Input: Recommendation: Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is now dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee in each house of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities, is another. The new committee or committees should conduct continuing studies of the activities of the intelligence agencies and report problems relating to the development and use of intelligence to all members of the House and Senate. We have already recommended that the total level of funding for intelligence be made public, and that the national intelligence program be appropriated to the National Intelligence Director, not to the secretary of defense. We also recommend that the intelligence committee should have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight, freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the budget. The resolution creating the new intelligence committee structure should grant subpoena authority to the committee or committees. The majority party's representation on this committee should never exceed the minority's representation by more than one. Four of the members appointed to this committee or committees should be a member who also serves on each of the following additional committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. In this way the other major congressional interests can be brought together in the new committee's work. Members should serve indefinitely on the intelligence committees, without set terms, thereby letting them accumulate expertise. The committees should be smaller-perhaps seven or nine members in each house-so that each member feels a greater sense of responsibility, and accountability, for the quality of the committee's work. The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress. One expert witness (not a member of the administration) told us that this is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development. The one attempt to consolidate such committee authority, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, may be eliminated. The Senate does not have even this. Congress needs to establish for the Department of Homeland Security the kind of clear authority and responsibility that exist to enable the Justice Department to deal with crime and the Defense Department to deal with threats to national security.

Does the response "Many documents loose their confidential status" correctly answer the question "In what ways is it recommended that the new committee could be more transparent?"?
***
Output: no

Input: Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States. Millions of men and women readied themselves for work. Some made their way to the Twin Towers, the signature structures of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Others went to Arlington, Virginia, to the Pentagon. Across the Potomac River, the United States Congress was back in session. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, people began to line up for a White House tour. In Sarasota, Florida, President George W. Bush went for an early morning run. For those heading to an airport, weather conditions could not have been better for a safe and pleasant journey. Among the travelers were Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari, who arrived at the airport in Portland, Maine. Boston: American 11 and United 175. Atta and Omari boarded a 6:00 A.M. flight from Portland to Boston's Logan International Airport. When he checked in for his flight to Boston, Atta was selected by a computerized prescreening system known as CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System), created to identify passengers who should be subject to special security measures. Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta's selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft. This did not hinder Atta's plans. Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45. Seven minutes later, Atta apparently took a call from Marwan al Shehhi, a longtime colleague who was at another terminal at Logan Airport. They spoke for three minutes. It would be their final conversation.

Does the response "He went on a morning jog" correctly answer the question "How did President Bush start his day on September 11, 2001?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: The digestive system is the body system that digests food. It digest food in two ways, mechanically and chemically. Both help in the process of turning food into nutrients. The digestive system also eliminates solid food waste. The major organs of the digestive system include the mouth, esophagus, stomach, and small and large in- testines. These organs all work together to help you gain energy from the food you eat. Digestion starts in the mouth. When food is swallowed, it travels through the esophagus to the stomach. In the stomach, digestion continues and a small amount of absorption of nutrients takes place. Most chemical digestion and nearly all absorption of nutrients take place in the small intestine. This organ consists of three parts: duodenum, jejunum, and ileum. The large intestine is the last stop in the digestive system. This is where water is absorbed. The food not digested is released as waste.

Does the response "It digest food in two ways, mechanically and chemically" correctly answer the question "What two forms of digestion help to turn food into nutrients?"?
***
Output: yes

Input: Expansion quickly peaked however, and the European powers who had carved up the New World set about testing each other in dynastic conflicts and colonial rivalry. The English were the main rivals of the Dutch on the high seas, and there were several wars between the two in the 17th and 18th centuries. In 16651667 the Dutch sailed up the River Medway and sank the British fleet moored there. The 18th century saw Amsterdam grow into the foremost financial center in the world, but the seeds of decline had already been planted. When the English colonies in New England rose up in revolt against the British, they found ready Ailies in the Dutch. From their colonies in the Caribbean they sent caches of arms and ammunition. The British were furious and went to war in 1780, destroying the Dutch navy and signaling a sudden decline in power and influence from which the Netherlands never recovered. Trade suffered to such an extent that in 1791 the VOC went into liquidation. In the latter part of the century there were anti-Orange demonstrations by pro-French factions in the country, and in 1795 Napoleon Bonaparte took the Netherlands in his epic march across Europe. Under the yoke of another foreign power, and with trade at an all time low, the Golden Age was truly dead. The Return of the House of Orange Napoleon installed his brother Louis as King of Holland and he chose to take the fine Town Hall on Dam Square as his palacenow the Koninklijk Palace. But only four years later he fled the city after civil disturbances broke out when he raised taxes. When Napoleon's bubble burst and French power began to wane, William of Orange emerged from exile and was proclaimed king in 1813. Amsterdam had to work its way out of economic decline, but throughout the 19th century the city grew steadily. Industrialization changed the city. With the building of the Central Station at the end of the century, Amsterdam turned its back on its seafaring past and looked towards the mechanical age for its future. The station was built over the old harbor wall and some of the oldest canals in the city center were filled in to allow better access to motorized vehicles. Dam Square was landlocked for the first time in its history.

Does the response "Because trade was suffering" correctly answer the question "Why did the British go to war with the Netherlands in 1780?"?
***
Output:
no