>> thank you. to all of the established protocol of this day, stretching across every segment of this nation and of our government, i rise on behalf of the seventh episcopal district of the african methodist episcopal church to express my thanks and appreciation to each of you for your support your encouragement and your undergirding of the family during this time of sorrow and loss. we come not as those that have no hope but we comriee reassured that nothing separates us from the love of god. therefore, we press on to do those things which are acceptable in the sight of god.

even a presiding bishop has sense enough to know not to block the way when the president is waiting to speak. i ask you to give me just about 40 seconds to say to you how grateful we are to each of you for what you have done and for what you continue to do. seeing that we are compassed about by so great a cloud of witnesses, i say to us, let us run on run on and see what the end will be, for i am persuaded that god will bring everything into fruition and god will bless our going out and our coming in. i stand to say that the nine who lost their lives had bible study.

i'm calling upon the board of trustees of allen university to raise a memorial on the campus of that institution in memory of the nine who lost their lives. i am persuaded that coming generations who will study on the campus of allen will be reminded of the importance of what happened during this period of time. i clothes by saying to you that we are convinced that south carolina rose to its greatest height during the last week.

there is no period in the history of this great state that will excel the love and togetherness that exemplified itself as a result of the dastardly act that was perpetrated a few days ago. i can tell the world about this. i can tell the nation that i am blessed, tell them that the comforter has come and brought joy to our soul.

i am told that it is my responsibility to say that the president of the united states of america the honorable barack obama will come at this time.

giving all praise and honor to god, the bible calls us to hope. to persevere and have faith in things not seen. they were still living by faith when they died scripture tells us.

things promised. they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. admitting that they were foreigners an strangers on earth. we are here today to remember a man of god who lived by faith. a man who believed in things not seen, a man who believed there were better days ahead, off in the distance. a man of service who persevered knowing full well he would not receive all those things he was promised because he believed his efforts would deliver a better life for those that follow. to jennifer his beloved wife that iliana and milana his

beautiful, wonderful daughters, to the mother emanuel family, the people of charleston the people of south carolina i cannot claim to have the good fortune to know reverend pinckney well but i did have the pleasure of knowing him and meeting him here in south carolina back when we were both a little bit younger. back when i didn't have visible gray hair. the first thing i noticed was his graciousness his smile his reassuring baritone, his

deceptive sense of humor, all qualities that helped him wear so effortlessly a heavy burden of expectation. friends of his remark this week that when clementa pinckney entered a room it was like the future arrived. even from a young age, folks knew he was special. appointed. he was the progeny of a long line of the faith, a family of preachers who spread god's word a family of protesters who so changed to expand voting rights and desegregate the south. clem heard their instruction and did not forsake their teaching. he was in the pulpit by 13 pastor by 18, public servant by

23. he did not exhibit any of the cockiness of youth nor youth's insecurities. instead, he set an example worthy of his position wise beyond his years. in his speech his conduct, in his love faith, and purity. as a senator, he represented a sprawling swath of the low country, a place that has long been one of most neglected in america, a place still racked by poverty and inadequate schools, a place where children can still go hungry and the sick can go without treatment a place that

needed somebody like clem. his position in the minority meant the odds of winning more resources for his constituents, often long. cause for greater equity calls were too often unheeded. the votes he cast were sometimes lonely but he never gave up. he stayed true to his convictions. he would not grow discouraged after a full day at the capital he would climb into his car and head to the church to draw sustenance from his family. from his ministry, from the community that loved and needed

him. there, he would fortify his faith. and imagine what might be. reverend pinckney embodied politics that was neither mean for snaul. he small. he conducted himself quietly and kindly and dilligently. he encouraged progress not by pushing his ideas alone but by seeking out your ideas, partnering with you to make things happen. he was full of empathy and if a fellow able to walk in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes. no wonder wulone of the senate colleagues remembered senator pinckney as the most gentle of

the 46 of us, the best of the 46 of us. clem was often asked why he chose to be a pastor and a public servant. but the person who asked probably didn't know the history of the ame church. >> our brothers and sisters in the ame church know we don't make those dysfunctions. our calling clem once said is not just within the walls of the congregation but the life and community in which our congregation resides. he embodied the idea that our

christian faith demands deeds not just works, that the sweet hour of prayer actually lasts the whole week long. that to put our faith in action is more than just individual salvation. it is about our collective cal vation salvation, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless is not just a call for isolated charity but the imperative of a just society. what a good man. sometimes i think that's the best thing to hope for when

you're you'll jized. after all the hope and rest sit tations are read, to say somebody was a good man. you don't have to be of high station to be a good man. preacher by 13, pastor by 18, public servant by 23 what a life clementa pinckney lived. what an example he set. what i aa model for his faith. then, to lose him at 41, slain in his sanctuary with eight

wonderful members of his flock, each at different stages in life but bound together by a common commitment to god. cynthia hurd, susie jackson ethel lance, dueepayne middleton. tywanza sanders, danielle l. simmons, sharonda coleman singleton and myra thompson good people decent people god-fearing people. people so full of life and so full of kindness people who ran

the race, persevered. people of great faith. to the families of the fallin, the nation shares in your grief. our pain cuts that much deeper because it happened in a church. the church is and always has been the center of african-american life. a place to call our own in a too often hostile world. a sanctuary from so many hardships. over the course of centuries,

black churches served as hush harbors where slaves could worship in safety. praise houses where the free descendants could gather and shout alleluia! . rest stops for the weary along the underground railroad beng bunkers for the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement. they have been and continue to be community centers where we organize for jobs and justice. places of scholarship and network, places where children are loved and fed and kept out of harm's way and told that they are beautiful and smart and taught that they matter that's what happens in church. that's what the black church

means. our beating heart, the place where our dignity as a people is there and there is no better example of this tradition than mother emanuel, a church built by blacks seeking liberty burned to the ground because its founders sought to end slavery, only to rise up again, a phoenix from these ashes. when there were laws banning all black church gatherers searches happened here anyway in defines of unjust laws. when there was a righteous movement to dismantle jim crow, dr. martin luther king jr.

preached from its pulpit. marches began from its steps. a sacred place, this church. not just for blacks not just for christians but for every american who cares about the steady expansion of human rights and human dignity in this country, a foundation stone for liberty and justice for all. that's what the church meant.

we do not know whether the killer of reverend pinckney and eight others knew all of this history. but he surely sensed the meaning of his violent act. it was an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches not random but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress, an act that he imagined would insight fear and recrimination, violence and suspicion, an act that he presumed would deepen divisions

trace back to our nation's original sin, oh but god works in mysterious ways. god has different ideas. he didn't know he was being used by god. blinded by hated, the alleged killer could not see the grace surrounding reverend pinckney and that bible study group. the light of love that shone as they opened the church doors and invited a stranger to join in

their prayer circle. the alleged killer could have never anticipated the way the families of the fallin would respond when they saw him in court in the midst of unspeakable grief with words of forgiveness. he couldn't imagine that. the alleged killer could not imagine how the city of charleston under the good and wise leadership of major riley, how the state of south carolina, how the you states of america would respond not merely with revulsion at his evil act but with a big heart of generosity and more importantly with a thoughtful introspection and

self-examination that we so rarely see in public life. blinded by hatred, he failed to comprehend what reverend pinckney so well understood, the power of god's grace. this whole week, i've been reflecting on this idea of grace. the grace of the families that lost loved ones, the grace that reverend pinckney would preach about in his sermons, the grace described in one of my favorite

hymnals, the one we all know, amazing grace. how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. i once was lost but now i'm found, was blind but now i see. ♪ according to the christian tradition, grace is not earned. grace is not merited. it is not something we deserve.

rather grace is the free and benevolent favor of god, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings. grace, as a nation out of this terrible tragedy god has visited grace upon us. for he has allowed us to see where we have been blind. he has given us the chance where we have been lost to find our best selves, we may not have earned this grace with our

ranchor an complacency and short sightedness and fear of each other. we got it all the same. he gave it to us anyway. he has once more given us grace. it is up to us to make the most of it to prove ourselves worthy of this gift. for too long we were blind to the pain that the confederate flag stirred in too many of our citizens. it's true a flag did not cause these murders. but as people from all walks of life republicans and democrats, now acknowledge, including

governor hailey, whose recent eloquence on the subject is worthy of praise. as we all have to acknowledge the flag has always represented more than just ancestoral pride. ♪ for many that flag was a reminder of systemic oppression. and racial subgugation.

we see that now. removing the flag from this state's capital would not be an act of political correctness. it would not be an insult to the valour of confederate soldiers. it would simply be an acknowledgment that the cause for which they fought, the cause of slavery was wrong. the imposition of jim crow after the civil war the resistance to civil rights for all people was

wrong. it would be one step in an honest accounting of america's history, a modest but meaningful balm for so many unhealed wounds. it would be an expression of the amazing changes that have transformed this state and this country for the better, because of the work of so many people of good will, people of all races striving to form a more perfect union. by taking down that flag, we express god's grace. but i don't think god wants us to stop there.

for too long, we've been blind to the way past injustices continue to shake the present. perhaps we see that now. perhaps this tragedy causes us to ask some tough questions about how we can permit so many of our children to language in poverty or attend delab taited schools or grow up without prospects for a job or for a career. perhaps it causes us to examine what we are doing to cause some of our children to hate. perhaps it softens hearts towards those lost young men. tens an tens of thousands caught up in the criminal justice system and lead us to make sure

that that system is not infected with bias, that we embrace changes in how we train and equip our police so that the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve make us all safer and more secure. maybe we now realize the way racial bias can affect us even when we don't realize it so that we are guarding against not just racial slurs but we are also guarding against the subtle impulse to call johnny back for a job interview but not jamaal.

so that we search our hearts when we consider laws to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote by recognizing our common humanity by treating every child as important, regardless of the color of their skin or the station into which they were born and to do what's necessary to make opportunity real for every american by doing that we express god's grace.

for too long we've been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation. sporadically, our eyes are open. when eight of our brothers and sisters are cut down in a church basement, 12 in a movie theater and 26 in an elementary school i hope we also see the 30 precious lives cut short by gun violence in this country every single day. the countless more whose lives are forever changed, the survivors crippled, the children traumatized and fearful every

day as they walk to school the husband who will never feel his wife's warm touch the entire communities whose grief overflows every time they have to watch what happened to them happen to some other place. the vast majority of americans, the majority of gun owners want to do something about this. we see that now. i'm convinced that by acknowledging the pain and loss of others even as we respect the traditions and ways of life that make up this beloved country by making the moral choice to change, we express god's grace.

we don't earn grace. we're all sinners. we don't deserve it. god gives it to us anyway. we choose how to receive it. it is our decision how to honor. none of us can or should expect a transformation in race relations overnight. every time something like this happens, somebody says we have to have a conversation about race. we talk a lot about race. there is no shortcut. we don't need more talk.

none of us should believe that a handful of gun safety measures will prevent every tragedy. it will not. people of good will will continue to debate the merits of various policies as or democracy requires. a big raucous place, america is. they are good people on both sides of these debates. whatever solutions we find will necessarily be incompetent but it would be a betrayal of everything reverend pinckney stood for, i believe if we allow ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again. once the eulogies have been

delivered, once the tv cameras move on to go back to business as usual that's what we so often do. to avoid uncomfortable truths about the prejudice that still infects our society, to settle for symbolic gestures without following up with the hard work of more lasting change, that's how we lose our way again. it would be a reputation of the forgiveness expressed by those families if we merely slipped into old habits whereby those who disagree with us are not merely wrong but bad where we shout instead of listen, where we barricade ourselves behind preconceived notions or

well-practiced cynicism. reverend pinckney once said across the south we have a deep appreciation of history. we haven't always had a deep appreciation of each other's history. what is true in the south is true for america. clem understood that justice grows out of recognition of ourselves in each other. the my liberty depends on you being free too. history can't be a sword to justify injustice or a shield against progress. it must be a manual to avoid

repeating the mistakes of the past, how to break the cycle a roadway toward a better world. he knew that the path of grace involves an open mind. more importantly an open heart. that's what i felt this week. an open heart. that more than any particular policy or analysis is what's called upon right now, i think. what a friend of mine the writer marilyn robinson, calls that reservoir of goodness, beyond and of another kind, that we are able to do each other in

the ordinary cause of things, that reservoir of goodness. if we can find that grace anything is possible. if we can tap that grace, everything can change. amazing grace, amazing grace. ♪ amazing grace how sweet the sound ♪ ♪ that saved a wretch like me ♪

♪ i once was lost but now i'm found ♪ ♪ i was blind but now i see ♪ ♪ >> clementa pinckney found that grace. sin cynthia hurd found that grace.

susie jackson found that grace. ethel lance found that grace. depayne middleton found that grace. eliza san terse found that dpras. daniel simmons sr. found that grace. sharhonda singleton found that grace. myra coleman found that grace. the example of their lives. they now pass it on to us. may we find ourselves worthy of that precious and extraordinary gift. may grace now lead them home. may god continue to shed his grace on the united states of america.

♪ ♪

♪

we ask that the reverend come with prayer of comfort and words by i.s. levee funeral home to give us direction and we will be on our way. thank you, mr. president for a powerful message. a powerful message. >> let the church say amenment.

>> amen. let us bow other heads in prayer. oh, when i come to the end of my journey, worry of life and the battle is won, carrying the staff and the cross of redemption he will understand and he will say, well done. god of grace and glory, our creator, our ruler and our redeemer bless and comfort us as we prepare to leave this place. we mourn today the untimely and tragic death of the reverend clementa pinckney. we have celebrated his spirit-filled life of work and service. the grief is passing but we rejoice because he was and is your child he resides in your internal presence where there is no gun violence, no racial prejudice, no pain and no

danger. rejoice that he now lives eternally in a land where every day is a day of unspeakable joy. bless us to remember him as we navigate life's unpredictable pathways. we know if we trust in you, we will never walk alone. bless his wife jennifer, his daughters milana and iliana and his father and extended family and the families of eight other souls as they grapple with their grooet. be their comfort, their refuge and strength. help them to remember when the visitors have slacked off and the phone calls become less frequent, you are still always just a prayer away. bless those in the ame church and in the broader family of faith. keep our physical and spiritual arms tharnd arms this family so we can be your instruments of consolation and insurance. bless us to live our faith as

clementa pinckney did to be advocates to are all mu haan kind and change things for the better. bless our community and state and world. we have come together in a might way to deal with a horrific tragedy. now, lord, keep us together so that we can continue to stand and work together and find common ground for equality and prosperity and justice an progress not on our terms but on your terms. bless and be with us dear lord. lead, guide, and protect us so that we can remember clementa pinckney by serving you as he did. so that some glad morning when this life is over for each of us, our legacy will say that it epitomizes his legacy. if i can help somebody as i pass along, then my living will not be in vain. amen. >> thank you so much. may you please be seated for a moment and receive these instructions, please.

you will not be able to exit the building. so it is best to have a seat. ladies and gentlemen, following the closing collection as the bishops and the elders and others will greet the family the order of departure from this sanctuary, senator pinckney and immediate family, members of senator pinckney's extended family who are traveling to marion for the burial the president, the first lady the vice-president and dr. biden, secretary clinton and the senators an senators and representatives of the u.s. congress, the bishops and the supervisors. after these groups have departed, we will dismiss the rest of the congregation.

let me acknowledge the scl president, dr. steel. thank you for being here. congressman steny hoyer, i wanted to respective places. we want to thank the reverend president. for a powerful message. at the close i want to thank all of law enforcement who has helped us at every level, local, state and federal, thank you. we want to thank our local chief of place, because you can't get out of charleston without his help.

god bless you. the choir will come and give us further direction and we'll have the recessional selection and the bishops of the church and their assistance will join them and exit behind the order in which i had listed. thank you. thank you so much. >> to the reverend president mrs. obama, vice president biden, dr. biden on behalf of mrs. pinckney, her two daughters and the entire pinckney family, we want to thank each one of you not only for your presence here today, but we thank you so very much for all your cards and your letters. of course this family will not have the opportunity to make individual expressions to you at this time but they have seen your cards they have seen your letters. they have seen flowers and we thank you so very much for your prayers and concern for this

family during the hours of bereavement. those family members who will be riding with us processing with us to marion, south carolina, after the immediate family is transported to the limousines, we invite you to go out this exit secret service and security officials will assist you to go out this exit to the george street exit so you may go quickly to your cars. we will wait 15 minutes on the corner of meeting and lee streets. again, we will wait 15 minutes at the corner of meeting and lee streets, and then process together to marion, south carolina, for the committal and internment.

>> i think -- [ inaudible ] . >> let me ask the choir to sing "my hope is built" and then transition into the recessional selection. "my hope is built on nothing less than jesus' blood and righteousness." ♪ my hope is built on nothing less than jesus' blood and righteousness ♪ ♪ i dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on jesus'

name ♪ >> let me have your atanks. dr. rankin they have to move around. ♪ on christ the solid rock i stand ♪ ♪ all other ground is sinking sand ♪ >> let him go. ♪ all other ground is sinking sand ♪ >> let me have your attention, please. okay, well he's the president, so. [ laughter ] if it's all right, i'm all right. go ahead and sing. go ahead. go ahead and sing "my hope is built." ♪ ♪ my hope is built on less than jesus 'blood and righteousness ♪

♪ i dare not trust the sweetest frame ♪ ♪ but wholly lean on jesus' name ♪ ♪ ♪ when darkness veils his lovely face ♪ ♪ i rest on his unchanging grace ♪ >> let me have your attention, please. let me have your attention,

please. we're going to have to -- >> we got it. >> we're going to have to, after the bishop and bishop grady -- >> turn him around. >> we have to go the other way. and then let's follow the instructions that we gave. thank you so much. i know, i understand. choir, continue to sing. ♪ ♪ on christ the solid rock i stand ♪ ♪

♪ >> we will now have senator pinckney's immediate family, who are traveling to marion south carolina carolina. sister pinckney and the girls the president the first lady, vice president, and dr. biden secretary clinton, u.s. senators and representatives of the u.s. congress, you need to now move as we do the recessional selection.

please pay attention, please. we've been beautiful all day. turn to somebody and say "you've been beautiful all day." >> you've been beautiful all day. >> let us not lose our beauty. follow the instructions, please. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪snots #♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> the bishop of the church will follow, right after the president. ♪

♪ zwr and supervisors this way to my right. ♪ ♪ >> let me have the bishops assistants. please, let them through. >> and the funeral it can be seen on our website cspan.org.

the supreme court closed down its term today issuing three decisions this morning, the 5-4 ruling the states may use a particular drug in executions. the justice ruled the use of this particular drug does not violate the constitution's bab an cruel and unusual punishment. justice alito wrote the decision joined by chief justice john roberts justices scalia thomas and kennedy. all four liberals kiss sented. justice stephen breyer joined justice ginsburg in questioning whether the death penalty itself was constitutional. the case was brought by several inmates claiming a sedative did not fall those in deep enough coma to prevent extreme pain when other drugs were injected to cause death. read more in thehill.com.

the other arguments involving the epa and mercury and toxic emission and congressional districting will start at 6:25 eastern on c-span. tonight on "the communicators" we visited microsoft's washington, d.c., office to hear about their lobbying goals and current research projects. we'll talk with vice president of government affairs fred humphreys, corporate vice president of reserve jeanette wing and research engineering manager michael woskoksky. >> i'm hopeful at some point congress will take on innovation because h1b is still important. frankly i don't know the exact number but when we have some of the innovators that are here, the researchers that are here, you know we have people from all over the world that make contributions at microsoft for our scientists and engineers and other companies as well. they're still in need. when you look at from a job perspective. >> the application of project

premonition is actually to select mosquitos that have bitten people and to determine what kind of viruses might be around what kind of diseases might be around through taking the blood samples of the mosquitos and figuring out the genetic code of some of the constituents of their blood. >> the premise of this research project was around what we would be able to do with data that's freely available in the environment today. one of the things that we've noticed is that there are a lot of aircraft flying around in the united states that could be considered sensors. they have data on them. they're providing information, and it's relatively freely available. it's provided by the faa and there's companies like

flightaware who use that information to provide information to the community about what airplanes are doing. we decided to take that information and see if we could use that to help us predict a more accurate winds aloft forecast. >> the winds aloft? >> winds aloft. so what the wind is doing in terms of speed and direction at various altitudes above the surface of the earth. >> a visit to microsoft's washington, d.c. office tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. new jersey governor chris christie is expected to make a presidential campaign announcement tomorrow at 11:00 eastern, and yesterday he released this preannouncement video. >> i get accused a lot of times of being too blunt and too direct and saying what's on my mind just a little bit too loudly. i have an irish father, and i had a sicilian mother.

now, for those of you hooting, you know what that means, right? my mom was the one who set the rules and set the tone. no suffering in silence. you got a problem? tell me. she would tell us every time she had a problem, to the point where we were just like mom, do we have to hear this? and she'd say yes i need to get it off my chest now. there will be no death bed confessions in this family. you're going to hear it now. [ laughter ] in 2004 my mom got diagnosed with cancer and all of you have lost a family member to cancer. you understand what the scene is like. she grabbed my hand and she said "christopher "christopher, there's nothing left unsaid between us." it was an incredibly powerful moment in my life, and that moment was created by her, her whole life. i knew she loved me, and she knew i loved her. when people wonder why i do the things i do, that moment

affirmed for me forever that i'm going to be this way. i know if my mom were still alive, she would say to me, i taught you that in a trusting relationship you don't hold anything back.you're going to run for president of the united states and you're going to ask people for their vote that is the single most trusting thing they can do as a citizen is to give you their support so you better tell them exactly what you're thinking and exactly what you're feeling. and when you ask about my moral compass, that's it. that's it. >> and we'll carry governor christie's announcement tomorrow. it's scheduled for 11:00 a.m. eastern on the c-span networks and you can see it again tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. when congress is in session, c-span3 brings you more of the best access to congress, with live coverage of hearings, news conferences, and key public

affairs events, and every weekend, it's american history tv traveling to historic sites discussions with authors and historians, and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. c-span3, coverage of congress, and american history tv. up next here on c-span 3 a forum on intelligence oversight in washington d.c., a series of panel discussions on current oversight of the intelligence agencies and what lies ahead. former congressional staffers who worked on intelligence oversight for lawmakers were among the speakers at this event hosted last month by new york university. >> we have two incredible panelists. i know that we covered a lot of the congressional oversight issues with vice president mondale and senator hart and rich schwartz, so on this one we're going to try to go a little bit more in depth on some nuts and bolts and how things

can work and how they can be improved. my first panelist is dr. loch johnson who is a committee staffer and is now a professor of public and international affairs at the university of georgia, he served as a special assistant to frank church during the church committee investigation and later the staff director to the house intelligence oversight subcommittee in the first house and the budget committee set up after the church committee. he's had a career in both other staff jobs on the hill and was as aspen brown. >> no, i was assistant chairman. >> on the role of the capabilities of the intelligence community in 1996. you can also say he's written the book on intelligence, that would be wrong, he's actually written books on intelligence more than a dozen of them.

we're pleased to have him here live. >> thank you. >> we also have diane roarke. she spent 17 years as a republican staff member to the house, permanent select committee on intelligence, where she stayed until she retired in 2002 and many of us probably would not know her name but for a "new york times" article in 2005 that revealed the warrantless wire tapping program that president bush had authorized after 9/11. diane was targeted with a very aggressive fbi investigation and threats of prosecution that i'll let her get into more of the details with. but loch, why don't we start sort of from a higher level. some of targeted that national security and foreign policy are

the domain of the executive and congress should let the executive have free rein in those areas. what's the role in those activities and how is it performed in that role? >> thank you, mike. this is a complex topic and i approach with a great deal of humility and some of my former colleagues on the church committee remind me from time to time that the humility is well deserved. i would again by pointing out that we have pictures in our head, i think, of how government out to work. some people have a picture in their head that indicates power is most important and efficiency. one thinks of former vice president cheney for example or the u.c. law professor john yu. they believed when it comes to national security, the president should be the sole organ of the government. i much prefer, and i think many of our panelists do, that the model projected at our founding fathers convention which is

often called the madisonian model which believes that there is a higher value and that higher value has to do with preventing auto accuracy from taking over a country. so if you read frals paper number 51, which most of us have, i think, it's a primer on how the government should work when it comes to accountability. when you walk into the eponymous library of congress wing, you'll find a quote from him in which he says power lodged as it must be in human hands is ever liable to abuse, and that's what animated the founding fathers of 1777. they were anti power oriented. they understood the danger of power.

today, i think most of people who study this carefully have adopted the madisonian model, although certainly we know there are those out there who believe in the imperial or unitary presidency model, but those who adopt the madisonian model point out that the reason we need accountability, it's not enough to just pass laws, congress has an obligation to make sure those laws are being carried out properly. lee hamilton said accountability is all about keeping the bureaucrats on their toes. someone from my state said accountability is all about keeping the bureaucrats from doing something stupid, and there are a couple of ways of doing that. one can review programs which has a kind of ex-post fact toe aspect to it. i like to point out thattante post facto is important too. look at programs before they're

implemented. i think that's what we talk about with the question of accountability. i think -- i'll wrap this up quickly -- i think the pattern over the years since the church committee has been highly uneven. i discern this pattern when it comes to intelligence accountability, and i use the metaphor from political science about police patrolling and firefighting, by police patrolling, i mean lawmakers checking the locks on the door, shining the flash lights into these agencies, you know, morning what they are doing on a regular basis, by firefighting, i mean when things really go wrong, when there's a train wreck and members of congress have to jump on the fire truck and go to the rescue and put out the fire, and what i see being the pattern is rather desultory policing by the congress most of the time. a lot better than the church committee. the difference is night and day, but still not as energetic as one would like until there's a shock to the system, by that, a mean a scandal of some kind, iran-contrafor instance or a

terrible intelligence failure such as what preceded the 9/11 events. when you have a shock, the lawmakers become very energetic, they jump on the fire trucks, they conduct an investigation. this has happened five times. it happen with the church committee, with the iran-contrascandal, it happened with the 9/11 mistakes that occurred and it happened with the wrong hypothesis about wmds in iraq. what concerns me is what happens in between these fires and how we can avoid the fires in the first place and what that points to is the need for more energetic police patrolling and

the only time we really have energetic police patrolling is right after the firefighting and members are aware of the importance of accountability, but then it begins to ebb away and you go back to again low-level, low energy, police patrolling, until guess what happens? exactly what madison would have predicted. these agencies abuse their power. they make major mistakes or they are engaged in a scandal and then we have what i would call more genuine accountability. one of big questions i think we need to address is how we can sustain this police patrolling in order to avoid the fires that eventually break out. >> diane you came over -- you spent some years on the executive branch and came over to the intelligence committee. how did you see your role when you changed from being in the community to being an overseer of the community? >> well, i have to say that anybody who says with a straight face that the executive branch is extremely efficient and streamlined has never served

there or is not being honest. my main two issues, for instance, while i was at the national security council staff were verifying compliance with arms control agreements and some counterintelligence issues related to diplomatic reciprocity with the soviet union at the time. the bureaucracy -- the story of my career basically both in the administration and in the legislative branch is a struggle with bureaucracy. they basically do not want any oversight from anybody, including in the executive office of the president, and they certainly don't want it from the intelligence branch -- i mean from the legislative

branch either, and it's much easier for them to put off the legislative branch, but we do believe as loch said in separation of powers. it is fundamental and the founders did not say that foreign policy was exempt. i mean, they gave commander in chief powers because in a fast-moving war you can't be going to get approval for every tactical or other move from congress, but they didn't exempt foreign policy in generally. i have to say -- i came to the legislative branch determined to do significant oversight as i had been in the executive branch and it was tough in both places, but tougher in the legislative side. i mean, i was known as a pretty aggressive oversight, for pretty aggressive oversight, once the republicans came in power, i had the nro account first and insisted they should compete their contracts, for instance. questioned the way they were going in a number of areas. this was very unpopular both

with the nro and with the contractors. then i was assigned to nsa. when i came to the nsa account, the general perception was that it was in good shape. after about three months, i was totally depressed. i thought the national security was at risk because they were -- they had not even begun to adapt to the digital age and had no real plans to do so. >> this was 1998? '97? >> 1997. that was when the telecommunications industry was changing extremely rapidly. communications security also becoming an issue at that time. and both those are nsa accounts. so i was really worried. i was extremely worried at the lack of urgency, and they

also -- what became even more important, a cultural problem at the nsa. i focused not on operations, which most people had done. i focused on development, and engineering, and there was a considerable lack of engineering discipline. they were not used to building big integrated systems anymore. they were one-off little garage-type projects, you know. we had a very scletoric enemy, previously. the soviet union didn't change its telecommunications much. >> neither did the fbi where i was working at the time. >> this is the irony. if i actually got some money for fbi for some of their technical capabilities that were later used against me. anyway -- the other big issue to me was the complete lack of objectivity in evaluating

various approaches, technical approaches to modernize and these became enormous issues. >> how did your oversight work? did you go to the nsa? did you go to members to go to the nsa? how was your interaction with the agency in trying to get them to understand the problem and trying to get the members to understand the problem? >> well, i was always at the nsa, i would say, at least once a week or often more or they were down -- these are briefings upon briefings upon briefings and they are very technical. i hadn't had the nsa account before, so there was a lot to learn. what i learned and i became very concerned i said within a few months, nothing was connected. everybody was off doing their own little tiny projects and so on, and and other staff became concerned also, so in this respect, at least, both the

democrats and republican staff were on the same page, and we both began telling our members and especially our ranking members about this quickly. >> and how was it received? >> i think one of the issues is staff -- you have to look at -- staff can have an awful lot of power. they were willing to go along with me with some marks as long as they weren't too ambitious. as long as they didn't cut major programs, and they were willing to let me put in really tough language into some of the reports, especially the classified reports, which did not embarrass the agency as much, but by the -- i was

warning frankly that their modernization program was doomed from the start. i took one look at it. when they finally came up with a proposal for modernization program, i went -- i asked them for their decision paper, and they sent it to me and i read it and i called them, and i said all right, i just really want to understand this. am i correct in seeing from this paper that what you want to do is take your old analog system and modernize it into a -- to the digital age? they said yes, yes, that's absolutely correct. i said it will never work. it will never work. and i say this to i.t. people and they just shake their heads. they can't believe it. first of all, the old analog system was completely inadequate, and how you build a system that's really inadequate and take it into the digital age is just ridiculous. the only -- >> and did you have a technological background? how did you come to understand the technology? >> crash course. >> and does the committee have

experts that it can rely on or do they rely on the expertise from the agency? >> the senate actually did get some technical experts on board and some auditing people that they used. some -- there is a problem with this because the real experts in this systems often tend to be from the agencies, but the problem is they, of course, have an agency perspective often. if they want to go back to the agency, that's a big issue because they don't want to antagonize them. if they want to go out in the contractor world afterward, they also don't want to antagonize them, because -- and so there becomes -- there is sort of a -- often, maybe just in the background, go along and get along kind of attitude, and where do you get the expertise without --

>> and one of the reasons i really wanted to have you on the panel is that i think it's very important to understand these agencies aren't monolithic and there are people in the agencies trying very hard to reform them from the inside. loch, i know with intelligence oversight, you've written quite a bit about the importance of personalities and how oversight gets done and how reform gets done. >> i really think that's true and if you look at these oversight committees, you'll find that the devotion to accountability varies according to personalities. if i may refer to vice president mondale, for example, he became the hero of the church committee staff because we would give him thick briefing books and would get them back at the end of the day with notations in the margins, things under lined, and

that was so inspiring to be a staff member who had someone so interested and so dedicated to preparing for the next hearing. i see generally speaking four types of members of these oversight committees. the first i call the cheerleader and this is the person who has nothing but positive praise for the intelligence agencies and i personally think that a lot of that praise is warranted. after all these agencies are extremely important. they do a lot to help protect us. we couldn't do without them. we could do it without their excesses, obviously. so the cheer leaders is involved in unalloyed devotion to these agencies, again it's not all bad because the american people need to understand why we're spend 50 to 80 billion dollars on these agencies. someone has got to explain why we have that kind of expenditure. another type is the ostrich and this is the worst type of all. this is the person with his or her head in the sand who oddly enough is on one of these committees but doesn't do

anything. and to put a couple of names, if i may, to these, when i think of the ostrich, forgive me for saying so, i think of barry gold water. he voted against the creation of the senate intelligence committee to begin with and one of those quirky twists of history became chairman of that committee, and did very little until he became angry with the dci, william casey, who misled him. goldwater was very unhappy about it and became energetic. to put a name of the cheerleader, there are a lot of people who could fall into that category. i would estimate 80% of the members of these intelligence committees are purely cheerleaders. porter goss might qualify or eddie bowlen, a person i worked for in the early stages. he once said to me calm down with oversight, we've had a lot of trouble having good relations with the agencies. for a while, we engage in

cheerleading. a third category or four on my list is what i call the lemon sucker and i take this from bill clinton who once said all economists are lemon suckers. what he meant is they would come into the oval office and they would have nothing but bad news. the lemon suckers are those who see no value whatsoever in the intelligence community and i think a little of daniel patrick moynihan, all of us admire in many ways, he was over the top when it came to his criticism of the cia and actually wanted to close that place down if you recall. finally, here's the model that i try to espouse, the guardian, and this is a person who combines some skepticism that one might find in the lemon sucker category, but balanced off with some cheerleading as well, someone who strikes a

balance between the two. when we're raising children, we try to compliment them and reward them with they do well, but if we're good parents, we'll also criticize them when they are doing things they shouldn't be doing. this is what the guardian tries to do. example of the guardian, i think mr. mondale would be one example, so would gary hart. i think of lee hamilton who played that role very well. i think personalities matter very much and the really energetic guardians also tend to be the more energetic police patrollers which are trying to prevent the fires from breaking out. what we need on capitol hill, you could fill in that blank. one of things we need on these intelligence committees is more guardians and police patrollers. >> dyan, your worse fears come true, the nsa isn't prepared. 9/11 happens. what happens next? >> i retired in april of 2002, but before i retired, i found

out about the nsa domestic surveillance program which, of course, i was not supposed to know about, only the four top people in congress on the intelligence committees were supposed to know about it, so i immediately wrote memos and updated memos, many memos to the chairman and ranking, which was porter goss and nancy pelosi, explaining the whole thing to them, indicating where it was going, which to my mind was very serious. it was -- it became clear to me this was not a temporary thing. it was to be a permanent thing. and also indicating that it was expanding in terms of the data to be covered. it was expanding rapidly. to my horror, i found out that they had already approved it.

so i argued that it was illegal and unconstitutional, and that it had taken off the civil liberties protections that initially had been built into it, and that was encryption of u.s. person names until there was probable cause and a warrant from a judge, and secondly, i think equally important, it was automatic tracking of all accesses to the databases and what was done with the data. obviously, this would take, you know -- it would be a huge boon to oversight, which is precisely, i believe, why they didn't want it, both those. and so i -- i argued that that

was the absolute minimum they could do. it would still be illegal and constitutional but at least we would have some protections, and i want to -- i -- when i got nowhere on the intelligence committee, i then went to other people in the executive -- or attempted to -- in the executive and judicial branches whom i knew probably were cleared into the program and i would ask them initially are you cleared into the post 9/11 nsa program and they would say yes. they would say nothing else usually, but they would listen, and i made the same argument to them. of course, i knew it originated at the white house and this was a big problem because there was nobody who could overrule them. it went all the way to the top and therefore a lot of the avenues that you normally could take were cut off. i tried to meet with david addington who didn't return my phone call. >> he was counsel to vice

president cheney. >> the one who was writing up the law for this. i had sat six feet away from him for years. so anyway nothing worked. i did everything i could, including a few months into retirement, general hayden. i met with him twice. he became concerned about my constant agitation and actually called me in with the obvious purpose of trying to shut me up, and in doing so he said i want to run this as long as i can. he said you can yell and scream and wave your arms all you want after it leaks and by the way every single person i talked to knew it would leak because it was so obviously contrary to all the training that the intelligence community had received in what they could and couldn't do. >> and particularly the nsa,

there was kind of a mantra. >> nsa, they had to -- every year, they had to review the legal standards and sign off that they had reviewed them. >> and you do not spy on americans. >> right. uh-huh. >> and so you make all these extraordinary efforts, and then realize they are not -- there's not an avenue to go through. >> yeah, i basically -- you know, i tried to see chief justice rehnquist because there was some hint from hayden that he may have been -- that they may have talked to him about it. i tried to see the head of the fisa court who ironically told me she could not talk to me because it might prejudice her consideration of a future case, and in retrospect she was already briefed into it and of course, prejudice issing case in which one side received anyway, my main issue to her, if she had listened to me, encrypt u.s.

names, the capability is there, do automated tracking and give it to the court, you know, have a court review of that, i think the future -- what -- it would have given the fisa a court a lot of power and we could have avoided a lot of this. everybody i went to listened silently and did nothing. so i retired and then myself as well as some of my come padres including tom drake who is here

today, bill benny, loomis, decided at least we would try to address the abuse that became rampant at nsa. the waste of money and the killing of programs that were much more advanced and appeared to be much cheaper also. >> and more privacy protection. >> and more privacy protected, uh-huh. and so we went to the department of defense ig, given that the nsa ig was not independent and it was also heavily involved in the modernization effort, and used a hot line for protection of our reputations. tom did not sign the letter that we sent, but he helped them from the inside. he gave absolutely crucial help because nsa stonewalled what eventually became an audit that went on for two and a half years, and it was so devastating that they still put for official use only on it and all these years later it is in a black hole. >> and the program does eventually leak in 2005. tell us about the fbi's contact with you.

>> well, it leaked -- when it leaked, i thought -- i had warn everybody it would leak, and they had all agreed, and i couldn't believe how long it lasted, and so i had finally decided well, maybe, i was wrong and next week i open up my paper and there it was, the headline, you know. so at that point i was free to discuss my objections under the hayden guidelines, but i did -- well, i -- so i wrote an op-ed eventually. i became very concerned especially when the administration started stone walling the courts and trying to

get the whole thing kicked out of the courts. that was basically my trigger, and i wrote an op-ed on it that i passed through the guys and they said no, it's not classified, and so i -- i came back with no theme left. black marks everywhere. at that point i contacted the committee and asked them -- and they claimed that they could take out unclassified too, and i contacted the committee and asked them for my nondisclosure agreement for a copy of it, and i didn't get an answer. now, one of the reasons may be because this wasn't very flattering to the committee either. i think from that time on the committee was in league -- completely in league, it appeared to me, with the fbi and the administration, but anyway, so i wrote -- so this op-ed died and then a reporter contacted me from -- a reporter from "baltimore sun" and wanted to know one of my comments on this

and so i -- i told her what my objections had been and that these two safeguards should be restored. this apparently was another nail in my coffin because when the leaks occurred in 2005, in the "new york times," i was immediately targeted as the likely leaker. as i said to people, how dumb do you think i am? this is really counterintuitive. as it was revealed in tom's sentencing hearing, they never had any evidence. they pursued this investigation for five or six years with no evidence of either motive or fact. >> and actually raided your home? >> yes. they raided my home in 2007 at 6:00 a.m. in the morning at the same time they were raiding

three -- bill, kirk, and ed, and later they raided tom as well, and they were attempting to indict tom and/or i. they evidently decided on tom because he had been much more involved with the same "baltimore sun" reporter. both of us, by the way, gave only unclassified to the reporter and tom's were basically as said earlier in the good government kind of waste and abuse category. >> and that investigation, you said, has gone on for five years. do you now have some idea that the investigation is no longer moving forward? >> well, the other four were resolved but they deliberately left me hanging, and so finally -- well, initially all of us sued to try to get our property back because they told us they weren't giving it back, believe it or not. you are found innocent and the nsa, one of the many powers they claim that i didn't realize before was that they can basically seize everything -- your computer.

all your papers. >> and this has become some unfortunately has recurred. we saw during the torture report debate that the cia had actually made a crimes report to the department of justice accusing staff members of violating criminal law. loch, in some of your writing, you discuss different eras of oversight and described them. explain those eras and how would you describe this new era where there's such aggressive attacks on staffers? >> well, i think if you look back from 1787 all the way up until 1974, which is the wide sweep of our country's history, you find that intelligence is treated as an exception to the

madison i don't know -- madisonian rules. that was going to be a delicate exceptional case. but then with the church committee responding to the family jewels leagues, we entered a new era which i call an uneasy partnership where congress and the intelligence community were going to try and work together, and that lasted all the way, i think, with some bumpy road along the way, until the iran-contra scandal which is a bit chilling when you think about it, because we had all this finely embroidered oversight regulation and statutes to guide this partnership and yet it all fell apart, and again it shows you the importance of personality, and tone. when jimmy carter was in office he said we are going to follow these regulations and obey the law. and i would argue when the reagan administration came into town it was a much different

tone embracing before cheney made it popular, the unitary presidency into that particular model we talked about before where congress doesn't really matter that much in their point of view. so we had a brief period that i labeled the era of distrust starting in the iran contra scandal in 1987 going up until 1992. we entered another disappointing area which i call the era of partisanship where the house and senate intelligence committee on every single vote they have was strictly along party lines. that didn't happen in the earlier era with the exception to nicaragua goes the purpose as well but now everything became partisan. and then with 9/11, we entered into another which i call the era of ambivalence because even now republicans which tend to be for the community during these

earlier areas they were becoming more skeptical about the effectiveness of these agencies. they couldn't warn us about the 9/11 attacks. they got to be wmd hypothesis from iraq so now you have some criticism coming from the republicans as well. and this latest era that you referred to which i think dates back to snowden i'm calling the era of free balancing where republicans and democrats and the like are saying wait a second, maybe we've gone too far in the security side of the equation and maybe we need to move back toward the liberty side. you see that in the house vote on the u.s. freedom act. you go through different phases. i made two overarching comment about accountability. first of all i think you've got to have, this is sine qua non, the accountability committee got to have the executive branch willing to share information and all too often that hasn't happened. so you could analyze administrations, one from another, by looking at the

willingness of the people at the highest left to work with congress. and i've interviewed every single dci from -- forward and most of them understand what i call the new oversight, the post church committee days. they realize the importance of this. they're madisonians. one of the reasons is they tell me it allows them to share responsibility. you have a blow-up like the bay of pigs episode, you can point to the hill and say, well, i told those people about it. they were listening. that takes a great burden off the intelligence managers. so even most of them are realizing that the post church committee, accountability is a good thing for them with the exception and you all know it william j. casey. i had dinner with him once and i asked him what is the role of congress when it comes to intelligence? and he said, the role of congress is to stay the blank out of my business. you can insert your favorite

sailor word if you want to. so he is a very negative attitude. he's the unitarian presidency kind of guy. and it got him into trouble. even with, ironically, the quintessential ostrich cheerleader. maybe it was a combination, barry goldwater, who became very anti-casey when casey was so disdainful of the senate intelligence committee as to the actions in nicaragua. >> and even when the executive does share information with congress or at least a limited number in this case it was just the two. >> four, two on each side. >> two on each side, and how can those four be assured they are actually getting truthful information and how did you get information about these programs that perhaps wasn't being briefed to those four? >> this is when you get into the whistleblowers, i think. in my experience with oversight,

it is absolutely essential that any staffer has to develop informal sources of information from within the agencies. they hate this, they absolutely despise it. there are rules that nobody can talk to congress except through the pr people or the legislative affairs. nobody can talk to the press except through pr. so the agencies hate it. i heard at one point the nro threatened to tap all the phones at the nro to find out who was talking to me. and the nsa was really upset also, to the extent that finally general hayden sent around a

notorious directive to the entire workforce telling them that once they have -- the nsa had made a decision, they were not to tell anything to congress that would undercut it. so oversight is not really accepted, especially when it's vigorous. they are quite willing to share the responsibility when something goes wrong. often, i have to say in my career, often we found out that something today that it was to appear in the newspaper. and prepress is absolutely essential to legislative oversight. >> i would agree with that. i actually forgot the other side of the equation i wanted to put on the table. you've got to have an executive branch willing to share information. the other side is you have to have a legislative branch will be to take it seriously and get involved and read the information. that can be a problem, as well. i think one of the most important development is the establishment of mandatory reporting requirements.

the hooiz-ryan occurred before the church committee by a few days, which required a finding for the covert actions and now when you have any covert action anything that costs over a million dollars or so you have to come up and brief the two committees. the act said, and this is if you can get thrilled by the intelligence committee this is in the sense that it required anti-facto reporting on all important intelligence activities, unheralded. even in the domain of executive agreements the case would give the executive branch 90 days in which to report, but the 1980 intelligence oversight act says you will let us know in advance of any important intelligence activity. not just covert action, but any of the very sensitive collection operation, counter intelligence operation. as you recall there wasn't a was an escape catch the

so-called gang of eight in times of emergency you had to tell only eight members, but if you take the law seriously which i think we should, you have to tell both the house and the senate committees. so these acts are important but they haven't always been honored by the executive branch. >> and what protections exist with the agency whistle blowers who are talking to members of congress and particularly the members of the committee protect those whistleblowers? >> i believe it was during my time there it was pretty much up to individual staff to protect their own source ss my staff director would say where do you get that stuff? i would say i'm not telling you. i didn't tell anybody who my sources were. it's just a lot better for everybody if they don't know and so i really tried hard to protect them but the committee

as a whole seem uninterested in protected whistle blowers with their lifeblood. they absolutely are their lifeblood. tom was one of them. tom was talking to me about problems at nsa before 9/11, and i think that's one of the reasons he got it. he got the treatment, so did bill who had also sometimes talked to me. so, i think it's evident, and i think you have some experience in this that the intelligence committees did not sign on to whistle blowers protections. >> right. they did not include national security information in this and so for a long time they've hung out to dry and my case is also

i do not want to center this around myself, and i think that my case indicates a lot that is a lot of problems and a lot of dangers that it faces today. one was i went as soon as -- the fbi did finally contact me about eight months after the new york times leak and asked if i would voluntarily cooperate with them and i said yes, i will, except for i won't tell you my sources and of course that's what they wanted. and so i went to the committee called the committee and dead them if they would support me on this, and i did this a number of times. never got an answer. went to meet with the fbi some months later in february of 2008 and found to my surprise that it was not a meeting. it was an interrogation, and it

became clear at that point that i was a target and also became clear at that point that the committee had thrown me under the bus, and they repeatedly asked me for my sources, and i repeatedly told them i will not tell you my sources and i said i would not tell you otherwise, but how can there be a more important issue than this? if i set that precedent in this all-important issue, the committees are worthless. they will have no sources whatsoever and jumping forward to the present time, anybody who goes to the intelligence committees at this point as a whistleblower is out of their mind. they will do nothing and they will do absolutely nothing at least on the post-9/11 nsa issues and they will not protect you. i should also add, just to finish that. after i was rated and all my

items were seized, guess what they seized? they seized my telephone logs and all of my meeting books for the entire time that i had the nsa account. so potentially, they had access to every person from the nsa ranks or otherwise that i had talked to and the committee decided they also wanted to search my computer and all my papers, and so the nsa did a key word, separate key word search for them and all of this search is illegal, by the way. and -- and they also told -- i have it in writing. they told nsa they could keep all my agenda books and telephone books. there is -- >> and this is a separation of powers this year, right? >> it's an absolute separation of powers issue. this is allowing the executive branch to -- to gather information about their

oversight activities. >> not only allowing, but facilitating, in my view and i think the big issue was oh by that time before 9/11 all they cared about was stopping leaks. that was on their public agenda, at least, that was almost the only thing you read about and so when the fbi comes to them and says we think she's the leaker of "the new york times," they dropped me like a rock, and they dropped all those sources and all of the committee privileges and the legislative privilege, as well. >> and again as we've seen this happen in a similar way with the senate intelligence report on t the abuse, are there better tools at least to her credit dianne feinstein came out and made a very big deal of the fact that the cia was going after her staff members that way, but are there tools other than that

public appeal that congress has to protect its staff and to protect its prerogative. >> think you're lost on these committees unless you have some champions among the members. members who are willing to go to the mat with the executive branch if it's a problem, and i can think of mr. schwartz and mr. mondale and others getting into the struggle of the ford administration on some matters threatening and going to court on a couple of issues and you have to be a fighter and unfortunately, the cheerleader species is spreading rapidly. they have to defend their fighters within the staff, as well, because if they don't do that, where is the incentive. >> that's what i meant. if the staff doesn't have these champions i'm really lost. you know it becomes --

accountability begins to revolve around a couple of key people and that's all it takes. i remember on hipsy the house intelligence committee under the hughes-ryan act and we hadn't reported there. this was a fellow in this case who had a mask over his face and was taking things down verbatim and the admiral looked at that fellow and said to the chairman what's he doing here? and mr. bowman explained and he said i don't want him here. this is a breach of security and so mr. bowman during his peaceful loving period with the intelligence community said okay, we'll get rid of them and aspen, who is a junior member of his committee said mr. chairman and keep in mind bowman was number two on appropriations and the best friend of tip o'neal and the speaker of the house. it was not healthy for your

career as a house member and les aspen was a tough guy and very smart guy, and i think it is important to have a verbatim record and he was crimson. he was so angry, but any member of the committee has the right to call for a roll call vote and the roll call vote was called upon and the final tally was 7 to 6 among the members in the room in favor of keeping the reporter there. bowman was furious and remained so for many weeks, but the importance of that can't be understated because hence forth the house intelligence committee had a verbatim record of the covert action briefing and all the questions and answers that came after so that a year later when memories begin to fade we could go back to that record and have admiral turner come back up here and say, well, is this what you've actually done? very important. and the word spread over to the senate intelligence committee and they demanded to having a

reporter there, as well. one of the most important moments, i think, in the evolution of intelligence accountability. >> and i think one of the interesting things -- actually, you wanted to say something? >> yes. i wanted to say something in regard to the problems that sissy had with cia monitoring of their computers and seizing records that they had been given. i believe after the way i was treated and there was no reaction, but instead complicit complicity, i think that invited to what happened to the sissy, and i also would say, well, i'm glad dianne feinstein did her one-hour speech and presented all that information. i still think the senate intelligence committee's reaction was less than it should have been. first of all, this was not the first time they had done it. it was the second time and she said in her speech.

the first time she tried to keep this all quiet tried to keep it in the family was unsuccessful in getting them to back down. they had taken documents off the staffers' computers that they had been given and had sequestered there and she went quietly to the white house counsel who got them to agree that they would never do it again and, but there's no indication those documents were ever returned in her speech at least. and then it just happened again and they had the nerve to go on the offensive best defense is offense, apparently thinking apparently that she would back down and she has shown some weaknesses since also in trying to resolve it in order to prevent the staff from being indicted, she said but instead what she