>> well, i thought that, as i said, it was inconsistent with the fisa statute and unwise as a matter of policy. >> has something happened that's changed your opinion since your june, 2008, statement that would make it hard for you to just simply say what the president said, that it's illegal? >> no, i don't think so and don't think what what i'm saying now is necessarilyistist ept with what i said at the -- necessarily inistent with what i said. >> it sounds awfully mild compared to some very clear statements and very important principle here which is not only that this has to do with the scope of the fisa law but the underlying constitutional issue that people like me, many people, believe that if the statute is that explicit under the third test, under justice jackson's test, that it is in fact unconstitutional for the president and illegal, of course, for the president to override the express will of the congress. >> yeah, as i said, i think i said contra invention of,

in the same testimony, he argued that congress should revisit the hayesly enacted fisa amendments with less emphasis on the issue of immunity for telephone and internet service providers. he obviously wasn't paying attention. but besides his condescending and inappropriate tone, i think his statements reflect a poor understanding of some of the most important pieces of national security legislation that had been passed since the september 11 terrorist attacks and passed on a bipartisan basis in both houses. as my colleagues may know, i was heavily involved in the legislative process surrounding the passage of the fisa amendments act. i can assure you that that certainly was not the result of a congressional rubber stamp that was enacted hastily. we began working on the first one, the protect america act, and debated it, passed it in the summer of 2007. when we came back in the fall, the senate intelligence committee went to work on a bipartisan basis, and we worked for months to get a truly bipartisan bill that came out of the committee. in that bill, we added many additional protectio

the interest, of course, is how they have very appropriately handled fisa matters. how the classified information procedures act has been implemented so well by the courts. and the handling of classified information under foia request. and i think you could also make the case historically that perhaps there's been more loose lips in other branches of government than even within the judiciary. they have a good track record of protecting those things that have been entrusted to them. and i might add -- i pointed out in my background as a law enforcement and national security official, i also have been blessed to be in the private sector and currently i'm handling a national security case from the defense side and guess what the first thing the courts required? well, you've got to have your security top secret security clearances upgraded. you have to go and view the evidence in secured facilities. all the procedures are set up even though they are cumbersome, they're required and they are implemented on a routine basis by the courts. another point that i think is rele

procedures for trading information obtained under secret fisa warns preempted invocation of the state secret privilege. another indication, at least at that level, we will see whether the government appeals are not of congress's power to legislate evidentiary rules. number three-point, federal judges in other contexts and delivery day classified material and secret materials and make decisions as to whether redacted versions can be disclosed or summaries made that can serve the purpose of continuing the litigation without in any way undermining national security. they do it all the time. they have in many cases used masters and formative indices like the vaughn index an exemption one foia. the use sampling techniques for massive amounts of material. this bill wisely incorporates into the civil lot area of state sacred privilege many of these useful techniques with which judges are already familiar in order to minimize the number of cases. there will still probably be for somewhere dismissal of the entire claim will be necessary. i think that is the good thing for the following reason.

evidence in federal courts has been used many times in the federal russo -- rules of evidence, in fisa proceedings, and i do not think there is doubt about their authority to do so. recently, in a case in california, a district judge in an exhaustive opinion decided that the fisa procedures for treating information obtained under warrants pre-empted indication of the state secrets privilege. this was another vacation, at that level. we will see whether the government appeals or not. number 3 point. federal judges -- in other contexts handle classified materials and makes decisions as to whether redacted versions can be disclosed or summaries made that can be served think the purpose of continuing the litigation with out undermining national security. they do it all the time. they have in many cases used masters and indices like an egg -- like an index. they use sampling techniques. this bill incorporates into the civil wall area of state secrets privilege many of these useful techniques, which judges are already familiar in order to minimize the number of cases that will be where dismi

congress establishes staff wear safeguards in statutes among them, fisa. the department of and the intelligence agencies follow really strict regulations when we actually do these surveillance. >> but the article today and the concern i have is that we more and more we find out about these -- the kind of abuses, not from the intelligence agencies, not from our government but by picking up the newspaper. we're reaching a point that "the new york times's" top secret and we get the information quicker, we get it in more detail and we got the cross word puzzle. the -- crossword puzzle. what with we doing to go after that, because if this continues i don't know how we -- how we re-authorize any of these things if they are going to be abused that way? >> well, the department and the intelligence agencies takes seriously the requirements we are supposed to follow. in at least a couple of instances where their problems were detected by those of us in the department. we halted the programs, informed the fisa court, informed members of the intelligence committee, me

in fisa that we set up procedures for the courts to look at sensitive materials. we can and should do the same in civil cases. our system of government have never lied with assurances at face value. presidents and officials have been known not to tell the truth on occasion. this is especially in the truth -- in their interest to concern -- to conceal something. in the words of the ninth circuit, the executive cannot be its own judge. to allow that is to abandon all the protections against tyranny that our fan -- founding fathers established. courts have a duty to protect national secrets but also have a duty to make an independent judgment as to whether claims have merit. when the government is a party, the court cannot allow it to become the final arbiter. the purpose of the legislation to is to make sure that the correct balance is struck. i am is supported that the department of justice has declined to discuss this issue at this hearing. i have met with the attorney general and i understand review of this policy is under way. they continue to take positions tha

we altered the programs, informed the fisa court and members of this committee, and corrected the problem. and after those things occurred did i reauthorize the beginning of the program again. i haven't reviewed the article in "the new york times". >> i wish you would, i wrote months ago to ask for the department for extending or modifying the pariot act authorities. we need that answer, if we are going to reauthorize it, we need ton -- to know what the department wants. i found it troublesome because i heard similar rumblings and first i heard in detail. if the article is accurate, then we have some real problems. and we want us to be secure and want us to be able to use the abilities to gather intelligence. but we want americans who are not subject to any criminal investigations or terrorism investigation, to know they can send e-mails back and forth to the family and friends and businesses without being read by someone having fun doing it. and it's, you know we had similar things when we saw the i.r.s. look into people's reports. because of interest. and this goes way beyond that. i ho

he framed the issue of fisa first and said every kid in an american public school deserves an intellectual grounded curious morally committed well-paid well rested teacher i would get approval to. the question is how do we frame it? most people that and are in the chicago public schools are fantastic they work in systems that undermine their ability they do not recognize their intelligence or talents or do not give them the kinds of opportunities to talk to one another, work with parents that allow them to be more successful. we need to change structures much more than we need to change the people. >> host: texas plea go-ahead with your question for bill ayers. >> caller: whether the three or four important things for teachers to do too be assured that the students are learning? >> guest: i missed it. >> host: three or four most important things for a teacher to teach their student or be with their students in a classroom to when it is a huge question but simply i would say the intellectual challenge of teaching and ethical challenges to see your students as three-dimensional creatures lik

saying is you've got to incentivize quality and cost for a payment system and you've got to be sent to fisa over utilization by not using a tax law which encourages over utilization. and yet, as i look at this proposal, there is nothing that addresses those points made by cbo as the way you start to bend the cost curve as is becoming the nomenclature of the time. interestingly enough, the president has sent to us a series of suggestions how you could best do the reimbursement issue side. they represent -- three digit $50 billion of potential reductions in the cost of health care and none of them are included in this bill. granted some of them deal with medicare but still it would have been -- they should have been at least sort of statement or overarching commentary the injustices where we can go to get savings and i haven't heard any great enthusiasm from the other side of the aisle for any of the president's proposals in this area. he has proposed we incorporate productivity adjustments and medicare payments that we reduce subsidies for hospitals for treating the uninsured, that we adopt

and fisa we set out procedures for the court to examine sensitive materials through the freedom of information act which sought to limit information from the public when the government is supposed to serve. we can and should do the same in civil cases. our system of governments and legal system had never relied on taking assurances that they study. the courts incumber seven did he to look behind what does it administration or any administration says determine whether those are well founded. presidents and government officials have been known not to tell the truth on occasion, especially when it is in their interest to conceal something. the founders of this nation is there need to be checked for the government to prevent such abuses from taking place or in the words of the ninth circuit in the recent jeppesen decision the executive cannot keep its own judge. to allow that and these are now my words, to allow that is to abandon all the protections in their founding fathers established. core seven dutiful to protect national security secrets but they also have a duty to make an independent judgm

reporter none fisa longstanding issues for awarding managing in auditing the vital contracts of supportlogistic security and reconstruction missions. these include shortages and the federal acquisition workforce, a poorly defined in executed contracts, inadequate planning, we provisions for accountability, unnecessary work and costly rework. problems that are undermining attainment of national objectives in wasting billions of taxpayer dollars. we will describe some of our preliminary observations. as congress intended the interim report is preliminary and handed it. at what cost provides an interim statement on key focus areas and results which are listed in the report. since 2001 congress has appropriated, as was stated here, over $830 billion to fund the u.s. operations in iraq and afghanistan. for that period america's reliance on contractors has grown to unprecedented proportions, to support logistic security in reconstruction efforts. more than 240,000 contractor employees, about 80% of which are foreign nationals, no work in iraq and afghanistan, supporting the department defense

council cannot testify but the cannon fisa. mr. collins? mr. sassi? ms. pollitz? so then let me have you raise your right hand and take the oath. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the matter pending before this committee? let the record reflect that the witnesses replied in the affirmative. they are now under the beginning with their opening statement. you have five minutes for an opening statement in you may submit a longer statement for inclusion in the record. mr. hamm if you don't mind will start with you, start from my left and go to the right. >> chairman stupack, congressman waldman, mears of the subcommittee i'm don hamm president and ceo of assurant health. welcome this opportunity to birds is a bait in the hearing today. is the dialogue like this that we can continue to address one of the most challenging issues of our time, providing health insurance coverage for all americans. we appreciate that this subcommittee in congress are committed to finding the right place to a

speech was that the action the administration had taken was inconsistent with it -- the dictates of fisa. i think i used the word contravention. as a result, the policy was an unwise one and i think the concerns i expressed then have been remedied by the fact that congress has now authorized -- >> do you think it was illegal? >> i think it was inconsistent with the statute and unwise as a matter of policy. >> has something happened as change your opinion since your statement from june 2008 would make it hard for you to say that it is illegal? >> i do not think so. and i don't think what i am saying now is inconsistent with what i said at the convention in the speech i gave. >> it sounds awfully mild compared to a very clear statements on a very important principle -- not only that this has to do with the scope of the price of what the underlying constitutional issue that people like me and others believe that if the statute is that explicit under the third test that is in fact unconstitutional for the president and illegal to override the expressed will of the congress. >> i think i said

this man has the damage lung but not nearly as bad as other workers and the major company has removed fisa till from the flavoring of microwave popcorn. [applause] we need to focus on workers were that is concerned because workers, they get a lot of these exposures first and this is the only way we can identify it in. we will never be able to do the studies to examine the effects of breathing chromium in populations that live near these factories. why not to go to the factories and discover what the problems are and regulate them and protect workers and the public. >> this gentleman-- did you have your hand up? these to jones almond and then we will move back to that side. >> i am with the toxicology and in our mental health information program at the national library of medicine and you did a really nice job in taking up the dirt on these places, and most of your examples are specific substances are chemicals, chromium, vioxx and tobacco, with well established industries. was wondering if you were privy to information about the mercenary scientists industrial complex about nanotechnology?

let's start with the largest, fisa. some of you may notice but this year a jury found flies are owed the state of wisconsin $9 million for violating wisconsin's medicaid fraudulent all more than for wheat 1 million times. the company faces potential fines between 140 million or 21 billion. and 2004, a division of pfizer plan guilty to two felonies and agreed to pay $430 million, $430 million that fraudulently promoted a jog, one particular drug for unapproved use and include was a criminal fine of $240 million. in 2002, pfizer agreed to pay 49 million to settle charges that a subsidiary defrauded the medicaid program by overcharging for lipitor. huge fines. johnson & johnson was charged -- the texas attorney general charged johnson & johnson with kickbacks to texas health officials. johnson johnson. glaxo smithkline signed a corporate integrity agreement that paid 88 million in civil fines for overcharging medicaid. r roche, $500 million in 1999 criminal fine for leading a worldwide conspiracy to raise and fix prices on

information for companies to put it in the public record to insure can prosecute a last year lisper gwenette fisa suband the position of being a defendant in a civil case the simmon formation become secret as a way of avoiding accountability.