and it has failed with lorenzo and rather than squandering 4.7 billion pounds that is still unspent, the solution is to negotiate a way forward which frees up billions of pounds for the benefit of patients? >> i agree with my honorable friend that we are absolutely determined to achieve better value for money and let me reassure him there are no plans to sign any new contract with computer science cooperation until the authority reviews have taken place. the cabinet office will examine all the available options under the current contract including the option of terminating some or indeed all of the contract. >> question 13, sheila gillman. >> will the prime minister investigate while his program will be by private companies with only a 8% voluntary secretary component or will this not fly in scotland? >> i think if the honorable lady look at the details of who in

scotland will be providing the voluntary sector price while i accepts for the lead for the voluntary bodies, i think she will see bigger and better for the voluntary sector. we should be doing even more to open up public services to voluntary and other providers absolutely, yes, and perhaps she could persuade her front bench to make it labour policy, too. >> tom break? >> thank you. one year on -- one year on after the coalition was formed would the prime minister like to update the house on the progress that's been made in tackling the economic and financial waste land that was left to us by the previous government? >> the point i would make to the honorable gentleman is not only is exports growing and manufacturing growing. we've got 400,000 more people in work than there were a year ago. >> i apologize the prime minister. there's far too much noise in the chamber.

i heard the question. i want to hear the prime minister's answer. the prime minister. >> the fact is, mr. speaker, they don't want to hear what this government has achieved over last year because it's his government that has cut the deficit, that's capped immigration, that linked the past and reformed welfare and created more academy schools in 12 months than they managed in 12 years. that is a record with much more to do but i think the coalition can be proud of. >> dr. william mccray. ..

is going to have a seat in the northern irish assembly. has gotten so much to britain's armed forces. i want to see a strong armed forces covenant debated in this house and clearly referenced in law. i want to see us make bigger steps on the things we do to help our armed forces families. we have made some sense over the last year doubling the operational allowance and giving more money to schools where children go helping in ways including scholarships for those whose parents have fallen in battle. i believe there is more we can do and this government will not let up in making sure we have an armed forces covenant we can be proud of. >> statement thaw for the secretary. >> we will leave the british house of commons as they move to other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired

wednesday at 7:00 eastern when parliament is in session. you can see question time again sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions plus links to legislatures around the world. you can also watch video including programs dealing with other international issues. >> ninth circuit court of appeals in pasadena will decide if a teacher at first amendment free-speech rights were violated when the school board made bradley johnson take down banners like in god we trust and god bless america from his classroom. a lower court agreed with bradley johnson, the school district practice discrimination. here are the lawyers's oral arguments in the case. this is half an hour.

[bell ringing] >> all rise! this court resumes session. be seated. >> good morning once again. next case is 10-552445, johnson v. poway unified school district. each side has 15 minutes. >> if it please the court i would like to reserve five minutes. my name is jack sleeth of law

firm stutz, artiano, shinoff & holtz. we represent poway unified school district. as my first remarks i would like to focus on the freedom of speech case. i am sure the court is familiar with the factual record but the issue here is whether the district and administrators violated mr. johnson's rights when they asked him to remove his banners and replace them with posters with language in them wherein the original context where a more historical context. the trial court by leaping over the threshold issue of whether mr. johnson's speech was moving directly to a forum analysis. it was an error for couple reasons but the first reason is that this court has given some clear rule on how to approach

employee speech which followed the pickering-garcetti connick line of cases and of those two elements are examined mr. johnson has no speech rights leaders and we don't get into that issue. >> what do we do about the fact that a bulletin board you can decorate however you like but not in certain ways. >> what do we do with the fact the district has limitations? what we do with that is we define curriculum in a way -- they have a defined curriculum. if we define curriculum in other ways, as a way that is knowledge reformation imparted by a teacher during a school day that is hired and not permitted. material on the bulletin board

is under the control of the district as well as long as it is communicated to students. the issue is whether is directed to students. if you had a little bulletin board or a place beside his desk with inspirational messages directed only to him i don't think that raises a problem. it does not read the problem for the administrators in the case. the issue is the seventh long banner where the students can't miss it with repeated references to god and the nation in a sense that communicates to students that the united states is a judeo-christian nation. that may make someone who feels differently uncomfortable. >> were there any student complaints? >> there were none. >> weather in korean-made of students to see if they made every action one way or the other? >> there was not. the only thing we had was one teacher asked a question, didn't make a complaint but asked why

should he do that if i can't? >> was that feature prohibited from doing something? >> i don't know that. i don't know what the question was. he felt he could -- i want to -- there was a lot of press that this court outlawed one nation under god in the pledge of allegiance. this happened a couple years after that. i think teachers like that teacher felt he couldn't put that up because of the news. the court took a different position. >> he had these banners up for 25 years. >> yes. >> no one ever said anything. >> no one said anything or noticed -- an administrator couldn't even remember seeing them. one is a legal lancer, that the

district doesn't create an open forum or establish a right to bypass the of time under case law but factually, realistically administrators don't perry often go into senior respected teachers classrooms. this is an excellent teacher, good reputation in the school for teaching math, handle his students well and after ten years under california law you are required to evaluate a teacher. after you have done that five times i think administrators quit going into the classroom. >> this was a new principle. she had just taken over at the high school and if anything had said her predecessors no action had been taken. >> we couldn't find any record of anything being said. the assistant superintendent collins was deposed and was in a school for ages and he didn't

remember. he had evaluated this feature and didn't remember -- i have another explanation for that and that is when the teacher goes into the room, when an administrator goes into a room to evaluate a teacher he is not looking at walls. >> he couldn't have missed it based on what i saw. >> i agree. i wouldn't want to get into a debate about that. it was large and their concern was of large when it came to their attention but if you go into the room looking at the teacher and the interaction of teachers to students you might not look at the walls particularly -- >> didn't principal cast their testify that what she saw was the size of the banner? >> absolutely. and the word god was in much larger font than any of the other words in the phrases? >> the word creator in the second batter was much larger type and all caps like it was shouting the words. she was surprised by that.

>> why didn't she noticed it before? >> would it have made any difference if he was a civics or social studies teacher rather than a mathematics teacher? >> some other cases, as that context is extremely important so the answer to that has to be it would change the context. that may make the analysis a little bit different if it was the social studies class, if it was a history class and the item to be discussed -- my statement right now almost sounds silly because this was out for 25 years. wasn't up for a few days on a particular subject for a particular period of time. all of those things would change the context. >> what is difficult for me is one of the phrases the principal -- the principal and be superintendent found objective -- objected to was one nation

under god and yet every day in mr. johnson's classroom they say the pledge of allegiance, right? >> absolutely. >> that phrase is in the pledge of allegiance so it is okay if you say it in the middle of the pledge of allegiance but if you put it in on a banner and put it on the wall that is not ok? >> i was surprised that these administrators understanding of the current state of first amendment jurisprudence actually said that was because of context. taking it out of the pledge of allegiance and putting it on a banner with other phrases referring to america and got together change the context and the message and it appeared to them that the banners were directed at students with the intent to communicate something different than the context of the words of one nation under god as part of the pledge of allegiance where you come to the end and say one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [talking over each other]

>> what strikes me is how hypothetical this is. how the catch it seems to be from reality because of concern about impact on students yet no effort is made to inquire what affect it have on students if any. >> i don't think -- here was my thinking on why we didn't take the deposition to students. i thought we would get decisions -- answers that were -- >> that is too late. i am astonished administration makes a decision based on what they think might happen without chatting up a couple students. find out if anybody objects. if this is based on concern about how students would react maybe there should be some evidence of students reacting. >> he couldn't lead prayers weather or not students objected. >> i don't think it matters whether students objected. legal or illegal -- that was the reason given. >> the brief is she is concerned non christian students might adversely react. >> she didn't know if there was

a non christian student or scientology is for someone else like that in the room. she just thoughts, it would make some students uncomfortable. >> she never asked. >> and that is the correct reading when we get to the establishment clause. the endorsement -- [talking over each other] >> the threshold that this problem struck me as more theoretical than real. >> we thought it was illegal. >> that is something else again. frankly i disagree with you on that proposition. but the state of the establishment jurisprudence is such that who knows what is okay and what is not? >> that is the point i want to make on issue of freedom of speech and i hope the court can give us a broad line pull. and i would request this court follow the idea and language of

we -- be fine particular speech as outside the arena, and the fine it broadly. the fine curricular speech as any information or knowledge imparted by a teacher to student during class time or during the contract day or the workday or some language like that so we have a rule and leave teachers with their constitutional right to speak as they are off campus or in the lunchroom or on their break or other times like that but when they are working for the school district, a broad definition of curriculum and the exclusion of curricular speech from protection to the first amendment would give administrators a bright line rule and at least understand teachers speech. >> help me write the opinion. if we write the opinion in a way that we do that, would mr.

johnson as the adviser to the christian club be able to unfurl his banners while the christian club is meeting in the courtroom after school our? >> absolutely. we have to put an exception in to the rule. >> when he is volunteering, when he is off of his time and dealing with that student groups are don't think that is contract time. i would call that extracurricular. >> your down to three minutes. >> establishment clause issue. my principal argument is the school principal nailed the endorsement test by saying she was concerned some kids would feel like outsiders. we didn't violate it because we had a secular purpose. our primary effect didn't inhibit his religion because we offered other posters to put up and by removing it avoided

government entanglement with religion. moving to equal protection which frankly was the most complicated issue and there are other diagrams, i have very little time left. so the thing i would like to say is the court would look at those tibetan prayer flags and the picture in volume ii on page 203 and ask whether any rational person could look at those flags and come to any conclusion that their primary purpose--for that they had any primary purpose related to religion at all. from the for their high up and one little buddha that might be a religious symbol is an inch and a half tall among a group of flags on the other side of the room buried in squiggles that armed told our sanskrit. >> you can't find anybody who can translate it? >> can't find anybody who can read it. the teacher asked her students

if she has kids from all over including thailand and areas close to the home of the sanskrit language and none of them could read it. none of them had any idea that it was religious and she was using it for a secular purpose to talk about carrying the flags of mount everest and because she talked about sea shells on the top of mount everest. the trial court didn't believe that. he didn't believe her but it is the only evidence we have of her purpose in putting up the flag is that she put them up and use them to talk about evolution and sea shells on top of mount everest. the secondary purpose of a picture of buddha might be religious. the issue of whether the tibetans believe in these flags or not doesn't reach our school district. the school district is concerned about documents or speech that would have a primary effect of establishing or endorsing religion and those flags don't do it so we treat everybody

alike and if someone else had something that endorsed religion we would have pulled down. we did not see that. and to qualify in unity i was stunned when the trial court issued a $10 award of damages against the school board members and administrators. they did not punish mr. johnson. they have a good relationship with mr. johnson. it is a philosophical discussion and there is no possibility anybody could no fool me in 2007 to 2008 that the words one nation under god up along the wall were permissible in a school district particularly -- >> thank you. >> good morning. >> good morning. if it please the court my name is robert muise and it is my privilege to represent the plaintiffs, mr. bradley johnson. this case presents a unique set

of facts that are not contested and fact matter at the end of the day. based on the facts the school district did create limited public forum for the non curricular personal speech of its features including mr. johnson. >> is that the analysis or should we begin with the supreme court's decision in pickering-garcetti connick and ask whether or not this was actually hired speech by a public employee who is directed by the school board to teach a particular subject matter? and is entitled to make policy as to what may or may not be taught in the classroom? >> when you look at the first amendment jurisprudence dealing with the use of a government facility and whether the limits can place on the use of the facility for the purpose they are designed for as opposed to their use of those facilities or property for expressive activity

you conduct a formal analysis. >> even though the audience is captive? >> even though the audience is captive. it is a principal analysis based on these facts. >> that is not what we said in the los up or down. >> downs built with a form analysis or would have done a formal analysis and determined the speech was -- because it was government speech and the government speaking you don't have a first amendment issue because once -- >> we need to make that decision first. >> look at the testimony of the people in the school district testifying on rules 30 b 6 and one is curriculum or not recommend that is why facts matter. directed without exception they testify this was personal long career killer speech not related to the curriculum. they testified that -- >> the captive audience strikes

me. the principal audience is a bunch of kids required by law to be in that classroom for whatever the length of the period is each day. that is the target audience. the target audience is there only because of the school district. >> not sure i understand why it is we disregard the fact that it is not happening during the school day through the vehicle of the school, commentary being offered up by someone who is an employee of the school. why do we disregard that? >> the question of the first amendment deals with government restricting speech of an individual weather it be an employee or employer and there are other cases -- >> you don't take the position that the school couldn't ban this altogether? >> this is where the problem comes in. because they created this forum for naught particular speech the government could based on the arguments in council, we will

allow you to put up campaign posters but we won't allow you to put up a democrat campaign poster. you can put up posters to promote the campaign of john mccain or some other republican candidate go right ahead. put them up and your cholesterol. but you want to put up democratic posters you can't do that. they created the problem themselves. look at what more versus vincent when the government creates the forum, when they allow these -- there's no dispute that is what they have done. they have to live by the limit they set for themselves. you can make viewpoint based discrimination. if they want control of their classes, they have the option available. >> suppose we disagree with your analysis of how the forum is characterized and we find for

the reason articulated by judge clifton that the forum is closed. doesn't that strengthened the right of the school district to dictate what may or not be tested -- posted on its wall in the classroom particularly when the contents are being displayed to students who have to be there? >> you have a problem with discrimination even in a non public forum. >> do we have a problem? under pickering, if this was not of a public interest, if it is instead the employers speech which is to be confined to what ever curriculum mr. johnson as a teacher is supposed to be teaching them of the supreme court has told us there is no first amendment protection. the school board can tell mr. johnson what he may say or not say when he is on:00.

>> not nearly so much bickering but garcetti based on the duties they were hired to do so it would be government speech. the court's decision in balance when they found a government speaking is government speech. if it doesn't grow, if it is government speech, and not non curricular personal speech on the individual they can make those restrictions. that is why the fact matter. in we they said was curricular speech but they said the fourth circuit, had it been personal long particular speech they would have -- the school district would have had shown a material substantial disruption to restrict that speech. >> if you take the position that nothing on the walls of mr. johnson's classroom could be curricular, what do we do with these huge white chalk boards

that i see on e r 284 which i presume mr. johnson when speaking to oculist's rights the calculus formula? >> they open the form doesn't mean it can't be used for particular speech either. that seems to be -- >> if mr. johnson is using the same location in order to carry out the directives of the school board to teach mathematics, why doesn't the school board have a right to say to him we want you to teach mathematics, we do not want you talking about religion when you have this captive audience? >> they want to close the forum and exclude personal long particular speech of the student tell lori brickley she can't put a per promoting gay rights or environmental causes or anti-war causes or barack obama campaign poster or don't put these other personal items. if they want to take that position they can.

they can't single out mr. johnson after having allowed those banners up for 25 years and say we don't like your viewpoint. they are still the government at the end of the day. they are not enclaves of totalitarianism taking a quote from the pinkckering case. that is why it is different from pickering-garcetti connick and all those other cases. they chose to open that for mandel of the personal nontariff this speech and they have to live by those restrictions. >> suppose we define curricular to define more than what the teacher says when class is in session. let's define it to say that a teacher is employed as a leader to impart all kinds of information to students and that is done in addition to what is said in the classroom by other things the teacher does while he is on the school premises.

>> with the court licensing a school district during the next campaign election that would allow the teachers to put up all the democrats--all the campaign posters for barack obama but none for any republican appointee. that is the huge problem. >> are you saying there are no limits to what they can regulate as far as his bulletin board if it is an open forum? can he put up white supremacy posters? >> it is a limited public forum so you can make content based restrictions. they could say no political campaign posters. >> how about no religious stuff? >> if you want to preclude crosses and 10 commandments displays they could do that. they have the tibetan prayer flag -- >> the point is in context no religious significance to the tibetan prayer flags as there is

to what mr. johnson did. they're not comparing apples and oranges. >> with images of buddha of they knew they were tibetan prayer flags. comparing those 2 these historical phrases, those are not from sacred texts, there from our founding documents. they don't represent any particular religion. they are historical in nature. >> hard to take that straight given the display of the word creator. there's a message meant to be conveyed. it is not an accident that mr. johnson is conveying what happened to be his personal views with regard to the existence and importance of god. to suggest these are a bunch of historical documents is just not how it is. >> i think it is, is particularly when you look at

the context of the fact that the role religion played in the history of the nation. any different than a poster of mother teresa or martin luther king. i don't think there's a problem having those in the classroom. no one -- these are historical events. there are not quoting the bible or sacred texts. even creator in the declaration of independence is capitalized. it used the word nature's god. >> is capitalized in the declaration of independence? only the first letter is. and the banner. >> to say a student of votes in this stand that is the declaration of independence we have bigger problems than -- [talking over each other] >> to say the student doesn't understand the religious message is meant to be conveyed means we have bigger problems still. you say students don't pick up the religious message? this wasn't meant to convey a religious message? >> it is not meant to display

religious message. [talking over each other] >> don't give me the legal question. you say it is all about facts. are students likely to win for from these banners a religious message? >> no. in god we trust is our national model. declaration of independence is our founding document. >> students won't in for a religious message from these banners? >> for them to make a viewpoint based distinction and -- it cannot be an unfounded fear and that is an unfounded fear based on the fact of the case. it is mr. johnson's >> any student when you look of those photographs go to any particular classroom you will see the classroom represents the personalities, opinions and values of that teacher whether it is the sports or social activist -- if you look at the great number of pictures in his class from our nature pictures you say there is somebody that

loves nature. >> you can see this argument in its entirety on c-span.org. we are leaving this to go live to the council on foreign relations for remarks from house intelligence committee chair mike rogers who is expected to talk about lessons learned from the killing of osama bin laden. live coverage on c-span2. >> -- relevant to our conversation today. let me do the necessary which is turn your gadgets off and that means all the way off. not on beep or vibrate. our meeting is on the record. we have a number of members of the press. i want everyone to be aware the entire session is on a record. the format will be as follows. congressman will offer his remarks for 15 minutes and then we will engage in a q&a together and at 8:40 we will open the floor to you for all your questions. when that time comes we will

wait for the mike and introduce yourself and your affiliation. congressman rogers will be talking to us about the implications and lessons about the significance of the successful attack on osama bin laden for the intelligence business and so we look forward to those remarks and we welcome you, mr. chairman. >> good morning. it is great to be here. i appreciate the opportunity and thanks for your work in the intelligence business. you did some work at the united nations and you now work on the pi piap. they change acronym's more than they change their underwear. thank you much for that. jane harmon, a former colleague who is now in a think tank so apparently that makes you smarter than you were before which i didn't think was

possible but thank you for being here. it is good when you walk up to give a speech when jane harman and with a good and callable speaker says don't screw this up. appreciate that. my good friend bud mcfarlane, i am honored to see you here. national security adviser for ronald reagan. thank you for being there. i think paul bremer is in the audience. former ambassador. i don't know if you know that ambassador of my wife in iraq worked with you for quite a while. thank you for sending her of back in one piece. i would like to talk a little bit about where we are. before i talk about where we are i want to talk about where we came from. ten years ago on the date of 911 the intelligence community was very different than it is today. it had suffered huge losses in

the 90s. we had cut back in some places. no coverage whatsoever. we closed down shop and a lot of places. they used the intelligence community has the opportunity for peace dividends and the fall of the soviet union. we see leading up to 9/11 with a serious mistake that was. and we saw that the problems that were inherent in the shrinking organization and its ability to want to survive and do good and continue to do its mission became hundred down. they hunkered down to a place where information sharing was a huge problem for them. from of the hurdles that were there were legal problems. i often heard as an fbi agent about a cultural problem between the fbi and the cia about sharing information. it wasn't personality based. it was legally based. the ability to share information from grand juries was a crime. as i said i don't look good in

those orange jumpsuits with the numbers across the front. so what that meant was the culture that was developed was developed because the rules in the road prevented those things from happening and over time it became known from the fbi and the cia you don't talk to each other. there is a legal prohibition to do that so that was ingrained in guam and policies and institutions. there was a shrinking intelligence community. human intelligence is not valuable. it is just too risky. we need to pull back. we are going to eliminate large numbers of our intelligence community and it lead to 9/11. once 9/11 happened the question of who is responsible or who do we blame, but at the same time something remarkable happened. all of our intelligence agencies

realized they weren't prepared for this. in the integration started. we saw our technology that didn't exist ten years ago that is today absolutely critical to the success of those missions and integrated in a way i have never seen before before all of our services. the case that we saw last week to me is a great example of how it can work. but i caution this. it was one successful operation in what is a long and hard fight against al qaeda, its affiliates and those who want to do harm to the united states. we heard calls that this is the opportunity to do it just like that every time and dismantle other large parts of the intelligence business. couldn't be further from the truth and we need to caution ourselves and take lessons from the 90s as we move forward so let's look what happened.

ten years ago the target was osama bin laden. they had an osama bin laden unit in the cia and its function was to understand, study and see what lethality they had and there were events that were concerning to them. the bombing of the uss cole, all of those things had an impact but none stretched across the ocean and touched the united states directly. when 9/11 happened it took a unit that was fairly obscure, didn't get the resources and made it incredibly important. what we realized as we don't have enough human intelligence, we don't have the ability to touch people using the correct language as often as we would like. our ability to have signals collection and places where we need it was lacking and it was very washington d.c. centered to the rest of the world.

we didn't court made as well as we could with all the other intelligence collection platforms we might have. just didn't really happen in that way. so something really amazing started. we started taking people off the battlefield and gave them interrogation. think about why that was important to where we are today. a senior intelligence official told me a couple years ago that about 70% of what the intelligence community understands about operations, recruiting, finance, weapons move would be below how they raise money and what the unit looks like and all of those things including what the relationship is with the economy network for the intelligence of country a or b, came out of the first year's interrogation. all of them. that is important because if you're going to get to the next

place you have to understand who they are and how they operate and five years ago through interrogation a small bit of information came out, a nickname applied to and alias, pretty difficult. that is all they had. it may have been tied to one of the korean networks used by osama bin laden. that is what they had but it was more than they had a long time. they started building on that case using every piece of intelligence technology, human intelligence we had. sources became incredibly important to try to keep defining who this might be or what a physical description was of one operational status they might have. signal intelligence got better and our ability to get signal intelligence got better so small conversations ended up reaping big rewards to help identify who, what, when and why.

our ability to use overhead inventory that tracked patterns of life and other movement was integrated. and to last august that continued on. if you have ever seen a pin board on potential leads you can imagines it lit up like a christmas tree. ayman al-zawahiri or osama bin laden, many joked they thought he was with elvis at a burger king, there was a pin on that map. they decided to follow every lead and every time no matter how small or large or outrageous, labor going to dedicate a little bit of time to see if there is any merit to it particular lead. they say the largest grossing starbucks in the united states is at cia headquarters and there's a reason for that. it is open a lot and there are a lot of people drinking a lot of

coffee following lots of leads and most of them went nowhere. most were dry holes. most of them actually took us away from where the target may be. than that one lucky break using all the pieces, every little piece got better. one interrogation got you the next -- the nickname and the next got your home town or real family name. and where that person might be working. all of that led to a lucky event. when they were able to follow a particular individual to a certain compound. it didn't fit the characteristics. some called it a mansion. they clearly didn't set the characteristics. it clearly did not fit the characteristics of the town it was in so they set about putting a special unit, isolated unit in the counter-terrorism business and decided they were going to have the equivalent of a pursuit

team analyze everything at the next level up and utilize the resources, all of the resources that we had with all of the agencies that we had to apply on that particular target. we wanted to know everything. the next few months they started to know everything. the complete patterns of life. all of things you hoped they would nose so somebody could make a very good decision to say that is probably osama bin laden. all of these things and all the lessons and operation built on something that came before. those special forces teams did two and three raids a night when they were working in iraq and afghanistan much like the same kind of compound or operation with very similar to many other operations which gave them a high degree of confidence and high degree of combat experience

and operational experience to pull off something a little trickier. that was an incredible feat. the agency's ability to get closer and closer to sources of information or people who would wittingly or unwittingly provide information about patterns of life. our ability to pick up the smallest thing that might benefit that operation and it all happened because we learned from what happened before. some notion this was put together at the last minute based on a few months for a few years of planning is ridiculous. why that is so important is now that this success, a very public success, the calls have started for changing the shape of the intelligence business, changing the mission in afghanistan, this is the only way we should conduct operations as we move forward when we are trying to

break the back of al qaeda and i couldn't disagree more. we have to take the lessons of the 90s and apply them to today. we have all the tools that have been laid out. the patriot act, the fact that this year we are going to do a fiscal year 11 bill that will not authorize the ability of the intelligence community to do proper oversight on the 17 agencies for the first time. the authority and leadership is important. lee and and that has done an incredible job. not only did he engaged the chairman at the big 8 level all through the process but when resources were needed or not needed, when we needed to move resources or, they, all of that became a working relationship. in the last few years the committee became almost dysfunctional in its ability to provide that leadership and assistance and help and

oversight to the communities because of the partisanship. my ranking member and i have worked early on from the point we both assumed our roles as chairman and ranking member that we were going to take partisanship out of the intelligence committee as much of your hand there's a benefit to not having a reporter sitting in that audience. reporters might not think so but those of us in the committee know how important that is, that you have that dialogue and that debate and come to an agreement. we have -- we are going to look at all the successes on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 including catching osama bin laden. we had some great ones. the network which was completely different as we get so focused -- that we forget that agencies are working lot of other very serious steps at the same time.

in 2006, a major cue for the intelligence community. and stopped a serious problem for us and our national security interests and the world. that proliferation network was growing rapidly. it had a different flavor from any proliferation you might see in north korea. it was culturally based and pride based and not necessarily-based. in some cases they gave bad actors including libya, which includes the failures we still have to pursue and understand why they happened. in iraq the wm the assessment was wrong but so was the wm d assessment wrong in libya. libya was far more advanced. they had a very advanced nuclear weapons program, are robust chemical stockpile, a very robust biological weapons program. we didn't know about any of them.

we had a very limited view and analytical product about where libya was compared to what we found. wrong in iraq, wrong in libya, both for the wrong reasons and one we said at too much, one we didn't know they hardly had any at all. we need to continue to integrate, integrate technology. one of the biggest problems we have today in the last ten years, we developed a way to collect so much information we can't get through it all. we are going to have smart access for people who need to get access to material so we don't have a wiki leaks disclosure and technology applied to our databases that will allow us to have a software based analytical product so when human eyes take a look at it is already narrowed down and encompasses more information than they can call from you in

any short order and we will -- that stops the ability to be wrong on iraq, decreases the opportunity to be wrong on iraq and wrong on libya. it increases our ability to be right on iran and exactly right on north korea. a lot of speculation in the last few years about where they were. we keep finding information every day that points to are more aggressive analysts were right about iran's intentions and where they are and same with north korea. when they were making a deal with us to stop their program and take food aid they were engaged pursuing weapons of mass destruction and a pretty aggressive rate. one of the purposes we agreed to do this today and thanks for the opportunity, put it in context where we came from history and how we got to where we were last week. and renews the call for

continued oversight to continue work on policies and other things that made them successful. we have seen pressure on the patriot act and don't need it now. the enemy is gone. couldn't be further from the truth. one of the great analogies i heard on the way over was when the doctor gives you the regiment of medicine if you take half of it and think you are better and no way you will get sick again. this is about taking all of our medicine. al qaeda is alive and well. they are hurt, damaged, their inspirational and operational leader has been taken off of the battlefield. this is a huge opportunity for us. confusion with them is opportunity for us and this is the time to step on the gas and brake bareback. we are going into the political season, lots of people will be disclosing information they shouldn't be talking about when we are continuing to pursue but at the end of the day we will

take this opportunity to analyze from stem to stern, are our analysts doing right thing? why did we miss the times square bomber? we are not there yet. we will continue integration with our analysts. we will continue to share information in a way that is smart, we will continue to make sure they are funded at the right level. this is wrong time to back off on funding the intelligence community when they are very close to a technological breakthrough that will make our analytical product exponentially better by giving analysts access to far more information. starck fyi 11 bio our fyi 11 bi

down payment. one of the items you will see coming out of the house that will be a slight increase because of the investment in technology and people. and leslie r. will save through all the politics of interrogation and all those things that crept into our political debate, it is important to understand leadership on these issues from the top to the bottom was equally important as osama bin laden catching anything else. good on the president for taking a look at the information and of a rising the operation itself. we need to make sure all the policymakers from the executive branch and congress understand that all of the things that led up to osama bin laden have to be improved on and need to have the leadership behind them so they can continue to produce the kind

of information leading to ayman al-zawahiri. this is not a time to retreat. i don't know if you want to take some questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [applause] >> i will give -- get us started with a few questions. one of the observations you made is we don't catch all of them and the example you gave, domestic terrorist incidents. you talk about integration of the intelligence community. let's focus on integration of the committee structure on the hill. post 9/11 one of the other institutions which had homeland security responsibility, they are the ones who have the lead

on these sections of domestic and integration of fbi and national intelligence. how do you relate to the other committees that have at least in part an intelligence responsibility? armed services and homeland security, what is working and still needs to be addressed in terms of an organization to deal with electronics -- intelligence matters. >> one of the big complaints of the 9/11 commission, how many committees you have to talk to. that is a long-term problem for congress to fix. we have to deal with it eventually. probably not any time soon. the most serious fights i have ever seen, makes other parts of politics look like child's play. what we have done is brought in

change the rules for the first time to allow three members of the appropriations committee to be full partners without a vote in to the committee. they have the clearances, they sit on the committee, they participate in the briefings and i argue that is one step closer to where the 9/11 commission has been and so far so good. they will participate on every level. that way we can have a discussion with somebody who sits on appropriation about all the information surrounding a particular issue that gets us to a better conclusion. that has helped us already on the 2011 bill. two republicans in this case because the majority ratio word democrat. we have reached out and we are doing joint efforts with on services.

in a sense to work out the military intelligence which is huge. in some cases larger -- we have better integration to work out the issues. homeland security we don't deal with as much but we have worked with the fbi on this transition with the analytic court primarily. it has been a big switch. double put somebody in jail to a report -- is not the fbi's culture and there are still some bumps in the road. they have come a long way and doing great work. just something we have been working with. we have done our own out reach to solve that problem. i am not sure exactly. it would take an act of congress to fix congress but i am not sure -- i don't think we are ready politically to realign those committees in the way it

should be done. it is probably not going to happen. >> you talked about the successful integration across intelligence disciplines partly inspired by the lessons of 9/11 and the intelligence reform legislation in 2004. and creation of the director of national intelligence. to you think that integration is working well on topics other than terrorism? >> it had a rough start. it had a rough assignment to try to bring together all of the intelligence services. some positive things have come out of this. the president's daily brief is removed from the cia so you have more participation in the other intelligence services to get a better product that the president had an opportunity to see. there is more input than there used to be. and the whole intelligence

community. that is a good outlook. i do think -- i worked with director clapper. a lot of argument about how big it should be. we have gotten past how big this thing should be and what really is the mission of the office of director of national intelligence and if we could focus that mission on the non sexy things of the intelligence world it would be hugely successful. when we get there we will come into line for what the mission is. he is doing a review that he hopes to present very soon. i support him doing that and i do think if anything came out of that one of the things congress said is you have got to share information better and that clearly has to happen. we are going to put this out and share, it is a little risky. we think we can fix that

problem. but it promoted information sharing across the intelligence community like it never happened before. and of those two.com is coming out, that was very helpful. ..

>> popular with constituents. how do you think the american public cares about intelligence and if intelligence was to be only part of the national security budget that we're going up, do you think the american public would support that? >> well, i do think the american public exemplifies it and that's the bin laden success and we invested a lot of money in the process of not just that particular event but the ability to do exactly that. i do think that americans see that and interpret that for what it is, that we have a second to none intelligence service in the world and there are out doing very dangerous things. politically, it's hard to go to the town hall hearing and i'm a member of the intelligence committee and by the way, i can't talk about it. so very quickly we turn onto things like the gas prices and

economy and jobs as i should when i'm back home. but i do think americans do see it for what it is and the value that it is. intelligence is playing a more important role in policymaker decisions than i think i've ever seen in my time in congress or before. it has the real time essence of how the world is changing. you have to make real time changes as a policymaker in washington, d.c. and without good, accurate well analyzed intelligence it makes our job that more difficult and more likely you'll make a mistake. and it's absolutely critical that we create a robust intelligence service. i actually brought in auditors for the first time on the committee to go through budget audits to try to find things that we thought we could change. that we could get a little savings on. and it's been very effective. we think we've saved probably a

couple hundred million bucks just this year alone in merging programs programs together. we get to peer over the silos and sometimes you can see one silo is doing and it looks awful similar. they might not know it. so we've been able to merge some of that together and we think get some savings out and that's where the dni has been helpful as well. >> i'm going to open it up to all of you and wait foot mic and to please introduce yourself. >> thank you, ellen. welcome, mike, off the hill to a bipartisan bastian as is the wilson center, too. i'm enjoying my new service here. two things in your announcement you didn't mention the erpsa.

it was passed over the implacable opposition of then secretary of defense rhythms and then chairman of the arms services committee duncan hunter. we had to make some compromises but it was bipartisan legislation strongly supported and, in fact, originated in the house intelligence committee. and your predecessor pete hokstra but they credited erpa helping to create the seamlessness that was necessary to put the clues together that were the predicate for finding osama bin laden. i think you would agree with that and i think you would agree going forward we have to continue doing that and do other things. my question is, we seem to be much better than doing that horizontally at the federal

level. you're a former fbi guy and i think you get the fact that we also have to share intelligence vertically from the federal let me down to our communities. and there, i think, we still have a lot of problems with overclassification and with less leadership than we might need. because if we're going to find the next attack and hopefully prevent or disrupt it in our country, we need fully informed law enforcement at the local level. so my question to you is, how can we do better with vertical information-sharing using the tools at hand? and using the oversite that congress can provide? >> yeah, that's something we wrestle with. the department of homeland security has kind of -- their analytical unit has tried to take this role and take classified information, put it in a format of which is readable

and unclassified and then get it out through joint terrorism task force, fusion centers, et al. my only concern was that maybe we went too fast on -- you can -- you might have a joint terrorism task force and a fusion center within a few miles of each other in some places of the country. and it's hard for local law enforcement to supply the people in these tight budgetary times to these task force that some would order -- i'm not sure what i got out of it. right? they're judged by solving burglaries, homicides and other crimes, and this is a more nebulous concept that we're going to help prevent something bad. i'm not sure i know the answer other than we need to continue to take that information. i would argue we probably ought to relook at how we do it and how we structure them. we could probably do it in a much more efficient way than we did right after -- right after 2004, we were in a hurry to get things going.

i think we ought to have a hard look at it and try to get information that's useable. the other thing we had -- what i used to call it the need to know and with whom to share and we got in a big rush that everybody had to know and everything that's not the right answer either. and one of the systems that we're working on that we can work on that endgame is having the ability for smart access to system so that if i'm an analyst in fill in the blank, i'm an analyst in south america, i probably really don't need to understand what's going on in yemen unless there's a clear nexus and if there's not that nexus, they won't have that information to that electronically so you couldn't get another wikileaks, you couldn't get a massive data dump down and moving on. it would still continue this notion that i have access to everything and you try to take

that and try to find something, yes, it's important to detroit, maybe not necessarily important for maine. i mean, we need to share information with where it can be of some value. and that's really, i think, that next phase where that goes. it will look more efficient, i think. >> back in 2005, sir richard galeb was retiring from mi6 and he said the time was now at hand for changes in intelligence on a multilateral basis as opposed to the binational basis we do it today. i was just wondering if you shared that view or not? >> yeah, there was -- there has been some big changes in how we share multilateral. our liaison services -- their lack of time would love to talk about the liaison service. we could probably do a whole hour on that.

and how we developed those services for better cooperation. we share information with people that you might be surprised on counterterrorism targets because we've been able to get buy-in in on who a common enemy is. and so we try to do that as fast as and as real as we can because we have found over time that with good relationships we get better information as well. our british and our australian and new zealand canadian friends are some of our best partners in the war on terror, and we have fairly seamless information-sharing but this is that part of leadership i talked about. when there are problems you can see it manifest itself in these liaison services. we had some experiences in the last year or so because of relationships with certain countries that it filters down to our ability to share information with liaison services. so those -- it is a top-down

leadership -- you don't want to offend our british friends often. they have something like 3 to 400,000 pakistani males from 18 to 35 travel back and forth to the tribal areas and everywhere else in pakistan every single year. i know they're worried about it and that means we ought to be worried about it. we need a very robust relationship. we've done some real time sharing now. they have access to some of our data systems, like i've never seen before, in real time. they're intagrated here in the united states. we're integrated there in the united kingdom. it works great. the problem is -- we have to be consistent up and down the pipe. sharing information that shouldn't be shared means that people stop sharing information with us. i'm trying to talk around here as best as i can. there have been instances where

information was shared here that caused liaison partners to say if you continue to do this, we will stop talking to you. very dangerous. >> barbara slavin of the atlantic county. good morning, chairman, ellen. did you know about the osama bin laden raid or were you one of the select few? and i hope so, yeah. secondly, i wanted to ask about iran. what in your view has been the most effective set of tools against the iranian nuclear program? has it been sanctions? has it been other intelligence collection, assassinations? and where do you think they are? thanks. >> wow, look at the time. [laughter] >> first on the first part, leon panetta has done an exceptional good job at the cia. maybe it's a product of being a former member but he's very good about understanding how valuable

a partnership can be with the intelligence committee. and he has done that. so when i became chairman, i had -- we called it a dinner and a briefing to come over and go over where we were back in january about what the possibilities were, and at that time it was, you know, 40 to 50% shop of who it was and you could see just over time and he was very good about keeping us in the loop and offering for suggestions and we had to move some money and all of that, i thought, a well done on behalf of the cia director to do it that way and i think it was much more effective that way. and i'll miss him at the cia. and i'm sure general petraeus will do a great job but i keep saying leon i'm not talking talk to him anymore since he will be secretary of defense. and he'll do a great job there. the second part, this is one of those interesting areas where early on was some policy differences at the very senior levels about how you approach

iran, so you had other countries with other equities who were far more aggressive, who were leaning far more aggressive that maybe didn't line up with where the united states was a couple of years ago. there was some -- there was just some misalignment of how aggressive we wanted to be and you could imagine where israel was and then go around the rim and you'd get as many different opportunities and suggestions about how we go about this as you could possibly imagine. and so some of when you have a seen over time has been because of -- there has not been one single focused plan on how we get there. i do think that's a lack of u.s. leadership on this particular issue. we have to lead this effort. we should be sitting at that head of that table discussing those ideas and then talking about it with our european allies. iran's neighbors who are as

equally terrified of a nuclear iran as israel is. and so i think we can come to some common approaches to this. we haven't done that yet. i think that needs to happen. so, yes, you're going to see these other things that may have not have been as coordinated as well as they probably should have been. >> and the second row there's a gentleman in the middle. >> clayton swisher with aa aljaengineea al-jazeea al-jazee al-jazeera. you've singled out american special forces have gained doing repeat operations in iraq that helped prepare for their success in last week's raid and you also talked i presume about the enhanced interrogation methods that helped yield information that led to the courier which led to the compound mansion

where bin laden was found. well, what if america hadn't pursued a war in iraq that alienated so many muslims around the world? and what if they had done the interrogations without laying a hand on the persons in custody, do you think it wouldn't have taken the united states 10 years to find more information on bin laden's whereabouts? and throwing on to that, the policies of the united states that have been pursued over the last at the point years, whether it's the unbridled support for israel and its very controversial policies in the region, none of them have substantively been changed by the united states. how do you see your role in looking at american foreign policy and whether different approaches might have led to a better conclusion less than 10 years possibly? >> sure. well, that would be great if you dismissed everything that had happened before the 1993 bombing in new york, as i said the

cobort towers, uss cole, the way we were operating then didn't work and they were getting more aggressive and more bold, and they were feeling their oats, they were recruiting. they were using those successes -- the barocks bombing. i know doug mcfarland was trying to deal with that. all of those successes led them to be more bold, to recruit more people. we didn't have -- there was no guantanamo bay. there was no interrogations there was really not much of anything going on against al-qaeda, bin laden, and his network. what we found was, it was growing better, stronger, and more sophisticated. so 9/11 was a result of, i argue, not having an aggressive policy and not understanding the threat of al-qaeda and what their true intentions were to not only the united states -- al-qaeda has killed more muslims than they've killed any

westerners and they continue to do it, in every country in which they reside. so some notion that we're just going to go back to the way it was and somehow we're going to get -- this is all going to go away, i think, is naive at best. and that's why we have found such good partners in muslim countries who say, you're right. they got to go. they're dangerous -- their as dangerous to a muslim family as they are to an american family. and that's been our success. and i didn't talk about enhanced technique interrogations. you brought it up. but all of the interrogations that were conducted over time -- you took somebody off the battlefield, you're going to talk to them. i don't think you have to use torture to get information. i'm a former fbi guy. obviously, we had our way. but all of those interrogations netted information that helped us get smarter about who they were and how they operated and everybody up talked to -- that gives you an opportunity to

solve that next big problem for our effort to break the back of al-qaeda, so he -- -- so, yes, i think we should be interrogating and that we're interrogating cia officers who engaged in interrogations lawfully and then celebrate the fact that that -- all of that information may have contributed so the fact we had osama bin laden is confusing. and so i argue we need to shake ourselves out of this and have a good interrogation policy. we do need to have a place to put them if we get zawahiri off the battlefield, where do you put them? the director of the cia said if we got bin laden he would have to go to grid box but that's one facility from inside people getting out and some outside getting in. one of the biggest one where they took 500 fighters out of a tunnel and by the way, they're

back on the battlefield fighting so i just think we have to shake ourselves out of this notion about political cycles when we talk about information. this has been a decades-long problem. and came up on the old system and we have seen how it has worked under the old system and under this system, osama bin laden is dead. >> a question in the very back row. the gentleman. i'll come back to you. >> thanks, mr. chairman. whether or not there was official pakistani on this policity in the hash harboring of osama bin laden and the fact on who he was, excuse me, do you think the administration to publicly acknowledge if there is evidence produced of pakistani complicity, that they should make that public?

that the american people have a right to know that the man who was responsible for 9/11 was being harbored by another government? should that be made public or given the nature of the u.s./pakistani relationship, should that evidence remain classified and not released? >> interesting question. you know, pakistan is one of the most confusing relationships we have with another country. and as i talk about those liaison relationships, they're incredibly important. so you have a country that sent its army into the tribal areas really for the first time since it became a nation. and the tribal areas under their own constitution are treated as a semi autonomous area so this was a big deal and they've taken thousands and thousands of casualties in that fight, lots. they've also helped us arrest some 600 al-qaeda and taliban leadership, everybody from bomb makers to financiers to weapons

dealers and the whole host and everything in between in the settled areas. so those are the days you think this is a good ally. this is somebody we need to be a partner with. at the same time, they hold a diplomat for 42 days against a treaty in which they signed who had immunity status. they interrogated him. i mean, just unbelievable for a country that wants to join the rest of the world as a law-abiding country. you have at least the notion about bin laden and why was he able to -- i mean, clearly he had a logistics network who knew and what they knew is something we're asking lots of questions about. we do know the frontier corps riddled with sympathizers with the taliban simply because it's familiar. they have family ties that cross tribes even in the area. that's presented a huge problem. we know that certain isi members

still have a sympathy toward the taliban and certain al-qaeda elements and the haqqani network which i argue is more like an organized crime family than it is a tribe. you have all of those problems all going on all at the same time. it is a confusing place and our national interests haven't lined up. pakistan has not really come to the conclusion that the taliban and al-qaeda is as big a threat as india. they believe india is their problem. and that has been, i think, the united states's struggle all along. so they look at this, gee, we would like to help, we're going to try to help but have you looked at india lately? boy, that's a real problem. and so that's the struggle that we've had with pakistan. i do believe that we're going to have to ask tough questions. we need to understand. i think it's inherent as our relationship continues here that we know who, what, where and why about osama bin laden being in this particular compound for as

much as five years. we should all understand that. and that's -- today, i will tell you today, from all the information i had seen, we can't conclusively say that somebody senior knew and promoted safe haven. clearly, there may have been elements that have -- that knew and looked the other way. but we can't say the institutions yet knew and looked the other way. hopefully, we will know that, i believe. and this is a good opportunity for pakistan to say, listen, this was -- this was embarrassing. let's move forward. there's a lot we can do together and let's talk about all the things we can do together to break the back of the counterterrorism threat emanating from the tribal areas and settled areas in pakistan. [inaudible] >> okay. if we -- >> i think we do.

i don't know. >> this is washington, d.c. when does anything not become public in this town? i mean, clearly, i think that information will be made public -- if it's true. i don't think you can contain it. you know, you had the political side of pakistan talks this more year. some of the leaks of the programs over there came out of the pakistanis. it didn't come out of the u.s. government. so i clearly think that will get out. >> we'll take a few more questions. i've got charlie stevenson and then the person in the back and then we'll try to get to you the next time. >> many years ago i helped write the law that requires the president to make a finding and notify congress when there's going to be a covert operation. do you think that law should be broadened to cover operations that are conducted, say, solely by defense department personnel? >> hmmm, well, it's a great question and one that i said other that we're going to take a look at.

the title 10 versus the title 50 you know military operations versus intelligence operations and all the ways it gets reported. i do believe we need to do some work and there's great examples -- there's great examples, osama bin laden from stem to stern was a title 50 operation even though it used a weak special forces unit to carry out the final act. there are other places in the world where there is some confusion about should it be a title 10 operation or a title 50 operation. and so, yes, we're going to review that. we're going to have an opportunity to go pretty carefully over a case-by-case many of which we can't talk about, but some that we can to try to get to a better place on it. i do believe that you have to be very careful about empowering the military to do things under title 50 without the same reporting and covert action. we watch that like a hawk.

we have full-on quarterly briefings on covert actions plus. i mean, we do it pretty frequently. i think jay knows that. this is something that we don't let get too far away because this is the most sensitive and it certainly is fraught with the most opportunity for something to go wrong. so we watch it pretty closely. that military piece seems to be missing. we're going to try to close that, that fine line and that gap by a review of title 50 and title 10 operations. >> in the way back. >> thank you very much. i come, i said from that area. thank you very much. my question is pakistan is telling the government and the military is telling its people they have shared information with the united states at some level leading to osama bin laden

in a compound in islamabad. how does the united states think the intelligence was shared? and if it were not, do you think there is a need for pakistan to be sincere on that front with the united states, number 1. and number second, how much the pakistan tricky relationship with the united states make it difficult for the congress now at this particular time that questions are raised on the pakistan government at the state levels that it's playing game with the u.s. and with the world? it is finding difficult to aid the military of pakistan in the fight against terror. thank you very much. >> it should come as no surprise to anyone that would say that they believe they have shared information in the past, that may have ultimately led to osama bin laden's whereabouts. i can't say sitting here i would

dispute that. the problem has come with the fact that if -- if they knew he was there and if they didn't pass along that little tidbit of information is a huge problem. again, they have been on again and off again. they've been helpful. some detainees that they take into custody, we get access to, fully. some we do not. and that's been this frustration with dealing with the isi, the army, and the government of pakistan. i hope we look at this not as we're going to -- we'll go back and do the forensics on all of this. that will happen. how does this happen? so we can have a full and complete picture but i hope we don't spend a lot of time on that particular portion. this is the time for pakistan and the united states to say, all right, done deal. osama bin laden is gone. we have lots and lots of work to

do. the haqqani network is still alive and well in producing suicide bombers and logistics and finance and soldiers in the fight both for afghanistan and we believe that they may have some logistical role in the helping in the bombings. taliban leadership is still a threat not only to our soldiers, u.s. soldiers and our allies in afghanistan but i argue to the settled areas when you saw they invaded s.w.a.t. that was the first time they had gone in to a settled area. and our argument, boy, we want to help you but this has to be a transparent, open relationship where we both fully understand the threat of taliban and al-qaeda elements. and that's write hope we take this opportunity to get there. we're going to have some of