twice a week to see if the discharge date we initially identified was appropriate so we're using the tentative discharge date as a general guide just to remind people that our patient is leaving at this time so we have to make sure everything is in place. in her case and in the case of our many other patients, we do a regular reassessment and then we change the discharge date based on the person's needs, the rehabilitation needs best met in an inpatient or outpatient setting or even at home. so that's something we will resume wheni will not share witt my team as discussed, but most likely that will change when we see her next week.

initially, she was in some pain and had some nausea, which is very common. we talked about had the surgery went. she was very happy about that. right now she has bandages on. she is anxious to see how things look. she is doing very well. >> can you tell us whether she is trying to get back into her life blood, which is politics? >> we read hurt news articles. we read the arizona star. the mail a copy of the paper to her every day. she gets to see her local newspaper. we read our articles from that or other papers. we update her on what is going on. donald trump is running for president or whatever the news is. yes.

she is interested. absolutely. class what was she like in rehab and the hospital? >> she complains about being in the hospital. she says she misses tucson. >> i think it is normal for our patients to complain of something. but we have a conversation. all kidding aside, she is a very driven person. when i explained to her the rationale for some kind of therapy, she goes along very well. sometimes i know she is fatigue , but she is such a great team player, she will go a wrong -- along with everybody.

we work with her. >> we appreciate your interest. we will keep you updated as gabrielle giffords continues to progress. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama gave a speech on the middle east today outlining the future of democracy and the goal of peace in the region. the president endorsed the palestinian demand that a palestinian state be based on the 1967 borders. the president's remarks our next here on c-span. then the former director of national intelligence talked- about challenges and problems facing the u.s. intelligence community. later, tom davis on the 2012 election and the gop provincial primary. >> no 16 as i live by

themselves. you must be willing to lean on others, to listen to others, and to love others. >> what 2011 commencement speeches memorial day and search more than 800 past commencement addresses from politicians, activist, president, and other world leaders online at the c- span video library where you can search, watch, clip, and share every event we have covered from 1997 until today. it is washington your way. >> president obama laid out his vision for the u.s. role in the middle east and said he supports the emerging democracies across the region. the president urged israel and the palestinians to negotiate a final agreement. we will first hear brief comments from secretary of state hillary clinton. the remarks or about 50 minutes. -- are about 50 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. [applause] >> i am delighted to welcome our president as well as our colleagues from the diplomatic corps and especially the many young foreign service and civil servants who are here today. mr. president, from your first days in office, you have charged us with implementing a bold new approach for america's foreign-

policy, a new blueprint for how we advance or values, project our leadership, and strengthen our partnership. we have seen that in a changing world, america's leadership is more essential than ever, but that we often must lead in news and innovative new -- new and innovative ways. these foreign service officers and the civil servants, the men and women but the state department, where every day to translate your vision into real results -- results on the ground in nearly every country in the world. that is why the work we have done to provide them with the tools and resources they need to perform their mission is so important. it is why we need to keep making the case for those resources. because alongside our colleagues in the defense department, america's diplomats and development experts at the state department and usaid are

at the front lines of protecting america's security, advancing america's interest, in projecting america's values. as the waves of change sweep across the middle east and north africa, they are carrying our the -- our development beyond the embassy walls. they seek to move from protest to politics. and business is working to create economic opportunities and leaders of trying to build institutions of genuine democracy. they represent the best of america and i am en route to have them as our face to the world. mr. president, it is fitting that you have chosen to come to the state department to speak about the dramatic changes we have witnessed around the world this year. on the back wall of this historic benjamin franklin room is a portrait of the leader of

tunis, given as a guest in 1865 by the people of tunisia in honor of the enduring friendship at the end of our civil war. a century and a half later, tunisians and other citizens across the region have given the world another gift -- a new opening to work together for democracy and dignity, for peace and opportunity. these are the values that made america a great nation, but they do not belong to us alone. they are truly universal. it is profoundly in our interest that more people in more places claim them as their own. this moment belongs to the people of the middle east and north africa. they had seized control of their destiny and will make the choices that determine how the future of the region unfolds. but for america, this is a moment that calls out for clear

vision, firm principles, and a sophisticated understanding of the indispensable role our country can and must play in the world. those have been the hallmarks of president obama's leadership from his first day in office. it is with great confidence and faith in our future that i welcome the president of the united states barack obama. [applause] >>thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. please, have a seat. thank you very much. i want to begin by thanking hillary clinton, who has traveled so much these last six months that she is approaching a new landmark -- one million frequent flyer miles.

[laughter] i count on hillary every single day and i believe that she will go down as one of the finest secretaries of state in our nation's history. the state department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in american diplomacy. for six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the middle east and north africa. square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. two leaders have stepped aside. more may follow. and though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by

faith. today, i want to talk about this change -- the forces that are driving it and how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security. now, already, we've done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. after years of war in iraq, we've removed 100,000 american troops and ended our combat mission there. in afghanistan, we've broken the taliban's momentum and this july we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to afghan lead. and after years of war against al qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, osama bin laden.

bin laden was no martyr. he was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate -- an insistence that muslims had to take up arms against the west, and that violence against men, women and children was the only path to change. he rejected democracy and individual rights for muslims in favor of violent extremism -- his agenda focused on what he could destroy -- not what he could build. bin laden and his murderous vision won some adherents. but even before his death, al qaeda was losing its struggle for relevance, as the overwhelming majority of people saw that the slaughter of innocents did not answer their cries for a better life. by the time we found bin laden, al qaeda's agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and

the people of the middle east and north africa had taken their future into their own hands. that story of self- determination began six months ago in tunisia. on december 17th, a young vendor named mohammed bouazizi was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart. this was not unique. it's the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -- the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity. only this time, something different happened. after local officials refused to hear his complaints, this young man, who had never been particularly active in politics, went to the headquarters of the provincial government, doused himself in fuel, and lit himself on fire. there are times in the course

of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. in america, think of the defiance of those patriots in boston who refused to pay taxes to a king, or the dignity of rosa parks as she sat courageously in her seat. so it was in tunisia, as that vendor's act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. and in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home -- day after day, week after week -- until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power. the story of this revolution, and the ones that followed,

should not have come as a surprise. the nations of the middle east and north africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not. in too many countries, power has been concentrated in the hands of a few. in too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn -- no honest judiciary to hear his case -- no independent media to give him voice -- no credible political party to represent his views -- no free and fair election where he could choose his leader. and this lack of self- determination -- the chance to make your life what you will -- has applied to the region's economy as well. yes, some nations are blessed with wealth in oil and gas, and that has led to pockets of prosperity. but in a global economy based on knowledge, based on

innovation, no development strategy can be based solely upon what comes out of the ground. nor can people reach their potential when you cannot start a business without paying a bribe. in the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people's grievances elsewhere. the west was blamed as the source of all ills, a half- century after the end of colonialism. antagonism toward israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else. but the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore.

satellite television and the internet provide a window into the wider world -- a world of astonishing progress in places like india and indonesia and brazil. cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. and so a new generation has emerged. and their voices tell us that change cannot be denied. in cairo, we heard the voice of the young mother who said, "it's like i can finally breathe fresh air for the first time." in sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, "the night must come to an end." in benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, "our words are free now. it's a feeling you can't explain." in damascus, we heard the young man who said, "after the first

yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity." those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. and through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades. of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. in our day and age -- a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication -- people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. but it will be years before this story reaches its end. along the way, there will be good days and there will bad days. in some places, change will be swift -- in others, gradual.

and as we've already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power. the question before us is what role america will play as this story unfolds. for decades, the united states has pursued a set of core interests in the region -- countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region, standing up for israel's security and pursuing arab- israeli peace. we will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that america's interests are not hostile to people's hopes -- they're essential to them. we believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al qaeda's brutal attacks. we believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy

supplies. as we did in the gulf war, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners. yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the united states pursues our interests at their expense. given that this mistrust runs both ways -- as americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -- a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the united states and the arab world.

and that's why, two years ago in cairo, i began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. i believed then -- and i believe now -- that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self- determination of individuals. the status quo is not sustainable. societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder. so we face a historic opportunity. we have the chance to show that america values the dignity of the street vendor in tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.

there must be no doubt that the united states of america welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. but after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be. of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. it's not america that put people into the streets of tunis or cairo -- it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it's the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome. not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with our long- term vision for the region.

but we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles -- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months. the united states opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. [applause] the united states supports a set of universal rights. and these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -- whether you live in baghdad or damascus, sanaa or tehran. and we support political and economic reform in the middle east and north africa that can

meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region. our support for these principles is not a secondary interest. today i want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal. let me be specific. first, it will be the policy of the united states to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy. that effort begins in egypt and tunisia, where the stakes are high -- as tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave, and egypt is both a longstanding partner and the arab world's largest nation. both nations can set a strong

example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions, and responsible regional leadership. but our support must also extend to nations where transitions have yet to take place. unfortunately, in too many countries, calls for change have thus far been answered by violence. the most extreme example is libya, where muammar qaddafi launched a war against his own people, promising to hunt them down like rats. as i said when the united states joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force -- no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

but in libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre, we had a mandate for action, and heard the libyan people's call for help. had we not acted along with our nato allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed. the message would have been clear -- keep power by killing as many people as it takes. now, time is working against qaddafi. he does not have control over his country. the opposition has organized a legitimate and credible interim council. and when qaddafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic libya can proceed. while libya has faced violence on the greatest scale, it's not the only place where leaders have turned to repression to

remain in power. most recently, the syrian regime has chosen the path of murder and the mass arrests of its citizens. the united states has condemned these actions, and working with the international community we have stepped up our sanctions on the syrian regime -- including sanctions announced yesterday on president assad and those around him. the syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. president assad now has a choice -- he can lead that transition, or get out of the way. the syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests. it must release political prisoners and stop unjust arrests. it must allow human rights monitors to have access to cities like dara'a, and start a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.

otherwise, president assad and his regime will continue to be challenged from within and will continue to be isolated abroad. so far, syria has followed its iranian ally, seeking assistance from tehran in the tactics of suppression. and this speaks to the hypocrisy of the iranian regime, which says it stand for the rights of protesters abroad, yet represses its own people at home. let's remember that the first peaceful protests in the region were in the streets of tehran, where the government brutalized women and men, and threw innocent people into jail. we still hear the chants echo from the rooftops of tehran. the image of a young woman dying in the streets is still seared in our memory.

and we will continue to insist that the iranian people deserve their universal rights, and a government that does not smother their aspirations. now, our opposition to iran's intolerance and iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known. but if america is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for consistent change -- with change that's consistent with the principles that i've outlined today. that's true in yemen, where president saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. and that's true today in bahrain. bahrain is a longstanding

partner, and we are committed to its security. we recognize that iran has tried to take advantage of the turmoil there, and that the bahraini government has a legitimate interest in the rule of law. nevertheless, we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of bahrain's citizens, and we will -- and such steps will not make legitimate calls for reform go away. the only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail. [applause] the government must create the conditions for dialogue, and the opposition must participate to forge a just future for all bahrainis.

indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. in iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. the iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they've taken full responsibility for their own security. of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. but iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. and as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner. so in the months ahead, america must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region.

even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike. our message is simple -- if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the united states. we must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future -- particularly young people. we will continue to make good on the commitments that i made in cairo -- to build networks of entrepreneurs and expand exchanges in education, to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease. across the region, we intend to provide assistance to civil society, including those that may not be officially sanctioned, and who speak uncomfortable truths.

and we will use the technology to connect with -- and listen to -- the voices of the people. for the fact is, real reform does not come at the ballot box alone. through our efforts we must support those basic rights to speak your mind and access information. we will support open access to the internet, and the right of journalists to be heard -- whether it's a big news organization or a lone blogger. in the 21st century, information is power, the truth cannot be hidden, and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens. such open discourse is important even if what is said does not square with our worldview. let me be clear, america

respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them. and sometimes we profoundly disagree with them. we look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. what we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent. because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the respect for the rights of minorities. such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. in tahrir square, we heard egyptians from all walks of life chant, "muslims, christians, we are one." america will work to see that this spirit prevails -- that all

faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. in a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. and for this season of change to succeed, coptic christians must have the right to worship freely in cairo, just as shia must never have their mosques destroyed in bahrain. what is true for religious minorities is also true when it comes to the rights of women. history shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered. and that's why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men -- by focusing assistance on child and maternal health, by helping women to teach, or start

a business, by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. the region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential. [applause] now, even as we promote political reform, even as we promote human rights in the region, our efforts can't stop there. so the second way that we must support positive change in the region is through our efforts to advance economic development for nations that are transitioning to democracy. after all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. the tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a

family. too many people in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, perhaps hoping that their luck will change. throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from those ideas. the greatest untapped resource in the middle east and north africa is the talent of its people. in the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. it's no coincidence that one of the leaders of tahrir square was an executive for google. that energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street.

for just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity. so, drawing from what we've learned around the world, we think it's important to focus on trade, not just aid, on investment, not just assistance. the goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness, the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. america's support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability, promoting reform, and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy. and we're going to start with tunisia and egypt. first, we've asked the world

bank and the international monetary fund to present a plan at next week's g8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of tunisia and egypt. together, we must help them recover from the disruptions of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. and we are urging other countries to help egypt and tunisia meet its near-term financial needs. second, we do not want a democratic egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. so we will relieve a democratic egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. we will help egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. and we will help newly

democratic governments recover assets that were stolen. third, we're working with congress to create enterprise funds to invest in tunisia and egypt. and these will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in eastern europe after the fall of the berlin wall. opic will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. and we will work with the allies to refocus the european bank for reconstruction and development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the middle east and north africa as it has in europe. fourth, the united states will launch a comprehensive trade and investment partnership initiative in the middle east and north africa. if you take out oil exports, this entire region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as switzerland.

so we will work with the eu to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with u.s.and european markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. and just as eu membership served as an incentive for reform in europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the middle east and north africa. prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -- the corruption of elites who steal from their people, the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business, the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. we will help governments meet international obligations, and

invest efforts at anti- corruption -- by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to increase transparency and hold government accountable. politics and human rights, economic reform. let me conclude by talking about another cornerstone of our approach to the region, and that relates to the pursuit of peace. for decades, the conflict between israelis and arabs has cast a shadow over the region. for israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.

for palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost to the middle east, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security and prosperity and empowerment to ordinary people. for over two years, my administration has worked with the parties and the international community to end this conflict, building on decades of work by previous administrations. yet expectations have gone unmet. israeli settlement activity continues. palestinians have walked away from talks. the world looks at a conflict that has grinded on and on and on, and sees nothing but stalemate.

indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward now. i disagree. at a time when the people of the middle east and north africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. the's certainly true for two parties involved. for the palestinians, efforts to delegitimize israel will end in failure. symbolic actions to isolate israel at the united nations in september won't create an independent state. palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. and palestinians will never

realize their independence by denying the right of israel to exist. as for israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. our commitment to israel's security is unshakeable. and we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. but precisely because of our friendship, it's important that we tell the truth -- the status quo is unsustainable, and israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace. the fact is, a growing number of palestinians live west of the jordan river. technology will make it harder for israel to defend itself. a region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in

which millions of people -- not just one or two leaders -- must believe peace is possible. the international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. the dream of a jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation. now, ultimately, it is up to the israelis and palestinians to take action. no peace can be imposed upon them -- not by the united states, not by anybody else. but endless delay won't make the problem go away. what america and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples -- israel as a jewish state and the homeland for the jewish people, and the

state of palestine as the homeland for the palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. so while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear -- a viable palestine, a secure israel. the united states believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent palestinian borders with israel, jordan, and egypt, and permanent israeli borders with palestine. we believe the borders of israel and palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. the palestinian people must have the right to govern

themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state. as for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat. provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. the full and phased withdrawal of israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. and the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. these principles provide a foundation for negotiations.

palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state -- israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. i'm aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain -- the future of jerusalem, and the fate of palestinian refugees. but moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both israelis and palestinians. now, let me say this -- recognizing that negotiations need to begin with the issues of territory and security does not mean that it will be easy to come back to the table.

in particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between fatah and hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for israel -- how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? and in the weeks and months to come, palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question. meanwhile, the united states, our quartet partners, and the arab states will need to continue every effort to get beyond the current impasse. i recognize how hard this will be. suspicion and hostility has been passed on for generations, and at times it has hardened. but i'm convinced that the majority of israelis and palestinians would rather look to the future than be trapped in the past.

we see that spirit in the israeli father whose son was killed by hamas, who helped start an organization that brought together israelis and palestinians who had lost loved ones. that father said, "i gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict." we see it in the actions of a palestinian who lost three daughters to israeli shells in gaza. "i have the right to feel angry," he said. "so many people were expecting me to hate. my answer to them is i shall not hate. let us hope," he said, "for tomorrow." that is the choice that must be made -- not simply in the israeli-palestinian conflict, but across the entire region --

a choice between hate and hope, between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. it's a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it's a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife. for all the challenges that lie ahead, we see many reasons to be hopeful. in egypt, we see it in the efforts of young people who led protests. in syria, we see it in the courage of those who brave bullets while chanting, "peaceful, peaceful." in benghazi, a city threatened with destruction, we see it in the courthouse square where people gather to celebrate the freedoms that they had never known. across the region, those rights that we take for granted are

being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist. for the american people, the scenes of upheaval in the region may be unsettling, but the forces driving it are not unfamiliar. our own nation was founded through a rebellion against an empire. our people fought a painful civil war that extended freedom and dignity to those who were enslaved. and i would not be standing here today unless past generations turned to the moral force of nonviolence as a way to perfect our union -- organizing, marching, protesting peacefully together to make real those words that declared our nation -- "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men

are created equal." those words must guide our response to the change that is transforming the middle east and north africa -- words which tell us that repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall, and that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights. it will not be easy. there's no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope. but the united states of america was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. and now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just. thank you very much, everybody.

[applause] thank you. ♪

♪

>> president obama at the state department today. he said that the boundaries for future palestinian state should be based on the 1967 borders. israel's prime minister reacted to the president and said a withdrawal from the west bank would leave israel vulnerable. prime minister netanyahu will be in washington tomorrow and meeting with president obama at the white house. >> we will continue the conversation on president obama's middle east speech on tomorrows "washington journal." recently issued a report on u.s. infrastructure needs. later, former assistant, and security secretary for health affairs will talk about

defending against chemical and biological attacks. "washington journal", each morning at 7:00. >> up next, former director of national intelligence dennis blair talks about some of the challenges facing the u.s. intelligence community. then at former virginia -- tom davis on the 2012 elections and the presidential primary. >> history is much more than just politics and soldiers. social issues. it is also medicine and science and arts and music and theater and poetry and ideas. we should not lump things into categories, it is all part of the same thing. part one ofght's,

two weeks with david mccullough on the americans who made the greatest journey. 8:00 on c-span. >> next, former director of national intelligence dennis blair testified about u.s. intelligence operations. he left his job last year after two failed terrorist bombing plot. he recommends structural changes. this committee hearing is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> the hearing will come to order. this is our second hearing on the topic 10 years after the 9/11, intelligence reform working? part of a continuing series of hearings that our committee is

convening this year on how well the security reforms enacted after the 9/11 have protected our homeland, with an eye on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 coming up. during our hearings last week, we explored a variety of issues related to intelligence reform. this hearing is gone to focus on a single question. does the director of national intelligence have the authority is needed to lead our intelligence community as we wanted to be led? he has had an exemplary career as a senior military commander

and as a consumer of intelligence before he overtook his production and one of washington's most challenging jobs. the director of national intelligence. he is uniquely qualified to help us answer the questions we have about how it has performed and his willingness to testify today it is in keeping with his lifetime of service to our country. i thank you for being here today. the committee created -- act of 2004, at the recommendation of the 9/11 commission, which concluded that basically no one was in charge of u.s. intelligence community and that lack of leadership resulted and dysfunction and disunity that

left us vulnerable to the attacks that occurred on 9/11. the nature of the thread has changed from the post second world war. and the cold war and even since 9/11, with the dispersion and the metastasizing of the islamic terrorist movement. in the midst of all that, our intention was backed we would bring the necessary unity of command and effort to our 16 intelligence agencies. we come together today to ask on a day-to-day basis, it does the dni have the authority is needed to lead the intelligence communities as needed?

achieve the level of integration that is necessary to meet the range of security challenges that are nation faces and a range of needs for intelligence not to various people and our government have. these are the overarching question that i hope we will have the opportunity to pose today. with that, i will put the rest of my opening statement and the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the operation that trapped and killed osama bin laden demonstrates the kind of successful collaboration between our intelligence and the operational capacities that we envisioned, when we reform to our intelligence communities in the wake of the attacks on our country on 9/11. this was undoubtedly a great

victory for our intelligence efforts and a great blow to al qaeda. but the facts remain that al qaeda and other terrorist threats are not going away. that is why it is time for congress to examine it and build upon the successes since the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act was passed. that bill created a director of national intelligence. it is an opportune time to identify any shortcomings in that structure and to work to correct them. i look forward to hearing from admiral blair about what worked during his tenure at dni, and what might be changed about the structure that we defined several years ago. i would note with great pride

that admiral blair is a fellow mainer. either coming from a great navy town or following the five to narrations of naval officers, perhaps preordained his career. we all hope that he has what we call a great navy day as we hear from him about his experiences act the dni. almost 10 years since september 11, and seven years since our landmark legislation, we are safer as a nation, but not yet safe. our intelligence community is stronger and more effective than ever before, but plenty of turf battles remain. during his tenure, he was at the

center of some unusually public disputes with the cia. to help address lingering deficiencies, but the end i must be the quarterback bobby 9/11 -- quarterback that the 9/11 commission envisioned. i will be interested to hear whether admiral blair believes the dni has been empowered to fill this critical role. at the first hearing, the leaders of the 9/11 commission, the governor came, and congressman hamilton, agreed that john brennan is performing the role that we envisioned a for the dni. that troubles me.

that choice, that structure undermines the statutory role of the dni. we must ask the fundamental question, are changes in law required in order to realize the potential of the dni? or is this simply a matter of more fidelity? admiral, thank you for being here today and i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> thank you very much. admiral blair, it is all yours. thank you for being here. >> [inaudible] thank you for inviting me here today. it is common to improve the effectiveness of government after some disaster or crisis. intelligent reform was born of 9/11.

i think that reform in the wake of success also has a history. those who led the great victory of world war ii knew there were great improvement to be made. they passed bold legislation to make the country safer. as we support -- as we celebrate the brilliant work of those who attacked osama bin laden and his hideout, now is a similar time for laws to make this more effective than it is. as i look to future challenges and opportunities, i'm convinced that we need intelligence committee that operates under authorities there relevant to the future, not to the past. intelligence committees that is organized and irrational basis and an intelligence community that is integrated under a strong and confident director of national intelligence. i left the administration a year ago frustrated with the lack of support for a strong dni.

i was reluctant to appear publicly before this committee. i believe the imperative of an integrated intelligence community should transcend policy and politics and personalities. the country needs and deserves legislation that will establish the best intelligence capability possible. what to use the rest of my time to highlight the improvements that i believe are still needed. the objective is to make the structure a structure of the community worthy of people. whether in a cia, nsa, the fbi, dea, dia, these people who are in that organization.

we owed them integrated leadership. let me run down areas where i think we can do more. right now, the department of defense and the intelligence committee conduct operations together under separate authorities. to be effective against a dangerous, elusive, quick adversaries like all qaeda, drug cartels, out of states, a new title is needed. we need a -- right now, the structure of d c i a -- the cia -- one conducts covert operations and other organization provides analysis.

the skills, procedures, colter's of these two organizations are very different. its yield little synergy and has major disadvantages. i recommend that the cia be broken into and an agency and a national service. each led by a career professional with a fixed term, each reporting separately to the director of national intelligence. i recommend that some element be added to those two agencies. moving to a 40, current legislation and constitutional president with little application to the information age. the national security agency has the world's best ability to provide protection for the country's internet domains. it is not securing the important dot.gov domain and the

vital infrastructure of the dot.com domain. right now, there is no legislation that authorizes cyber operations. against enemies that use the internet to threaten american lives and property. extremist website incite violence, provide practical bomb making advice, drug cartels use the internet to arrange deliveries of drugs to purchase weapons, called on nations are making cyber plans that threaten our vital interest. often these threats are carried out on american internet servers, or because there is a possibility of collateral damage, or because and legal action has not yet occurred, at the united states has no basis

or law for the quick and effective action that we need against these threats. the country need such legislation in. it should include limitations. related to avoid collateral damage. these oversight mechanisms, but it must provide a basis for action commensurate with the threat. the authority of the dni within the intelligence community. i believe it was correct, the intelligence community leader, and integrator not a coordinator. the -- the intelligence community does not self- synchronized. few organizations do. the white house has neither the staff or the time to lead it. it often approves misguided schemes. the authority that congress intended court and to exercise is not now intact.

the result is a confusion of responsibility, bureaucratic fiction, and the potential gaps in intelligence that our adversaries can exploit. there are several legislative changes that i believe can strengthen the authority and accountability of a director. first personnel, in addition to naming or concurring with the appointment of the head of the intelligence elements, they should approve the appointment of second and third level officials. this authority will ensure the community minded officers occupied the important posts. second, budget, relatively weak and the current fiscal year. he or she should have the authority to initiate reprogramming of funding.

network security against new threats. or simply to programs and are not making the progress that they should. in conclusion, the success against osama bin laden should not cause us to rest on our laurels. we are a long way from integrated intelligence communities. with integration being driven by a strong director and a competent staff, i believe congressional action is in dispensable -- it is a vital piece of business. i find it reassuring that you see fit to keep the challenge alive and take seriously the progress we need to make. i am happy to answer your questions. >> thank you, very much. i appreciate what you said at the beginning. but no one less thing to your statement would think that you were here out of some type of personnel -- we asked you and.

it is totally substantive and true and is exactly why we ask you because you are part of the very small group of people who have actually been the dni. you have that perspective and you bring to it everything else to live done in that career. we're going to do seven-minute rounds of questions. let me ask you this question to begin with. i was fascinated that -- they suggested that maybe it's critical to achieving that goal for there to be adequate

supports from the president and congress in a different way as it is to add on to the statutory authorities. i wonder what you think about that. it may not be an either-or question, but give me your sense of how important the non- statutory recognition and authority given -- giving for the office is. >> i would agree that active support from the white house and congress make it a lot easier for a director to fill in gaps of the legislation. that would be a good thing. however, i do not believe that is a reason for the congress not to continue to strengthen the intelligence community integration and a way that it

was designed to do. i mentioned, the administration and personnel come and go, but it is the responsibility of the legislation to establish that structure. i think what we have learned over time -- and this is not the only time that the congress has attempted to integrate related, but not cooperating well agencies. the legislation of 1947 brought services together based on the result of world war ii. the creation of the department of homeland security. these things are difficult. it does not always go easily. it takes persistence and it takes the dedication to believe that this is the right thing.

congress has a role. there are two models of the intelligence community that we have seen in the last five years. one is in which the director of national intelligence is expected to be able to integrate the community and to be responsible for that. another in which the authority is sort of spread around among people. the white house picks and chooses what it will use. i think right now, we see the model going towards that second model, which the group in the executive branch now believes. i think the first model is more correct. i think that is what the congress intended, and we need to continue to push that. i think that five years into the dni, we were making good progress and we need to continue. >> good.

let me talk about some of the authorities that the dni has and how they can be expanded. the 2004 legislation give budget authority to the dni. that includes having the final say over the budget that is presented to the president. but to our location related budget called -- a budget allocation related to -- and you're prepared testimony, increased comptroller ship authorities so that the agencies under could not seek to circumvents the dni on budget issues. i want to ask how strong the

authorities over the budget have been in practice during your period of time. and whether they have fully utilized the authorities over both budget development for future fiscal years. >> i think there are too important background points. the last 10 years have been a time of rising budgets for the intelligence community, just as they have been for the department of defense. the tough budget trade-offs have generally been taken care of by putting more money on them, rather than by the prioritization. i think those times are coming to an end and we will see budgets that are flat to and decreasing. that will make the central ability even more important. just do to the number of tasks

early on, there was not a strong staff support structure for budget trade offs. the equivalent of my experience with the department of defense, the strongest -- the secretary of defense had not been established. those are coming into maturity while i was the director. i spent a great deal of time trying to strengthen them. i found that towards the end of my time, i have the tools to use the budget authority. but the give you two examples. -- let me give you two examples. i came back from a trip to afghanistan horrified by the lack of language abilities that we had among are deployed officers. i will not give you the numbers, but the number of speakers was

smaller than what i thought was safe. language ability was in the beginning and agencies have been kind of chugging along. it was time to say, all right, now. we will move the money and make it happen. that is the sort of thing that i am talking about. well-meaning agencies making their own priorities, allowed eight national priority to drift down. you need to be able to punch it. >> more you able to do that? >> at that point, it was within -- we had the conversation and i was going to give them one more chance to do it themselves. and then i left. that is where i stood. >> did you feel that you have the authority to carry that out? >> i was going to find out.

that would of been the first one. the more usual thing was what i saw was what happened after the detroit bombing. we had obvious problems in the search engines that were available to counter analyst. as you saw from the final report, we missed some of those. part of it was due to an analyst not been able to make a query and have the answer come back. it required a lot of skill. we received more money to fix that problem and my job was to spread it out. there were fairly decent battles on how to spread it out, and each agency said, i am the one to get the lion's share. those are different problems. going in and carving it out and putting it.

i was used to the secretary of defense being able to do -- that is really what i am talking about. >> my time is up. senator collins? >> thank you. admiral, you were talking about some of the problems that were exposed by bad intelligence failures. i am curious. were you consulted by the attorney general on the decision to charge him as if he were a criminal suspect? >> i was not consulted on that particular decision, nor do i think i would've had much to act. i think that the key role of the

director is during the questioning phase of a suspect once apprehended or arrested, how much do we lean on intelligence gathering and how much do we lean on gathering material for prosecution? it involves a different set of protocols. the most famous one was the reading of miranda rights and the provision of a lawyer. he was not -- i was not consulted on that. certain decisions were made by the agent at the scene. it was not release supervised. we did not have the highest valued interrogation group. i believe strongly that that is the point at which the director of national intelligence should make an input. the goal is to be able to do both. the attorney general can make a decision, a military tribunal, a federal court, or nothing.

if you have to make a trade-off, that is when you need to say, ok, we're going ahead to get intelligence information. we will back off on gathering evidence. that is what i should be involved in. >> i realize that we have gone through that issue before, but the reason i brought it up again if i want to laid the predicate for my next question. what is the role of the dni when a terrorist suspect is apprehended? it seems to me that one of the first calls should be to the dni so that a search can be done immediately of all databases so that intelligence analysts could

be flown out to wherever they need to go. i want to hear from you more what you think the role -- you were starting to get into that. i was not trying to relive the who told what, but for those who were not around me explored that before, i want to laid the predicate. >> the theme throughout all of my testimony and my thinking, we need to be able to quickly bring to gather the skills of anybody in government and many from outside the government to can apply their skills to it. let's say that we apprehend a member of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. we should be able to get the best intelligence, the best counter terrorist analyst, the best fbi interrogators, the best people in the fbi you a been working terrorism.

there's to be a structured process. have a quick conversation. different approaches are laid out on the table. we have a decision making process so that they call can be made in terms of that balance. under tremendous time pressure, minutes, hours, the people go ahead and proceed in accordance with the guidance. it is bad -- and you have to -- these people cannot meet each other the first time when it is a real one. it is setting up those procedures. my experience is that we have such good people across the board and law enforcement and intelligence, with general guidance from the top, they can do the job perfectly. but there are certain key questions, the balance between a gathering evidence and gathering intelligence. in the case -- in that case, i

think we had all the evidence. we did not need a lot of self- incrimination in that category. we should have leaned harder on intelligence. we pretty much had a conviction, i thought. that is the kind of decision you need to make. you need quick, practiced procedures to do that. >> as i looked at the dni or any position in washington, there are three levels of power. one is access to the president, the authority over personnel, and the third is control over the budget. i would like to talk about those issues with you, starting with the first -- a personal issue. part -- personnel issue. part of our concept was to have a goldwater nickel joint

approach to service in the intelligence community. i shirt tucked -- it took the military an awful long time to embrace that. the military, really has largely embraced joint nest. -- jointness. where are we in the military community as having that sort of approach where personnel is shared among agencies and wear your ability to advance in your career in the intelligence community depend upon joint service? >> senator, i think the provisions were exactly right. they are abiding within the intelligence community. if i try to compare it with five years into the goldwater -- is

comparable period in terms of the effect is having. it will take more time pureed -- it will take more time. as i talk to people, the younger they are, the more they get. half of the the bureaus in the intelligence community to mind after 9/11 for the right reasons. they are naturally -- they do not carry all of that baggage of bureaucratic product is that we all grew up with. -- prod test -- prerogatives. the trends are good. in the field, you walked into an intelligence center in afghanistan, iraq, just about anyplace in the world, you'd find people in there working.

if somebody has a piece of information, he is expected to contribute. there are not in this atmosphere. as they bring that back, we have to provide a modicum of structure so that they are not reported for bad behavior. it will take over. i think we are headed and the right direction. but i am in patient at the scale. i thought we decided this. but shut up and get on with this. the next generation, the generation that is right on the cusp of leadership, is going to be quite more joint minded. if we can get the structures right, they will fall into it. you have to realize that you can be proud of your own agency, you can say, i am a cia person, but you also need pride in the team.

you need pride in everybody. everybody is doing well. when you have not experienced it, you think of the pride -- if somebody gets something, it's a trap from which you have. both pride and effectiveness go up exponentially when you can get over the hump of that jointness. i think it's is a piece of that. >> thank you. i think your point about the generational change is absolutely right. i think we are seeing that with the use of technology and networking and sharing of data bases. that is what the next generation does naturally. thank you. >> thank you.

since 9/11, i hope people within the intelligence community understand that to they can come under great public criticism if it appears that one court another part of the community -- as a result, the team suffered. they suffer a rebuke that they would not have in earlier times. >> i have a couple of quick questions. in what ways can a be improved or strengthens? >> freedom of action and what

was the other? >> the freedom of action for the unity of the effort as all hold. is that on the table? >> i think it is very much achievable. what you find is that in the best organizations, people come in as an expert in their own field, but there more than just sitting there waiting to say, if you want a piece of intelligence, i will gather that for you. they come in with an attitude of being able to contribute what they can do, and based on their better understanding of what other people's problems are, how can they contribute in ways that are non-traditional. i see that time and time again. when you form these teams, you bring people into them with the attitude that everybody needs to contribute.

magic happens. i have seen that in terms of the intelligence community. i have seen it in action teams. one of the most poignant things that i saw was that i was visiting one of our bases in a very dangerous part of the world. a on a cia case officer told me the story that she had been on her way to a meeting in a restaurant with a recruit. it completes agency monitoring the situation picked up, warning of danger. the been able to get a phone call to her. she did not go to the restaurant, life saved, lesson learned. that kind of teamwork but i think becomes the norm when you create an atmosphere in which it is expected and valued. >> thank you. thank you for your service in

your position. i want to mention the first. general haig in testified last week. -- hayden testified last week. can you describe your relationship with usdi? does the role hendrick the ability to exert -- >> that was not my experience. i thought that the general worked very well together. a few -- if he were sitting here, he would say the same.

i know senator lieberman was involved in some of the banks from the department of defense when it was written. i found it largely to have dissipated by the time i have the honor of being dni. the really important security challenges that we face these days have so much of a military aspect mixed up with the non- military aspects, economic, social, that the idea that you can say, that is for the pentagon. this other stuff is for cia. it is long gone. if you look at the big problems, afghanistan, iraq, the military aspects and the non-military aspects are all together. you have got to use your intelligence capabilities.

to look at the whole question. we are driven by the nature of the problem. the officers or civilians have grown up in the joint pattern that we discussed earlier. they understand the advantages of the synergy that can come from that. i did not have any strong for teammates and community the integration then general alexander. that leadership was strong. the usdi was part of the team also. i did not see that, but i know it was an historical fault line grade -- a fault line.

secretary gates has some piece of my job previously. >> thank you, sir. >> for the record, he has said exactly the same thing. about how good of a working relationship he had with you. these are interesting comparisons because this is a case where the personalities that existed under secretary rumsfeld were part of the problem. secretary gates comes to his position after having spent most of this public service in the hunt -- in the intelligence community. you have knowledge of each other. and a willingness to work together. you did that to the nation's benefit. it is interesting, during the

legislative battles on the intelligence reform act of 2004, the toughest ones were with the defense department. yet in practice, the tensions between the dni and the dod were much less than expressed at the negotiating table. it was much less for other components. i really apologize for having to break the float. the vote is going on on an important judicial nomination so i will ask that we stand in recess. i will be back as soon as i can to continue the questions. thank you.

>> the hearing will reconvene again. i can proceed with a round of questions. it is up to you. >> [inaudible] >> go right ahead. i apologize, admiral, for having to leave for a vote. i look forward to asking you some more questions. >> i do have a question. welcome. i am a retired navy capt. i understand that today's reform hearing is focusing on whether

the intelligence community is operating better. if this question has already been asked, i apologize. since the passage of legislation in 2004, after the successful operation against osama bin laden, and thwarted -- i salute our seals and everybody who was part of that operation. i think there is a sense of justice with respect to osama bin laden, and hopefully some closure. the real benefits is going to be our ability to use the intelligence that we recovered to better protect this country who might be at risk. after the successful operation

against osama bin laden, during the last nine years, i think that things are better. i hope that you do, too. i was impressed with last week's remarks by janet napolitano how intelligence information from the compound was almost immediately been shared throughout our intelligence community. i am not sure this would have happened as quickly or as smoothly before 9/11. while it is clear that institutional reorganizations and institutional reorganizations are needed every now and then, without leadership working together as a team, it is only going to work partially.

here is my question. it centers on their relationship between the president, the deputy national security advisers, and the assistant to the president of homeland security, and the director of national intelligence, and whether the director of national intelligence will ever work as it was intended. would you think about that for a moment? maybe share some thoughts. >> on the first observations that you made, i agree completely. this was a very well done operation. i think we need to make that the

norm. i think it is understandable that we did well on that operation, the highest priority that this nation has had for the last 10 years. a the personal involvement of the president, the high-level cabinet officers, so it is no surprise that we did well on that. i think we need to get that same sort of interaction and legislatively mandated that same sort of interaction, teamwork, in order to get everything done. i think we have made strides, but i think we have a ways to go. on the question of the relationship between the dni and

the president versus his staff, this is what relationships are all about. but president should get his advice from whoever he chooses to. he has staffers on his staff better experts in defense, and i used to be on the national security staff as a commander in the navy. outside experts are brought in. we all know how the device and the responsibility of line officers should work. in the white house relationships with departments and with the intelligence community, the same principles should apply. you should carry out your main actions and get the recommendations of those who are -- of a new point.

and to the senate confirms. then you ought to use your staff to evaluate the recommendations and check on how they are doing. there will be tension between those two times. no good staff officer thinks he can do a better job until he occupies the job. and then with the kurds. the tensions are natural -- they should be carrying out their job and held responsible. >> do i have time for one more? >> go ahead. >> i chaired a subcommittee. one of the things we tried to do is to look in every nook and cranny of the federal government. is it possible to get better results with less money?

is it possible to get better results with the same amount of money? this committee is a great committee to be on. how do we make the government work better with less money? , and security is terribly important, but we have not forgotten what it used to be. a couple of weeks ago, i was returning from south asia, i was reviewing our counter-terrorism strategies. one of the success stories that was brought to my attention was how our intelligence community analyst and a military specialist, both men and women,

were sitting side by side each other and analyzing intelligence information. i was very impressed with the cohesion that i saw. the question is whether this new approach is part of a broader counterterrorism strategy. are there lessons learned from outdoor experiences that you can share with us? >> what you saw it is just as good as he said it was. it is a result of 10 years of the same set of midlevel leaders and the intelligence agencies and in the department of defense, primarily special forces, working together against al qaeda and insubordinate. these extraordinary leaders in

all of these agencies and services have learned to cooperate at the local level they do that right now with the tolerance of the leadership. in some cases, with the active support of the leadership. but there is not a structure that they can fall into naturally when the urgency that 9/11 caused passes. i recommended in my prepared testimony for this committee that we form a joint interagency task forces. we had a way -- pick a place like yemen were both military and intelligence counterterrorism capabilities can be -- the boss of it could be a military officer and the deputy be a intelligence

professionals. they need to be qualified for the job and have experienced. instead of this extraordinary cooperation, which now occurs, you can have a unified effort in which the task group commander has the authority to then choose to use the intelligence or military assets, put them together. but we found -- what we found is that you come up with new ideas when you put people together in one space, one mission, with a set of core competencies that a pretty extraordinary. able to find different ways to do that. that is what you need? back will be easy. why don't we tried this?

with all the best people in the world, you can work out some of this stuff. it the incentives are not right, the rewards are not right. there's a certain danger in cooperating. i votes for an interagency task force is pointed at the key areas where we still face al qaeda. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. >> thank you, senator. let me approach the topic we have been talking about. by sharing this analysis of our legislation. the dni, two major responsibilities -- one was to be the leader of the intelligence community and the second was to be the senior adviser on intelligence matters to the president. i want to ask you, in terms of

responsibility, whether that is too much to ask of one person. maybe i should leave it at that. is it necessary for the dni to be the senior intelligence adviser to the president in order for the dni to have the credibility to be the leader of the intelligence community? >> i think that the dni can and should have those responsibilities. i do not think that the dni can

have the additional responsibility of commanding the cia. i think it was extremely wise to cut those to loft. i also think that it is essential advising the president be combined in one person so that the advice can be realistic in terms of what is the committee can do, and so that the director, the sorts of information that the present needs, can turn around and say, we have got to work harder on problem x. sometimes people forget that the intelligence successes of today are due to a lot of work done

over the last several years. collection, and aggression, spending money on the right place, language capabilities. , as you are the person when shores of all that happens while and iraq's -- and directs, you are not in a position to tell the president. you were just taking a report from some analysts. you might as well have the analyst tell him directly. think they have responsibility for making this a good and passing it to the president. it is important. it is important to tell a president white we did not know what we did not know and what we knew. sometimes i tell them i was perfect your job and not be

difficult. it is that interaction what it can do, that burn that you need to do better so that when he turns rodentia and says what is the situation -- when he turns to you and says what is the situation, you have a good answer. i do not think they can split up. finally, the dni should have a political sense of what is important to the president and the long term. grant will be had to when a batter. -- grant knew he had to win a battle. so he won one. the will of the people has to drive what we do. you need to assist close but not so close that you make the mistakes that over politicize

the national security enterprises. >> how important to be dni's strength is it that the dni himself to be there for the interbreeding of the president? -- for the fincher briefing -- interbriefing of the president. >> i it was responsible that the daily briefing was correct. i did not have to be the one to

brief it every day. i think it is the former responsibility. i think the dni means to attend enough so that he has the inner circle. he needs to do that on a fairly frequent basis uniquely. i would always receive a memo from the person who gave the briefing, here is what happens. that is natural. it is not quite the same as yinsame as sta tyin gon. >> everyone agreed that they had

unsustainable -- it was an unsustainable position. he said something interesting. he thought he was the only director of the cia that was nominated he was actually a dni. he did not think it was good. the others had come up through the white house. it is interesting. >> i strongly believe the

director of the cia stinson and analytical piece. if she the -- cia and an analytical piece. i think the record shows that havee who have done athat been directors that we think the most highly of their. i think either we have a position that you should put someone who maybe does not have some intelligence on a pit. part to the confusion we have now is when you appoint two people to these jobs, both of whom are considered independently.

then we get some of the jostling we have seen. we have to use professional. >> it requires a president having different vision and really recognizing that it is the president main intelligence advisor. he is in the leader of the community. he did not dwell on it. he said no one else thinks that he came up with a recommendation with general petraeus at the page agency. your point is well taken.

want to ask about the split. talk more about what the bandages are of having a career person at the head of the cia or into parts. >> i think the best leaders are agencies to specialize in it. the move the organization is a step forward. they are able to do new things.

i think that is best by silicon knows the organization. i saw anyone that i had the chance. you have four good chances. you could have flipped a coin. there people there who could have done that. if you have a dni who is turning the political top cover, you could have the other one being a military officer. those who have done the best

have had a higher percentage rate. >> now going a little bit deeper, why separate the cia into an analytic sessions? >> starting off with trying to clean the slate. they use the academic skills. you have oil and water here. these are the certain people who do it.

the operators are there. when their third together, there is some advantages. it gave them a closer since of their efforts. makes them a little more reflective and what they are doing. there was an advantage to that. i will leave this in the service in order to do that. and this time, the operator prevail that the agency.

that pretty much said the town for the agency. there detracted from the analytical ability. they made it difficult analytically at some time. iit you look at where the comesigence come from it-- from, both comes from signal intelligence scatter. i do not see see any advantage shop.

has the same rate, -- at the same rate, analyst for taking out of the cia and put in with the same skills. they have now held them the way they help others. that is why i think the dni is putting management teams together. that is the norm.

if you look at other countries, it is not that we should be bound by them. it is an interesting check of how it happened. >> there is a separation between the analysts. >> correct. >> 1f follow these things, -- i want to follow these things come i would call them researchers. it was valuable research. they are becoming an expert in a particular country.

this was necessary. irathose are two very interestig suggestions. let me talk to you about another one that does relate to the osama bin laden case. he indicated briefly in your opening statement that we have title 10 which covers judicial military operations. title 50 covers other authorities in that case.

the president gave the authority to the director of the cia under title 50. he called on the special operations command. you make a very interesting suggestion. this is what you called integrated task forces. turns noout a lot of what they e doing are inherent.

what to be the benefit of the title 60? >> let me illustrate it first by a well-known bad example. that is always instructive. when we went into afghanistan, there were bags of money. the special forces were not there yet. they never again will be second to one of these. there was explicit competition.

given taking as can -- you have been given afghan prisoners. the military backed up for that -- that the pri that was are readily available. it was one country, one set of authorities. to put these problems together with the capabilities of the cia. they have a lot more budget flexibility.

they have the firepower that is also an important. the president does have -- doesn't have to use it. the definition of covert action under title 50 has changed since the cold war was invented. it is to make actions deniable so that we could take legal action around the world. we could officially denied it. if there is ever an operation that was less intended to be deniable, i have no idea.

they were going to be soldiers. they are going to be sailors involved. 5000 people were probably involved. this is a job that is not being done by country that we could call on parent. this is the challenge we face with al qaeda and the affiliate's. it is not the state boundaries and cold war is that we invented. a lot of these campaigns go on for a long time. if there is a less well

publicized cia action soon, i do not know what that is either. they called reporters and tell them what happens. i think these definitions are getting in our way and not helping. they said of the competition for he was in charge. it is rather than a mechanism so that they come to bear. the questions involved, there are some weighty questions. title 10 entitles them under the geneva condition -- geneva convention. this is still a military action. that provide some protection. had one of them gone down, they tried to pick up some of the

people there. i doubt if they would have been much motivated. food is as group report to? >> it is a notification for congress. i think they need to be notified. there is one instance of a similar one that i was appalled when. we talked to the leadership of both houses.

the world and not come to an end. they ask tough questions. we were able to answer them. we need a day to draw those capabilities. >> who'd be in charge of one of the joint task forces? >> i would look at it and say that you know this is a mixed set of skills here. i would choose the lead commander on that basis. the deputy allen make from the other disciplines. you have them bring loral up without processes skills to bear.

it is similar to where we have done it would join commanders. >> with a always be involved more of these joint task forces? >> there is a approval of a commander. if you are a good dni, if he of choosing good people -- if you have chosen the people, you let them roll. i have leadership for what we did during those hours.

these are interesting ideas. >> the integrity and that today. admiral, you have been extremely helpful. you've given us some ideas. i do not know we are going to do from here. we may recommend some additional legislation. i think some of these really do. if you are willing, i reserve the right to reach out and call you on the from. the combination of your experiences were unique and helpful.

that makes them a the suggestions. >> i hope thwe can call and your wisdom. >> you always can do it. >> thank you. i even think my friend -- i always think my friend for being here. we will be open for 15 additional days. we have great things you for what you have contributed. the meeting is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the members of congress have threatened to cut aid to pakistan following suspicion that elements of the security forces may have harbored osama bin laden. tomorrow, a discussion on u.s.

relations with pakistan. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> history is much more than politics. it is also medicine, science, arts, and music. >>. beecher stowe, henry adams, part one of two weeks on americans who made the great journey to paris.

>> now discussion on the 2012 campaign. this is 50 minutes. " continues. host: former republican congressman and chairman of the national republican congressional committee tom davis. if you were running the nrcc today, would you think of the medicare plan that paul ryan has put out would be a liability for republicans? guest: i think it will be fine but a lot of people think it over -- if it goes and answered, you are in trouble. it does not apply to people over 55, their benefits are guaranteed. long term the do nothing approach jeopardize is it for everybody. the difficulty is when you get attacked -- either side, democrats have the same problem last -- is you tend to grow up in a ball and not defend it. it is further complicated in this new your special election

by the fact you have a third- party candidate taking votes away from them. but at the end of the day, th deficit is the issue of our time. it may not be front and center for most people -- but this is the next bubble that is going to burst if we do not do something. host: have the republicans in your view effectively answered to democrats? guest: no, they are running for cover. that is the difficulty. look, the ryan plan may not be the perfect plan for anybody but at least he is addressing the issue. everybody else is putting their head in e sand. this is the fastest growing program in government, growing 7% a year. we have a federal government borrowing 41 cents on the dollar. that is just unsustainable. you've goto look at all of these programs and i think everybody is going to have to take a haircut. host: who will win the new york special? guest:t is complicated because it is a three-way race. i will tell you one thing -- it

is close. host: they picked up the massa seat. guest: but we lost two other specials. it did not portend anything for the next november. medicare wl help the democrats with their be vote, but at the end of the day of the democrat wins it she will be well under 50% with a tea party and republican candidate taking up the ball. this is a republican district. this is jack kemp's district. host: is corwin a strong candidate? guest: an excellent candidate. the problem is the candidates lost control. you have outside groups running ads. what the parties and candidates spend is dwarfed by that. medicare is front and center and it is question of getting information out. host: if you were running nrcc, would you be spending money up there? guest: they are spending money. i think they will spend a few hundred thousand dollars but you

have tput on the ground. by getting your base vote out at this point, some of information across the airwaves, just adding a little bit more mike beebe value added. host: reid set to force a vote on gop medicare pla set to vote next week on paul line that a budget but is this a smart political move? guest: it looks good today, but you've got to look ahead in politics. it is not where you are today. wayne gtzky used to say he was great because he skated where the puck was going to be and not where it was. reid and the democrats are skating where the puck is and that is trying to scare seniors. it has traditionally worked for both pties. but the debt issue is so overwhelming something is going to have to be done about medicare. what ever you. rtyan's plan, at least republic -- whatever you think about ryan's plan at least a republican the stepped up.

i think a year from now, io not think medicare will go unscathed. host: tom davis served as congressman from 11th district of virginia, republican congressman. he was chairman of the national republican good rational committee from 1998 until 2002. he is here to talk about the 2012 elections and republicans at this point. 202 is the area code -- please allow 30 days between calls and you can send a tweet -- c-span-wj is the twitter handle. and you can send an e-mail to journal@c-span.org. politically right now the debt ceiling debate that is going on, who does a favor, in your view? guest: what it is, is is an

opportunity for both parties to come together and make tough decisions. nobody wins on a debt ceiling vote. this will be politically poisonous. this is like tarp. i saw one pundit described as park on steroids. i voted for tarp in the congress. you did not have much of an alternative -- not doing it could have caught the economic meltdown. but because we back it and became law you did not have a meltdown so you are second guessed by a lot of people. i got out and defended the vote and did not have problems doing it. this is mo poisonous. polling shows people do not want to raise the debt ceiling. host: if you were chair of nrcc today, where what resources be? republicans went from 178 seats to 240 in the 2010 midterms and democrats went from 257 to 192. are the republicans going to ho congress, and you you -- in

your view? where would spent resources? guest: we have seen in three straight nationalize elections anything can happen. all but seven house members will be running in different districts because of redistricting. host: than all but seven? guest: and they are the seven who are at large. you have to remember the key battle is over redistricting, shaping member districts, trying to make members who are maybe a little weaker have tougher districts and tried to strengthen their districts. there will be pluses and minuses. republicans control more seats at the redistricting table than in any time since 1920. and they have the lead so you have to take -- say, advantage republicans,t this point the. secondly, president obama is ill on the white house and usually a voter animosity goes toward the party in the white house. they have to have another nationalized elections under those circumstances to be the to

win and a national election that works in their favor. trying to think what would bring about a fourth straight nationalize the election? voter discontent. republicans would have to nominate somebody who is really radioactive. it is possible -- i will not given to names, but it is possible republicans could nominate somebody of the goldwater strike -- and for the record, i was for goldwater and thought he was great. but 62% of americans di't. it is important for republicans to nominate somebody who will be competitive on main street. not doing that could cost the house. host: would jon huntsman be in the main street christmas guest: i tell you why, because he would appeal to the swing voters and the middle of the road. i think he holds the base because i think against president obama you are going to hold the base. the animosity is there, and to the age where the administration -- their policies, the attacks on any republican candidate would help drive the bay's home. but there is a swing element in

this electorate that one heavily democratic in 2006 and in 2008 -- it came back to the republicans in 2010, not because they like us but -- but because we were the alternatives in the efforts to balance the budget. huntsman -- you look at his persona, he has a sweet spot in that set of voters. not a set of voters, however, who will be nominated but they are the kind who can give you elected. host: from this story -- can a republic moderates abide about -- about jon huntsman. guest: i think so but it has to be the right circumstances. there's a lot of folks out there o are not given choices they want in elections. if you take a look of the polarizing factorsn american politics today -- number one, the parties are ideologically sorted. if you are a conservative today yoare a republican. when you were growing up there were conservative democrats and

liberal republicans. now the most -- most liberal republican in the senate is more conservative than the most conservative democrat in the senate. ideological sort thing which means primary process dominated by more conservative democrat -- members. secondly, a very polarizing media -- c-span accepted. but if you watch fox and msnbc they are different planets taing to different constituents, opinion makers within the different parties. you saw, glenn beck was able to assemble 100,000 people on the mall. republican leaders did not do that. they are speaking to an electorate and giving them information and political leaders lost the ability to do that. the same with the left with rachel madow and some of the spokespeople on msnbc. the third factor and almost as important is the fact with campaign finance reform coupled with the citizens united decision, the money has moved away from the political parties. that is what campaign finance

did. but out there on the wings. moveon.orgs, club for growth, if you look at the special election in new york more money is spent by interest groups and parties and candidates combined. that is in the future and that is a polarizing factor. parties are a centering force for american politics. but interest groups are not. we are where we a -- this will be a good test. but huntsman as the pedigree, i think he could raise the money and it will be an interesting test. host: what do you think of your old speaker newt gingrich's ron? guest: off to a rough start. we love them -- those who work with them. toe to toe in a debate nobody is better. if you get him in a room with people and talk about issues of the day he has a sweet spot. we will see if he can recover. he starts out with more negatives than a lot of republicans. if you look at the head-to-head polling, huntsman is kin of the

blanks late because he is not as well known. gingrich has engrain feelings about him and significant negatives. they could be overcome but he is off to a tough start. host: if you do name names, who are the two most endangered congressman at this point? guest: you do not want to name names. you cataook at the districts that obama performed very well in the. if you have a high number of minorities in a presidential year turnout, that district is going to change its behavior patterns and be more difficult. let's look until redistricting is done and that will give you a better feel. the last congress, it would not have been hard. joseph won a great race.

he won because his opponentas indicted and convicted. we do not have that circumstance. in theory, -- >host: have you had a chance to meet with reince priebus? guest: i have not. the money is now with outside groups. a lot of these other groups are putting more money into this. host: this week for you, tom davis -- this tweet for you, tom davis -- guest: you can have a lot of ads going back and forth. there is a budget agreement that incles medicare. what worries me if the democrats

win the special election in new york, i think they will dig in hard on medicare and be reluctant to deal with the fastest growing program in government. bar with 41 cents on the dollar is unsustainable. -- borrowing 41 cents on the dollar is unsustainable. interest rates are going to bounce up at one point. it will bounce up with a vengeance. this is a serious problem and you hope serious members consider across the tabland come to some agreement on this. host: tom davis is also president and ceo of the republican main street partnership. the first call for him comes from brooklyn, new york. caller: good morning. i have a question for you. i am very curious.

the republicans have been portrayed as anti-women, anti- grandmothers, but what is very interesting is you have been portrayed for the very rich and against the middle-class and against the poor. can you explain to me how you get elected? guest: let's look at new york city. some of the wealthiest americans live there. these areas overwhelmingly went for president obama. you get into some of the more middle n come precincts in new york, thais where john mccain performed best. some ofhe poorest counties in america voted overwhelmingly for the republins for president, while some of the wealthiest counties in the country, fairfax

county, montgomery county, md., these are where the wealthy elites voted for obama. the portrayal of the rich is just plain wrong when it comes to voting turno. politics has been largely a cultural preference as opposed to economic preference. if you look at it the way it has evolved over the last years to 20 years, republicans are not all rich. it is just rhetoric. host: this street -- guest: that is a supreme cou decision. you have the case which

undermined campaign reform. it defines free speech, and corporations get free speech as to individuals. in the law that you consign has to get around supreme court decisions and is the law of the land at this point. the court defined freeze preach broadly. -- free speech broadly. unfortunately, you have a lot of people going back trying to work around these decisions. i thi disclosure is the best -- right now, people can give large amounts of money and not have to disclose this. this was far worse than it was before you had mccain it-a fine gold. the bill has beenecimated. they know now it was a mistake. it made the situation worse.

it has empowered interest groups. some who voted against it -- it is a disaste at thipoint. it is a constitutional issue. host: tina tweets in -- guest: i appreciate that. that is a pvalent deal. i respect that. to let me give you an alternative. how do you resolve budget issues and the fact that we are borrowing 41 cents on the dollar? 10,000 people today are entering medicare. as my generation retires and becomes eligible for these benefits. if you do not change the structure in some significant way, he will not have medicare for the next generation. we can put our heads in the sand. politically, we know where the politics of this has been

traditionally, but that is not where the country is going or where the budget deficit is going. you have to make these changes. if congress and the president cannot come together, keep pointing fingers, the bond markets will make the change for us and it will be hard. host: hi, bonnie. caller: it is strange when deficits only matter when there is the republican nod in the white house. we had a perfect solution for medicare. instead of medicare part d, we should detonated -- created medica part e for everye because a larger pool would lower the risk. my healthy 24-year-old a i would've brought down the cost.

instead, the solution is the same solution thatepublicans always seem to have -- let's privatize it. if you are 55, or under 55, you can look forward to be given if dra voucher. of those with pre-existing conditions will very gladly give a 65-year-old with health conditions health care for the voucher that you are going to give. your solution for the health delivery system and our problems is ari operandi. guest: i was there and supported medicare part d. i am not particularly proud of that vote. we have to remember there was a competing bill that would provide a much larger benefit which i do not think we could have afforded.

to me, it was the question of medicare part d or a larger entitlement that we could not afford at the time. we decided to have competition that was more likely to drive down cost then to let the government negotiate cost. the government has not been a good negotiator when it comes to the private sector. we think the marketplace will do more for competition. if you take a look at the way it has performed, the deficits are far below what was originally projected by the congressional budget office and we think that is the result of competition. you really do not have competition. you have a third-party payer system. if you could shop and it was your own money, we think costs would go down and people would be more price-oriented. there is a doughnut hole in the

bill. you cannot have it both ways. i think republicans have been terrible on the deficit just like democrats have. they decided to try to come in with their stimulus pacge and the like and to put deficit up to an all-time high. faced with the overwhelming economicroblems, that was their antidote. i think voters in history will judge whether it's at work or not. we can look across the pond and see what other countries -- they are going in a different direction right now where they are attacking their deficit issues. time will tell. i look back on this now and i do not have to worry about what anybody thinks except my wife. we are going to have to tackle this deficit, and the sooner the

better. you cannot patchwork this. everybody is going to have to sit around a table. republicans and democrats. it is a hair cut for everybody. host: tom davis served as a supervisor in fairfax county here in the washington area. last night, the president in boston said this. guest: again, i think it has to be shared. if you take a look at the bush tax cuts, the wealthy part of that was less than 20%. if you really think there is a revenue issue, you probably have to spread its more than 2% and

may be let everything expire or look at it more broadly if you really want to increase revenue at this point. it is easy to go after the rich. this year, the irs announced 51% of houholds paid no federal income tax. what is fair on this thing? if you over-taxed at the top level, capital goes elsewhere. rich people mover. you do not attract capital. you have to be careful. will we end up with an agreement where everybody pays more? probably. that is going to be difficult given the fact that a lot of members have signed tax pledges. we will see where it goes. going after the rich does not give you that much money.

but we will see where it ends up. right now, we are at the rhetorical stage of this debate. we are an airplane flying into the mountain, and we need to steer a different course. to do that, both sides are going to have to go after their base. host: tom davis, if you were in charge of the national congressional committee, which democrats would to be targeting? guest: first of all, i would be focusing on redistricting. in indiana, the have picked up a seat. -- they have picked up a seat. you look at redistricting because the map is going to be completely different when this thing is over. they got rid of the low hanging fruit in the last campaign. stead of saying i am going to go after this democrat or that

democrat, you do not look like what -- you do not know whether district will look like at this point. it is a little bit early to take a look at which democrats we are going to target. host: the next call comes from san antonio, texas. caller: good morning. obama made a speech the oth night, and everybody picks up on the same thing. shared sacrifice. government employees that do nothing in the formation of wealth. the only format debt. the private sector seems to format all of the wealth around here. how do you sacrifice if it always has the be the private

sector that has to sacrifice anything? guest: federal employees right now -- there is a five-year pay freeze. the obama administration has put a two-year pay freeze on this. i think everybody gives on thi if youre taking a look at your governmental employees and your cancer researchers, scientists, he won the best people you can get in these jobs. you do not want to take the dreg. to do that, you have to pay them and treat them appropriately. the reason we have what we have is we have layer after layer of reporting requirements and the bureaucrats that congress are the ones who have authorized these and put them on. many times when we have a crisis

we add a new layer of government. he won the best and brightest people going into government. -- you want the best and brightest people going into the government. our greatest asset was not our buildings. it was not our computers. it was our people. we understood to be successful in information society like we have today you want those people coming back every day. you have to appropriately incentivize them. they are your food inspectors, your safety personnel, youraa people in the tower keeping to save on your airplanes. you want to pay people well that are doing their job. given the budget deficits we have, shared sacrifice means federal employees, taxpayers, everybody has to come to the table.

we have let this deficit go on and on and on to the point where there are no easy solutions and nothing that is politically palatable. they are going to have to step forward and take some risks. there is nothing wrong losing an election if you are there trying to do it for the right reasons. that is what we get into public service. host: have you ever lost an election? est: no. host: the next call for him comes from fort worth, texas. caller: thank you, guys, for taking my call. there is no question that the spending on medicare has to be addressed at some point in time in the near future. however, wouldn't it been more politically advantageous to the think theys if the perso

focused on w national defence? that is what we spend the most on in our government. we have military bases all around the world that have nothing to do with national defense. guest: if you go back to the 1960's, which were spending over 60% of our budgetn national defense. now it is oy 20%. that has gone steadily down at this point. it is basically congress's budget. the congress and sometimes uses the department of defen as a jobs court. when you take a look at entitlement spending, entitlement spending is almost three times what it defense spending is, 2.5 times anyway. you have to look at everything. defense spending is not going up at the rate that entitlement

spending is. the reason why you want to start addressing these changes is because you have 10,000 baby boomers a day retiring becoming eligible for these programs. if you lock in 15 years from now which will not give you immediate savings but at least make the out-year projections more palatable, people will be able to make arrangements in their lives and in their retirement pns so they know what they are eligible for. if you make the changes very quickly which some other countries have had to do, it becomes more draconian. that is why it is important to address the medicare and social security. from a cash flow point of view, social security is now generating deficits. we are going to have to address these issues. a medicaid has to be addressed. a medicaid has to be addressed.