener wales, for a wales that counts, for a devolution and a financial settlement that is no longer second rate give your vote to plaid cymru, the party of wales. for wales to be strong like scotland, plaid cymru must be strong. the more strength you give us the greater influence we will have. let us be the -- >> if you you want change, you have to vote for it. i say vote for what you believe in. you don't have to go on voting for the lesser of two evils. that's how we end up for the tired failed politics. if we want a public nhs, a stable climate, vote for change, vote green. already in parliament we've seen caroline lucas make a huge impact. we need more mps like caroline. with a strong group of green mps we can deliver a new kind of politics. you can deliver a peaceful political revolution. wherever you are in england, wales, scotland, or northern ireland, if you're thinking about voting green do it. your vote will count. >> natalie bennett, thank you. nigel farage. >> see i warned you at the beginning. i said they're all the same. and what you've seen tonight is the politically correct political class. oh, they're very keen to be popular on the international stage. they don't understand the thoughts, hopes, and aspirations of ordinary people in this country. they are detached. most of them have never had a job in their lives. what we represent in ukip is plain-spoken patriotism. we believe in this country. we believe in its people. we think britain can be a lot better than this. but if you want things to be shaken up and to change properly you've got to put more ukip mps in westminster. we won two elections last year. we can outshine all expectations on may the 7th. let's do it. >> nigel farage, thank you. david cameron. >> thank you. i've been your prime minister for the last five years, and all that time i've tried to have one task in mind above all others and that has been turning our economy around, putting the country back to work, and cleaning up the mess that was left to us. i want to stand for another five years because i want us to finish the job wovee've all started. we've cut the deficit in half. let's cut it altogether. let's invest in the national health service. let's keep doing that and make sure it's a ginn service seven days a week for you and your family all year round. what my plan is about is basically one word. security for you. for your family. for our country. this is an amazing country. and we're on our way back. and there's a fundamental choice at this election. stick with the plan and with the team who brought that plan because it's working and it's helping. or put it all at risk by the people who gave us the spending, the debt, the taxes and the waste. i say let's stick to the plan that's working let's not go back to square one, let's finish what we started. >> david cameron, thank you very much indeed. my thanks also to nicola sturgeon, to leanne wood to ed miliband, to nigel farage, to nick clegg and to natalie bennett. it has been a fascinating debate. and also a big thank you to all our audience here for all their questions and tule of you at home who joined us online. stay with us now on itv for reaction and analysis on news at 10. and after that a special debate night edition of "the agenda" with tom bradby. thanks again for watching, and good night. [ applause ] this sunday on "q & a" senior editor for the weekly standard andrew ferguson on his writing career, the gop presidential candidates for 2016, and what voters are looking for in the candidate. >> they want somebody who looks like he's stood up for them. i'm amazed now to the degree to which primary voters on both sides are motivated by resentment and the sense of being put upon. and you know, those people really don't understand us. and here's a guy who does understand us and he's going to stick it to them. and that happens on both sides. hillary clinton will give her own version of that kind of thing. i don't think that was actually true 30 years ago. resentment has always been part of politics, obviously. but the degree to which it's almost exclusively the motivating factor in truly committed republicans and democrats. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. on c-span's "q & a." >> admiral michael rogers, nsa director and the heaved u.s. cyber command, recently delivered keynote remarks at a cybersecurity summit in washington, d.c. it was hosted by the armed forces communications and electronics association. this is 35 minutes. [ applause ] >> so can you hear me all the way in the back? can you hear me all the way in the corner over here? i've got to tell you, first thing i heard in my introduction was somebody said "roll time." what the heck is the matter with this audience? come on. you don't insult a guy when he shows up at a place. eagle. thank you so much for taking time from your busy lives for what i think is a very important topic for us as a nation. and this whole idea of cybersecurity and cyber defense. so what brings mike rogers to spend some time with you today? as the commander of the united states cyber command, three primary missions. like many of you responsibility for defending networks. in this case responsibility for defending the networks of the department of defense. pretty large organization multiple millions of people, spreading around the globe, operating from fixed loexz, multiple locations at multiple levels of security. second issue for united states cyber command is to generate the dedicated cyber workforce, if you will, that the department is creating. that workforce will work from the defensive side of the cyber mission to the offensive side. that's about 6200 people. we're about halfway through the process of creating that workforce. >> the third mission set for u.s. cyber command is when directed by the president or the secretary of defense to defend critical u.s. infrastructure. as some of you are aware, the federal government has designated 16 different segments in the private sector as having specific implications for the nation's security. think about aviation, think about power, think about finance. there's 16 different segments. as director of the national security agency, two mission sets very closely related, which is why the decision was ultimately made to bring the two organizations together under the direction of one individual. nsa, a foreign intelligence organization. but second mission that's incredibly important for the nation i believe in the cyber security arena is nsa as an information assurance mission. we use it to help develop the security standards for the classified systems of the department of defense, to partner with other elements in the federal government to do it for government systems, governmentwide, and also increasingly to use our capabilities to help partner with the department of homeland security and the fbi in partnering with the private sector. there quite frankly has not been a major security penetration on the private sector in the last six months or so that ultimately we have not ended up on the nsa side partnering with the fbi and dhs to help provide our expertise to analyze what happened, how did they get in, what's the nature of the malware or the technique they use and then helping to develop the counters, if you will, to that. and given the echo here, i'm going to try to step away from this and see if my lapel mike works. is that a little bit better for you guys? there was a little bit of feed back there. so nsa, united states cyber command, two organizations with some pretty fundamental roles for the federal government in the cyber security arena. not the only organizations with roles in the federal government for cybersecurity. so my first observation in a year on the job and actually today marks my specific one-year anniversary as the commander of the united states cybercommand and the director of the national security agency -- it's anniversary day for me. we partner. we partner with the department of homeland security. we partner with the federal bureau of investigation. we partner with other elements within the department of defense. we partner in the private sector. one of my takeaways after a year on the job and i believed this before i got on the job and it's only been reinforced by the events of the last year. cyber is the ultimate team sport. there is not one single entity that has all the answers. there is not one single technology that is going to solve this problem set. in the end it's all about our ability to harness the power of partnerships and to bring together a pretty wide spectrum of capability to help us. and we have got to bridge the private sector and the public sector. we have got to bring this together in an integrated way if we're truly going to defend our nation's critical infrastructure which is one of the specific missions for u.s. cybercommand. but i would argue more broadly if we are going to deft systems of the private sector within our nation we have got to bring together the private sector and the public sector in a way that traditionally we haven't seen. we have got to do this real-time, and we have got to do this on an enduring basis. it can't just be that the only time we interact with each other is when things are going wrong. sony was a great partnership for example, between soni maniant, the firm they hired, as well as the fbi and nsa and u.s. cybercommand. but if i'm honest, i was struck by, well this is great, except the cow is out of the barn. and now we're reacting. and this is a cleanup on aisle 9 scenario. i don't think that gets us to where we need to be in the future. where we need to be in the future is the ability to harness a set of partnerships that enable us to interact with each other on a real-time basis. that i using the capabilities of both nsa and u.s. cybercommand can try to push information to the private sector that says here's what i think is coming at you. here's what it's going to look like. here's the precursor activity i think you're going to see that should give you the sense that this is actually occurring. what i'm interested from the private sector is did you see what we told you you were going to see? what did you see that we flat out missed? what worked well? how did you configure your system? what were the telltale signs that told you something was coming? because there are always advance indicators. well before you get to that final hack. well before you get to that offensive disruptive act, there are always precursor steps that if we're smart give you a sense of what is coming at you. so i'm interested in what are you seeing? what are the things we failed to anticipate? i'd like to see the malware because i'm interested in tearing it apart and figuring out how do we develop counters so we can defeat it in the future. not just you but us more broadly in the private sector. i'm interested in how do we develop the signatures that help systems recognize the activity? i would love to get to the point where the insights of one benefit the many. the way we're doing this right now in some ways is we are all trying to learn independently. that is a very painful way to go about gaining insights and experience. it tends to be very resource intensive and we constantly repeat the same mistakes as each one of us we urge independently. i'd like to see what we can do to bring it all together. the second part i try to make people aware of is this challenge is about a whole lot more than just technology. technology is a big part of this problem set and the solution. but it is every bit as much about culture and the human dynamic as it is about technology. because you name the system, whether it's in the private sector or the public sector. in the end it's maftded men and women that really make it work. and it's our ability to align that technology with that motivated and well-trained man or woman that really is what gives us our edge. i'm the first to acknowledge both at nsa and u.s. cybercommand we have some amazing technology. we can do some really interesting things. but at its heart we are an enterprise powered by motivated men and women. and without those motivated men and women, that technology is largely not going to achieve what it needs to achieve. today's pretty wide -- if you look at the agenda i was struck by you are looking at crime, you're looking at a shark tank, you're looking at how you build a workforce, you're looking at acquisition. it's a pretty broad swath, which again i thought was a pretty good thing. because as i said there's no single silver bullet that's going to fix all of this. it's about how we can work together to make it all work. and that's a challenging time for us right now. i'm the first to admit, i'm leading at least one of my two organizations that still has a measure of distrust among some. i acknowledge that. i don't pretend it's otherwise. and yet we have got to figure out a way that we can harness the capabilities of nsa to partner with the private sector in the name of defending our nation. because nsa has some amazing technical capabilities in the information assurance arena that are real positive for us as a nation. and i want to see us apply them in a partnership way with the private sector that maximizes value and benefit for the nation. this quite frankly as a nation we're paying for that capability. and i would like to see us use it in a positive constructive way, partnering with the private sector. that's something that's important to me. with that rather than just talk at you because i think we've got another 20 minutes or so, we're going to go the tablet route. and i will try to take questions from the audience here. excuse me. i'll put on my glasses to do that. so let's see what we've got. okay. we don't have any entries yet. this is not a good sign. i'm looking at a black tablet. has anybody sent me something and we've just missed it? and i apologize. who was helping me young lady? i just lost the outlook app. come on. i don't see it listed in one of your apps.3jt) where is she? she was standing in the back. there you go. i apologize. i lost outlook. will you pull it up for me? there you go. >> you have one question. >> [. [ inaudible ] >> there you go. see, but the positive side, it wasn't that rogers didn't know where to go. the positive side was look, i know where i've got to get to. so the questions are starting to come in. we'll just take the first one. this first one comes from cindy thomas. and cindy, i apologize it's loading your question real quick. okay. so the question from cindy is as a nation we've been primarily focused on enemies abroad. with the emergence of islamic extremism we've recognized there are now domestic insider threats. but is there a discussion or a consideration for the emergence of corporate nation states and how will we react to those incidents? cindy, are you here? cindy. i apologize. i want to make sure i'm getting the question. is the question focused on the idea about how are corporations going to engage in this world? i want to make sure i got it right. >> [ inaudible ]. >> talking about the hack type idea, corporations -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> check. so in broad terms i'm a believer that the application of force, whether it's in the kinetic world through weapons systems we're all used to that the games love to accentuate through capabilities in the non-kinetic world, are best applied, best controlled through the nation state. i'm not a big fan of the corporate world kind of taking on this idea. it's not without precedence. if you go back, i'm a big fan of history. and if you go back and you look at times when nation states have lacked capacity on their own. oftentimes they have turned to the corporate sector. as a navy guy in the early days of the american revolution when we hadn't yet gained the foresight to generate a navy permanently, we turned to the private sector and said look, we will generate a legal mechanism in the form of letters of mark and reprisal that will allow you to take that private ship that you own and acting as an agent of the state, in this case the united states, if you will go after those british ships, we will give you legal protection, we'll let you sell the cargos and take some of the monetary profit from that. we've done that before. i'm not a fan of going that way. on the other hand nature abhors a vacuum. i was looking at some analysis on some entities that are already out there offering a wide range of services. i'm not sure that in the long run that's in the best interest. okay. let's see. shawn. i'll get you here. in recent testimony you said offensive capabilities. what does that entail? the point i was trying to make in my testimony last month was that i believe that a defensive-only passive strategy is not in the long run going to deter nation states and groups and individuals from engaging in some of the behaviors that we have seen. from the theft of intellectual property to the destruction of data to the manipulation of data. that deterrence is an important component i believe of as a nation how we're trying to change the dynamic we're dealing with where we now quite frankly are reacting to what's going on in the world around us. you saw that earlier this week with the administrationing announcement of its executive order in which the administration has now authorized the application of sanctions against both individuals, groups nation states who engage in offensive cyberbehavior. i think that's another good step along the way. i'm also a big fan of we should develop a set of offensive capabilities. their application, their usage needs to be tightly controlled and that's not a decision that i should make. that's a decision a policy maker should make. just as we do right now with the application of force in the more traditional kinds of arenas. let's see. hmm. okay. and this is from patrick tucker at the billing-ton cybersecurity summit last year on this very stage admiral rogers asked the audience if any of them had suffered "some form of compromise in their personal information or their personal system" and he acknowledged that "my hand's up there with you." what was that event and how were you hacked? so patrick, i apologize -- patrick, where are you? patrick. i apologize. that's one i'm going to have to go under. okay. i'll try shawn now. this is from shawn lingas. shawn, are you here? all the way in the back. thank you, shawn. did i pronounce your last name correctly? what is it? lingas. so shawn asked how specifically will the nsa contribute intelligence to the nascent cyberthreat intelligence center that the dni is standing up. ctech, it's referred to by its acronyms, the cyberthreat intelligence center. ctic is designed to act, if you will, as a kind of central analytic hub for intelligence on cyber that has been generated across the federal government, across the intelligence structure. and the kind of act, if you will, as a one-stop shop much as nctc, the national counterterrorism center has overall responsibility for bringing together all the efforts of the intelligence community and the ct or counterterrorism mission set. ctic will dot same thing. as u.s. cybercommand i'm going to be one of the primary beneficiaries, if you will of ctic's output, which is a positive. justin duncan asked -- justin are you here? all right, justin. justin asks is there any effort under way to leverage clear retiring or exiting military members to act as trusted agents to bring classified indicators and intelligence to the private sector. the short answer is no. that i'm aware of. i think what really gets to the heart of your question is so what can we do to try to increase the through-put of classified information into the private sector? is that really the hub of -- >> yes. >> what you've outlined is certainly one way to do it. clearly, what i'm trying to push largely on my nsa hat as leader of an intelligence organization is why can't we just outright declassify much of what we're doing on the cyberdefensive side. not that sometimes we're not going to be able to do that. i'm the first to acknowledge that. but we've shown a pretty good -- if you look at the aftermath of sony and the north korean piece we've shown an increased ability of late to try to sanitize information we generate in a more classified way so it's usable on an unclassified level with many of our partners out there. let's see. okay. this is from victor ekinabe. victor, did i pronounce this correctly? tell me what it is. akinabe. victor, i apologize. and victor asks, first, outlook is a phenomenal app on the ipad. big smiley ipad. like the icon. there you go. can you speak to how nsa and cybercommand are partnering with industry and how industry can help share some of its technical develops with the intel community? >> on the nsa side quite frankly we've got a pretty long-term effort with commercial counterparts. in fact, if you go to www.nsa.gov, look on the lower right-hand side, and you'll see a link there that talks to you about how to do business with nsa. because we're very much interested in reaching out and partnering with the private sector. because i'm the first to remind both of the organizations that i'm responsible for lead inging, hey, much of the intellectual ingenuity and much of the innovation in the i.t. arena resides in the private sector, not in the government. and if we're going to be effective we've got to reach out and partner with them. on the u.s. cybercommand side we use the same mechanisms as the broader department of defense in terms of how we partner. i'm also looking at trying to create some infrastructure out in the private sector away from our headquarters at fort mead more directly where there are major industry concentrations also as a way to try to do this. it's something i'm definitely interested in. so this is from metra rateski. metra, did i get it right? tell me what it is. mitra. i apologize. and mitra asks -- mitra are you from nsa? >> [ inaudible ]. >> only because the way the question was phrased i was trying to figure out if you were. [ laughter ] so this is the question. the nsa research directorate had developed a lightweight cryptographic program that i believe will be open source for private sector to use. this may help us prevent attacks like the one on sony in the future. can you talk about any other effort nsa is taking on to further the public-private partnerships? so nsa does, again, under our information assurance mission set, nsa helps in the development of standards. nsa helps right now in writing signatures that recognize activity that we quite frankly share with the private sector. you won't necessarily see us. but i not only share it with the privacy sector. i use it on d.o.d. systems. i use it on our own systems. the very things we try to share in the private sector i use. i'm a user ouchlz. in addition, when it comes to cryptographic standards, when it comes to some technical development we've done we're committed to sharing as much of that as we can. again, if you look at the website, it's one of the vehicles we use to push it. in addition, we will push it also directly to a lot of the major vendors in whatever the particular market segment is and just say hey, this is an opportunity. we use it. let's see. let's see what this one is. here you go. this is from bill hill. bill where are you? i'm sorry. bill. bill says "at the risk of being on your watchlist i apologize about the roll tide. it's just a conditioned response." all right, bill, thanks very much. daniel fink. dan, are you here? dan, okay. with the competition between private and government sectors for cybertalent, how do you plan to retain your cyberworkforce? so this is not a challenge that is unique to cyber for the department of defense or for the intel community. if it is purely going to be about money, then we clearly are not going to be your first choice for a workplace. but what are the ways we're going to compete? really going to compete about five different ways. number one we're going to attract people because of our ethos. our culture of service. number two, we're going to attract people because of our mission. we defend the nation. number three, we're going to attract people because quite frankly we're going to let you do some amazing things you can't do anywhere else. number four, we're going to give you a lot of responsibility at a young age. once we've given you your training, once we're confident in your abilities we're a big believer of giving you your responsibility early. and then number five, like many we're a global organization. and if you want to work in europe, you want to work in asia, you want to work at multiple places in the united states, we've got work spots for you. and if you're an adrenaline junkie, if you want to be in afghanistan i've got spots for you. if you want to be in iraq, you want to be in fill in the blank. anywhere the d.o.d. is in general, we will find nsa and u.s. cybercommand as part of the team there with them. this is from steven horenstein. steven did i get it right? horensteen. i apologize. i'm not doing so well on the whole name thing. do you foresee an nsa reorg that would integrate the different organizations working on overlapping aspects of cyber? so as you may be aware, steven, like i said, today's my one-year anniversary as the director on the nsa side as well as the commander on u.s. cybercommand. one of the things i've done in that year is i posed a series of 12 questions. we call them the director's charges. i posed a series of 12 questions to the leadership team at nsa. one of the 12 questions talks about is our structure optimized for the future or is it reflective of our past. and i specifically said i want the team to take a look at that and i want you to look five to ten years down down the road. interested in what do which need to do today to ensure that we have optimized ourselves to execute our mission in defending the nation five to ten years from now and we just can't sit here and say to ourselves, look at all the amazing things we have been able to do in the past so everything is going to be fine in the future. as a leader i'm not a big proponent of that thought process. okay. scott. scott is it -- masionni? sweet. [ laughter ] so, scott asks, and scott, i assume you're a media guy. scott asks what legislative authorities does cyber command need most urgently from congress? the first thing i always say when i'm up on the hill testifying or when i'm just up on the hill talking to members of the legislative branch, the first thing i would ask is we have get to get this cyber information sharing legislation passed, we have to help -- not a cure-all, not a silver bullet. you i think it is an important step in helping us deal with this idea of private and public partnerships. pause quite frankly, and i certainly understand, any general counsels here in the audience from the private sector? don't be embarrassed. [ laughter ] i didn't see hands go up. many jeep counsels in my experience, not a krit cinch often advise their board, often advise their leadership, hey be leery about doing too much that potentially sets us up for liability that might lead to -- that is part of the function of a general counsel, help protect a firm and so one of the aspects that i think is important about legislation is this idea of liability protection as a way to help provide the private sector a measure of top cover, full and encouragement in interacting both ways with the federal government. that would probably be the biggest, most immediate one that i argue about. let's see. i'm sorry, daniel, you've already asked me one. okay, eric l.. are you here? sorry, eric how are you doing? eric asks how do you plan to deconflict cyber command's engagement with the private sector and other u.s. government efforts, such as nci jidif nc 3 and diddic? i generally have people embedded in everyone of those organizationful. so they have got people with us. we have got people with them. secondly, for u.s. cyber command, we will be acting in support of others. we won't be the lead. the most likely scenario, dhs, much as fema does now, when the department of defense provides cape pit in the aftermath of a hurricane in the aftermath of a wildfire or tornado dod provides its capability through and in support of fema. and i believe the model in the cyber scenario will be very similar. we will provide our capability through and teaming with the department of homeland security. okay. robert holm. robert asks, knowing how much workforce is a priority for cyber command what education and talent development strategies are you excited about and what gaps are you most concerned about nationally? so, and if i could i will road.this pot to cyber command and nsa. president clinton coughing [ ex- [ covering [ president clinton ] excuse me, i'm fighting a cold. at the mild and the high school, we are increasing our outreach efforts, particularly at the high school level. so, if you come out to fort meade right now you will find very young people working as interns. in fact, a bit of a humorous story, like my second day on the job, i'm down in the cafeteria and i see these two young ladies who just look incredibly1kmyoung to me. and i go back to the office and said something like how early are we hiring people? [ laughter ] i just saw two people who literally look like just a little older than my youngest. and co-incidentally, the next day, i see these two young people and this time, i thought in for a penny, in for a pound, so i stopped them and i said how long have you been working with us? turns out they were pot high school students 15 years old, they said we are working as part of the inconcern -- intern program here. when i'm out in silicon valley and talking to the private sector, tell me how you retain grow assess a workforce that's not only optimized for today but can get you where you need to be tomorrow. the model in the private sector particularly on the valley is the average employee will work for two to five years and then move around. the valley is a pretty closed ecosystem in the big scheme of things, pouncing around within the valley. our model on the nsa side, very different. most of our workforce, once they join us our retention is amazing. i think last year in 2014, nsa's overall retention, 96.7% of its workforce. only lost 3.7% of the workforce. [ applause ] that is great testament to the culture and the mission. they are a motivated bunch of men and women who love what they do and great respect for each other and dedicated for the idea how do we defend the nation and do it within a lawful, accountable framework? you, there's a flip side to that. one of the questions i asked the team was so you realize that in a 3.7 attrition rate it would take us 33 years to reconstitute the workforce. you know what the rate of change is going to be over 33 years? are we really comfortable that's the right long-term answer? what i would like to get to is a place where you can start with us and go out in the private sector and then come pa back. be in the private sector internship with us for a year or two. quite frankly, among the challenges that i think we have been dealing with, i watched two cultures who think they understand each other and they are just talking past each other. i listen to my workforce. i tell them, so, tell me what you think about what the private sector is doing. and i -- i will sometimes hear from them, hey well their primary driver is money. stop. they think they are changing the world through technology. your focus our focus, is about defending the nation. those two values are very compatible and very worth while. likewise, when i'm out at times in the valley, to be honest, i will sometimes hear, well you have the workforce that we didn't want to hire. [ laughter ] and i will say interesting, because somebody leaves our organization, you are freaking hiring them like this! so don't give me this soft soap. [ laughter ] so, and it is not a knock on either one but i'm watching, from my perspective, i'm watching two different groups, two different dynamics they don't fundamentally understand each other. one of the ways i think we can help understand each other better is if there was more cross pollination between us. i'm interested in trying to figure out how do we create mechanisms for the private sector to work with us for a while and for us to go into the private sector and then come back? i think that's very powerful for the future. and with that, i want to -- i realize somebody is coming after me. take one more question and i will close it out. all right. herman hewitt, you are going to take us home or is it hewitt herman? herman hewitt. herman. i'm gonna pick a different one, i apologize, this is just a little -- not that it is a bad question, not one i want to end on. [ laughter ] okay. no name other than an address. rob. sorry, rob spoviary. rob, did i get the name right? okay. rob asks what is nsa's most challenging problem in teaming with the international community on cyber defense initiatives? um the positive side i would say is i don't have -- i don't have resistance -- the biggest challenge in some ways is how we overcome some of the security challenges, as i said, it kind of goes to that other question that i got. we have got to set this up so we can do this on a much more multinational basis. we are doing some things pretty closely with the five eyes partners again part of the historic relationship we have with each other. i'm interested in not only building on that but expanding it beyond that because i believe, as i said to you before, cyber to me is the ultimate team sport. and not only is it a team sport domestically for us, i believe as a nation, but cyber doesn't recognize geographic boundaries. it doesn't recognize national borders. it doesn't recognize clearly defined solutions many times. and so we have got to come up with a framework that enables us to partner and work beyond those boundaries, beyond those borders. so i'm definitely committed to try to do that. and with that i thank you all very much for your time and your attention and thank you for your willingness to engage. [ applause ] [ coughing ] next an event marking the 150th anniversary of the surrender of confederate forces at appomattox courthouse ending the civil war. then a discussion on some of the legacies of the civil war on today's generation. after that a tour of the appomattox courthouse national park. 150 years ago, appomattox courthouse in virginia was the site where confederate general robert e. lee surrender his army to union general ulysses s grant, effectively ending the civil war. next, the commemorative ceremony marking the exact time t