Face the Nation transcripts January 19, 2014: Rogers, Udall, Donilon, Morell

The latest on NSA surveillance reform with Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., Tom Donilon, Mike Morell, and more
The latest on NSA surveillance reform with Re... 48:30

(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on January 19, 2014, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., Former Obama National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, Former Deputy CIA Director and NSA Surveillance Review Group Member Mike Morell, Ruth Marcus, Christi Parsons and David Sanger.

SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. The House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers has been out front from the beginning defending the NSA programs, since they first came under fire.

Mr. Chairman, welcome.

ROGERS: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you about the president's speech, but the first thing I want to get to is that you have suggested that perhaps Edward Snowden had some help from the Russians -- he, of course, the man who dumped all of this information out on us from the Web and from the American files. Why did you say that?

ROGERS: Well, a couple things. I said that there -- he's likely to have had help. I think there are some interesting questions we have to answer that certainly would lend one to believe that the Russians had at least in some part something to do with, A, either helping his capabilities -- we -- we noticed that a guy that was worried about privacy issues spent a lot of time, and as a recent DIA report revealed, stealing information the vast majority of which had nothing to do with the NSA program and everything to do with our military capabilities, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, number one.

You'd have to go and look for that information. There's some security things that he did get around that were clearly above his capabilities. The way he departed and how he ended up in Moscow -- now, we still have some questions there, but I can guarantee you he's in the loving arms of an FSB agent right today, and that's not good for the United States and it's not good for the information to be shared with nation-states. That actually hinders and will cost us billions of dollars, by the way, Bob, to try to rectify the problems he's caused in the military operations.

SCHIEFFER: You said that some of the things -- some of the things that took place after he left adds to your suspicion. Tell us what you can about that.

ROGERS: Well, sure, there's a couple of things that we worry about. One is there were some, at least some events and some small reflections on everything from how he prepared to leave, his route of departure, his -- and how he quickly ended up in Moscow. All of those things raise questions. And there's -- some of that's still under investigation.

But there's some clear evidence there that something else was going on. This wasn't a random, smash-and-grab, run down the road, end up in China, the bastion of Internet freedom, and then Russia, of course, the bastion of Internet freedom. Something more was going on there.

And because of the nature of the information that was stolen, again, nothing to do with Americans' privacy, a lot to do with our operations overseas. Some of those operations, by the way, from a military perspective, are being turned off today. That's a significant problem. And it gives indications that this is not what it appears to be.

And when you look at the totality of the information he took, the vast majority of it had to do with military, tactical and operational events happening around the world. One particular agency alone estimated, from conversations I've had, up to several billion dollars to try to fix the problem, one military institution.

SCHIEFFER: You know, the fact that you're making these -- that you are revealing this just as our Olympic athletes are getting ready to go to Russia -- are they safe?

ROGERS: Well, I have real concerns about their safety. You know, the Russians have not been fully cooperative on a security front with sharing information that might -- might be helpful in the securing of, both of our athletes and the participants, people who are there to view the games.

I'm concerned. We have got to have better cooperation as we move forward, if we can ensure the absolute safety not only of our athletes but people who are there to watch the Games.

I think they think this was a political embarrassing situation for them they're not going to share. That's really the wrong attitude when you're talking about an international event in a place where we've seen successful and targeted events.

Remember, this wasn't like Atlanta, where some guy stumbles into the park and has -- he's a one-off kind of guy, to pull off an event. This is an organization that is dedicated to violence for its political gain. They have publicly stated they want to target the Games. They have already targeted security in the region. This is a whole different animal. And we need full and absolute cooperation from the Russians on that front if we can make sure that our...

SCHIEFFER: Well, when you say they're not cooperating, not sharing, what do you mean?

ROGERS: Well, they're cooperating to a small degree, but there is information that we think is valuable about organizational activities that we are fairly confident that the Russians track that they're just not sharing with our security forces.

This has been a tug of war. People are pushing and pulling on this. This shouldn't be this difficult. It is in everyone's interest, including the Russians, to share that information with our security forces so that we can make sure that our activities -- our athletes and the participants are safe when they go to the Games.

SCHIEFFER: Are we doing what we should be doing here? Are we taking precautions, extra precautions?

ROGERS: We're doing everything that's possible -- our security services are doing everything they can to try to make sure that we're safe. There is, again, some cooperation with the Russians. We do know that it has an ending point, and, really, in this particular case, shouldn't do it. We need to continue to put pressure on the Russians to fully cooperate so that we can get some of these questions answered.

SCHIEFFER: Let me shift to what I asked you here to talk about this morning, the president's big speech. The changes that he outlined: did he go too far? Did he get it just right? Did he not go far enough?

ROGERS: Well, two things. First, the speech was good in the sense that it said, listen, no abuses, legal program, not a domestic spying operation that you have seen -- and that rhetoric has occurred over the last year. I think he put that to bed. That's important.

This was a program that was overseen by the judicial branch, the congressional -- or the legislative branch and -- and the White House, lots of oversight, not illegal, no abuses. That's important.

Secondly, the disappointing part of the speech was only in Washington, D.C. can you announce the review of the review of the review in 70 days and that be a decisive action taken. It interjected some uncertainty into the business records program that we really do need and count on to keep us safe.

Some of the other issues, I think, are workable. This one had an immediate impact on that program, especially calling for a warrant before access to the phone records. And that's concerning.