I was a spy for a while. I dropped out of the airplanes over Enemy Lines work behind the lines with resistance forces. I wandered up the back streets of various foreign countries and made secret contacts. And so I was a spy but how is it that I don't really look like a spy and I don't seem like a spy at this could it really be that the business of intelligence has changed from that of spine now that is what actually has happened. We Americans have had our intelligence operations in our history ever since Nathan Hale was one of our first Intelligence Officers was one of our worst intelligence operations. I might add because he was sent out one day to find out what was where the British were going to land in Manhattan.He was given a modicum of advice to hide his secret papers in his shoe. And sent off and he was very quickly identified when he got on the other side of the lines Maya turncoat working for the British. They searched him found his secret papers immediately and they hanged him and about all he has been able to contribute to our nation. Is that statement of patriotism that we all learned in grade school that he only regretted that he had one life to give for his country. Now, this was the tradition of our country. We organized an intelligence operation of spying for a war and at the end of the war we disbanded it. We did this for the Revolutionary War the Civil War all the other different conflagrations and this then fitted with the overall tradition of the spy and intelligence. Until something new happened America started being serious about the work of intelligence some 40 years ago when we were suddenly faced with a shocking intelligence gap which led to the destruction of our Fleet at Pearl Harbor and we conducted the Congressional investigations after that event that are so familiar with us in recent to us in recent years. And we discovered two are somewhat a to our surprise that it really wasn't for lack of information that we had been surprised by that Japanese attack. There was information lying all over the American government that should have alerted us better some of the army some in the Navy some in the state department, but it hadn't been centralized. It hadn't been brought to one spot where it could all be put together and looked at as one overall picture and therefore we didn't draw. the right conclusions from all those individual facts Now we began in that very early days of 1942 to put together a kind of intelligence service that would face the problems that we face as a nation early in World War Two and we decided that before we sent spies at Great danger and difficulty out to those distant parts of the world that we badly needed to know about places as far away as South Pacific Islands the hump between China and India the North African Coast that we really ought to look here in America to see what we already had available that we could centralized. We went to our colleges and universities. We went to our cultural and anthropological Geographic society's we went to our businesses and industries that exchange products and raw materials with these parts of the world. We found an amazing amount of information right here available that we could put together. We even asked our American citizens to send us their tourist photographs from their trips abroad. There's a well-known picture of somebody's Aunt Minnie who had been on a summer trip to France in the 1930s and she is pictured on a beach in France and one of those pre bikini bathing suits and quite frankly and many isn't much to look at just between you and me but behind Anthony stands a truck demonstrating that the sand of that beach is firm enough to hold the weight and wheels of a truck a matter of enormous importance to a staff officer planning an invasion across that Beach Now this concept of use of the open information centralizing all the information developing a core of an of officers and Scholars who can study it and determine its right meaning this became the central feature of American intelligence and when General Donovan who formed our wartime intelligence agency did it fare. Well at the end of the war he singled out for first praise the scholars and experts that had been assembled in Washington as the novel contribution as the important contribution of intelligence and only secondly did he then turn to the people who had been in the Guerrilla operations and done the parachuting and so forth around the world. Now this was a major Revolution and intelligence the concept of scholarship as its Central feature that's been carried on that concept and they're probably more doctors and masters of every kind of Art and Science within our CIA everything from agricultural economics to Nuclear Physics to the political dynamics of closed societies. Do some cultural psychologists. Then you will find on the faculties of most universities in this nation and they are doing that kind of careful research that centralizing of all the information and seeking its real significance. How America made a second major Revolution and intelligence and the 1950s when we turn to America's genius and not being an engineer. I can say that in technology and applied it to the job of knowing what's happening around the world. When we put together one of America's foremost experts in aerodynamics with some experts and photo Optics and the chemistry of film systems and put together an aircraft the U2 which could fly further and higher and farther than any had to date and could fly over the Soviet Union for three years until finally the Soviets developed a missile that could bring it down now that was not idle curiosity. The photographs that that aircraft brought back showed various things on the ground in the Soviet Union things that were very secret and Soviet Society. They showed us the forms in which offensive missiles appeared in the Soviet Union. And when we saw those same forms on some fields in Cuba in October 1962, we knew we were not dealing with defensive missiles, but with offensive missiles that threatened to change the balance of power in the world if they were erected in Cuba and as a result President Kennedy had the time and the warning to conduct the very tough negotiations that led to the withdrawal of those missiles from that short a distance from our Shores. Now this aircraft as I said was shot down. Yes, but we have since gone ahead in this area of Technology. We've gone High into space we've gone deep into the ocean. We listen to the murmurs of the Earth's crust. We use the techniques of Acoustics Electronics. We use the computers. We today have developed in space and in other techniques the ability figuratively to look over the edge of the Earth far into areas that are totally barred to us to look back into Central Asia to see what is happening there in some secret Soviet test center. We don't ask a spy to slink out of Hong Kong work his way up through China at Great danger and difficulty and then try to tell us what's happening on the Manchurian border because we look down on that border. We see on both sides the Soviets divisions the Chinese do Asians we count the divisions we count the artillery we count the tanks. We see the move from week to week and month to month and we know things with Precision these days about these distant parts of the world that we wouldn't have dreamed of even knowing about a mere 15 20 years ago. Thanks to this kind of Technology. Now maybe this is part of why I don't quite look so much like a spy because after all intelligence then has become a great technical Enterprise as well as a great Center of scholarship and it is the kind of an organization that needs the kind of management techniques that are American industry and our business schools have developed for the management of large organizations. Now we have made a third major Revolution and that's during this decade and intelligence here in America and it's peculiarly an American Revolution because we insist today that American intelligence operate under the American Constitution and under American law. Now that's a very novel idea in the world of intelligence because really for centuries it was felt that well a spy obviously has to operate outside the law clearly. If a Soviet officer passes over to an American intelligence agent some secret of the of the Soviet general staff. He's going to be violating Soviet law. And at least to have paid with their lives for so doing and out of this assumption that intelligence had to be somewhere outside. The law. Everybody came to the conclusion that it really had nothing to do with law. And this was a general consensus when we established our intelligence agency and the late 40s when we set up we thought and surely we needed intelligence, but we couldn't apply the normal legal systems to it President Eisenhower once said that intelligence is different from the ordinary agencies of government. It has to do its own work in its own ways some of our respected senators and congressmen at that time said that they didn't want to know what's it intelligence was going to be doing just confide it to the executive to the president. It's nobody else's business and the Congress the press and the people all thought that was the way to do it. A presidential commission set up in the late 40s to give CIA some of its earliest marching orders told it to go out and be more ruthless if necessary than its adversaries and if that directive had been submitted to a vote of the American people at that time, it would have been totally approved. Now this was the consensus. This was the concept in which American intelligence began. The Intelligence Officers were pretty much left to make up the rules as they went along and in the course of making up those rules and applying them. They made some mistakes. Now, we in intelligence are trained to see some changes in other countries and we can see these occurring here. So after the traumatic events of Vietnam and Watergate, it was quite clear that that old consensus needed some changing needed some updating and intelligence was going to have to comply with American Standards of behavior American legal expectations. And so we an intelligence asked our employees to look back into their records and into their memories and bring up in 1973 every case in which they thought that CIA had somehow stepped over the proper boundaries of its Outside already and we collected a little bundle of these and it had some things in it. None of us were very pleased to see that there were some things there that we're ambiguous some that were just plain wrong. It was actually a fairly small bundle for an organization sent out to be more ruthless than its adversaries loosened of all the normal restrictions, but nonetheless there were some things in there that on reflection we Americans reject and therefore we issued some directives and orders. It said that certain things would no longer be done certain things would be stopped certain procedures would be established by which certain activity could only be done in very clear circumstances in which it was proper. And we wiped our hands and thought well we've done we brought CIA into the proper limits of its Authority and we took the bundle and put it in a safe and let it sit there forgot something about America. It's important that our government do what it should do and not do what it should not do but it's equally important that the people of this country perceive that that's what's happening because a few of these items leaked out of that safe and they became the source of great Sensational headlines and they made wonderful spectacular TV theater and we had ourselves a year or so of congressional investigations in which we had lots of Dramatics and lots of repudiation of these terrible things that had happened in the past. I'm in the process. I think we hurt ourselves. I think we grossly exaggerated the actual size of that bundle. I think we convinced many people that that was characteristic of our intelligence agencies activities rather than being a few episodes a few incidents that were wrong, but nonetheless fitted only in a larger context of things that were perfectly problem. We frightened a lot of people around the world with our talk about CIA at that time. We convinced a lot of people that CIA was underneath every volcano that blue in the world and I almost was suspicious of every bed in the world that it might be there. We frightened some other people who are our friends. We Fightin frightened some foreign intelligence services that had exchanged sensitive material with us and helped us on some of our intent sensitive intelligence gathering into thinking that Americans can't keep secrets and they're not to be relied upon and therefore that they can't confide that kind of sensitive information to our intelligence to our American intelligence agencies. And we frightened some individual foreigners around the world who came to us quite frankly and said, I don't know what you're doing back there, but I've tried to help you in the past or I'm was prepared to help you in the future one of the other or both. But you know, it's my life and it's my family and it's my livelihood and I just can't take the chance of you're keeping the necessary secret secrecy of our relationship. And so I must not work for you. I cannot do it and we lost some of our eyes and ears during that period as a result because of those people we frightened now, I think that the losses were serious, but I think at the same time not necessarily faithful. I think we have the opportunity now to put together a new consensus about American intelligence. The Congress is today seized of a proposed new Charter for intelligence, which will say what intelligence should do and what it should not do. Which will set some firm procedures for the approval of intelligence operations. So there won't be any vagueness and there won't be any making up rules as they go along for subordinate officers out in the field that they will get a clear directive and have a clear line of authority and responsibility for the actions of American intelligence. And in the process we have also set up two committees one in the house and one in the Senate to know the secrets of intelligence to keep the secrets of intelligence as those two committees have demonstrated that they can do and to ensure that the rules and that Charter are followed and not flouted by intelligence in the future. And so we have in this process brought American intelligence under our constitutional system. We haven't exposed all the secrets of intelligence to all the members of Congress because we've taken a responsible moderate middle course of appointing a few congressmen and Senators chosen by the house and the Senate to to know these secrets and said that they will act for their fellows in the Congress to ensure proper oversight proper control of our intelligence activities. Now I am I really saying that they're no more Spies. All we have is professors and and managers and engineers and maybe lawyers Heaven Help Us and that there are no spies. There's no excitement to it and all anymore. No, I can't say that because there are still some countries around the world who do keep secrets and some of those Secrets can be dangerous to us and some of those secrets are not visible on the satellite photography photograph and they're not ascertainable by the electronic sensor. And therefore we have to have some Brave individuals in foreign countries and brave Americans will maintain secret connections with them in order that we can learn some of those things that we would be ignorant of at our peril. But the Spy then is only one part of the total intelligence picture that we have today. Now some wonder whether intelligence is really needed. I think in these days as we Face the problems of Afghanistan it ran all the other difficulties around the world. There's really not much temptation to think in terms of doing away with intelligence. But one of our secretaries of State some years ago in not the 1920s decided that he didn't need intelligence. He shut up a small code-breaking unit and the Department of State because he said the gentleman don't read each other's mail. Secretary of State Stimson who did that became Secretary of War Stimson in the 1940s. And at that time he proceeded to read As Much German and Japanese male as he could get his hands on and he had discovered that the world is not populated solely by gentlemen, I think as we look around this world, it's hard to say that it's populated solely by gentlemen. I think there are some major problems that most of us can see looming up ahead of our country in the next 10 years and 20 years that are going to require that we know the dimensions of these problems that we perceive the threats to our country. Some of these threats exist with the superpowers that we have to share this increasingly small planet with we see the Soviet Union, which is a superpower which is a very complex power. It's a national state. Yes with a paranoid concern about its security which can only be satisfied to the satisfaction of the leaders of the Soviet Union by a security blanket of additional states around its Frontiers in Eastern Europe and most recently in Afghanistan and that they're prepared to use their power to ensure that security blanket being under their control. The Soviet Union is also an ideological State still imbued with the religion that they believe offers a better solution to this problems of the world and still imbued with the missionary Spirit of expanding that religion not just by conviction, but by subversion either by their own agents or by their proxies such as Cubans East Germans and others who they send around and carry to the different countries of the world to carry on this proselyting work for them. The Soviet Union is also an imperial power best exemplified by foreign minister gromyko as comment that no world problem can be settled without considering the interests of the Soviet Union the Soviet Union that in recent years has substantially increased its military strength its nuclear strength formally grossly inferior to ours now approximately equivalent. Its Army modernized. An enlarged ITS Tactical Air Force in Eastern Europe, which wasn't there 15 or 20 years ago. It's Navy most remarkably, which a few years ago was a local Coastal Defence Force around the edges of the Soviet Union and now is a blue ocean Navy and the Atlantic Pacific and Indian oceans that this Imperial power can indeed be a problem and a threat to our country. That is we this Soviet Union faces the inevitable succession of its leadership as mr. Brezhnev ages and must soon be replaced and we can indeed hope that his successor will be a product of the cautious party bureaucracy more interested in protecting the national interests of the state and the status of the power apparatus and not an ideological Zealot and risk taker such as mr. Khrushchev who led the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1962 and not some great Imperial figure who decides to use this Armed Force that has been so carefully and vigorously built up in these past 20 years that indeed we would hope that the national state will dominate but we have to realize that we need to know if either of the other two are apt to arrive on the Ain't that we see this world with other superpowers coming up China a billion people resolve to modernize not only their agriculture industry and Science and Technology, but they're Armed Forces by the end of the century a mere 20 years away. We see new superpowers looming on the edge such as the country of Brazil now a hundred twenty million soon to be 200 million people with half a continent in which to expand and increase their strength. These are the super powers that we're going to have to be concerned about and possible new ones that arise that there are other areas of danger to our society and our country. They developed nations of Europe Japan and the and North America are undergoing considerable economic problems today energy problems inflation unemployment and are toying with the idea of protectionism and separating themselves and protecting themselves at the expense of their neighbors. And we remember to clearly what happened the last time Europe in Japan and I might add the United States turn to protectionism to face the terrible economic problem in the 1930s when we split up and Europe and Japan both turned to totalitarianism or foreign aggression to solve the problems. They sell before them. But even these problems I think are manageable because there are some institutions that we've developed in these past years which make the situation today different than those years previously that the develop the leaders of the developed Nations have the annual economic Summit meeting soon to occur in Venice at which they can discuss the problems of interaction of their economies. We have institutions like the international monetary fund the general agreement on tariffs and trade trying to solve some of these economic problems before they get out of hand, but they have to be understood in order to be worked on. But there is one other area where I think the greatest danger to our society to our national security lies in these years ahead and that's in that two-thirds of Earth's population who live in the so-called less developed or third world where 800 million people today live in absolute poverty where they see the pressures of population increase continuing where they see the pace of development not moving fast enough where they see the gap between our affluence and their poverty and problems increasing rather than decreasing and this evokes feelings of envy and frustration and bitterness and even hostility and we see this as they reach around for weapons and tools to secure what to them would be a more equipped equal division of the world's wealth. Not so much the building of more wealth, but the equalizing of the distribution of wealth around the world between the affluent and the poor and some think in terms of economic tools and weapons. I cartels and boycotts and embargoes some think in terms of political demagogy and the sabotage of some of the international institutions that have developed to run the economies of the world and hopefully to increase the pace of development in the third world and some think in terms of violence either carefully targeted narrow violence, which we call terrorism or wider mob turmoil and hatred which we've seen too much of on our TV screens and some think in terms of great power. And this new generation is going to face a very novel problem and world history because hitherto great power has been a monopoly of large nations with the economic and population base upon which such great power had to rest but great power is becoming available these days thanks to technology in very small packages of nuclear chemical biological form and this kind of great power can easily proliferate in these years ahead into the hands of some of these Reckless. Despots are ruthless terrorists who would be prepared to use it or even to threaten to use such great power to secure their ends and these years ahead. Now do we see this then as the real problem that we do we understand these can we just depend upon our knowledge of these or do we have to have intelligence to help us that if we have intelligence to bring this knowledge of the reality of these problems to us and the details of these problems to us that indeed we can be forewarned we can defend ourselves against a hostile action or a hostile policy. We can some cases deter the use of some hostility against us by demonstrating that we are prepared to handle it or even to retaliate. And I think this is a protection a help for us in the years ahead. But it really is a kind of negative and defensive approach alone. And I think with the stage of intelligence today with the kind of intelligence we have available and can build that we can look ahead to a more positive a more hopeful. Future that with the kind of intelligence we should be able to have we can Define these problems in detail. We can see them we can lay them out on the negotiating tables of the world and we can get around those tables and we can seek solutions to some of these problems instead of letting them fester and grow and explode into violence. Some years ago America had a brilliant idea for World Peace. We had a monopoly of the nuclear weapon. We only had a few of them in 1946 and the United States made a proposal to the world that we would give up that Monopoly turn over that weapon to United Nations control. All we required was one condition that the other countries refrain from building these weapons. And in order to ensure that this was the case we insisted on some forms of inspection procedures so that we would be protected against any any attempt at cheating on such an agreement. Well that idea died because Joseph Stalin called the inspection procedures Espionage and as a result that idea which may have saved the world from the existence of nuclear weapons was lost and all of an our countries have since built up thousands and thousands of these terrible weapons poised 30 minutes away from here ready to destroy almost everything you can see as you look from an upper building on a cloudy day not on a clear day but on a cloudy day. This is the kind of contribution. That intelligence might help because in 1972 when we had some further negotiations about these and these nuclear weapons. Our intelligence Services were able to tell our president and our Congress that if we made of mutually restraining agreement with the Soviets that we would be able to tell whether they abided by It or Not Without inspection teams because of our technological intelligence techniques. Now, one of the provisions of that 1972 salt agreement, I think is illustrative of the kind of a world. We can look forward to because we were considering whether to develop Nationwide anti-ballistic missile systems, and we made an agreement with the Soviets that neither of us would do so And we have not done. So in the eight years since that time and we are absolutely certain that the Soviets have not done. So in that eight years time and out of that Mutual restraint, we have saved what we otherwise would have spent some fifty to a hundred billions of dollars on such a system with no contribution to our relative security with respect to the Soviets. Now we have had that kind of funds available for more useful activities in that time instead of seeing it built into a weapon system in the Sinai desert today. There are electronic monitoring Stations between the Egyptian and the Israeli lines. So that those electronic beams are sensing out over both sides and neither side has to stand in the desert with his finger on the trigger jumping and shooting at any sign any any Shadow and he noise in the desert because both are absolutely confident that they will have ample warning of any massing of troops or armor priests aging an attack out of that kind of sense of confidence and knowledge replacing the old suspicion and fear those two ancient enemies have been able to commence this difficult Road of negotiation towards settling some of those old issues. Now that's what intelligence is able to do for us. It not only applies in the military area. It also applies in the economic the social on Hilarious that we can see some of these problems growing we can see the need for Action as we see these difficulties and this kind of a danger arising. Now, I think another feature of this of course is a new role of intelligence in our country and it's rapidly becoming the role of will in my mind met in the fourth major Revolution and intelligence because we are determining today that it is not enough for our government to no secret intelligence, but that there is a need of many other people than our president and our Congress and our government to know of these facts last year. We conducted a great National debate on the subject of the salt agreements. And this debate we conducted in the open here in America and we conducted it on an informed basis. I happen to be for it and some of my old friends were against it and we would have had to behead debates about this but we never debated the size of the Soviet missiles the numbers of warheads the mega tonnage because those things were not only settled we knew the answers, but they were public and our public could therefore start from that basis of knowledge and their consideration of the desirability or non desirability of further steps along that line. In other words information now and intelligence has become much too important to be left to the totally classified corners of government. It must in this information age in which we are living and this Democratic Society in which we live. It must increasingly be shared with our people with our citizens so that they can participate in these decisions about the national the dangers that face our nation and the policies and programs. We need to undertake to meet them. Now. This doesn't mean that we have to reveal the sources of our information. It does mean we are increasingly opening the substance of our information to public knowledge and in the process, I think we are being challenged to come to better conclusions about the analysis of the information available to us. We are being challenged to develop new techniques for handling this massive information to the see the subtleties and way the potentiality 's of far away Nations and Far Away cultures. We are seeing a need better to communicate the results of this analysis and not use fuzzy language which makes people think that the Shah of Iran is probably going to be on his throne for the next five years when in fact the word probably also implies that there is an improbable chance that he won't be but it's lost in the communication that we are going to have to improve our ability to communicate about our intelligence to sit analyses and our intelligence judgments. I think this is in the process of occurring as this process of consideration of the facts that we face around the world is shared with more and more of our people as we develop more centers of analysis in the private world as well as in the government world. I think this promises major advances promises solutions to some of the gaps which have occurred in the past. Now I think some of you are now convinced that I really do have a cloak and I've spread it around me here and the cloak is this all this good stuff about knowledge and until the information and we're all going to solve all these problems. Thanks to the information. And that behind that cloak there is the Stiletto because what happened to all those stories about Secret Wars and coup d'etat has and assassinations and I've have I spread this cloak around to conceal those and not talk about them. No, I haven't I bring it in now because I wanted to put it those stories into a sense of proportion. So that we don't fix on the individual story exaggerated and sensationalize. So we come to an honest appreciation that some things happened that were bad and some things happened that were good that some things can happen in the future that will be necessary for the protection of our country because there are some situations around the world which can pose a threat to our country which cannot be met by open Action but must be met by some the exertion of some quiet secret influence within a country and that in these years since 90 the late 1940s CIA has been called upon to exert this kind of secret influence around the world. Some of these projects have failed such as the Bay of Pigs. Some of them have been amazingly successful such as the secret effort by our government through CIA to assist these Center Democratic parties in Western Europe during the 1950's to strengthen themselves to meet and Conquer a massive subversive campaign waged against them by the communist party's the trade unions the youth groups, the cultural groups of the of Western Europe all funded directed and managed from Moscow at a time. When the Soviet Union was putting 50 million dollars of secret assistance per year into the Italian communist movement where we just sit and do nothing. Or could we provide some assistance not to the right wing but to the center Democratic parties so that they could have the cultural groups and the youth groups and the political parties and meet that challenge and the fact that we did that over those 10 years was a secret operation and I think that some of the free institutions of Europe today are a result of some of those CIA secret operations that there are other operations over these years that were in my opinion and I think all of our opinion just plain wrong such as the attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, which I think the best comment was made about it by Talleyrand when Napoleon suggested that the assassination of the dukedom god until they ran said to him sire. That would not only be wrong it would be worse than that. It would be stupid. And if you look into the details of cia's Milling around with the mafia trying to get something against mr. Castro, you have to determine that tell Iran was absolutely right in that case as well. But there are others in which you say that what they did was absolutely right? That in a situation in a small country of Laos in the early 1960s. There was a contest going on between communist forces and nationalist forces and there were some neutralist forces and 15 Nations agreed in 1962 that Laos should be left to be a neutral and independent country and a coalition government should be established of the Communists the nationalists and the neutral lists and that all the foreign Nation should withdraw their military and paramilitary influence and activities from that area. And the United States withdrew its and all the other countries withdrew. There's except for one the North Vietnamese and the North Vietnamese withdrew some 40 men out of 7,000 troops. They had in Laos. And in a few months they began to resume pushing around the Lao tribal people and the hills there and President Kennedy was faced with the problem. Was he going to denounce the the agreement and move back in an open way because he had agreed with mr. Khrushchev and Berlin Vienna that last was not the place that the Soviets and Americans should have a confrontation and when the American forces withdrew from Laos the Soviet Air Force had withdrawn from Laos and did he really want to stir that up again between the Soviets and Americans? But on the other hand, did he want to just sit there idly and let the North Vietnamese work their will and total violation of the agreement. We had all made and just go ahead and threaten not only the Lao but the whole of Southeast Asia and he didn't want to do that either and so he turned to CIA and he asked CIA to give some of these tribal people some assistance and their struggle against this North Vietnamese effort and for the next 10 years CIA helped those tribal groups and other Lao and that struggle in a very large operation for CIA some 300 odd people Americans, they're helping with the transport the communication the logistics but not with the fighting because the allow tribal forces did the fighting and over that ten years. The battle lines between the Communist forces from North Vietnam and the tribal forces supported by CIA hardly changed. Although the North Vietnamese forces increased from 7,000 to 70,000 and at the end of the 10 years. We made another agreement that we would all withdraw our military and paramilitary Prairie presence and assistance and again set up a coalition government. And again the United States did so and again the North Vietnamese fail to do so, they withdrew One Division and left two divisions there and in a few months they began to push the law around again and this time CIA was not asked to go in and help the Laos and Loud blast became the total subjugated country under North Vietnamese control that it is today within a very few months. I think that's a way that offers an alternative something between sending a diplomatic protests and having new result. No result and on the other hand facing the problem of sending carrier task forces and United States Marines that this is a quiet way and a way of assisting people to stand up for what they believe in and what they will struggle for and without engaging American military forces where it is not necessary to do so. Now this then is what American intelligence is all about these days. This is a total picture of it as we look on the flash points of the years ahead in the Middle East and the Central America and the Caribbean when we see the the turmoil and some mob scenes when we see the polarization between brutal dictators and terrorists struggling for control of countries. There are going to be situations in which we not only are going to have to know about these problems in detail. We're going to have to be able to influence them and help the growth of friendly decent moderate Solutions instead of seeing such polarization lead to violence now, I think this is a contribution that can be made by American intelligence. We now have the procedures. We now have a new Charter and and hopefully we'll have a new Charter and the next few months out of the Congress which will ensure that the decisions about where to go and where not to go will not be made by a president secretly but will be made with the application of our constitutional system of checks and balances so that the congressional committees will know about these things will apply their judgment as well as the president's and I think we will have fewer cases in which the agencies make the mistakes that they have had in they've made in the past. We certainly will have no cases in which they will be asked to make up the rules as they go along because the responsibility and knowledge of their activities will be shared not only with our executive branch not only with a clear line of authority from the president but also with our Congressional branch Thank you very much.