one better structures were we have tried to do something other than the traditional this is an inherently governmental function and the government is going to do it to. >> i would say look at fedex. >> yet but those are privatized for-profit. are we advocating going to for-profit? if that's the case my rural airports are totally host. >> we are not saying that but a private non-corporate is in my mind when i look at some of the decisions made in other countries and how they have approached it, i think they really to me offer that kind of flexibility. the faa is still the rule setter here. they are still the boss but now it's basically in the hands of the private company. one of the things on the funding side mr. bolen said you bond

out the markets today borrowing capital at almost no cost anybody would do this. you get tremendous savings by being able to make your investment now. you would probably build it in three years it would be outdone. >> i am listening to you and i'm hearing highways. we are all thinking about highways right now. they don't have a bill and a highway funding runs out in 10 minutes we still don't have a bill on highway funding. should we do this for our highway system? shall we go through a not-for-profit organization for our highway system and what about our waterways? or we go to a private a not-for-profit corporation for that? >> some of the port authorities are good analogous to that. indiana has done highways in ohio has done something similar. they're aspects and we have certainly done it on bridges in some cases.

the mackinac bridge is run by a private authority. >> it seems to me that we could do better on the funding part and we would acknowledge that we need to do it for infrastructure we need to do something for infrastructure. we are shortchanging our country in a dramatic fashion when it comes to infrastructure and that includes her airways. that is the majority of the problem and i'm skeptical and i know you share some of -- senator dorgan share some of my skepticism and he he was in the front receipt about turning over government functions to private organizations because he did groundbreaking businesses that we did for nearly government functions that went badly awry and we wasted billions of dollars. so i just don't think the structure is a silver bullet. i'm open to this matter mean to sound like this is a terrible idea but it seems to me that

what we are trying to do is put a band-aid on a cancer which is the inability of congress to step up to the plate and do the mandated hard job of finding the resources to fund infrastructure. >> if you'll give me 10 seconds i got into this issue of by looking at how it is to tell the government there's a better way to do capital budget paid absent that are there ways to think about how you solve critical infrastructure questions? this is a discrete one. if we funded this and you start talking nextgen we have been using it we talk to the administration and we talked about hey let's get this done and you could have it done and it was an option they chose but secretary of transportation both parties have supported this. the administration of both parties have supported this. there's a lot of history here. i would like to see the

committee seriously consider it and validate a -- which you have astutely jumped ahead and are there other applications? i think they're a ton of them. >> if i might respond. >> you asked a question that's really important about this issue of management for funding and i will admit i think there are management issues and there have been for a long time. i've been watching the chair of the subcommittee watching what's happening for a long long time but were it not for the funding issue i would probably not be at this table with this message. i honestly think it's a triumph of hope over experience to believe that the funding issue is going to change and that somehow the congress who this year by the way is going to cut $365 billion from the facilities and equipment account of mr. mr. huerta. it's unbelievable to me and that

will be magnified by the other sequestration and a couple of continuing resolutions. who knows but you cannot build what we want to build in this country and retain leadership opportunities in this critical area of air traffic control with this and that is why i've come to the conclusion that we need restructuring of the type that i've described. >> thank you senator mccaskill. senator blumenthal has returned so he is up next. >> thanks mr. chairman and thanks for having this series of excellent hearings and to all of you who are before us today the chairman mentioned earlier that you were a very efficient panel and also a very distinguished and informative one and i want to thank you for being here. i was interested as a writer of amtrak as well as a flyer and some other reports last week in the wake of the philadelphia

potential price-gouging among airlines and the terrell meant obviously was a horrific event and i know you join me in expressing our sympathies to all the loved ones and all who were affected but i wonder whether mr. smisek as an executive for united airlines can you confirm whether these reports are valid or exaggerated if the ftc were to look at these what would they conclude? i just want to mention that a $2309 flight from d.c. to laguardia would be an example of potential price-gouging and i want to just emphasize i'm not asking you because i am pointing to united airlines in any way or

form as potentially one responsible or accountable. i'm just asking as a airline executive. >> i would be happy to respond. let me express my condolences to the families and loved ones of those killed in the terrible tragedy on amtrak. absolutely not. it's eking from united airlines who would never take advantage of an opportunity like that if you view it as an opportunity. no one would do that. it is true that as people book closer into a flight ticket prices tend to go up because those inventories which of course which of course is you know evaporates every time of flight takes off without someone in that seat that inventory disappears and that inventory is priced more towards last-minute business travelers who tend to have a willingness to pay more because they are traveling on business. when you have a tragedy such as amtrak give a sudden rush of

demand for the very few remaining seats. >> the increase in prices -- to the. >> those are last-minute fares and an open inventory reserve for business travelers for people looking at the last minute. what we saw was certainly a surge in demand for tickets. the only available inventory was the last-minute business inventory. >> mr. rinaldi did you have a comment? i would join you in the strong feeling that kind of price-gouging would be utterly reprehensible and if there is any indication i will certainly call on the ftc to investigate promptly as perhaps this committee would have a role as well. >> sir i would join you in that call. >> thank you and speaking of that derailment and the

aftermath when rail transportation was stopped i think we saw in the reaction amongst passengers in rushing to the airlines that the lack of adequate rail transportation has an impact on airline fee systems that are all interconnected and the present air transportation system can become so congested that it simply can't serve all of the writers who are diverted from

we have a virtually full room here, but the public still

doesn't seem to be mobilized and this congress seems to be divided. do you have some advice based on your political wisdom and your experience on how we do better to raise awareness and generate support because obviously both of you have long-standing experience in doing so. >> this privatization is tough but i do have one observation that makes little sense to build railroads in the desert in california when we have the northeast corridor that we truly ought to showcase corridor for passenger rail and separate passenger from freight rail on the corridor. so maybe reining in some of the ambitions of any other parts of the country while we fix the corridor that matters the most would be my thought on that. i would also suggest that the subsidization cost of different modes we heard from since --

mr. smisek air has been heavily tax. it's not necessarily the case. certainly with rail and transportation while states have been willing to raise fuel taxes we know that form of tax is coming to an end at some point. there is a need for a solution. if we can get into the broader question of tax reform and maybe a few years while we sort out how we are going to fund highways and bridges. that's a big unmet need. >> i don't know that i can offer you much advice except to say we have painted ourselves into a fiscal policy corner. we have a dozen years of more that we haven't paid for and we have so much -- i chaired the appropriations and we have $60 billion of water projects in $2 billion appropriations.

it's turned transportation and arrived -- wide array of infrastructure. i think we have to do better on fiscal policy and make investments in the country if we are going to the country wants in the future. >> i want to thank all of you again in mr. rinaldi i want to thank you for your extraordinary work by our air comptrollers across the country most especially in connecticut. i met with a number of them earlier today and they are often unappreciated and i'm acclaimed heroes of our air transportation system but thank you for being here today. >> they are professionals and they do love their jobs. >> thank you senator blumenthal. senator daines. >> thank you mr. chairman. it asking questions relating to rural america. i had the privilege of representing the state of montana and for states like ours

connectivity is so important to grow our economy. broadband connectivity is have allowed us to build world-class technology companies down that are close to flyfishing streams and mountain ranges and it's a way to attract some of the best in the world to build great companies. but the other part of connectivity is their service. it's a requirement to build world-class companies so they have accessibility to good air services. so for administrator huerta as you continue to examine potential air traffic control modernization reforms i will strongly encourage you to focus on work meant interest when you see any changes. as we look at our states not only do we have the ability to grow great technology companies for quality-of-life of a lot of energy future energy supports us are going to be placed a long way away from urban areas. certainly senator dorgan sees that in north dakota and i see that in montana and other

places. programs like essential air service the contact or graham and are critical to rural states like montana. in fact tramontana airports are very concerned we are hearing about the proposed changes to air traffic control will harm the aip program specific we saw encourage you to undertake consultation with all stakeholders. what specific remedies administrator huerta can the faa provide to rural airports as a considers reforming air traffic control program? >> senator i think you have asked a very important question. the structure that we do, that everyone understands that the program aviation system and a grant program and the aviation structure in united states has always been about achieving twin objectives. first is to have an efficient

system that serves the largest number of passengers and second is to provide a level of access to communities throughout the country. and in previous pre-authorizations that has always been a matter of great debate as you well know between members of congress about how to achieve that balance. that challenge at issue does not go away under any structure nor does any structure alone deal with what those issues are. what you're raising his senate important public post a question to wear as a nation we go in terms of an efficient system and the ability to invest in modernization of that system while at the same time ensuring some level of access. that debate i think is foundational to what we need to be looking at in rehab or station and we dance to that question before we can answer the question of what is the best

structure that enables us to get there and there are other questions as well in terms of how we capitalize, how we pay for what we are looking for and longer-term how we ensure we are keeping those objectives and balance. >> let me go do a similar issue. part of building a great technology company in montana and we have the boozman airport in montana but iran asia-pacific from boozman montana. i'm bouncing across the water thanks to connectivity with the airlines. i'm going to step back and ask mr. smisek if you look at global systems with a great airline like united airlines in the air traffic systems used by other countries what do you see from some of these countries something we can learn to provide best practices and improving systems that will make

the u.s. system better? as we look at the north american and united states airspace but can you share comments and how we can make cars country better based on what other countries are doing? >> sure, i would be happy to senator thank you. what we are looking for in this opportunity is to provide technological improvements which will reduce the time that travelers sit on the runway waiting to take off to reduce the instances of circling airports waiting to land, reduce congestion, reduce fuel burn and we believe the technology -- i think canada is among the best jobs in the world and i believe mr. when all they would that they have the most advanced

technology and the happiest traffic comptrollers. i think those are all true things and even happier than yours and by the way some mentioned these were the unsung heroes. we sing their praises daily because we deal with them daily and they are very professional and expert. but getting back to canada it is indeed smaller. air transport has handled -- is handled sick tour way and as you know from your own history technologies scale is magnificent. i think there are tremendous opportunities. we certainly as they fly around the world there are some systems that are better than others and some foreign countries that handle it well and others that don't but we are very focused on not only maintaining where we are in safety for sure but improving efficiency in the system because even though we are local carrier this system disproportionately affects our

operation reliability and customer satisfaction. if we get it right and we have an opportunity to get it right we could have a huge step forward in the efficiency of the system in the value of the system and to the united states and the economy to consumers. this is a tremendous opportunity for us and this is where we actually have not only a vast majority of our assets but also this is an opportunity for the united states of america where we are citizens and the united airlines and the citizens is to provide the best air traffic control system in the world. >> to see all the traffic and air at a given time is humbling and grateful for what we have the 130 million is the number i believe he used mr. rinaldi. 132 million and that's an

impressive number. >> the first question if i may status quo i think is we want to talk about rural america and status quo is one of our biggest concerns in the airports. if you look at what the faa try to do on the sequester peace in 200013 is that control towers to shut them down because they didn't have funding. a majority of those were contract hours but also the majority of them are in rural america. so that is one of our biggest concerns about status quo. >> thank you for looking out for america. appreciate that. >> thank the senator from montana for looking out for rural america and he and i would probably both agree that at the end of this we would like to see more direct flights to and from south dakota to montana. isn't that right? [laughter] >> very much mr. chairman and i associate myself with your comments. >> i appreciate that i think we

have run out of questioners but i do appreciate very much the panel's great remarks. this is really the senate's first foray into this issue of reform and obviously we have to figure out a way as we move towards reauthorization of doing what's best and i think we all of the same goal in mind this was pointed out. sometimes we have slightly different perspectives about how best to get there but i do think one of the things i was raised in the ability of funding is going to be an important one. that's something in the current budgetary environment that we find ourselves in today that is increasingly challenging. there is an openness to look at models that might rather cope with that issue as well as some of the other issues that were raised today so thank you all very much in the hearing record will stay open for two weeks for members to submit questions and if he could respond in a timely way to those questions it would be most appreciated. this hearing is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] hour.

>> good morning and welcome to the national press club. i'm an and a writer with b -- editor writer with bloomberg. i will be monitoring today's

newsmaker with our guest former ca jeopardy director -- cia deputy director mike morell. before i start, as i said before please set your phones to vibrate. second the format will be that i ask questions for about 30 minutes and then i will open the floor to questions. i will give priority to reporters because they are here for a job. once the reporters have asked their questions, i will open it up to others. third, i request that you ask the question, give us your name and your affiliation. we all remember may 2, 2011, the day osama bin laden was killed in pakistan.

what are some of the other cia's counterterrorism successes and failures over the last 20 my guest today mike morell is a good person to answer the question because he was probably involved with most if not all of them. mike morell is one of the country's most renown security professionals. he served as cia deputy director and twice as an acting director. mr. morell played a central role in this country's fight against terrorism and has over 30 years with the agency. he participated in the read and killing of bin laden in 2011. since november 2013, he has been the senior counselor at beacon global strategies llc. welcome. mike: it is great to be here. thank you. >> as i mentioned before, the

question as to some of the other successes and failures of the cia and counterterrorism area. could you give us and example of a failure the cia encountered during that time? mike: there is an entire chapter in my book on pre-war iraq intelligence. the whole chapter in the book on pre-qwar iraq intelligence or i talk about -- where i talk about the intelligence community's failure, the failure of every intelligence service in the world that saddam had weapons of mass destruction when we subsequently learned he did not. he got rid of the programs. it was the most significant intelligence failure i have ever

been involved in. i think one of the most significant intelligence failures in the history of the organization. >> talking about bin laden -- were you on the team tasked with finding him? mike: there are two aspects to it. an extensive discussion in the book about it. a chapter calls it no mickey mouse operation. that was the codename for this operation. there are two aspects to it. one is the intelligence piece of it which was finding him. it literally took us nine years to find him. the particular thread that led us to that compound took nine years and there are various

aspects to it and we talk about all of them in the book. there is the finding him which is an intelligent story and then there is a operation itself which is obviously an intelligence and military story. i was heavily involved in the first and significantly involved in the second. there was an expose published saying the pakistani military and intelligence knew about the raid beforehand. any comments on that? mike: he alleges a lot of things in this london review of books. he alleges the pakistanis were keeping them prisoner at the compound. he alleges we learned about bin laden's presents from a senior pakistani walking into the embassy in islamabad and telling

us that in return for $25 million. he alleges the pakistanis were aware we were going to do the raid and allowed us to do the raid. it is all rubbish. almost every sentence in the article is wrong. i was in the room for every discussion about this at the cia and i was in the room for every discussion about this at the white house. i was there when our guys stayed on and followed someone we believe to be bin laden's courier to his home. i was there when our guys watched the compound for months and when they said we have come to the conclusion he is there and there is no information provided us by the pakistanis or others, by the way. in the media this morning, some confidential german sources are claiming the germans provided this information.

not true. i was there when the president of the u.s. decided we were not going to tell the pakistanis in advance. not because we didn't want to. there would have been nothing better for the relationship between the u.s. and pakistan than to have worked together on this. we simply could not trust the pakistani system. not the pakistani government but their system to not have leaked the information and get back to bin laden and have him leave the compound before the raid happened. i was there when the pakistanis learned about this and were deeply angry with us. i was sent by the president to pakistan to put the relationship back together. everything seymour hersh says is wrong. he said he got this information from a former senior intelligence official who was very close to the operation. whoever that source was was not

in the room, not in any room i was in. >> not only was he a single source, he was an unnamed source. speaking about the pakistani isi. on a scale of one to 10, how would you rate the cia's relationship with the pakistani intelligence agency? the week. -- mike: it depends on the day of the week. of all the places i traveled when i was deputy director, i traveled to pakistan more than anywhere else. it was an extremely important relationship for the u.s.

two, the pakistanis have taken more al qaeda guys off the streets than any other country in the world combined. in some ways, they are our closest counterterrorism partner. they played a very significant role. we talk about this in the great war of our time. they played a significant role in dismantling al qaeda after 9/11. when al qaeda was forced out of afghanistan, they went to prearranged safehouses in pakistan. once the pakistani president made a decision to work with us, they were in large part responsible for taking the senior leadership of al qaeda off the streets by capturing them after 9/11. the third point is the pakistani government does support other international terrorist groups

providing safe havens to the taliban and anti-indian extremist groups. at the same time they are a great counterterrorism partner they are a counterterrorism problem. it is a schizophrenic relationship. host: would it have been helpful to have publicized their help in combating al qaeda? or would that have led to a shakeup in the government at some point? mike: this is a conversation that i used to have with them. i had it with the pakistani military but the broader pakistani government. i think it would have been opportunistic for them to take more credit than they took for

the work that we did against al qaeda. because at the end of the day, al qaeda is as much a threat to them, if not a greater threat to them than us. host: why do you think they did not want their role publicized? mike: it is hard to say. one of the things you learn is there is a lot of insight into what it is like to be an intelligence analyst and officer. one of the things you learn very quickly as an intelligence analyst is it is very dangerous to speculate about people's motivations. very difficult to say here is what this person was thinking when they did x, y, or z. you learn to not speculate because you're almost always wrong.

i will not answer the question because i would just be guessing. host: i would guess that the u.s. does not play a lone wolf hand in intelligence operations or analysis worldwide. what relationship do we have or what are some of the best relationships with other intelligence agencies around the world? mike: i will not get specific for obvious reasons, but i will say this. what you said is absolutely true. we cannot do our jobs without the cooperation and partnership with other intelligence services and we are not talking about a handful. we are talking about many relationships. a big part of my job and my travel overseas and when i was

here with visitors was to maintain and enhance those relationships. very, very important for us to do our job to protect our country and help them protect their country. there are three levels to an intelligence relationship or partnership. one is the sharing of analysis. here is what we think, what do you think? what is most valuable is not where you agree, but what is more valuable is where you disagree. then you dive into why do we disagree and that conversation leads to and i talk in a book about how i was cia's representative to the british analytics community.

those conservations about why you disagree, you lead to better understanding. the first thing is sharing of analysis. the second is sharing of raw intelligence. we collect intelligence, they collect intelligence. the second level is the exchanging of the raw information. that requires a little more trust than the first level. the third level of partnership is working together to collect information. cooperation on operations takes the most trust. these relationships are built on trust. these relationships are not only a tool for intelligence and a tool for security, but they are a strategic foreign-policy tool for the president of the united states. i tell some really interesting

stories in the book about my interactions with the former head of the egyptian intelligence service and the former head of the libyan intelligence service where the president specifically tasked to achieve a goal. he uses the relationships a lot to further the foreign interest of u.s. host: speaking of libya, a two-part question. is our intelligence good, fair bad in libya? if it is bad, is that because of the lack of intelligence assets in libya? mr. morell: i don't know what it is today. i have been gone for a year and a half so i don't know. after the fall of the libyan

government, the libyan military intelligence service fell apart. libya no longer had the capability to deal with extremists inside the border. extremism started to flourish. as bad as qaddafi was with human rights, the one thing he did effectively was keep al qaeda out of libya. he worked closely with us on that. i had been to libya prior to the fall of the government. one of the big jobs the cia had was to monitor inside libya with regard to extremism. one of the stories i talk about

in the book is we were monitoring very effectively the rise of extremists in eastern libya in general and in benghazi and in particular reporting that to the administration and congress. i think this is a success story in terms of us watching very closely what these extremists, some of them with connections to al qaeda, were doing in eastern libya. host: you mentioned benghazi. embassy happen? -- why did the attack on the embassy happen? did we know about it beforehand? was there a way we could have prevented that attack? mr. morell: no, we did not know about it beforehand. there was absolutely no intelligence to suggest that

folks are going to attack that night. and attack the way they did. the only way it could have been prevented i think would have been to have battlefield kind of intelligence. what i mean is to saturate the region with intelligence collection in a force protection kind of way. wherever there are u.s. troops in the world, there is a huge intelligence footprint around them in order to protect them. you are picking up everything from a signals perspective and human perspective. i think the only way to have avoided benghazi would to have that kind of footprint on top of them. we have to think that about going forward because the real

lesson about benghazi is how do we protect american diplomats? how do we protect american servicemen and women overseas moving forward in what is a very very dangerous world? host: abu saif who was supposedly isis's oil minister was killed recently. based on what you know, if anything, do you think he was a very significant target for us to take out? mr. morell: a couple of thoughts. a very significant target. a guy who played a significant role in advancing the interests of isis. a guy who was very close to al baghdadi, one of his senior advisers.

a very important person to remove from the battlefield. there are some real positives here. one is taking him away from the fight. two is all of the intelligence that was gained here. turns out not only he was working for isis, but his wife was also working for isis. it would have been better to capture him than to kill him so that we could have debriefed him and got additional intelligence. he died in the firefight, but she did not. she is being debriefed in iraq. the significant take of computers and documents are all going to give the u.s. intelligence community and our allies insight into the

organization. insight into how it is structured. insight into how it is run. insight into how it is managed. it will better enable us to attack it. the third, and perhaps the most important, is the u.s. flying into syria, putting troops on the ground, and killing one senior isis person and grabbing another and grabbing a bunch of intelligence sends a message. there are a handful of what i consider to be important messages in the great war of our time. one of the most important messages is that you have to put pressure on the senior leadership of the groups. when you put pressure, you get them worrying more about their own security than about doing their job attacking us and

taking territory and setting up the caliphate. the more pressure you put on them, the more you put them on the back heels, the more you make it difficult for them to plan and do their business. the psychological effect on them, particularly if we follow this up by taking additional senior guys off the battlefield is very positive. host: you mentioned isis. there are other terrorist groups in the middle east. al-shabaab in somalia. other groups in yemen. there are groups out there that we should be aware of and we should combat or we could have another 9/11 type of situation. could you mention some of the ones, and i would like to focus on two particular geographic areas. one is the middle east and two is east and southern asia.

mr. morell: great question. let me start with a big picture here. in this war that i write about we have had a couple of significant victories, but so have they. our significant victories have been the protection of the home for them. despite significant effort on the part of al qaeda, no successful attack -- we had some lone-wolf attacks, but no directed attack by an outside group since 9/11. remarkable success despite effort after effort on their part. the second is the degradation, near decimation, near defeat, of the al qaeda senior leadership in the border areas of afghanistan and pakistan.

the senior leadership that brought that tragedy to the u.s. on 9/11. those are our two great successes. their great success has been the spread of ideology across a huge geographic area from northern nigeria in west africa to other parts of africa into yemen syria, iraq, south asia, afghanistan, pakistan, india bangladesh. a huge geographic spread. that is one of the reasons we call this the great war of our time. specifically, this is a very important question because the focus on isis, there is a couple of significant threats from isis. probably the most important

right now is to the stability of the entire middle east. isis threatens the territorial integrity of syria, iraq, and the potential for spillover to the rest of the region. that is the most important threat from isis right now. the second threat is the radicalization of young men and women in western europe, canada, australia responsible for the attacks recently. if they are allowed to have safe havens in iraq and syria and they will eventually reach out and attack us, they have told us that. they have told us they will do that just like bin laden said prior to 9/11.

coming back to your question despite the significance or from isis, it is not the most significant threat to the homeland today. the most significant threat still comes from al qaeda and three al qaeda groups in particular. top of the list is al qaeda in the arabian peninsula in yemen. the last three attempted attacks against the u.s. were by al qaeda in yemen. christmas day bomber in 2009 kerry the printer cartridge that almost brought down in airliner on christmas day. the printer cartridge plot which was designed to bring down multiple cargo planes like putting a very sophisticated explosive device into a cartridge and into a printer. that was foiled at the last moment.

then, the attempt to bring down an airliner with a suicide bomber. they have that capability. they have the capability to bring down an airliner in the united states of america tomorrow. i would not be surprised by that. al qaeda in yemen. the core is on group. which is part of the group in syria. it is associated with the al qaeda senior leadership in pakistan. it is a group of operatives that someone here he -- zawahiri. they have the external operations arm. they are attempting to attack

western europe and the united states. they are a greater threat, a direct threat than isis. third, the al qaeda senior leadership, although significantly graded in afghanistan -- significantly degraded in afghanistan and pakistan still represent a significant threat. mr. hill: two more questions. in the group that you mentioned, you did not mention al qaeda in bogra. mr. morrell: they are a local threat. they are not yet a threat outside of the region. they could easily become a threat outside of the region. a couple of years ago, the french became so concerned that they were becoming a threat to france that the french military went into molly -- mali and took back a significant portion of territory.

thereby weakening them considerably. could they become a threat someday? absolutely. are they right now outside of the region? no. mr. hill: why has isis in so successful in getting foreigners to calm and fight for them? did we ever hear this with al qaeda at al qaeda had 40,000 foreigners come to fight for them? why has isis enabled to be so successful? could we have a future group that could be even more successful? mr. morrell: great question. there is a history. a history for foreigners going to fight for al qaeda. for example, a rock. -- iraq. after the 2003 invasion, al qaeda stands up to fight the u.s. occupation.

a lot of foreigners flow into iraq to fight for al qaeda. there is a history there. we have never seen it in the kind of numbers that we are seeing now. the flow remains significant. we may have slowed it a little bit but the flow of foreigners into iraq and syria to fight for isis is still significant. they have the most sophisticated narrative, social media propaganda than i have already seen -- that i have ever seen. i talk about it being madison avenue style quality. their narrative is powerful. their narrative is that the west, the united states, the modern world is a significant threat to their religion. that they have an answer to that threat to their religion, which

is the establishment of this caliphate, and that they are being attacked as they try to establish this caliphate. they are being attacked by the united states other western nations. and by these apostate regimes in the region. and because they are being attacked as they try to set up this caliphate to protect their religion, they need support. and they need support in two ways. people coming to fight with them and people to stand up and attack. it's a pretty powerful narrative. we don't really have a great counter narrative. not because we are not doing our job, but because it's really hard to have a counter narrative in a conversation about a religion where we have absolutely no credibility. we really need the leaders of muslim countries, we need

leading muslim clerics, we need muslim teachers to have this dialogue in those countries themselves. that is where it has to take place. one of the things i think the president has done well is to raise this issue in his society. and start to have a conversation with his own people about this. that's where it has to take place. host: his book is "the great war of our time, the cia's fight against terrorism from al qaeda to isis." i would like to open the floor to questions. >> there is a growing skepticism about whether the united states

is serious about fighting terrorism -- isis, or isil, or al qaeda. from time to time, there are selective attacks like in syria. but how is al qaeda able to move freely in the large areas with all the surveillance and not detected and attack while it is moving? when other aspects of this skepticism is you mentioned al qaeda in yemen and in the peninsula. the united states is assisting saudi arabia in attacking the people who are fighting al qaeda in yemen.

this group and the yemeni army were fighting al qaeda. that would allow al qaeda to expand and take more. how can you say this is an effective way or a serious way of attacking? one last thing about the cia. this is a military campaign or a cia campaign? which is more effective to conduct operations against terrorists? mr. morell: thank you for the question. here's what i would say. number one, there's a chapter in the book on the arab spring. that the title of the chapter is -- al qaeda spring. the arab spring was a boon to al qaeda. a boon to al qaeda. why? two reasons. one is it left some countries

unable to deal with extremism inside their own borders. this is what i was talking about earlier with regard to libya. gadhafi was able to deal with al qaeda inside his borders. the new libyan government was not capable. they wanted to. i had many conversations with them. they didn't have the capability. when you don't have -- second. it left the arab spring -- it also left some countries unwilling to deal with al qaeda inside their borders. the best example is egypt under president morsi. the guys i worked with in egypt still had the capability to deal with al qaeda, but they no longer believed they had the political cover to do their job. as a result, the pressure was taken off of al qaeda.

in egypt and guess what? al qaeda came back to egypt for the first time in 25 years. and they are still there. in both of these, your inability to deal with extremism inside your borders, or your unwillingness to deal with extremism inside your borders gives terrorist groups safe haven. and they thrive on safe haven. and when you have safe haven it's really tough to get at them. one of the things you absolutely need to be able to deal with these groups and keep pressure on them is intelligence. this is an intelligence war. i don't mean from the aspect of fighting it, i mean from the intelligence perspective. you can't understand these guys' capabilities, you can't

understand their plans and intentions, you can't understand their vulnerabilities, you can't understand where they are without first-rate intelligence. and we are good at this, but it takes time. you can't just have isis all of a sudden do a blitzkrieg across iraq and then tomorrow say where is the intelligence on where these guys are? it takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to put together the intelligence you need. the other thing i will say is that the middle east is a complicated place. it's incredibly complicated. anyone who tells you they know what the middle east is going to look like a year from now or five years from now is lying or

don't know what they talk about. there's a bunch of different dynamics going on in the middle east. one of the dynamics is this cold war, i think about it as a cold war, this cold war/proxy war going on between iran on one hand and the gulf arab states, on the other. and that war gets in the way sometimes of fighting the war against these terrorists. syria is an incredibly good example of that. because if you look at syria from one perspective, if you look at syria from one perspective, it's a war between a secular leader, assad, and al qaeda and isis. so who should we be supporting in that war? assad.

from another perspective, it's a proxy war between iran and saudi arabia. who should we be supporting in that war? i think saudi arabia. you have two different perspectives pointing you in different directions on what we think they should do. yemen is a bit like that. there's a proxy war going on in yemen between saudi arabia and iran. iranians are supporting the one side. the saudis are supporting the president, who was a very effective partner of the united states against al qaeda. al qaeda is benefiting from the chaos in yemen. it's not benefiting from the fact that the president was in charge of the place. he was very effective against al qaeda. they are benefiting from the chaos that is there. and that goes back to the original point, these groups always benefit from political instabilities and chaos. it's very difficult to get your arms around. i don't know if that answers your question, but it's a start.

>> can i follow-up about the issue of syria, you didn't address that, whether that criticism of the united states being selective and being serious, and also about the issue of the cia versus the military. this is an operation you mentioned. mr. morell: i'm going to purposely not answer the second question, but i will answer the syria question. i'm pretty confident, despite the loss of ramadi, i'm pretty confident that in enough time, iraq and the coalition will push back isis in iraq. there will be ups and downs in this fight. and ramadi is a great example of 's a down.

but the fact is the coalition has taken back 25% of the territory that isis first took. so the coalition is actually not doing bad. i'm pretty confident that given time, given a mixture of airstrikes and kurds, shia militia, and retraining of iraqi security forces, i'm pretty confident that the strategy, the president strategy in iraq is going to work. i will be honest with you, i am less confidence about our strategy in syria. the strategy in syria is to train and equip moderate opposition guys in syria to take on isis in syria. to be the ground force, to go with the airpower and be the ground force that takes back that territory from isis in syria. there is not too many moderate opposition guys left, because many of them have joined al nusra because they were taking the fight to assad more effectively than a moderate opposition was. a lot of them have abandoned

ship on to fights for either al nusra or isis. i don't think our plans -- our plans are not robust enough. you would have to train i think tens of thousands of moderate opposition guys a year in order to effectively take on isis in syria. i'm not sure we've got syria right yet. and i'm not sitting here like i have the answer to this question. it is really hard. i have some confidence in iraq and i lack the confidence in syria. >> sam with ita. give us a baseline here. mr. morell: i was president bush's first intelligence

briefer. >> you are not acknowledging the bush administration falsified him and information on -- mr. morell: i'm not acknowledging it because it's not true. it's a great miss that the bush white house or hard-liners in the bush of administration pushed the central intelligence agency the u.s. intelligence community and every other communions -- intelligence source of this issue to believe that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. all they have to do is tell you this. the cia believed that saddam had weapons of mass destruction programmed long before george bush ever came to office. we were telling bill clinton that. >> one would not be following iraq to say the clinton administration never falsified information on iraq as well. in september 2002, when he was

at a news conference -- this is just one example. there was a report saying that iraq was six month away from developing a weapon, i don't know how much more evidence we need. and then they said there is no such report, that was just an honest mistake. mr. morell: you would have to ask him. the only thing i can tell you is what we were telling them at the time. that's the only thing i can tell you. >> you, among other things, at your time of the cia had a role in zero dark 30, which glorifies the use of torture to gain quote unquote intelligence. i want to ask you about this case, who politics indicate was tortured by the egyptian authorities at our behest. mr. morell: your premise is wrong.

>> and you can say that if you like. who was tortured in order to say that iraq and al qaeda were related. this is the latest in a report on torture. among other places. contrary to the mythology that torture breeds good intelligence or that it's immoral, and actually breeds intentionally useful but false information. mr. morell: i'm going to go back to your first comment about cia's enhanced interrogation techniques. you call it torture. i want to challenge that premise right off the bat. when the central intelligence agency used enhanced interrogation techniques to get information from al qaeda detainees, the justice department of united states of america on multiple occasions said it was legal, that it wasn't torture. so for you to call it torture is you calling my officers torturers. and the justice department of united states of america said they were not. so i'm going to defend my officers to my last breath, and

people calling them torturers. i'm going to challenge your premise that the egyptians tortured libya our behest. not true. we never asked the egyptians to torture. what is your evidence for that? host: let him give you that evidence off-line. we have other people who want to ask questions. >> andrew craig, editor of the justice integrity project and also an author. my question goes into the past because we can't really know what happened last week, but we can look at the past. there are pictures, widely circulated of senator mccain meeting some people about two years ago, some alleged that one

is al-baghdadi. senator mccain has denied that saying essentially that he didn't meet with isis. who did he meet with? mr. morell: i have no idea. >> two more. two of the greatest crimes in the last 55 years are widely considered 9/11 and the jfk assassination. the cia has thwarted release of documents on both of those including the 28 pages of who funded 9/11 as well as the remaining documents that were supposed to be released under the jfk act. why is the cia fighting release of these critical documents? mr. morell: i don't know the specifics, but i will tell you a personal view. my personal view is that there is more room for the central

intelligence agency and it senior leadership to talk to the public about what the cia does there is more room for us to release documents, is resource intensive. it's not zero cost. we have other things to do. so you have to balance these things. i think there is more room for us to put more out there because i do think it's very important, very important in a democracy, particularly for secret intelligence organizations to have as much conversations with the public as a can possibly have. just we don't get these misperceptions we're talking about here. host: gentleman in the back and then the woman the front. could you come to the middle? >> i am from the italian media. my question is about the syrian al nusra. is this affecting your action against al nusra?

israelis signed with the sunni against the shia. mr. morell: i'm not aware of anything that the israelis are doing that has made our life more difficult vis-a-vis al nusra and isis. i'm just not aware of anything. >> i'm with bloomberg news, i've read your book really closely. how significant a setback is it for ramadi? mr. morell: good question. going back to what i said earlier, there are going to be ups and downs in this war. they're going to be battles one -- won and battles lost. this is a battle lost come a significant battle lost. going back to what i said earlier, i do think that when you look at the bigger context taken back to 5% of the territory that they took in their blitzkrieg, it looks

pretty good. i do have confidence that the strategy that we have in place is eventually going to win back iraq. >> one of the things you criticize were the decision taken by the cpa -- we don't know. but the whole sunni-shia tensions that have an going on there for decades, is ramadi somewhat of a product of this issue? all be it 13 years later. and the inability to transcend shia and sunni divides. mr. morell: absolutely. here's the story of the rise of isis. very quickly. when we left the country at the end of 2011, al qaeda and iraq was really at its nadir. when we left, two things happened. the first thing that happened was the military pressure was reduced significantly on aqi.

the military was assisting the iraqis and keeping pressure on them. they benefited from that. the other thing they benefited from were the policies of the former prime minister. the moves against sunnis, the significant disenfranchisement of sunnis, driving moderate sunnis into the arms of aqi. and also benefited aqi. then they go across the border into syria and change their name. isis is aqi by different name. they go across the border they

benefit from recruits, weapons assad's stockpiles. they benefit from the money. they become a significant organization. part of the story is the politics of iraq. no doubt about it. >> so you are saying the invasion of iraq where you said there was no imminent threat was in retrospect setting the stage for the rise of al qaeda and isil? mr. morell: there's no doubt that the u.s. occupation of iraq created al qaeda in iraq. and had al qaeda the organization kind of throw all of its resources into iraq to take on another u.s. occupation in the region. no doubt about that. but we also beat them back. and one of the things i try to do in this book is not judge previous decisions as right or wrong. so i don't say president bush's decision to invade iraq was the right thing with the wrong

thing. i don't. i don't say that enhanced a interrogation was the right thing or the wrong thing. what i try to do in both those cases is, and a lot of detail in the great war of our time is to paint the context of the times. to paint the context in which president bush made the decision on iraq, to paint the context in which george tenant, condi rice and the president made the decision on it has to interrogation techniques. to really important for people to understand the context. it's very easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight is of a good thing or bad thing. this is the information base that we have, some of its right, for some of its wrong in retrospect. you have to make a call.

that's what i tried to do in the book, try to put people into the shoes of these guys as they make these extreme a tough decisions. >> a few reports have come out a big one from poland on the polish governments having to pay detainees about a quarter million dollars in reparations for being held at cia transferring interrogation sites. there also been reparations demanded of the macedonian government's, the former president of romania came out and said that he regretted allowing the cia to use territory this country to interrogate detainees. what is your response to this? will there be any recourse by the cia, by the united states government? as these other countries, under pressure to pay reparations, come under pressure from europeans and human rights courts.

mr. morell: i'm not going to talk about any specific cases for obvious reasons. countries where we may have or may have not held detainees. but it will say this -- the countries that supported this program -- the leadership of those countries was aware. it wasn't some rogue operation inside the borders of these countries. they did so, they did so because they thought the mission of protecting united states and the west and their own countries was an important one. and because they thought that we'll be able to keep all of the secret, they wanted our discretion, they wanted our thanks. and we were not able to deliver. on the discretion part.

>> two questions. the first one -- host: give us your name? >> stephen nelson. i wonder if you could clarify how many e-mails and records should be collected in the mission of antiterrorism. and could you speak in general terms what surveillance you think is currently being done -- julian assange and edward snowden. mr. morell: second question, i have no idea. the first question, i obviously believe that security is very important, i wouldn't have spent 33 years of the central intelligence agency i didn't. i also believe that privacy and civil liberties of americans is extremely important. i am a supporter of the telephone metadata program.

it fills important gaps that were there before 9/11. i believe -- i can't prove this. i can't put a lot of evidence on the table to show this. but i believe that if the program been in place prior to 9/11, we might have seen some of the communication between the 9/11 hijackers. and maybe that would have allowed us to disrupt it, maybe not. we just don't know. but it was put in place specifically to fill a gap. i think it should remain. let's start with a telephone metadata program first. i think it should remain, and in some ways i think it should be strengthened because it doesn't include all phone calls made in the united states. it doesn't include metadata from e-mails. if there is an al qaeda cell in the united states, communicating

with each other via e-mail, we wouldn't see it. we would not see it. if there was another 9/11, and they were communicating via e-mail, the american people would say why were you not monitoring? i think it should be strengthened. i also think that -- i was on the review group on snowden. the whole chapter in the great war of our time on this. we recommended that the program be kept would be reformed. the reforms that we recommended -- that the government not hold the data. and we recommended that the government be required to get a court or every time they wanted to query the data. not just be able to query the data anytime they wanted under one broad portal. so those of the reforms we recommended.

those reforms were accepted by president obama. that is what the obama administration is pushing on the hill. it's essentially the bill that was passed through the house. i'm a supporter of the bill. and i think that the reform i'm talking about still allow us to query the data and we need to, for the purposes we need to, to see whether terrorists are talking to each other. begins is that capability, and also protects privacy and civil liberties at the same time. because i agree that kind of data in the hands of the government creates the potential for abuse. there was no abuse, we found no abusive nsa in this program. but it does create the potential for abuse and that's why we recommended what we did. i stand behind my recommendation the report. host: i'm going to take the moderators prerogative and asked the last questions. first, are there any terrorist

groups in east/south asia that the cia should be looking at closely? mr. morell: i define south asia broadly. al qaeda in the tribal areas of pakistan, al qaeda in afghanistan, al qaeda increasingly getting foothold in bangladesh and india. that's a not well understood phenomenon. the intelligence committee is watching it closely. but it's not well understood outside the government. host: the defense department originally reese down to silicon valley to help it -- reached out to silicon valley to help them with their military systems. is there lessons the cia could take from that? mr. morell: we actually way ahead of the defense department. when george tenant was the director of cia, he created a not-for-profit private entity

whose job is -- this is all public information. the job is to invest seed money in startups in which he could tell believes there is a technology that will be of use to the intelligence community and will be commercially viable so that the company will survive and continue to enhance the technology and service it. they have been incredibly successful over the years, 70% of its investments have resulted in products coming back to the intelligence community. it's one of the largest hedge funds now in silicon valley. it has been incredibly successful in bringing technology into cia and the intelligence committee.

host with that, i would like to : thank mr. morell for his insightful discussion. with that, this proceeding is closed. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> thank you all for joining us today of this hearing. the subcommittee will come to order and you will have a hearing today entitled body cameras technology increase protection for law enforcement officers and the public. two panels. i will make a brief opening statement in turn it over to senator white house. we have this hearing today at the request of senator scott. as most of you no there's been a lot of discussion about how to protect the public and law enforcement officers were there are forces involved not only to protect them but the public is a hot topic right now. one of the leaders in this area.

north charleston which most of us have seen videos my good indication of how video is priceless in situations like this. a lot of proposals. that's the purpose of this hearing today to see which would be the best way forward. senator white house. >> thank you very much. welcome and congratulations to your 1st subcommittee hearing as chairman. >> don't get used to it. i appreciate that our chairman is providing this forum for his junior senator always a good tradition in the senate to begin to

address the question of how well body cameras work. i ask unanimous consent that my statement in that regard be entered into the record. i think this is an important subcommittee command i hope we have more hearings in the weeks and months ahead. i have been particularly grateful to work with the chairman of the white house bill improve the criminal enforcement the cyber arena. i hope that will be able to attend our hearing date to begin to get the bill through a hearing so that only addresses on the floor we have alleviated criticism i also look forward to what i hope will be a lively hearing on what i consider to be a pretty egregious separation of powers. and so we are looking to schedule at least those two other hearings. topics.

i hope we can make this an active subcommittee. this may be the most important subcommittee. it's. >> we will do both. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for holding this hearing. i appreciate senator scott for his strong interest in the subject. as chairman of the community respect his request for a community to look into this matter. recent recent interactions between police and the public have increase the consideration of body cameras to record and officers work. it's a good idea. certainly the certainly the potential exists for body cameras to enhance public trust the police and they may provide evidence to show

the public how well on force handles very trying situations. it is possible their existence might cause police officers to change how they perform certain aspects of the job. body cameras themselves are relatively inexpensive that costs associated with their use seem to be considerable. many practical questions regarding the use the bathroom. these include determining when cameras work and would not be operating from our privacy in people's homes and crime victims would be maintained how footage is to be retained the chain of custody preserved. the justice department has also funded some pilot programs to determine the best practices for operation of police body cameras.

before we decide what if any federal legislative responses appropriate we should obtain a good sense of the issues that have arisen and state and local use the body cameras. we should know which of the competing approaches have been more effective and further shared values. the last the last thing we want to do is create an incentive for mandate the wisdom that belies from existing state and local practice. i thank you once again for all of this hearing and look forward to the testimony of witnesses which are going to have to read because i have another assignment. i appreciate you having a courtesy. >> thank you. would you like to say anything? >> i would like to express my gratitude.

starting the conversation. very near and dear to senator scott. we all recognize the body cameras are not a panacea and will solve all the problems that they may be a peace of the answer. the public confidence in law enforcement is absolutely critical. but it is also important. i no you agree because your cosponsor of this bill that would create a commission to study our criminal justice system and large. once we get through doing the things that we can do to help improve our criminal justice system for things like passing the corrections act for sen. senator white house and i have the chief cosponsor is a played out as

plato's dates i hope that we can continue this conversation in a way that lets us revisit what works and correct and eliminate what doesn't work with the goal toward maintaining and rebuilding the public trust in law enforcement which is absolutely critical. i want to commend senator scott for his leadership. >> very quickly i just have a classified briefing at four. heavier we will. maybe i will get to my questions and maybe i won't. very briefly there are so many questions that i assume will get to. thank you for calling this hearing about what activities and practices should be on camera in which ones shouldn't how we develop the best protocols

how we use the experience of communities and states the studies to figure out what is the camera on and what is it off. and so i'm looking forward to hearing from senator scott and i thank you for calling this hearing. >> thank you very much for coming. i do appreciate your leadership. you have been very hands-on. >> thank you mr. chairman, ranking member. very important mission. i would say if a picture is worth a thousand words than video is worth a thousand pictures and untold lives. it is certainly time for a

national conversation about body cameras and policies affecting communities and distress. whether we're talking about ferguson baltimore, ohio oklahoma or my hometown north charleston south carolina long-term solutions are very important. in addition the body cameras i we will continue to work on things like my opportunity agenda that i believe will be the hope and opportunities into this community. phase in of impacted my life my will tell you that the foundation for changing some of the outcomes start with education long-term education will provide a path and avenue. work skills for adult learners. entrepreneurship programs. i. i'm here today because i believe strongly that another important piece of the puzzle and rebuilding

trust between law enforcement and the committee truly is body worn cameras by officers. one piece because there is no silver bullet there is no panacea but rather many pieces to this puzzle. we are here today to listen and to learn from experts on how these cameras can be helpful and at the same time for us to understand the concerns like data retention or disclosure issues including for you, cost and training when you use the cameras. i look forward to the discussion as well as the hard work ahead. the good news is according to at least one study public complaints against officers wearing cameras falls by 90 percent. use of force drops by as much as 60 percent. that is moving in the right direction. testing the federal government to support body

cameras through resources should not be confused with federalizing local policing which i would object to nor is it an attempt to mandate the use of body cameras rather an attempt to keep law enforcement officers and our communities safer. let me close with a heartfelt desire of mrs. judy scott son was killed in north charleston. she was not looking for revenge. as a matter of fact she said forgive the officer. she did she did not speak about the need for justice in our initial comment. she allow the system the work that to work that out. mrs. judy scott simply said to me i i want to make sure, i really want to make sure that mothers do not have to bury their sons. thank you. >> thank you very much.

our 2nd panel. come forward. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you all. please stand and raise your right hand. our panel consists of mr. peter weir dist. atty.

for the 1st judicial district state of colorado from golden coral nancy miller senior research associate police executive research forum in washington dc for president and ceo of the leadership conference on civil rights and human rights and executive director of south carolina sheriff's association columbia, south carolina. welcome.. welcome. we will start with the speller and panel. >> good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the important issue of body want i am a senior research associate with the police executive research forum commend command independent nonprofit research organization focusing on critical issues of policing.

our work began in 2013 when we partnered with the us department of justice office of community oriented policing services to research the use of body cameras. last september a publication was released examining the benefits of body cameras and considerations for implementation. the report provides a set of 33 comprehensive policy recommendations the refract -- that reflect promising practices and lessons learned. today i will touch briefly on key findings. my submitted written testimony provides additional details. first we caution the decision to implement a body camera program should not be entered into lightly. agencies must thoughtfully examine the issues and develop careful written policies to govern use. we found that when implementing a camera program is critical that agencies engage with committee organizations, line officers and unions

local policymakers and elected officials prosecutors, and other stakeholders. this can help strengthen the legitimacy and make implementation run was. we also caution that while body cameras can be a useful tool they are not a cure-all they must be viewed as just one tool and not as a substitute for policy, training policing programs. when it comes to the benefits they have been useful for several things, strengthening accountability and agency transparency, improving behavior of people on both sides reducing and resolving officer use of force incidents and complaints identifying and correcting problems within the agency strengthening officer performance and improving evidence documentation for investigations and

prosecutions. ..

>> >> line of the biggest issues a version that the -- either merging is the public and the media. their arteries the answers. not only to recommend a broad disclosure policy but they must balance the need of a transparency with avid did jerry concern. we'll is one to make sure to make sure they don't end up on you to. these are a few of our 33 recommendations with data

storage and training and evaluation also how leaders can engage policymakers and the public. when implemented correctly to provide real benefits for the community. for deployment and above all we must remember the ultimate purpose is to help officers serve within their communities. thank you for the opportunity to speak today i will answer any questions you may have. >> in the second director of the association did is an honor to come before you today i would like to begin by applauding this subcommittee to do this of the body carries before enacting legislation and for

raising new technology officer accountability is 80 to produce benefit also serious unintended consequences. today crossly 15% shares offices have implemented this program to provide a significant it officers. also help to resolve officer involved conflict they have experience at the piquet reduction in complaints on officers. everyone including the officer in the person seem to behave better when they know they're being filmed. body carries are more accountable paraprofessional in these agencies. silly thing preventing them

said to be implemented is the server to costs. they must weigh the cost of the technology against potential benefits. causes too much for an agency to absorber go it is unique that the initial phase with the implementation and. when the law enforcement agencies struggle to find money but of mandated letter for your body carries you sicken nightmare although a trust would help to fund this cost and this provision in to prevent law

enforcement agencies to fully embrace this technology is privacy while it is an open concept it is not always conducive to produce successful police work sometime in the best tips come from criminal informants are those who wish to remain anonymous. there is a great fear that the proliferation will further divide our community to have a chilling effect within a stage of officers and communities they serve. these are not intended to be the source of embarrassment or humiliation for the often end encounters of the sins and data should be used as evidence to enhance our pursuit of justice but not to humiliate or entertain neighbors. britisher said a single moment of indiscretion does not provide a lifetime of the embarrassment and when gil tennis's is determined

in a court of law and public opinion. it is support for community leaders to manage these expectations of the public. every police action will not be caught and there will be times it is not possible or feasible to have the footage the absence of video does not automatically equate to innocent suspects are guilty officer but it should simply assist in the overall quest for justice. yes when used properly technology and by the cameras can increase protection for law enforcement officers and the public we should be careful not to put too much trust in this technology can aid in transparency bet will the not help a community relations. neither will lead address tragic incidents.

em but would be accomplished it is often said is true that they're far too many law enforcement agencies that barely make ends meet pearl with ted d. escalation in training that just basic training is critical throw public safety by one to increase protection for law enforcement officers to attract and retain the best officers. to be sure that they protect our communities with fairness and justice. thank you for the opportunity to speak i will be happy to answer any questions. >>.

>> the future members of this subcommittee i've said district attorney from colorado and now speaking on behalf of the district attorneys association we appreciate the opportunity to lend our voice to this important topic. in the body was cameras is the foundation of the criminal justice system and that is one of trust and fairness a trusted and the men and women who work in the system and ultimately that justice will be done. for what is generated by

body warned carries a hint keep in mind that is evidence there are many uses generated by body warned gingrich says has been alluded to with the issue of trust and accountability and transparency are critical functions. we cannot lose sight of the fact there are many considerations to take into account when we deal with the collection collection, retention, lead distribution and processing of evidence as evidence from the body warned cameras from the prosecutor perspective this can be very important. sending us a case to a jury they would benefit from the

circumstances to evaluate credibility and demeanor that is recorded and when we start talking about officered fault shootings and by the cameras can play a role to determine whether that officer may have violated the oath with justifiable the goal grounds of community supports the use of body one cameras with appropriate safeguards their procedures and has been mentioned already there are areas of concern shared by prosecutors said i need to stress that the prosecution

in community be part of a dialogue to create policies and procedures at the state and local level to engage with authorities to identify the issues that make the unique to each jurisdiction and. one size does not fit all talk about judicial districts and law-enforcement agencies in sheriff's departments of various sizes what works with one locale my now working in others. the question that is critical for prosecutors what is being recorded? what is the extent and perhaps when should you not record? it is easier to say record anything anytime officers on the street the camera is on but is this really the proce