left the agency eventually under great criticism from people who thought he should have stonewalled and chose not to. so i have always felt that he was a very, very important figure. >> another factor that was really important was the structure of the committee. as mansfield set it up it was six democrats to five republicans instead of what would have been normal seven to four. and john tower was a vice chairman and not a ranking member. and then the committee in its reaching bipartisan conclusions in a way our most important finding was that every president from franklin roosevelt to nixon four democrats and two republicans had abused their secret powers it helps us internally and externally to show that we were not being partisan in our major finding. >> senator hart you worked more

on the foreign intelligence matters. you recently wrote that the church committee experienced -- of your church committee experience is it's important we recognize the extraordinary power the united states has in the international respect for our constitutional principles. but it often seems in times of crisis we forget that power. why is that? >> i think the phrase in times of crisis. we cede -- we being the other branches of government particularly the congress cede to the executive branch great powers. if we are under assault or perceive ourselves to be under assault. the problem is that then encourages administrations to, i wouldn't say generate crisis, but to elevate a crisis to

acquire power. this is where congress is most under pressure to do it's job and to ask questions. not to undermine executive authority but to defend the constitution. and protect the american people. again, as i said there and i've said many times in other places those of us who have had a chance to travel the world know we are being watched by not only leaders in foreign governments, but people on the street. and they watch us not only for the kind of comical excesses that we exhibit, but the degree to which we live up to who we claim to be. the american people and their presidents and others claim high standards for this country then when we don't live up to those

this isn't missed by people around the world. they see that. and it's not only kind of hypocrisy, it's used by our opponents to say see they claim one thing and do another. >> fritz you have written a book on secrecy. how does government secrecy undermine the power of our constitutional structure and our democratic process? >> i can pick up exactly on what gary said. the heart of american democracy is that the people should be involved. that's what we're about. james madison said the -- in a democracy, public opinion is the true sovereign. and the problem is that we have over the last 60 years 60 plus years, we've gone into a secrecy society, a secrecy culture where the norm is to keep it away from the people instead of striving to get it to the people. and that is totally inconsistent with the values upon which this

country was built. >> another one of the myths i think that has developed is the idea that the church committee investigation or another type of comprehensive investigation is about playing got you. it's only about trying to find the huhabuses and wag a finger. vice president mondale? >> i think one of the greatest strengths exhibited about the work of the church committee is how that report has endured. no one challenged accuracy of our findings. i have not heard one serious scholar say this is is not right, so we got our facts right, and it was not just a got you disclosure, it contained a range of remedies that were designed to prevent recurrence of these abuses.

the two intelligence committees, which hadn't been there before, the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the fisa court, the new regulations and rules issued out of the white house. this was -- was this not a passing effort to move on? it was an attempt to bring about a fundamental change in how we dealt with intelligence so it would be more efficient, it would be more responsive, and also adhere to the laws and the constitution of the united states. >> and did the heads of the intelligence agencies at the time recognize it as -- its purpose as making the intelligence agencies better at what they did? >> some of them, one of the underlying themes that i picked up i think several others did, is when you talk to people like colby, talk to some of the

people in the bureau, talk to some of the people else where in the agencies they were complaining about how screwed up their agencies were. we mentioned angleton earlier. and i heard this from colby. angleton was in a key spot in the cia. and he decided all intelligence dealing with counterespionage was contrived by the soviet union. none of it was to be believed. don't worry about it. and it should be worried about. how do we deal with it. and there were other stories, about, you know hoover was gone now. but hoover had, you know a witch's brew of nut stuff going on in there. and people around him knew that. and he was full of all kinds of strange ideas. we could tell stories here.

he wanted to make certain that any gossip about any high official was immediately delivered to him. and he had a file that he kept in his own office several file cabinets, with every salacious rumor that he heard. he wanted -- then what he would often do is go to the principle involve and say there's a story out, but don't worry about it we'll keep it under -- so you had another kept officer. and this stuff was going on. and it bothered a lot of the sensitive bureau agents. and so there was a great desire within the agencies to get reform and i think they wanted us to succeed. >> let me fortify that with a story i told at a dinner last night that recurs. in one of our early

organizational meetings as to how we should proceed. by the way since this has never been done before no one knew what step one was. order files and so forth. it came my turn, as the most junior member to make a suggestion. i said why don't we start out by each of us asking for our own cia and fbi files. and the room got very, very quiet. and the since was broken by barry goldwater who said i don't know what they've got on me. there you are. you had member, senior members of the senate of the united states intimidated by the very agencies we were setting out to investigate. >> if hoover had not been dead, we'd have had a hard time going with the fbi. maybe we would have, may we wouldn't have. but it was sure helpful he was dead. on your first point about got you, that never was our point. but we did believe that to get

reform, it was important that just to theorize about the problems but to get hard evidence. and that really helped. because we showed not only dr. king, but many, many less well-known people were abused and injured and committed suicide and so forth. so you -- it's not got you, but it's to make credible the need for fundamental reform. >> well, you take the perhaps most controversial area we investigated, the assassination attempts to a person. members and staff the effort was not to pin blame. the effort was to find out systematically how that decision was made. and we spent hours asking questions.

hearings, secret hearings with people involved in both the eisenhower and kennedy administration who made the decision. who decides in our government to kill another foreign leader. and it wasn't pin the tail on the donkey, it was an inquiry that was systemic. how does the lead erof the united states make a decision to kill a foreign leader. >> by knowing how those decisions are made you can put in guidelines and procedures and oversight mechanisms that will then make sure that we have systems that will prevent those improper activities. >> discovering a system which was designed to make it extremely difficult to decide who made the decision, was itself a terrible mistake by the government. that system needed to be exposed and criticized. >> that led to one of the reforms, which is so-called presidential finding. and that came out of our inquiry

that if you're going to conduct a significant covert operation, the president of the united states has to authorize it. so it's not, again, to pin blame, it is to identify accountability. and that's what we were trying to establish. >> and one thing i appreciate about all of your service is how you've stuck to these issues and worked on them, all the decades since. senator hart, you co-chaired the 1998 hart redman for international security which warned of security before the 9/11 attacks. what were you able to see in conducting that investigation that the administration wasn't or the intelligence agencies weren't? >> part of what we -- i think the intelligence agencies were beginning to see -- certainly beginning to see the terrorist threat. we had naval ships bombed or

dine dynamited dynamited. our embassies had been attacked. it wasn't like a secret. but what we were led to conclude in that commission two and a half years of study, was that sooner or later, this kind of conflict was coming to our shores. it wasn't that there's going to be more terrorism. our statement in our final report was that america will be attacked by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. we did not say commercial airliners. and that americans will die on american soil possibly in large numbers. that was nine months before 9/11. what failed there was not the intelligence community, it was the failure of authorities,

executive authorities, to listen and pay attention. and they had the same intelligence we did. they just didn't pay attention to it. >> and fritz, in your book, you quote former white house chief of staff james baker who after 9/11 said the church committee unilaterally disarmed our intelligence agencies. do you agree with that? >> i forgive him because i think he was emotional. it was the afternoon of 9/11, and he said we had caused 9/11. he didn't pay attention to the record, number one. for example, the church committee said the fbi should get out of the business of investigating, you know, dissent and should concentrate on terrorism. and we said the cia should spend more effort with human intelligence and less simply relying on machines. and also howard baker his

fellow republican with the same last name, who was a great member of the church committee had said in the long run this will be helpful to the intelligence committee. the idea that for 25 years which it was then people in government had been helpless to correct this terrible wrong that we'd done is itself absurd. and then, finally picking up on the warnings that gary talked about that were going on, in the summer of 2001 after your hart redman report the white house got many warnings that there was going to be a devastating terrorist attack. and i tried to develop in my book the argument that had they released that information to the public and particularly importantly to all the people in the government who were

responsible for looking at things like strange people getting pilot's licenses, it is very, very likely that 9/11 would have been prevented. they simply didn't do it. not out of malice, but because the secrecy culture is one that once something is secret, people sort of stop thinking about t. they never thought about well wouldn't it be smart to let the public and the people in the government know that there are these real powerful threats. >> well, secrecy culture operated even inside the intelligence community. our commission recommended the creation of the department of homeland security because we found out coast guard customs and border patrol were all operating -- we knew that -- under different federal departments. they did not have a common data base. they did not have a common communication system. they had no way of talking to each other. and they all reported to

separate cabinet officers. that's why we recommended the creation of a department of homeland security. those three agency and fema, not the gargantuan thing we now have. >> and the church committee's recommendations were an attempt to harness the power of our constitutional check and balances and the recommended reforms touched all three branches. we mentioned the executive reporting reporting. there was the judicial branch, bringing them in with foreign intelligence surveillance court which we'll talk about in a moment senator hart you were one of the founding members of the senate oversight committee created as a result of the investigation. how would you rate its performance? >> well, sir, fritz schwartz

said earlier the common belief in washington was members of congress politicians, couldn't keep secrets. and overwhelming all of us heard. it was in the press this is going to fail because these guys can't keep their mouths shut. so that was challenge number one. don't talk. don't leak. now, in a culture in a city of overwhelming leaks, this was a huge historic achievement. not only the church committee, but the permanent oversight committee. that was step number one. keep your mouth shut. when you're told secrets don't divulge the secrets to your friends and particularly if your friends are journalists. with all due respect. we had constitutionized the reforms of the church committee. that was our first task, set

these recommendations into a process. some of which were statutory some of which were be executive order. and institutionalize briefings. you had to set a system where they would retenely come before us and particularly on covert operations, this was a very tenuous situation. because part of the mandate to the intelligence community was if you're going to undertake a covert operation, you've got to tell us about it. and not just an agent on the street talking to a possible source. but an operation. and that was also a question of could we keep our mouths shut. i was involved in the first two or three notifications. i think our first chairman was

danny anoi. he was in hawaii when one of the first notices came in. it happened to be when congress was not in session. i happened to be here. the agency got ahold of me and said okay we're told to do this. here's what we're doing. here's the operation. i had to go to a secure phone call the chairman of the committee, brief him, and let him decide whether to brief all the rest of the members of the committee. it was a work in progress. we were inventing oversight as we went along. and then, finally, rick underfirth and i one of the staff members made, i think, the first congressional trip. it was just the two of us to visit cia stations abroad to see how they operated. we went to some of the key stations in europe and the middle east. as many as 10 or 11 of them

including tehran at the time. 77 or 78. the shah was still in power. i've got some stories to tell about that. >> okay. vice president mondale, you were elected vice president and went to the executive branch. how did you look at these reform recommendations once you changed branches? >> if i had any questions about it i'd call fritz schwartz to help me understand it. no, i think that was a fortuitous development that helped for a smooth transition from the recommendations of the church committee to the incorporation of those recommendations in the executive policies. and president carter agreed with that. attorney general agreed with that. we -- i talked -- spent time talking to the head of the agencies. they agreed to it. and when our executive rules

went into place, there was i would say almost unanimity within the executive branch and the congress about where we wanted to go. and that unanimity, i think, worked for about five years and then slowly it went else where. and if i would -- i know we're going to talk about this. but i would say, our proposal was based on the idea that there has to be a separation in checks and balances. while trying to keep this information secret. it hadn't been really tried before. and we gave it the college try. and i would say it's worked fairly well. but with some -- with time, some disappointments. i think the congressional -- work of the congressional

committees has been somewhat co-opted by the federal agencies themselves. i think we've seen evidence that they're restrained by maintaining diplomatic relations with each other and the public pays the price because we don't get full accountability. we've had some recent disputes and -- internal disputes that have been, i think, help demonstrate that. we thought that the courts, the fisa court was going to be a magistrate function for the federal bench. and that's what it was. that the -- it's only function would be to act on applications for warrants. it was not to be a court that operated with general

jurisdiction, as though it was a regular federal court. that has slipped some. and i know this afternoon we're going to hear from one of the judges. that bothers me. because the fisa court can be a private supreme court for the agencies. everything they do is in camera and without any other litigants or persons who might be interested in the issue involved at all. it's in secret. it's without other interests involved. not only at the trial level, but at the appellate level. there is no way that a responsible party who objects to what's going on with solid reasons for doing so will be heard. and i think that the idea of

giving broader jurisdiction to that court is a mistake. and either we have to broaden the rules for who can participate in these hearings, or we have to walk the fisa court back to the rules that we put in place when we made our recommendation. but the idea of having a secret court of general jurisdiction competing with regular courts and being the secret agency court, i think is intolerable. we should do something about that. if i got the floor here. another thing that really bothers me is the state secrets defense. almost every court case involves activities of the agencies, very quickly, a petition comes in

from the government saying this is a state secret issue and cannot be heard. we cannot participate. and the courts, not always, but very often, will say well, we'll dismiss the case. so you can't even get to the merits of the case. no matter what the reasons for it. we've got a general statute that's supposed to deal with secrets where the judge will hear this and make a judgment about what can be done. under the current process the state secrets issue that's being used across the board now almost every case is -- follows by a dismissal. and, also, i don't know if ms. donahue is here today from the local law school here, but she said that the -- there's a lot of evidence that private

companies will press the government to claim state secrets to help them in a case that they have. so it's a really dangerous tendency. >> i think you're referring to laura donahue from georgetown law. >> is she here? no. okay. so i think this is really a serious problem. and i'd like to see some reforms in these issues to make the court more accountable. >> and because there is so much secrecy in the courts and in the intelligence committees, one of the ways that we find out of about things going on are often leaks to the media. and fritz a lot of consciousness employees who is something wrong and report it end up suffering greatly losing their jobs and even being

prosecuted more recently. how important is that channel of information? >> it's vital. there is one person here, tom drake, whose crime was describing how nsa was being inefficient in trying to deal with the incredible volume of information they take in every second. and who was charged with the espionage act and 35 years' potential sentence. it was a terrible overreaction to what was essentially an effort esimply to blow the whistle and to get the government to do a better job. and being more general, this country depends on newspapers j journalists in general. we were built on newspapers. right after madison made that comment about public opinion the u.s. congress gave subsidies to newspapers so that in a while

90% of the weight of the mails were newspapers and only 10% of the revenue. journalism is vital. and it is still vital today. whittle whistle blowers are vital. i'm going to make an ubsolicited comment about edward snowden. it seems to me what congress is doing in trying to amend the patriot act proved that he acting from patriotic motives has helped the country. so information coming from the inside, information coming from investigative journalists is absolutely vital to american democracy. >> great. thank you. i want to get to questions, but you both signed on -- all three of you signed on to the strengthening of the intelligence oversight report that the brannen center put out that calls for a comprehensive

investigation. do you think it's time for that kind of investigation, and what advice can you give to -- >> before we get to that i want to pick up on fritz's point. i'm a big obama supporter. i supported him in every election. i'm proud of him as president. but i don't like what he's doing in the intelligence area. and this administration has been tougher on the press by far than any other administration in american history. the press is terrorized. people might want to talk to the press, scared to death. and i would hope they'd think this over and try to help us find balance between the responsibility of the press and the ability of americans to speak out. this is a real tough problem now. >> so i'm going to go ahead and open it up to questions. if we have questions, we do have a mic.

if you just raise your hand. come on, there are a lot of intelligence people here. we need some questions. >> good morning incredible program, thank you for being here. 60% to 70% of our national security budget is paid to private contractors. and many of the abuses that occurred by the government are now being handled under the covers by these private contractors. i'm thinking of janice potcer was surveilled for eight years because she wrote something unfavorable about ringling brothers circus. we saw that with the garret -- the hb hack that had powerpoint presentations describing how they were going to harass. wikileaks and various different critics. i think what you're doing is fantastic. but how do you reach out and include the intelligence community in this effort?

because i think the worst abuses are probably happening there. >> and to repeat the question, she was asking about the increasing privatization of intelligence and how we get oversight control of private companies that are doing work that used to be in the purview of -- >> well, this is -- this is the biggest development, one of the biggest in the last 40 years. the explosive growth of the government side of intelligence, the expansion of the nsa to some degree the cia and others. and, of course the new layer of director of national intelligence with hundreds if not thousands of employees. that's a separate issue. so the government's side of it has grown explosively. but then you have the contractors. and i don't think in our time,

in our ancient time there were private contractors in this so-called community. how many there are today, god knows. it's estimated the number of employee and contractors in the hundreds and hundreds of thousands. and many as the new system of government is to go, quote, off budget. so you don't even have budgetary accountability because the director of the cia or the ndi or whatever they're called can hire these consultants, mr. snowden, by the way, for better or worse, and they are not in the same level of accountability as public employees. and then finally you layer on top of that the explosive expansion of technology, so you've got a bigger public community, you add to that a

private side of the dimensions we do not know and maybe even the president of the united states does not know, and then the ability to pick stuff out of the ether of any individual in america or the world, and it's a brave new world. >> hi. i want to talk about intelligence agency charters. now, one of the big projects that came out of the committee mr. vice president, there was actual work done on this inside the administration early in the carter years. if you look at the paperwork on that you see suddenly the administration which was started out supportive of the intelligence agency charters just stops doing anything on this. and senator hart, the senate

intelligence committee which pushes on charters stops after 1980. i'd like to get your reading on did we lose an opportunity there? should we have charters for our intelligence agencies? and how would we go about doing that if we wanted to get there. >> my recollection is pretty vague on that. i think we found it impossible to write. we were for it we tried to write it. >> it's so difficult. >> yeah. >> on the committee. >> right. >> and of course -- >> we -- i think we gave up because -- i was for it but we couldn't get it done. didn't know how to do it. >> and attorney general edward levy wrote guidelines for the fbi that sort of took some of that pressure off. unfortunately, those have been amended many times since including in 2008 where they were basically eviscerated.

but certainly a great question thank you very much. >> something was directed to me but i didn't hear it. >> that the committee stopped pressing for it eventually. that the intelligence committees that were pressing for charters for the agencies eventually grew weary and stopped pressing for the charters. >> intelligence committee today? >> no. no. up until 1980. >> i don't know. >> hi, thank you very much to the center and the panelists for the program. i'm adam with the american librarian association. we have been on the front lines to restoring some of the civil liberties. in 78 hours the senate is going to reconvene to do something or nothing. with respect to the usa freedom act, with respect to extending expiring provisions of the

patriot act. i would be a bad lobbyist to ask you gentlemen to say whatever you wish to your former colleagues in the senate. >> repeat the question. >> so his question is there are three provisions to the patriot act that are set to expire. and the congress is now coming to a decision point and what would your advice be to them. >> well, you know, it's fashionable to say we've got to find a balance between security and liberty. privacy. and yet no one has figured out what that balance is. and it's one i think that perplexes all of us. it does me anyway even to this day. there are bad people in the world. and some of them are in our

country. and so a public which by and large, if surveyed, would overwhelmingly say protect my privacy. 99% of whom, when the bomb goes off would say why weren't you doing your job. and, again, we're into this 21st century world of technology where the ability to surveil someone, listen to phone calls, track messages and so forth is greater than it's ever been. in the hold days you had to send 40 agents out there to listen to phone calls. today you can sit in an office anywhere where you can. we're entering an age of

encryption and the phone companies are going to say we're going to protect you from the government. if your concern is the bomb going off, then you're not quite sure whether you wants citizens protected from the government. if the government is doing its job in the appropriate way. so i keep coming back to the best protection of people's liberty is the fourth amendment to the constitution. and if the fisa system isn't working, let's find one that does in which in secret or not, probably in secret, but with a public advocate on the other side of the case to say your honor, you've heard the government's case, now let me tell you hypothetically or otherwise, what the case for we rejecting this warrant is so at least you have an advocacy

proceeding. that's one solution. but all i can say is there's going to be another major terrorist attack on this country. i happen to think it's going to be bilogical. but it may not be. it concerns me. people in new york are deeply concerned. as they should be. people in denver should be concerned as well. >> one of the controversy. with that provision is when the government did an analysis and some independent groups, they found it was never actually useful to preventing a terrorist attack. >> i'd like to answer that question. i would listen to gary i agree with what he said but i think that the issue before the congress the next few days is whether we're going to eliminate this mitteta data strategy.

there have been two insider commissions with key officials, experts, both of which said this is not effective. it's an enormous undertaking. it's a big unlimited strategy to interfere with the privacies of the americans and the fourth amendment. it was sort of -- it was adopted in secret. it was the congress acted later without being told what they were voting on. this is the first time we've really known what going on. i hope when this is over -- i think the president has said he wants to get rid of mata data. this is a good time -- many of the leaders in the congress are saying that on both sides. this is the most optimistic opportunity i've seen in a long time to step back from some of

this excess that we've been dealing with. >> picking up on the word optimistic you know, it's natural for all of us to say wow, since particularly since 9/11, look atlet all the terrible things that have happened. a lot of terrible things have happened. excesses have happened. what's going on now is not partisan. you have that vote in the house which is like 340-80. overwhelmingly both republicans and democrats upset about excess and wanting to find creative ways that still protect the country, but that don't just say you can do anything you want to. >> let me add to my comment. what vice president mondale said. we've got to cancel not renew the great hoover in the sky. not j. edgar but the vacuum. what i was talking about was the

targeted with some probable cause that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. >> right. let me go to this side. is there somebody? >> hi there, good morning. thank you so much for coming in and speaking. it's an honor and a pleasure. so my question is about -- we touched on this earlier -- walking the fine line between liberty and secrecy. as you said before -- actually i was wondering, was there ever a point in time when you guys were working in the church committee where you found that something you had seen wasn't to be shared with the public. where you found it was actually better to keep it secret? and how did you find or how do you feel -- sorry. let me collect my thoughts. how do you feel about keeping

certain things secret, how do you feel about walking that fine line between liberty and secrecy? where does it end sharing things with the public? what do they not need to know. >> the question just so -- during your church committee investigation, did you come across secrets that needed to be kept secret. and in your later life how do you look at the balance between secrecy and our democratic system? >> yeah. that was the great challenge of the church committee to do our work but knowing that much of it had to be in secret. so it was daily -- wasn't an extraordinary event, it was almost a daily event. we had -- we tried to put in place things that helped us, like we wouldn't accept the name

of any agent any american agent. we did not want it in the files. we did not want to hear the person's name. we wanted to stay out of that business because it wasn't essential to what we were doing. all the way through we were trying to sort out ways of dealing with your question yet move ahead with our strategy. >> one interesting issue we faced was whether the hearings on the assassination plots to kill castro and to kill other people would be held in public. and senator howard baker pushed hard that they should be held in public giving good arguments. and senator frank church the chair said no, i don't think we should hold them in public. because these are going to be our first hearings and it's inevitable if you hold those hearings in public things will come out which would not be good to come out.

one thing particularly names. and whereas if you hold the hearing in executive session and then write an extremely detailed report you avoid those risks. of course, it would have been politically great for senator church to hold those incredibly dramatic hearings. it would have been kind of fun for me because i usually did the first examination of the witnesses. but i think he was right that it was better to be cautious and hold those hearings in private and then have an extremely detailed final report which gary was one of the people who was the drafting committee. church and tower and gary. it was good fun. >> could i use this occasion as i have in the past? just to identify tim ginsly of a hang nail that plagues me 40

years later, naming namdses. the three mafia figures in the castro plots. we heard from one of them twice. the second time -- first time he came and went. no public notice at all. highly secret. the questions obviously were who ordered castro killed, what roll did you play and so forth. and i felt at a time -- i don't know by vice president mondale he was generally forthcoming but still knew a lot of stuff he wasn't telling us. he went home to miami and disappeared. and ended up dead. he was in his 70s. in mafia terms in those days that was retirement. for the rest of us now that's middle age.

the second figure was probably the top mafia figure in america. even -- fritz can verify this. we were prepared to subpoena him or the house committee was -- he was killed in his basement with six bullet holds in his throat. neither of these crimes have been solved. now, by and large the media included, these were dismissed as kind of mafia stuff. there is no doubt in my mind they were killed in connection with our committee. now, the question is why. who did it and why? >> bert go ahead. bert and then rick. >> yes i have a brief comment and a question. al the griefbrief comment the judicial committee a couple years ago

reported out a bill, bipartisan to dramatically change the state secret problem which this administration opposed. my question goes back to mike's original question about how the church committee was able to come about and describe the turbulent times. but my experience is that the history of intelligence and oversight is all before 9/11 and after 9/11. and what i mean is, not people in this room but people who follow current events, a lot of my acquaintances who are liberals, after the church committee report and disclosures were sufficiently outraged to back a lot of reforms which is as you say have been evishiated. the levy guidelines which really came from the church committee

recommendations that vice president mondale worked on and the assassination executive order. but after 9/11, those same people, the same kinds of people in my experience have a different attitude. and it is essentially i don't care even if they're eavesdropping on my first amendment activity, my dissent protest and i don't care even if they can't show that they have thwarted terrorist attacks as a result. if an infinitesimally decreases the chance of my husband getting blown up at grand central, just do it. and so my question -- and the votes in the house bipartisan now on 215 maybe show a little improvement, but i think it's been eviscererated and will continue to be. my question is, how doia you get

the public on this balancing you were talking about to really understand the harm of excessive of excessive secrecy in light of that attitude. >> it's the reality of this dealing in this field that when americans are afraid, they reach for a strategy where they wipe away the constitutional legal protections and usually at great sacrifice to our security and to america's stature as a law-abiding nation. and whenever these issues come up, the people that want to go in that direction try to fan the flames of fear rather than trust. even though i think there's all kinds of evidence that

responsible intelligence operation committees like ours actually strengthen the capacity of these agencies to defenders made it more possible that they would do their job well and efficiently. also this argument totally ignores the effect of limiting democracy on the public process. if you just say we're going to turn off the institution for a while until we get this it is not an incident thing. you chill the whole public process. you prohibit debate that should be heard. and the reforms that can follow. the right of the public to be heard on these great issues. and i think it's a hard argument to make. but i am confident that what we did and how we tried to do it and the spirit of what we did is the best way of protecting our

country. >> rick and pat? >> it's great to see the three of you together again. i can't believe it's been 40 years. all working together. i'd like to ask two questions. one on the cia and one on the fbi. on the cia post 9/11 a read a report in the "washington post" saying the cia has become a highly efficient killing machine. >> yeah. >> this goes to the question of the use of drones. and we know that that's something we didn't have to deal with on the church committee because drones and missiles and the rest weren't there. this is something that is of concern for a number of reasons, including whether or not the use of drones for basically target assassinations is bumping up executive order and that.

they say enemy combatants is the way they are allowed to get around assassin prohibition. the whether it has evolved to a central action agency and is losing its central function of collecting intelligence to inform decision making. president obama has said and john brennan has said they think this should be off-loaded to the pentagon. my question is, are you concerned about this evolution of the cia, and do you believe these kinds of actions, which will certainly continue into the future, should be military or cia? and then a quick question on the fbi. they're looking for a new building. it's going to be either in virginia or maryland. this monstrosity on pennsylvania avenue will go away. my question is is it now time to retire the name of j. edgar

hoover? >> bob morgan wanted to take hoover's name off. he was on the committee. we decided to wait a while. it would be great. why should hoover's name be on the fbi? he was a great bureaucrat. he did so much harm to this country not just to people but by confusing people to believe that communists controlled the anti-vietnam war movement his name should not be on a public building. now that it is a new building it doesn't have quite the same, you know looking like the soviet union and the 1984 of changing things. it is a choice not to put it on a new building. >> yeah.

i was back to drones and hadn't gotten to hoover yet. i mentioned technology earlier and the great changes in the last 40 years, and that's one of them. there are those who think, and i'm still pondering the use of drones as a sophisticated assassination in fact. if you look at it if you think about the use of drones in the battle field now is not a defined place in the battle of the bulge or battle fields all over the place. it raises amazing moral questions. we all know what those are in the sense of is it better to take out a handful of people

with a drone. not only the bad guy but his family as well. and people who happen by at the time. or drop a bomb and wipe out a whole village. most people if you put it to a vote, most people would say the former. confine the ancillary damage. but you do take the human element it of it. now hollywood has discovered this and there are all kinds of movies and stage plays about the kind of anonymous game player in some vehicle in the desert in nevada killing somebody or somebodies in afghanistan. it is pretty eerie.

after world war ii we the world -- maybe during world war ii or between the world wars created these conventions on warfare and how to conduct war far and re-pariotization. now you almost have to go back and create new international conventions to deal with these kinds of questions. and i'm not sure again from a -- not only a law school graduate but divinity school graduate that we have come close to figuring out the moral compensation that drones represent. in a way, if you're futuristic and you look we should have newt gingrich here. if you look 10 years, 20 years down the road people look back on drones like bi-planes in

world war i, i suppose. i don't know the answer. it's complex. >> one thing -- in answer to your question i think it should be transferred to the department of defense. because the department of defense is more accountable to the congress and the appropriations process. and in other ways the cia is a dark cloud out there somewhere. and it is not responsive. it is not accountable. and i think that if it were moved to the defense department it doesn't solve the problem. but there's the chances of make it more accountable and responsible are improved. >> one last question. >> i worked in the executive branch and as a civil servient the only control i really had was on a budget.

in the church committee, the budget has never been analyzed in a public way without revealing sources or methods. i don't think we need to know that. but we do need to know dollars and cents. if we had a budgetary process that was truly followed, i would be interested. and one last question. since you brought up cy hirsch what do you think about his article on bin laden? >> you ask how i felt about cc hirsch's recently article? >> i don't know. i read it twice. i'm not sure about that. >> and the other is on a budget process. >> obviously yes. i don't know why we keep these so-called secrets about what these departments are spending. it all leaks anyway.

would we be better to do it in a responsible way where we could rely on the information we're getting. >> so we're over time. please, thank vice president mondale. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. [ applause ]. here tonight a look at the role of religion in health care. that's followed by a discussion on the epa and its ring in practices with bruise westerman. and a recently hearing on science, space and technology committee with gina mccarthy. and faith-based organizations and delivering care to countries with hiv/aids. this first group looked at a

report on global health conducted by "the lancet." this is an hour. good morning. sorry for the few minutes delay getting started. i'm the deputy director of the global health policy here at "csi" s. it is my pleasure to welcome you for what promises to be a new series on faith-based health care. before we get started, thanks to anita smith. i want to say thank you to katie on my team, instrumental in pulling everything together this morning. faith is a powerful force in the lives of individuals is and communities throughout the world. faith-based organizations are an important provider of health care globalry and resource for health services and support,

particularly at the community level and hard to reach populations in some of the poorest places in the world. as rick warren church noted there may not be a church in every town village but there is usually a church, mosque or other place of worship. it can be critical to meeting global health and development goals. we have explored issues through ava right of issues including active collaboration around the aids.

as well as controversies in places like uganda where discrimination against the lgbt endanger people living in hiv. moving forward it will be critical to find ways to engage productively on these sensitive issues. it is essential to better understand roles and contributions of faith based providers and improve coordination between faith and health communities. we will hear more from our panelists today. >> thank you and good morning. on behalf of the authors i'm delighted to introduce this session from the lancet on

faith-based health care. this is made possible by capital for good. in addition to the book lets you have received, additional information is available online for free and full contents will be published in the weekly edition of "the lancet" next month. faith-based organizations deliver substantial amount of health care around the world. how much and what benefit has not been well documented. in in which collaboration with different sectors will be crucial, this series sets out to estimate the contribution for faith-based organizations for health care. particularly strengths and weaknesses of faith-based actions and how their expertise might be best recruited in the future.

the three panelists were each lead authors from one of the reviews in the series. going from your left to right jill olivia has worked with the world bank is is coordinator at the university of cape town, director of the international health assets program. jill combines these skills as the lead author of paper one. andrew tomkins is emeritus professor of international child health at university college london. he combines a career with extensive experience in the field to present a review about

the influence of religious beliefs on behavior in the second paper controversies in faith and health. the final review toward stronger partnerships between public sector and faith groups for improved health was not intended as such but rather planned as a brief viewpoint. however, peer reviewers were so enthusiastic that they were asked to put the monday script in a full-length review. head of the partnership for faith and development and coordinator of the joint learning initiative on faith and local communities. and at your far ride nina smith will moderate today's session. past co-chair on hiv/aids. ladies and gentlemen, the panel.

>> [ applause ]. >> thank you sop for hosting this important event and to bill for the introduction. i wanted to ask one question. probably would need to get back to the microphone. but this entire series would not be possible without all your support. and i just wanted to hear from you as we start this discussion what your goals are in terms of how you want to see the material that's being used and how you would like to see what you are supporting through this effort. >> thank you.

the founding of the lancet set out with two purposes. to inform and to reform. so the name lancet means both a surgical instrument and narrow window. he wanted to cut out bad practice and shine light on good practice. and i think that still collects the way we approach topics. and health is such a vast part of our lives with so many different interfaces that this is a large area of health which received disproportionate attention over the years. it's a very sensitive area. and i think that may have made it difficult for groups to explore others in the past. and i think it's also a very

vast area with evidence based. so it's difficult to make firm conclusions in the way one might do for other expects of health care. so with this issue what we want to do, however imperfect, is so set down a marker and to say this is an important topic. it's going to actually be more important in the future. and if we are to achieve the sustainable development goals, we need the help of all potential actors. what i'm hoping is this initiates a dialogue which is then taken up by other science, sociology health journals that we move the influence of faith-based provision of health care from the margins of the debate and make it mainstream. so my metric of success would be for people to write in three four five years's time this was

great but it is so terribly out of date, this issue. i would like to see things move on. and as they do move on i hope that the lancet can be part of that. >> thank you so much for that perspective. which gives us a perfect foundation. >> i do have a few slides. this paper i'm presenting on behalf of my co-authors. if you are not familiar with the area it is a very diverse area with major evidence holes. i didn't say gaps. they are big black holes. we simply do not know how many faith-based provider services they are. faith and individual health behaviors. so what this is thought to do is provide a synthesis based on a

systemic review. a synthesis of primary search in which there was some substantial evidence that could be on afternoon faith-based health service providers. there's been a lot of these quotes that have been around the last 20 years. we don't know the numbers. we don't know what's going on. these have been around a long time. we do know a little bit more now in the recent time. so what this paper is focusing on is specifically on that cluster of countries in africa where there is a particular presence of faith-based

biomedical providers. we're not looking at faith healing. we're not looking at ava right of other important issues. this is really looking at the hospitals in those regions. evidence based is biased towards africa, towards christianity, and towards english literature. i'm saying that now. we did not know about islamic facilities and other facilities. we did not know about northern africa. this is a very common slide. self-declare on the percentage of health service providers against the public service provider. so, for example, only count number of hospital beds or number of facilities and compare the faith-based christian health services against the government

facilities. these figures are highly contentious. what the paper tries to impact is the numbers are very contentious contentious. there is a need to move away from this focus on the percentages of market share. the argument is basing your entire idea on whether or not they provide 20 or 25 or 30% of the health services is actually less important than the issues such as do they provide quality health care. do they emphasize health coverage to people who don't otherwise get access. do they provide a different kind of care that supports the season and make more resilient. so really the argument is moving

away from those kind of figures of market share and looking at things such as utilization, satisfaction. we are trying to pull on what data there is on these other expects we consider to be more important. i'll just touch on a couple of issues. we presented some data looking at utilization, which did show slightly lower market share than we had originally assumed. however, it is comparing apples and oranges to the bid based comparison. don't worry about that too much. we found quite a lot of evidence that in those countries a lot of patients were reporting on higher satisfaction levels. they were normally based on the idea they were getting a high quality of service in the faith-based service the public

facilities. it is not just africa but it is -- normally in times of humane tear yann crisis. i'm not going to go through this whole slide. but just to say, as i mentioned earlier, there is a push away from broad general raeugzs about service providers. i would encourage you strongly not to use the word just generically. so being specific in the evidence and the engagement is really important. and i'm going to stop there. >> thank you very much. >>. >> we will go ahead and have all the presentations and open for

questions. >> we had a very interesting and challenging task at looking at controversies. as you can imagine from the title, we had a rich diversity of people to inquire and include in the team. and i think the key thing we wanted to emphasize in the paper was that there are many, many people who report faith in the world. in fact, it actually says more than 84% of the world's population report having a faith. this slide shows some of the faith and methodology and looking at differents between faiths and sometimes differences within faiths. and that is a very important thing to do. the second slide i think just shows the importance of not

being too simplistic in attributing anything to faith belief alone. this slide just emphasizes in the center talking about things like attitudes and beliefs and prejudices behavior choice of technologies. all the things that we think of every day. but it isn't just faith that actually influences. sometimes it's actually centuries and thousands of years of culture. sometimes it's social and economic aspects. sometimes it is issues in relation to the laws in the country which may actually conflict with faith. unfortunately sometimes believes and behaviors are by extremist

ideological positions. when we looked at various component, we looked, as you will see in the paper a series of health damaging behaviors, which included childhood marriage. opposition to immunization. violence against women. and female genital mutilation. we looked at the way they had a viewpoint on this. and we looked how at notwithstanding considerable varieties, there was a lot of common gnat. there are a lot of ways in which groups groups have come together to work for the reduction of child marriage, for the increase in uptick of immunization, for the improvement of care for

women, for the reduction of stigma and improvement in the provision and care in hiv/aids. so this was some of the things we look at. this shows a little bit of a problem. what we found was within the fate leadership group there was often a limited awareness of what was going on in the world. we actually found there was a considerable problem in faith leaders remaining within their intellectual and theological faith equities. at the same time we found some working in development agencies were extremely unaware of what faith actually meant. and therefore there was a

tendency particularly for those affected by intense is secular agendas to stay within their secular silos. and i do apologize to those who object to this. because we saw remarkable opportunities of faith groups -- i probably used a word i've just been told not to. but faith groups working intensely with governments and local communities. and we provide within the paper some great examples of that. what are our recommendations? well we would like to see that the health care leaders become more faith active and the faith

leaders become more health active. i'm not suggesting all faith leaders join gyms or health leaders go to the mosque. but it is important that literacy and understanding are improved. notwithstanding these issues, we do provide some evidence and quite a bit of peer reviewed evidence showing there is remarkable opportunity for faith to be integrated with a program. we can see there are opportunities for a program. so what do we seek to achieve from this paper? we would hope discussion, possibly disagreement. but we see quite likely to be an opportunity for groups to work together for the improvement of care.

to move from compassionate, faith accepts active care especially for the hard to reach. and we do not believe the rules of sustainable development will be achieved, unless some of the issues that we raised in our paper are taken into action. thank you. good morning everyone. thanks to "csi" s for helping to organize this session. thank you bill and the lancet and my fellow authors and the working group of amazing people

to bring this unprecedented series to launch at sustainable development held over the last several days at the world bank. kay warren was key inspiration by her deep lived out personal experience of how religious and faith-based organizations transform stigma and save lives of people living with hiv/aids. we pick up where andrew left off. the partnership between public sector organizations, between governments and donors and faith groups in general. and what exists by way of partnership and what might scale up and strengthen partnerships. the time is now right in the context of developing trends and opportunities. to very substantially increase

engagement with faith-based organizations. policies and policymakers seems to be moving beyond the question of whether to engage how how to collaborate. they discussed their mutual approach to implementing a preferential option for the poor over our conference the last couple of day, a notion that was tagged in the paper themselves becoming more activists around these issues was underscored by the german government, who have newly constituted focus within the development agency on this work. next slide please. great. thank you. now the next slide. on the faith side, the paper

reviews how existing partnerships and mechanisms are expanding collaboration. we look at those in three groups. we look at large scale interventions, such as the significant donor to the global fund for aids tb and malaria. so very interesting partnership there between faith body and

multilateral donor. the paper references the longstanding ongoing efforts of agency toss facility partnerships. substantial private assets that the faith community brings. and a study of ngos which amounted to $16 million which was only 77$777 million. to a small chair. next slide, please. the paper drills down on the case for partnership by looking at contributions to maternal and

child deaths and impacts every woman, every child praeupling by unicef. it goes into breast feeding, immunization access to care that make a difference to those health outcomes. we offer ava right of case studies and examples from nigeria, sierra leone mozambique. finally, the paper drills down on series of recommendations. they are clustered in five areas. again, time doesn't commit us to go into them. but we offer them for your

further krbgz. they include suggestion of new business models. faith groups can strengthen themselves to be more effective in partnership mechanisms. it was interesting when this paper was conceived 18 months ago the conference that took place the last couple of days was not even intended. but to see how all the work embodied in the lancet paper was very much a grounding for the conference the last couple of days. these recommendations were evaluated very extensively. it looked to strengthen partnership between public sector and faith-based organizations. thank you so much.

>> this is just a taste of document that you have that you will definitely want to read if you aren't already into it. thank you all for your questions. let me just is ask each of you a question. wanted to clarify that the -- it's hospitals you were looking at. were you looking at clinics or just hospitals in how extensive was the data? >> it was looking at all health facilities. but, again, they are data holes all over the place. most would show the christian health associations. they normally met a whole number of facilities. >> okay. . obviously there is a lot of work to still be done to get beyond

just the christian facilities. is there work under way that you're aware of? >> there is work under way. a lot of health facilities. faith-based facilities. it's not quite as clear ket. how many of those would be the partnership between government. >> it differs with the country. it was probably 20 or so big hospitals. normally in areas where there is not a substantial presence of the public system yet. >> okay. great. thank you. >> andrew, what an interesting paper. and look at the controversies. how did you and your team go

about deciding what you were going to look at and how did the teamwork together to work with the outcomes in the paper? >> with fear trepidation, energy enthusiasm and an objectivity. that's just off the top of my head. basically as scientists we are basically looking at what is the evident. and we didn't have any particular axe to grind. and as for readers of the paper will see, there were representatives looking at all the major faiths in the issues. we came particularly from the perspective of what are the particular needs for hard to reach areas, poor countries, women and children. we looked at mortality rates.

poor nutrition rates, and poor development of children and adults. how we do it we basically looked at the problems and we analyzed them using traditional sacred texts. and we also looked at the ways those texts have been interpreted in different ways. and then we moved on to see how the text had inspired and driven health workers to provide services in very difficult situations. >> thank you. jean congratulations on already putting some legs to this effort in the conference. i know it was very successful.

i think one of the questions people have why haven't these partnerships been so difficult to bring about and why has it taken this long to come to this place? >> the event that anita is referring to this is conference on religion and sustainable development effective partnerships to end extreme poverty, which was held over the last couple of days at the world bank and co-hosted by the u.s. government here in the front row, the german government the british government, world vision. and other leading faith-based organizations. in itself it represents part of the answer to the question that an extraordinary collaboration among governments faith-based organizations and the academic community around these issues. and anita, i think part of what we struggle with is a cultural

divide. we have different approaches and methods. we have a common ground. we have clearly common grounds but different approaches. and i think what is so heartening the last couple of days was the spirit of collaboration. the reciprocal frame. it called for the part of the public sector organizations for a very strong evidence grounding. and really a challenge to step up the kinds of evidence that jill and her team have been presenting as a basis for discussion. the work head is the building of trust, the building of understanding, faith, literacy and development across the two communities. and i would like to just point out that the materials, all the materials for the conference are

available on the website of the joint learning initiative at www.jliflc.com. and i commend those to you. >> thank you. now we'll open the florida questions. there will be people coming by with microphones. we would like you to identify yourself and your organization before the ask the question. we'll take three at a time. and then we'll pose them to the panel. we have several hands up here. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i have an organization called hope for tomorrow. we are also based in kenya. thank you so much for your presentation.

i just wanted to mention about what you said. there has not been outreach and awareness through partnership with society government. so how do we make this happen? because of lack of coordination collaboration. this message is very very important. how do we work with you guys? we just came up with the application for communication with people in africa. using health care, and everything. how do we collaborate?

>> thank you. >> i'm the health program coordinator at the corporate council on africa, association of businesses based in africa. this question is mostly i think for andrew. did you find big differences between religions that do not have sacred texts or that don't have one overarching philosophy for the entire religion? like full based. >> i have worked in many countries in subsaharan africa.

i expected the team to look at the relationship between faith-based health services and government policy development. the relationship between funding agencies and faith-based institutions in countries. i give example toss give a little clarity to my question. when i work for the world bank and when missions my colleagues did not want to discuss with the baptists or the catholics or the presbyterian institutions. they are pretty unprepared for

these facilities. this was never really integrated for policy reforms program development. when i worked for the cameroon government before i joined world bank i helped a relationship between the missionaries the government. especially in the area of statistics. and the most complete statistics were collecting anywhere from institutions not from the government. i worked on other countries

where when you visit a government that is missionary run or faith-based run, attendance is probably four times the size. the hospital is not in the capital certify. it is in some remote little town. monies are provided by the catholics or the baptists. and so it's been there -- i hate to see us move ahead as if things have been very sweet and

nice between the god men, policy makers and the institutions, because that has not been the case. in fact, in some countries the missionaries that are trading health but the government got discouragement from supporting the programs. they are discouraging the use of public funds in what was classified as private enterprises. >> thank you. >> and that has cost us a lot. >> okay. thank you for your observation. let's take one more question. and then we'll go to the panel. >> good morning. i'm john blevins director of the inner faith at emery. my question is mainly to dr. tomkins but wonder if others

have comments on it as well. in hard to reach and vulnerable populations particularly in activities and programs that might be of a contentious nature and cultural context a lot of faith-based organizations that we're aware of that do that work, that work arises intrinsically around a complicated but potentially contentious negotiation between the faith-based providers that do that work and larger religious traditions. one of our concerns is that when actors from civil society or the multilateral or bilateral donors are made aware of the programs, how does it change the impact of the programs in ways that may be negative? that it makes them and the staff in those organizations more suspect or the work of those organizations suspect or maybe even puts those staff members and the people who receive services in danger? and i wonder if you saw any evidence of that and if you have any thoughts about ways that

civil society organizations and the large donors can be aware of how to build respectful partnerships with those organizations reaching hard to reach and vulnerable communities. >> thank you. andrew, do you want to go ahead and respond? >> yeah. those were some great questions. thank you so much. if i could start with the core, which is coming out of the older questions about the collaboration, if we look at the political framework in which my comments are based it is that sustainable goals are going to talk about universal health coverage. that's a big challenge. it's important. it's invites if we are to reduce poverty. the bank has changed its mind. it used to say you can only become healthy once you become rich. now they are saying the bank is saying that you have to be healthy to increase your

standard of living. several things. part of them, comments have come out of review in the paper and my objectivity and partly comments because i have lived in africa for many years and have been privileged to do so. the first thing is that when the faith groups are involved in health care delivery, it seems to me that often there is a tokenism rather than a true involvement. and one of the challenges seems to be the coming out of this that the governments and the agencies actually need to lose the nervousness that you, sir described. the anxiety. and just get real and say if we want to achieve health coverage, then we have to look at ways of working together with partners who are working in the poorest. now, that actually means that literacy, as jean was saying, needs to be developed. and there are some good examples

in the paper on ways in which faith leaders have actually been the leadership of the programs. particularly in some of the health damaging practices and more recently our experience in northeastern nigeria is that faith leaders are absolutely vital in assisting the increase in development of immunization services which are tragically declined over the last few years. you mentioned about kenya. you gave a good example of countries where there are great opportunities for people in government and for donors and the people who work at delivering. to actually understand each other's language. and i think there needs to be a greater appreciation knowledge, and respect. and at the moment i am quite blunt found that lacking in

international development agencies. they do not want to accept that there are people who they disagree with with in their own personal lives. so i think the challenge is how do we get people to move out of their personal prejudices and work into global care which is what we're talking about. just sort of a short answer. >> either of you like to comment? >> i'm sorry. i didn't catch your name. mark, thank you. i think there's been a bit of a change since the era that you're talking about. i've been involved in this work for a long time, like a number of friends and colleagues have been as well. and in the beginning even 15 20 years ago every time we started a meeting or every time we started writing something, the first sentence would have to be make an argument. it would have to make a statement about the relevance before thinking about the collaboration within the community. that's where market share figures were coming out of.

that was our one piece of evidence people were using for that statement. but things have changed quite a bit. there is work. and published work on statistics on contracting. w.h.o. on the financial compensation relationship in three african countries. universal health care studies. i'm not saying they are not fault. and i'm not saying there is constant work to build between the providers. it is an ongoing all partnerships. but i don't think it's quite the same as, no we're not even going to think about it. i think there's been a change. they are lingering biases, secular biases many of you in d.c. will be familiar with and as authors we are very familiar with. i think that's what bill was saying this is an unusual area of engagement for "the lancet"

because of those dialogues. there is a slight more openness to think about this engaging. i think underlying your question was this you know, why have the meeting in d.c. and talk about these things here rather than in the countries. i'm not sure if that was the underlying. all i can say is these partnerships are absolutely happening on the ground in countries. several partners here. john blevins. i know they are doing lots of work on collaboration and networking in kenya with local partners. and so i think it's not just here in d.c. that these conversations are happening. if that was the subtext to your comment. >> jean? >> just to support what my fellow authors are saying here and going to our sister from kenya's question around the challenges of partnership. what i'm excited about is there

seems to be a real movement both on the policy side and faith side looking at developments and new approaches to forging those partnerships. i see deb derrick in the audience on friends of the global fought on hiv, aids, tb. organizations like the global fund are working intentionally on the challenge of how to engage more effectively and more inclusively local faith communities and faith-based partners in country. indeed, i was so heartened during our conference to hear christopher band from the global fund saying during the ebola situation in west africa they directed their grantees to repurpose funds for hiv, aids, to be to ebola. that was a wonderful example of

the institutional flexibility obviously in a crisis but a rail, really good example of that. going to jill's point in terms of contracting and new innovative finance mechanisms and cam rargo, from cania they spoke us to and challenged faith-based delivery health care systems to formalize and strengthen mechanisms. and in fact he challenged them to say the mou's are not worth the paper they are written on. and pushing people toward contracting. and for faith-based, it is for us to step up, to offer more robust collective organizations that bring us together in larger scale so we can deal as collective bodies not just small institutions with governments so they can achieve the scaleable objectives in terms of development. those are some thoughts. >> thank you.

and andrew there was one more question for you between religious that you saw. >> yes. that was an interesting question. you asked about whether there was any differences between the written theology as opposed to a more verbal one. yeah the main face that we looked at obviously did have a written. what we didn't look at and we've actually referred to this in the paper, was the enormous richness of traditional faiths and certainly i can speak mainly in africa, but i'm sure the truth is in asia where the faiths have been there for years and sometimes in a sink ronnistic ray, combined with more modern faiths such as christianity and islam we didn't look at those because the diversity of those would have

needed a lot more work. all we could see was a very interesting thing was that there was a considerable enthusiasm among all of the faith leaders for seeing how they could be more involved and actually there was a great opportunity expressed in the work that we did for making faith leaders more aware so that their sacred teachings the preachings about traditional values could actually have a very clear health content and they could be part of the action rather than just leaving everything to the health professionals. i don't know if that answers the question at all. but that is how we saw it. >> thank you. we're closing in on the end of the hour unfortunately. maybe we have time for two more questions and short answers in the panel. any other -- any other questions?

okay. well i will ask each of you on the panel you've done such amazing work and given us so much to think about. i would like to hear from you in summary what you would like to see as the next steps as a result of your work that you've been -- that you've put so much effort into the research and the writing, and not necessarily relating to the piece you've written, but how you would like to see this play out so jill? >> as someone academy and immersed in evidence, that is what i'm hinting at at the moment. and someone made the comment about the lancet by having these papers in here, signaling something in terms of the broader discipline and i'll give you an example. we hosted a conference on the

health systems conference in cape town and there were 2,000 people there and there were only two faith-based conferences and it is a signal to the fact that these issues come up in conferences, we have separate conversations about faith and faith-based providers but they are rarely intergrated into the broad health public development agenda and conversations and my hope would be rather than this becoming a stand-alone conversation, it gets more strongly integrated into the broader public health and development conversations. >> great. andrew. >> yeah i see this series and the amazing meeting that has just been on religion and sustainable development being a start of a place in which things can have markers. i'm just a boring academic but i

do get enthusiastic from time to time and the markers should be gained in terms of donors and health providers in terms of how aware are you and how much are you being inclusive. many have been exclusive. and what jill is talking about in the paper how inclusive are you of faith-based groups in policy and programs and it is possible to look at policy and international agencies and see how well they are coping with the chal oenks that this paper puts forward. similarly i would see that the faith groups have -- they've made some wonderful responses in the last 10, 20 years, particularly in the area of hiv care. but there are many other examples. but how do the faith leaders actually become more aware of

how their teachings can actually interface most profitably in association to build these partnerships up and they too -- i don't think they've ever been subject to peer review and monitoring and evaluation. but the peer review process is a very interesting one with the faith leaders and the theological colleges, all of the colleges that are churning out faith leaders, it is very interesting to see if they could become more faith aware because that does give enormous potential for changing the societies which are hurting at the present time. >> one of our presenters at the conference yesterday, david sutherland, who is working in the philippines challenged the conference with the notion of how do you measure hope and dignity. i think that our challenge -- our real opportunity now is to build on the growing interest by

virtue of the scale of the ambition of the goals, the develop goals the growing interest on the part of policymakers for engaging all hands in the development tact and therefore also being very open to engage in faith-based assets. our opportunity now is to pull together the evidence frame that shows to them that our work and our contribution will help achieve and heff drive -- help drive development out comes and i think we need to do that in creative ways. a lot of evidence already exists and i think that we need to underscore and get much more creative at communication. and in the end of the day, i think that a lot of our work going forward is about building friendship and trust that will allow us to cross the cultural divides that we addressed earlier in the remarks in the paper. >> thank you. >> thank you, all. and again thank you to the lancet, for publishing this important series and opening the

discussion, which will go on. thank you very much. [ applause ] the center for strategic and international studies also heard from representatives from u.s. aid and the kaiser foundation. they discussed faith-based organizations and the current challenges in responding to pandemics and other health scares. this is just under an hour. >> thank you all. in the interest of time, we're going to dive right into the second panel which will give us an opportunity to look at the u.s. angle and the u.s. engagement with faith-based organizations and the genesis of those strategies and what impact and evolution we can see.

and we are honored today to be joined by three very respected panelists, we have sandy thurman to my left who is the chief strategy officer for the office of the global aids coordination and many of you know sandy from her long work in this arena. and in the middle we have mark frank mueller the director of the center for faith-based initiatives at usaid and janet kates at the kaiser family foundation. you have their full bios in the handout so i won't go into all of the details, but you can see that we have a very -- a very important panel up here and we are eager to dive into some interesting discussion on this. i think we all know in the first panel made very clear the importance of engaging with and

understanding the role of the faith-based communities in providing global health, in providing information, especially in reaching communities, the poorest of the poor, the hard to reach areas. i'm reminded of a time not long ago when i was in it ethiopia and interviewed an orthodox priest and we were talking about family planning and i asked him what message he gave to his followers and he said roughly translated, family planning isn't a sin. hungry children is a sin. and it is just a fascinating lense through which we can see against the importance of faith leaders and the information they can transfer to their communities in engaging them and ensuring they have the information and the capacity that is necessary to reach their communities with appropriate and accurate information. we have been engaging in some very interesting conversations on this subject. most recently