do the restrictions in fisa or in the attorney general's guidelines in any way prohibit investigationsif there are other reasons to do so? in other words, to give you a specific, wouldn't the fact that major hasan had been in repeated contact with a radical extremist islamic cleric who is a known associate of al qaeda terrorists be a reason to pursue an investigation? >> senator, i agree with you completely. to the extent that there would have been concern of infringing on major hasan's right to free speech or practice his religion, there were other factors to which you could point beyond that having nothing to do with his religion or his speech that could have caused concern. the repeated, while it's not public the content of those communications, certainly those communications and now what we're hearing from his other colleagues up at walter reed, any combination of those factors as long as it was not based solely on his exercise of his constitutional freedom, could have formed the basis of further inyiry and investigation by the f.b.i. so if we're being told that one reason this was

as well as perhaps fisa restrictions would have prevented the dcis agent from sharing it back to the army and d.o.d., the pentagon, without permission. depending on where the information came from. . . the committee will be in a better position to judge whether or not that was the right judgment. mechanisms certainly did exist if there was a desire to share that with the criminal justice -- >> we heard about the silo's before 9/11. allegedly, he has made -- talking about the one where the colonel said that maybe people should drop bombs on themselves and go to times square in new york. contacts with imam -- silos still in place? is there information not being shared? >> tremendous progress has been made. when it came to the jttf, as an indication that we have made a lot of progress. it is not clear to me that the information that was going to be sort of the personnel system ever made its way to the personnel file. if that is the case, that means that when the had the communications and looked at the record of the personnel file, if there was no derogatory information, they are at a d

i listened to a colleague today talk about using the fisa court model that we use in intelligence mattersugh that debate. these are federal judges that are designated that are then called upon in very special circumstances to come in and make a determination as to whether or not a warrant is permissible, but it's a separate -- existing judges to perform separate functions under different rules. so there are various ideas out there kicking around on how to do this. we incorporated one set of ideas that some have come to us and anyone to leaf this some sense. room to believe there's any effort here to try to minimize the importance of reaching the conclusion that we no longer have this "too big to fail." that can't happen. we ended here, and i believe it it's. >> it's a democrat. >> we'll go to senator warner and senate johans. for those who didn't get here, they asked if their statements could be included in the record. for those who can't get back here, we'll certainly do so as i said this morning. senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would ask my statement be included in the rec