the committee will come to order. we meet today to consider two of president obama's nominees in the intelligence committee. mrs. caroline dianne krass, nominee to be the general counsel of the cia, and ambassador daniel bennett smith, nominee to be assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. as we would say, inr. welcome to you both, and to the family and friends with you today. i also understand that senator bennett will be introducing ms.

krass and should arrive shortly from another hearing. when he does come in, i will give him the opportunity to make his remarks, and then we will go back to whatever we are doing. we have received answers to our prehearing questions from both nominees, and those can be found on the committee's website for anyone who's interested. and we look towaforward to hear both of your opening statements. this committee has the jurisdiction over all nominees requiring senate confirmation within the intelligence community, and we try to move that process as quickly as we can. the number of these positions is fairly small, and so i appreciate my colleagues' cooperation to keep the process running. it is my hope that we will be able to vote on these two nominees as one of the first orders of business when we return in january. both ms. krass and ambassador

smith have long and distinguished careers, but neither has worked for an intelligence agency or in a primarily intelligence position in the past. this is not a disqualification, and both of you have been involved in intelligence matters over the course of your careers, but we will ask you both to discuss how you intend to lead and supervise intelligence organizations as relative outsiders. caroline krass currently serves as the principle department assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel, or olc. she has also served at the national security council and previously in legal positions at the department of treasury and state. the committee has received several letters in support of her confirmation from senior officials and colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and i ask unanimous consent that those

letters be made part of the record. if confirmed as general counsel, ms. krass would be the chief legal officer of the cia, responsible for providing legal advice for agency operations and ensuring that cia activities are conducted in compliance with applicable law. given the sensitivity and secrecy of most of the cia's work, it is of paramount importance the general counsel be a strong lawyer, but also a leader, a manager, and someone who exercises good, sound judgment. ambassador daniel bennett smith has served in a variety of positions at the state department. most recently as ambassador to greece, but also as executive secretary of the department, principle deputy secretary for counselor affairs, and overseas posts in baron, istanbul,

ottawa, and stockholm. quite a variation. he is a career officer in the senior foreign service, with the rank of career minister. the position to which ambassador smith has been nominated, the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, inr, is unique in the intelligence community. the inr bureau is one of the three all-source analytic agencies within the community, along with the cia and the defense intelligence community. but its primary customers are the senior leaders of the state department. the assistant secretary for inr has one foot in each camp, both as a leader of an ic agency and as a briefer to the secretary. he is also the conduit between the intelligence community and the state department, and is responsible for ensuring that our intelligence activities and

the conduct of our foreign policy are coordinated and compatible. i'm particularly pleased to note and mind that i said note, not gloat, that both nominees attended my alma mater of stanford university. as an undergraduate in ms. krass's case, and for a master's in ph.d in ambassador smith's case. i note that this isn't the only way to be confirmed through the intelligence community, but it might be the best way. i'd also like to remind members, please, do not discuss classified topics or to ask questions that require a classified answer. mr. vice chairman, would you like to make your opening statement, and then i think senator bennett is here, and we will go to senator bennett. >> thank you, madam chair, and i didn't go to stanford, but i hope i can read all of my statement here. well, thanks, madam chair, and i

join you in congratulating ms. krass and ambassador smith on being nominated by the president for these respected positions, and i also want to express our thanks to their predecessors, steven preston and philip goldburg, for their service. last week the committee approved this report on the september 12 benghazi terrorist attacks. this report includes findings and recommendations that are relevant to both the cia and the state department and including the bureau of intelligence and research. there are many lessons to be learned from benghazi, and i encourage both of you to read this report carefully once it is released, as i know you will. ambassador of the bureau of intelligence and research has made some important contributions to the intelligence community analysis over the years, but i do have concerns about whether it is really doing enough independent analysis, especially when it concerns terrorist attacks on u.s. diplomatic facilities overseas. i hope that understood your

leadership, inr will be at the forefront of intelligence issues that concern policy makers on matters involving the state department. we've got many embassies, missions, consulates, that, frankly, as we found with benghazi, are probably, well not probably, are no doubt unsecured. and i know that's not directly under you in this position, but it's an issue that bears an awful lot of looking at, particularly with your experience in your many years at the department. ms. krass, the cia has worked both in collection and covert action is vital to national security, but it does carry some risk, especially with the all too frequent leaks of classified information. as you noted in your responses to the committee's questions, unauthorized disclosures of classified information can compromise sources, damage our relationships with foreign

partners, and decrease the effectiveness of intelligence activities. unfortunately, we are seeing all of these effects with the snowden leaks. i'm also concerned that we will see much more risk aversion of the administration to protect the intelligence needed to protect the nation. i expect that as a cia general counsel you will fully support any criminal investigation into the leaks of classified information, regardless of who might be responsible or why they occurred. when you and i met last week, you agreed that it was critical to gather intelligence through suspected terrorists. i remain concerned about developing a clear detention and interrogation policy. i understand the president made a promise to close guantanamo bay, but it is deeply troubling and shortsided that not one terrorist has been added to the list of those being held and

interrogated as long-term detainees in the last five years. as the cia general counsel, i hope you will be a strong advocate for full, lawful intelligence interrogations without miranda and attorneys. there's no point in giving a suspect miranda rights, just means you can't use his statements at trial. if we don't stop treating terrorists like ordinary criminals, we could lose real-time intelligence needed to keep this country safe. ambassador smith, ms. krass, we look forward to your testimony today and to your confirmation in the future. thanks very much. >> thank you very much, mr. vice chairman. i now like to recognize senator michael bennett from the great state of colorado. he had to give an earlier introduction in another committee, and so we're just delighted to have you. thank you for being here. >> madam chairman, it is a great privilege to be here, and thank you, both to you and the ranking

member for letting me come by and all my colleagues for being here. i should commend you, the attendance here is much more punk chul and better on committees i serve, and i'm sure that's a function of your leadership, but it is also a privilege to be here to introduce caroline krass, the president's nominee to be general counsel of the cia. caroline is a long-time friend of mine, instead of old friend of mine, but that wouldn't be correct. we've known each other since law school, where i barely could keep up with her, and i know that she's got the character, the intelligence, and the temperament to excel in this incredibly important position. a position that's important for all the reasons the chairman and the ranking member said. since a young age, caroline has had a passion for serving our country. in her 22-year career reflects that. she's served in sensitive positions in the white house, justice department, and other federal agencies. she's currently principle deputy assistant attorney general.

she's been legal adviser to national security counsel, and nine years before that, a career attorney in the office of legal counsel, not a political position. in each of these positions, she quickly developed a reputation for thoughtful concerns of our country. caroline's work has earned her accolades and praise from officials across the political spectrum. she is the recipient of numerous awards for her high quality work, including the attorney general's award for excellence in furthering the interest of u.s. national security. she also received 2007 team of the year intelligence community legal award. she has the deep and abiding commitment to the rule of law and to human rights, and she'll work to protect our civil liberties while furthering our national security interests. her intelligence, good judgment, and integrity will be invaluable both to the cia and most important to the american people. it takes a special kind of

person to devote their career to serving our nation with honor and distinction. through her work, caroline has shown that she is exactly that kind of person. and it's truly a privilege to introduce to the committee, my friend, caroline krass. i recommend her enthusiastically and hope the senate will swiftly confirm her in this new role. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much, senator. you're welcome to stay. on the other hand, if you can't, it's understood. >> thank you. >> so, thank you for being here. if the witnesses would please stand. and if you would affirm the oath when i complete its reading. i do solemnly swear that i will give this committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me god. >> i will. >> thank you. please, be seated. now, i have five questions that are protocol that questions tha protocol that we asked.

if you would just indicate yes or no, please. do you both agree to appear before the committee here or other venues when invited? will you both ensure your respective offices will provide should material to the committee when requested. >> i will. >> do you both inform and fully brief to the full extent possible all members of this committee of intelligence activities and covert actions not only the chairman and

vice-chairman? >> yes. >> thank you. we will proceed if either of you or both has a statement to make to the committee this is the time and then we'll go into a round of questions. >> chairman feinstein, vice-chairman chambliss and distinguished members of this committee, it is an honor to appear before you today. >> let me stop you. vice-chairman just reminded me. please, introduce your families if they are here. >> i can stop. i have my husband william and my daughter. >> why does the family stand up and we can easily see who you are. >> william, my daughter and my son. >> excellent. thank you. >> it is an honor to appear before you today to be the president's nominee of the central intelligence agency. i'm deeply grateful to president obama and director john brennan for their trust and confidence

in me and also to the committee for considering my nomination. i appreciate the opportunity i've had to meet with you to discuss a number of important issues. i also want to thank my family, who i just introduced, for their love and support. i see the general counsel position as having four key duties. first, the general counsel must give sound and clear legal advice to the deputy, deputy director -- deputy director and other agency employees. as the chief legal officer of the cia, the general counsel must ensure cia is complying with the constitution and other applicable u.s. laws. in almost 20 years as an executive branch lawyer i've had the privilege of legal advice on a wide range of difficult legal issues to many government agencies including the cia. second, the general counsel must

work closely with lawyers across the executive branch. the protection of our nation security and achievement of policy goals depend on an integrated approach in the intelligence community as well as in the intelligence community and other agencies. during my time at the national security council as well as department of justice, i worked with many lawyers across the interagency community. i strongly value such interagency cooperation. cooperation with general counsel for director of national intelligence is especially important for general counsel of the cia and i have a strong and productive working relationship with that office as well as with the most senior lawyers at the department of justice, state and defense. third, the general counsel must lead and supervise the lawyers in the office of general counsel. over the years i've already worked with many of these lawyers. i've been impressed by dedication to rigorously

applying the law as well as to the mission of the agency. maintaining high moral is particularly important especially in the time of budgetary uncertainty, particularly providing opportunities for professional development and growth. equally necessary is making sure that the legal advice provided by the office of general counsel is uniformly of excellent quality. i would bring to the job the leadership experience i gained in my tenure leading olc as well as my time at the nsc managing interagency legal review of difficult issues. fourth, and equally important, the general counsel assists the director in making sure intelligence committees are fully and currently informed and provided with sufficient information to allow effective oversight. this is a critical and must be informed of all activities including covert actions.

for general counsel it must include legal basis for intelligence activity. i strongly believe it is the general counsel's duty to ensure intelligence committees and their staff have a clear understanding of the legal basis for any intelligence activities including covert actions in which the agency is engaged. enabling such oversight is especially important because of the classified nature of much of what the agency does which increases the need for congress to be fully informed and enga d engaged. finally dedicated my career to government service because i believe it's essential that u.s. government comply with the rule of law. i'm committed to protecting our nation's security. if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed as general counsel, i would dedicate myself to both these tasks. i look forward to answering these questions. thank you for having me.

>> thank you very much. ambassador smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. may i introduce my wife diane, my oldest son andrew. my middle son eric is stationed in the army at present and couldn't be here. my youngest had a final exam which he offered to skip but i suggested that was not a good idea. madam chairman, vice-chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before you as president obama's nominee. i'm deeply grateful to the president and secretary of state kerry for their confidence nominating me in this position as well as director of intelligence james clapper and his support for my nomination. if confirmed i promise to work with this committee as carry out the violates role in overseeing the intelligence community. as you've noted is a unique and valuable asset both to the state

and intelligence community. bureau has a history providing in-depth analysis that helps to guide our nation's poll sichlt our strong reputation derives not from the size of the staff and budget but tremendous expertise and skills of its personnel. indeed the bureau has some of the greatest regional and subject matter expertise anywhere in the u.s. government. this expertise rests principally with the bureau's outstanding civil servants who spent a considerable amount but bureau derives significant strength from constant influx of officers with relevant experience in the field. if confirmed i will work hard to ensure continues to recruit and maintain highest quality staff and provides them with training, professional development opportunities and overseas experience they need to ensure best possible analysis. equally important i will vigorously defend integrity of analytical process to ensure independent of unbiased analysis

which famous. the bureau has a dedicated staff of professionals with significant expertise in this area which encompasses technical issues as well as practical ones. they help define intelligence requirements, language for diplomatic communications and ensure department policymakers understand and evaluate proposed intelligence activities with potential foreign policy consequences. also support our mission overseas. if confirmed i'll bring experience and relevant skills to assistant secretary of intelligence and research. i've served successfully in a variety of demanding leadership positions both in washington and

overseas including most recently executive of the state department and ambassador to greece. i know firsthand the challenges facing senior policymakers as well as incredible demands on time and attention. i appreciate critical contribution made and continue to make in providing president, secretary of state and other policymakers with timely analysis on broad range of regional and global challenges. throughout my course of 30 years as a foreign service officer i've worked closely with the intelligence committee, overseen intelligence activities, the role can and should play in the foreign policy like many professionals i have a strong academic background and appreciate very much drawing on insights and expertise found in

our nation's outstanding and private sector. as leader of the department worked hard to support and improve information sharing and ensure we're working together to advance national security. if confirmed i'll work tirelessly to make sure continue to make unique analytical contribution and continues to ensure intelligence activities support policy and national security objectives. thank you for having me here today and i look forward to answering questions. >> thank you very much ambassador smith. i will ask each of you one question and move to the next. we spoke about olc when cause in for a private visit. you know this committee long sought access to legal opinions i should ioffice of legal counsel that describe and detail

law governing intelligence covered by cia and intelligence agencies. i think as we said, this isn't just idle curiosity, it's really to understand direction and rules programs operate as they are run by executive branch of the government. we've found these opinions are indispensable to effective oversig oversight. for example, 2004, cia inspector general concluded interrogators use waterboard on khalid shaikh mohammed in a matter that did not match the description for waterboard in olc opinions. at that time and for years afterwards the committee lacks access to both doj and operational details describing how the waterboard was

implemented. do you agree the committee needs legal analysis and operational details in order to conduct oversight of whether cia activities adhere to the law. >> thank you for that question, chairman feinstein. i do believe the committee needs to fully understand the legal basis for any activities in which the cia intelligence is engaged including covert action. were i to be fortunate enough to be confirmed i would commit to you to make sure you and the rest of this committee as well as the staff had all of your questions answered and could understand the legal basis. what i'd be able to provide or confirm would be an understanding of how the legal framework intersects with actual operations undertaken and how any advice that might have been provided by the justice department is being applied in

specific circumstances. >> let me be clear. you agree we should have access to all olc opinions that analyze legality of intelligence activities carried out by the cia, yes or no. >> olc opinions represent predecisional confidential legal advice that's been provided. protecting confidentiality of that legal advice prrves space for there to be a full and frank discussion amongst clients and policymakers and their lawyers within the executive branch. i believe it furthers the rule of law because it allows for the effective functioning of the executive branch. >> so your answer is no. is that what you're saying? >> i would like to say. i would, if i were confirmed, make sure you understood the legal basis. i have a unique capability to do that spending so many years at

office of legal counsel, i would surely be able to understand their reasoning and explain it to you. >> i think we do understand it. i think it has been explained to us. every olc opinion has been a fight to obtain and we've obtained very few of them and only those that relate to u.s. citizens. so i know what you said and it's on the record and i thank you for that. let me ask a question of mr. smith, ambassador smith. ambassador smith, ins has a reputation for quality and independence of its analysis. often overlooked is inr's responsibility to ensure united states intelligence activities are consistent with united states foreign policy and state

department officials weigh in on implications of those activities. it's my understanding you have reviewed the parts of the committee study on the cia's discontinued detention and interrogation program related to the state department. what are your views on whether the state department and united states ambassadors had adequate opportunity to consider the potential foreign policy implications of the program? >> madam chairman, i did at the request of the committee examine parts of that report that belonged to department of state and met with your staffer. the report remains highly classified and i don't want to get into too much detail in this setting. i would note i did draw conclusions based on my reading of the report about the role of

inr with vis-a-vis our ambassadors in the field and ways in which we can provide additional support to them and additional training and ongoing suppo support. i hope to take those lessons learned and apply them as assistant secretary. >> thank you very much. mr. vice-chairman? >> thanks, madam chair. as you and i discussed in my office last week, you know that i continue to have significant concerns with this administration's failure to develop a clear detention and interrogation policy. holding a terrorist on a ship and interrogating them for days is no way to gain intelligence. it seems we've gone back to pre9/11 days when we treat

terrorist as criminals. what would you say including those captured and detained overseas. >> thank you for that question, senator chambliss. i would advise director brennan the first goal of any interrogation of a suspected terrorist is collect intelligence to protect this country's security. wherever possible that intelligence should be collected in a way that does not interfere with future possible prosecution or article three court only because that is one way to keep the terrorist off the streets and to keep them from harming the united states. >> every administration runs a little differently, seems this is exerting more control over the intelligence community and defense department in an effort to avoid any risk that could have political or public perception consequences. i'm concerned cia operations are

bogged down in lengthy review processes that don't really serve any reasonable policy purpose. what are your legal and policy views on how much an administration should try to exercise control over operation s nods to minimize political risks? >> i do not believe political risk should be part of the calculation in determining appropriate way forward for the interagency process. i do think as i mentioned in my opening remarks interagency can be a positive influence. >> ambassador smith, as the committee meets with analysts across the intelligence community we generally hear positive comments on the value of state department overt political reporting. however, when it comes to reporting with embassies it seems much of the information is conveyed by e-mail rather than easily accessible cable trachblgt what are your views on the role of the bureau of

intelligence and research reporting with respect to the rest of the intelligence community, what role should inr play in encouraging or assisting broader state department as overt collector and what specific analytic advantage or expertise does inr bring to the table for policymakers? you eye -- purchase one of the things we have is a senior foreign service officer detailed as vice-chairman of the national requirements tasking center. in order to coordinate the needs of our human collectors of our analysts with our reporting overse overseas. of course the rest is not part

of the intelligence committee, taken as advisory taskings. there is close coordination via inr between the intelligence community and state department on our reporting overseas and i've heard the concern over the degree we're reporting in formal channels, e-mail and others and not formal chance and whether or not that would have an impact on contribution of reporters, analysts, economic officers abroad. i will certainly take that into careful consideration and see if there are ways we can ensure and encourage our reporting officers to report things from channel. so they are shared widely within the intelligence community. >> you've had extensive overseas experience in your well respected clear. as you know unfortunately some countries such as russia and pakistan continue to engage in abusive and harassing behavior

towards americans posted there violating all diplomatic norms and protocols, yet the committee has struggled to find anyone in washington who is willing to take ownership of this problem. what role can ina play an approach to ensure equitable treatment for american diplomats posted overseas. >> senator, it's something i personal personally take the heart having served overseas and seen some of the challenges overseas. this is important to secretary of state and leadership of the department. we take seriously not only the security and safety of our personnel but their treatment by these host governments and these countries. there is, in fact, an established procedure not only will we raise concerns and allegations about mistreatment aimed at our personnel overseas

but we will also take actions as necessary to signal to these governments there will be consequences in terms of their diplomatic representation in the united states if we don't receive equal and fair treatment abroad. this is something department of state takes seriously. a concern to senior officials and the department as a whole. >> thank you very much, mr. vice-chairman. mr. king? i'll read the list so you know king, collins, udall, heinrich, burr, rockefeller and levin. >> i could comment on the two senators from maine being at the top of the list in terms of attendance. thank you mrs. chairman. >> you're welcome. >> ambassador smith, does your analysis have to be cleared through the dni or community

generally or go to the secretary of state without any other steps along the way. >> senator, our analysis can go directly to sk of state without any further clearances. we do coordinate closely with other members of the intelligence community on communitywide projects and products -- >> that was my next question. can it go through the president without necessarily cleared through the community? >> we coordinate closely in the community on any products whether in the daily briefing or others. sometimes inr products stand alone products will be shared with other principles outside of the state department. >> what i'm trying to get at, "we want your work to be coordinated but not homogenized. >> appreciate that very much and share that desire. >> i think your agency, inr, has a very important role to play

and distinguished record of being right when sometimes others weren't correct. i hope you'll maintain that independence, if you will. >> absolutely. we just recently had supreme court decision on constitutionality of the patriot act, although that's not strictly within your am bit as general counsel, going to the general counsel office of the cia but i would like your views on the neb of that decision, essentially that metadata is a violation of fourth amount. i know you've had ample experience in the national security field. your thoughts on that issue briefly. >> yes. that is a very topical opinion. i haven't had a chance to study

it carefully but i believe it ill straits difficult issues we face as we try to balance between the appropriate balance between national security and protection of national security on the one hand and civil liberty protection and privacy on the other. and i would -- it seems likely congress will " - will decide on appropriate action through discussion. of course i will, if i am confirmed, i will make sure the agency follows whatever laws have been enacted. >> separate question. the so-called aumf, fundamental law that laos force internationally is limited to nations, organizations or persons who plan, authorized or aided in the attacks of

september 11th or harbored such organizations or persons to prevent any future attacks. that language is very limiting. it has been interpreted by successions, government much broad by use of term associated forces. do you have a view on whether that -- should we rewrite amuf or are you satisfied gloss placed on it by associated forces nowhere found in the document to legally sufficient to just iify military force through the cia, around the world, when we're talking about people, some of whom certainly weren't involved with al qaeda in 2011. >> senator, i believe amf as currently drafted is sufficient and that the interception that has been adopted by this

administration to include associated forces is legally available interception. definition of associated forces is an entity that has an organized armed group that has joined the fight alongside al qaeda against the united states and its coalition or its coalition partners. there is a strong nexus rishd between al qaeda and associated force. >> i appreciate your response. i must say rather than stretch the law into unrecognizable places, i would much rather rewrite it to cover the current situation. i'm troubled by the expansive nature of the way the administration is reading this that can essentially allow us to fight anybody any time anywhere for the next 30 years. i think that's quite troubling but i appreciate your response.

>> thank you, senator king. senator collins. >> thank you. i want to follow up with senator king's questions about the judicial decision that was issued yesterday on the legality, constitutionality of section 215. you have a great deal of experience in the national security field. so i want to ask your personal opinion of whether or not you agree with the judge's decision. >> senator in the time i've had to think about the decision, i do not, i have a different view of the fourth amendment, smith versus maryland, which i consider to be good law, there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy in telephony

metadata. suggested since it's been a couple of years since smith versus maryland was decided and since the collection in the 215 program is so broad, the law has changed basically. i do think that's worth considering and i'll be very interested to see what the circuit courts say about this matter. >> thank you. the chairman asked you a question about the office of legal council decisions. many of us have felt access to those decisions is critical to our ability to exercise effective oversight as far as the intelligence community sanctions is concerned. i'm a little troubled by your response to the chairman because you seem to be saying, well, you think our committee should receive a full explanation for

any actions taken, you did not believe we should have access to olc memos themselves because they were -- your words were confidential predecisional legal advice. yet, unclassified decisions of that office are frequently posted. and presumably they, too, contain confidential predecisional legal advice, why do you distinguish between classified olc legal decisions, which would not be made public, they would just come to this committee, on the basis of the fact they contain confidential predecisional advice. what's the difference? >> senator, you're absolutely

right that for a portion of the unclassified legal opinions that the office formally issues, they go through an extensive review process olc lawyers consult with clipts who receive the opinion as well as other potentially affected agency. the significance of the opinion is evaluated. after all that review as well as some internal reviews that had to take place, we try to publish opinions when we came to promote transparency. but there are many opinions where we do not publish them in the classified arena to protect confidentiality or not classification. i do think it's worth exploring whether there could be some kind of a similar process with respect to classified olc opinions.

the key thing were i to be confirmed would be to have the duty and obligation to make sure this committee understands the legal basis for any activities conducted by the cia. >> that brings me to another issue. if you are presented with a situation where a course of action has been approved, that you have advised the director is not consistent with the

he's also just like every other senior official, he's sworn to uphold the constitution. he has that obligation himself. he could go to the attorney general and determine whether or not the attorney general would agree with my advice and come to a different interpretation. >> what i don't like seeing is the administration shopping around until it gets a legal opinion which it agrees. that seems to have happened in the case of libya where you and the general counsel at the pentagon came out one way on the war powers act and found hostilities or actions met definition of hostilities under the war powers act and what the

administration did was disregard what i think was a sound legal intercepti interpretation but instead followed advice of legal department counsel and state department counsel. what i'm concerned about if we have a situation like that where you don't prevail i hope you would share your concerns with the committee that you felt unlawful activity was occurring. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator collins. senator udall. >> good afternoon to you, welcome. ambassador, i'm going to direct a set of comments and question to you here today. i would note ambassador smith is from my home state and has done us proud. so thank you for your service. nice to see you again. we had a chance to sit down last

week. among other things we discussed senate intelligence committee study on ci detention and interrogation program which this committee approved one year ago. you read the section pertaining to the role office of legal counsel department of justice played drafting legal opinion supportive of the cia's program. you also told me that you found the study to be hard reading. i think many of us who read it found it to be hard reading. the course and techniques used in that timeframe were, quote, not consistent with our values. i understand that while you were employed with the office of legal counsel you were not involved in drafting of opinions regarding cia detention and interrogation program. after our discussion last week, as well as after reviewing your strong credentials and many letters of support for your nomination, i do believe you're highly qualified for cia general

counsel position. as you know from my discussion i've got deep concerns about how the cia interacted with this committee throughout four years cia has been researching and drafting the study. after the committee sent the study to the cia for the response, i and other committee members requested cia meet with staff to discuss the study and its methodology. history shows cia declined all requests. last week a number of articles discussing one-year anniversary of the vote to approve the committee study. some of these reports included a statement from the cia claiming that the cia has detailed significant errors in the study. i've got to tell you, i don't believe that statement is factually accurate. the cia took seven months to review the study and provided a formal written response last

june. shortly thereafter, committee staff held more than 60 hours of meetings with the cia. after reviewing the material provided and being briefed on the staff meetings, i'm more confident than ever in the factual accuracy of the committee's 6300 page study. i'm more confident than ever in the factual accuracy of the committee's 6300 page study. i strongly believe the only way to correct the inaccurate information is through the sunlight of declassification. the cia also needs to be more cooperative with this committee with regard to this study. last week you committed in general to working closely with this committee and a staff which i appreciate. i need additional information and additional assurances specific to the committee's study before i can support your nomination. why? first i noted that the cia has not yet responded outstanding

requests for cables and other information that are necessary for completion of the study. you pledge to look into that request which i appreciate. secondly, i also asked you to ensure a copy of the internal cia review detention and interrogation program is provided to the committee. it appears this review, which was initiated by former director panetta is consistent with the intelligence committee's report. but amazingly it conflicts with cia's response to the report. if this is true, it raises fundamental questions about why a review the cia conducted internally years ago and never provided to the committee is so different from the cia's formal written response to the study. i think you can see the disconnect if this is true. we've requested a copy of the internal row view but cia hasn't committed to providing it.

you've seen this as well. i'd like the white house fullest possible declassification of the committee's study as well as the response to the study. i understand you're not in a position on your own to provide these documents and statements, but confirmation processes are one way u.s. senators can be assured our voices are heard by the white house and agencies we oversee. i don't believe my requests are unreasonable and i want the cia to take them seriously. with that i've got a question for you. in our meeting last week we talked about critical roll of intelligence oversight by congress. can you elaborate on your views on these two matters. one, roll of doj in intelligence oversight. two, specifically address how your views will guide interaction with this committee, engagements with doj and counsel

to the cia director. >> senator, thank you for that question. yes, i completely agree this committee plays a critical role in the oversight of the cia particularly because so much of the work of the cia has to remain secret by its nature. this committee needs to provide the important checks and balances that would normally be provided in addition to the american public in those circumstances. i also think the department of justice plays a critical role providing legal advice to the agency. that advice is authoritative for the agency. were it to be confirmed, i would consider it my duty to make sure that the committees were informed of all intelligence activities conducted by cia, in particular committee understands legal basis for those activities. i would also be sure information provided to the department of

justice and particularly to the office of legal counsel was accurate and timely and up to date. my experience since i've been back in the leadership of olc i've interacted many times with lawyers from the agency. my experience has been very positive in terms of feeling like we're always get at olc the information we need to give our advice if things change and that happens to be the case. i think olc advice is not useful to client agency. otherwise the client agency has an opinion but is addressing a different situation than the one presented. if i were to be confirmed, i would make sure that practice continued the way it has been functioning, a good idea what is needed to make judgments. >> thank you for that answer and

i do look forward to conversations on these topics. senator collins raised important questions about how this committee and intelligence committee worked together in trusting, open, transparent way, because we all have the same goal in mind, to protect this country, but also protect the most valuable set of principles we hold dear, which is the bill of rights and constitution. thank you. >> thank you senator. senator wyden. >> senator burr, were you there before me? >> very good. >> not according to the list i have. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. smith, i've heard glowing reports about your professionalism. mi mrs. crass i enjoyed meeting with you. it's my practice to let me know

what areas we'll get into. let me start with you on cia interrogation. as you know, the big interrogation report the committee approved last year contained sections, the senator referred to it to discuss cia's representations to the department of justice regarding coercive investigations. you indicated to me yesterday you had read the report. based on the information in the report, does it appear to you that the cia provided the justice department's office of legal counsel with acceptably accurate information about coercive interrogation program. >> senator, based on my reading of the report, i agree with what former general counsel stephen preston said, which is the information provided fell short of the normal type of information that is provided to olc now. >> so the answer would be no.

>> yes, i think that's right. >> okay. so what you've told us is it does not appear to you the cia provided the justice department's office with acceptably accurate information, correct? >> yes. >> very good. the other question i wanted to ask you about dealt with this matter the olc opinion. we talked about this in the office as well. this is the particular opinion in the office of legal counsel i've been concerned about. i think the reasoning is inconsistent of the public's understanding of the law. as i indicated, i believe it needs to be withdrawn. as we talked about, you were familiar with it. my first question is -- i indicated i would ask, as a senior government attorney, would you rely on the legal reasoning contained in this opinion? >> senator, at your request, i did review that from 2003.

based on the age of the opinion and the fact it addressed at the time what it described as an issue of first impression as well as the evolving technology the opinion was discussing as well as the evolution of case law, i would not rely on that opinion. >> i appreciate that. again, your candor is helpful, because we talked about that. that's encouraging. i want to make sure nobody else ever relies on that opinion. i'm concerned a different attorney could take a different view that it's valid because it has not been withdrawn. we have tried to get attorney general holder to withdraw it. i'm trying to figure out -- he's not answered our letders. who at the justice department has the authority to withdraw the opinion.

do you currently have the authority to withdraw that opinion? >> no, i do not have the authority to withdraw that opinion. >> who does at the justice opinion. >> olc withdrawn on olc's own initiative or initiative of the attorney general would be extremely unusual. it happens only in extraordinary circumstances. normally what happens, if there's an opinion for which has been given to a particular agency, for example, if that agency would like olc to consider an opinion or if another component of the executive branch who has been affected by the advice would like olc to consider the opinion, they will come to olc and say, look, this is why we think you're wrong and why it should be -- we believe the opinion should be corrected. they will be doing that when they have a practical need for the opinion because of the particular operational activities they would like to conduct. i've been thinking about your question, because i understand your serious concerns about this

opinion. one approach that seems possible to me is that you could ask for an assurance from the relevant elements of the intelligence community that they would not rely on the opinion. i could give you more assurance if i were confirmed, i would not rely on the opinion at the cia. >> i appreciate that. you are very straightforward in saying that. what concerns me unless the opinion is drawn someone else might be tempted to reach the conclusions. again, i appreciate the way you've handled a sensitive matter and i'm going to continue to prosecute the case for getting this. >> thank you, senator. senat senator. >> i've looked at both resumes and read letters of

recommendation and come away impressed. we've not had the opportunity to talk at length. i look forward to that. i did have a chance to sit down with miss krass last week, and i want to thank her for her candor to fully answer our questions during that meeting. before we begin, let me associate myself with the comments of my colleague mr. udall of colorado. my staff is waiting for documents we've requested. these requests are not unreasonable but the amount of time it's taking to produce them is. as much as anyone i want to see the committee's study of enhanced interrogation program finished and released. but that cannot happen white the cia slow walks the documents we've requested. we don't have many options available to us to force the agency's cooperation but i will not rule out any in order to get the agency to finally cooperate

with our request. i also want to thank the chairman for her leadership in getting this study written. i want to mention something that happened just this afternoon. i am outraged the cia continues to make misleading public statements about the committee study of the cia's interrogation program. there is only one instance in which the cia pointed out a factual error in the study, a minor error that has been corrected. for the rest where the committee and cia differ, we differ on interception and on conclusions from an agreed upon factual record. you can't publicly call our differences of opinion significant errors in press releases. it is misleading. these are not factual errors. however, the agency's failure to read the study during the six months it crafted its response contributed to these false statements by the agency. statements that continue today, even after the committee staff

pointed out the many errors in the agency's response. madam chairman, i'm convinced now more than ever that we need to declassify the full report so that those with a political agenda can no longer manipulate public opinion by making false representations about what may be or is or is not in that study. my comments are not directed at our nominees but i felt i had to address this given the highly misleading article in "the daily beast" today. miss krass, it's good to see you today. as i membershipsed in our meeting i have follow-up questions related to what we discussed last week. i asked you about the current legality of the cia's enhanced interrogation techniques. in responding you pointed to the detainee treatment act of 2005 and the military commissions act of 2006 and noted those laws were not in place at the time of the cia's detention and

interrogation program when it began in 2002. you suggested that these might prohibit the future use of harsh interrogation techniques. however, these have both been signed into law by july 20th of 2007 when a predecessor of yours at the office of legal counsel issued a legal opinion the cia could continue to use these techniques, including dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation, facial holds, attention can grabs, abdominal slaps. although this opinion has been withdrawn, it's clear there's disagreement whether actions taken by congress in the last decade have settled the legality of the use of harsh interrogation many consider torture. the current decision not to use cruel interrogation technique is seen by some as rooted in policy not law. in other words, president obama's executive order 13491

which explicitly interrogation to those found in the field manual could be rescinded by a future president. this leaves open a future president and cia director, perhaps based on the misinformation currently in the public realm about their effectiveness might seek to resume using those techniques. president obama's executive order or current policy notwithstanding, do you believe the interrogation techniques mentioned previously could legally be used today despite the war crimes act as amended by military commissions act, the detainee treatment act and common article 3 of geneva convention? >> senator, i have not had an opportunity to evaluate each of the techniques covered in the 2007 memo. as you indicated first of all in terms of the current state of the law, the president has outlawed the use of my of those techniques and has said that

only techniques consistent with the army field manual are allowed were the cia to conduct any interrogations. of course the cia is not in the detention business anymore. so were i to be confirmed cia general counsel, it would be my first duty to make sure those restrictions and prohibitions were followed. i do think there's a great deal of protection for detainees in both article three, common article three of the geneva conventions as well as detainee treatment act which prohibits anyone from being subjected to cruel, inhuman, degrading or punishment and that is with cross reference to the type of punishment that would be unlawful under the 5th, 8th or 14th amendments. >> madam chair, i believe my time is expired. >> it is, but i'm very generous to you. >> senator burr. >> thank you, madam chairman. mr. smith, miss krass, welcome.

let me say to your children if your mother does not get you everything for christmas you want, we're still in a position to hold her for this committee. i want you to know that. ambassador smith, the committee has direct over state department intelligence and research. would you agree for our committee to conduct effective oversight, we should have access to the intelligence production produced by inr and in some cases be provided with the raw reporting that contributed to any analysis? >> senator burr, my understanding is we do provide access to the committee for all of our intelligence reports, our assessments and other products inr produces. if that's not the case, i will certainly undertake to review that and see whether we can share it more broadly. in fact, i believe a lot of this is done now electronically. >> you're right. it is. do i have your commitment you will continue to provide this

committee with all the products the inr produces and reporting and staff, if necessary, to assist in oversight? >> it would be my commitment if i'm confirmed. >> would you agree in part inr's charter to provide ct intelligence support to the secretary of state, other state department and u.s. government customers includes the president? >> absolutely. one of our principle customers is the president of the united states. >> our committee found in the year since the attacks on benghazi inr did not disseminate any independent analysis relating to the attacks. considering they began at a state department facility, involved the deaths of two state department personnel, and were an important indication of the escalating threats against u.s. facilities and personnel in the region, do you feel that was appropriate?

>> senator, it's my understanding, i was not in the bureau at the time and, in fact, overseas throughout much of this time but inr did contribute and coordinate on a number of community products related to events in libya and ongoing developments there. it would not have been appropriate, necessarily, for inr bureau of intelligence and research to have played a role in looking back at what happened. there were a number of different vehicles doing that, including accountability review board undertaking that study. inr did provide access to all of the information at its disposal and continued an ongoing basis throughout the course of the year to coordinate on products. i've heard concerns expressed by members of the committee about whether inr could have provided more information, more analysis on the overall context on what is happening in libya and i will certainly take that under advisement and see whether we can do that going forward.

>> the fact was the committee told many times we didn't have jurisdiction over the state department. would you agree since you're here we have jurisdiction over the state department. >> full jurisdiction. >> if confirmed will you ensure inf products will be more responsive to world events. >> it's my desire to do as much as we can to make sure they are timely, appropriate and serve the needs of policymakers. >> would you agree with state department ig recommendation inr should be the office to produce comprehensive security assessment for each post based on all available diplomatic and intelligence sources? >> senator, i think this is something if i'm confirmed i would like to look into. what i want to make sure we're providing as much accessed information as is needed by department policymakers including bureau of diplomatic security which has ongoing responsibility for safety and security of our missions

overseas so they have the tools and information they need to make those determinations. whether this should rest more fully with inr is something i would certainly look into. on the surface at least, i would say inr's role is a supporting one in this regard. >> do you see any difference between diplomatic security or other relevant state components in relation to congress and your treatment of the analysis you put together? all of us to be customers? >> security is part of the department of state and we're also to congressional oversight. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair. not madam chairman as our colleagues have said but madam chair. mr. bennett, i'm not going to ask you a question and i apologize for that. i'm simply going to say i spent two very productive years in the early 1960s working for state department most specifically for

roger hillsman. he lost the battle for what the war in vietnam was about. he lost his job and i lost my job, but for two years i was very happy. miss krass, i want to just take this up a bit. the committee report that we adopted a year or so ago was not only historic but it was the single largest and most significant oversight effort in the history of our committee. it took nine years to do that, 11,000 pages, close to 50,000 footnotes. can't argue with footnotes. cannot argue with footnotes. >> 6,000. >> 6,000 plus 5,000, 11,000 total. i personally began working on this project nine years ago.

i got on this committee just before 9/11. when i began to doubt the information cia provided me and former chairman pat roberts about this program. we want this report, i say and relationship with this committee which we have to correct. i expect and hope that the agency is trying to steer a perhaps very recently slightly different course from the approach suggested in that news article today. i see that possibility. clearly. that is not the best path to take. >> but it was put out in the paper today and i think the c.i.a. leadership knows that. i look for better things. since we adopted our -- or we have invested, as we said, for tremendous time and effort to

refine it, this is a committee that has lived with frustration in which only the four, the gamg gang of four, the chair and the vice chair here were allowed to go and visit with vice president cheney. for years and years we had to fight just so that we all could be briefed. it was a massive, lengthy fight. you have to understand that in terms of where we're coming from. we have been working diligently with the staff. i, myself, have had multiple rounds of spore spon dense and meetings with director brennan and also dmi clamper about the big picture political issues. now, why is this so important to

me? because the c.i.a. interrogation program, particularly the enhanced interrogation techni e techniqu techniques, was not just an appropriate way to collect sbel jenls. it was a tragic mistake in the li history of this country. more simply, it was wrong. the question now is what are we going to do about it. as a country, are we going to learn from this tragic mistake? is the c.i.a. going to take a hard look at it? as one of the top leaders in the agency, and the senior council, the next c.i.a. general council will have a centrally

important role in this effort. not only for this committee, but the kinds of leaks that the good senator was talking about. he's mad. i'm mad. we're all mad. so let me be clear. the general council is the c.i.a.'s legal advisor, not its defense attorney. my question for you is simple. will you council the c.i.a. to face forward and learn from the 34is takes of this program. and implement lessons learned in the future.

>> senator, i absolutely would look forward and take advantage of the lessons learned in moving forward and make sure that the agency is operating legally. and i believe that the client is the agency, ultimately, and the american people. not just the director. i would not be the defense attorney. >> and finally, i know you're familiar with steve preston's thoughts and legal authorities about this program. again, most people don't know that. we can't talk about it. the press can say anything they want. and they'll always go for the gotchya area. and people lose confidence in government. if you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure that mistakes and misinformation like this

don't happen again from the position of power that you will have? >> senator, i will do everything i can, if i am confirmed, to make sure that the agency follows the law and to make sure that the agency is kept fumly apprised. >> so it's not just the law, but it's the practices within the agency, which have developed over the years. practices of suspicion of us, unwillingness to deem with us and somehow feel that they have to say that we don't know what we're talking about. >> well, were i to be confirmed, i will pledge to you that i will work closely with this committee to make sure that we receive the information you need to conduct effective oversight. >> there were about 50,000 studies that we have spent nine years writing. i thank you, and i thank the chair.

>> mrs. crass, the documents that have been looked at by this committee in great detail showed that the c.i.a. provided inaccurate information on its detention and interrogation program to others in the executive wranch abranch, including the department justice's office and legal council, the olc, in which you served at the time. now, in response to pre-hearing policy questions on his nomination to be d.o.d.

general counsel, then c.i.a. general counsel, steven preston said the following. "my understanding is that the department of justice did not always have accurate information about the detention and interrogation program. and that the actual conduct of that program was not always consistent with the way the program had been described by the department of justice. a particular note, he said, i understand that in a number of instances, enhanced interrogation techniques, specifically water boarding, were applied subl sty eied subs frequently than applied than d.o.j. i cannot say what d.o.j. would or would not have considered material at the timement i can tell you, if i were in a comparable situation, i would consider information of this nature to be material.

>> do you agree with mr. preston that inaccurate information was material to issues on the program? >> senatosenator, based on my r of the section of the report, i completely agree with steven preston's assessment that they fell a little short of the current practices that are followed in interaktss tweenlctn olc and the other side, of course. i don't know whether the nfgts thafls pinformation that was provided would have changed the office of legal council. i just don't know. >> well, because you don't have an opinion. >> i have not gone to take the types of information that were

different and measure them against the opinion. i think steven preston's other assessment, it certainly would have changed his judgment. i think it would have likely changed my judgment, as well. but i'm not sure what my judge lt would have been in the first place. >> i asked you about whether or n not inaccurate information was supplied. so my question is was inaccurate information supply snd. >> yes, based on my reading of the report, it seems that inaccurate information was supplied. >> okay. i think you made a reference, i believe it was to senator finestein's question about legal opinions that go from the olc to the, i presume to the president or the white house. and i think your answer was that

these are pre-decision opinions. i don't know whether you've gone into that anymore further. let me pursue that issue a little bit more. at some point, there's a decision which is made by a president or by someone in the executive wranch, prezumblely the president. at that point, would you agree that we, in congress, have a right to know what that decision was based on legally? >> yes, senate tosh. i believe that once the c.i.a. has decided on a course of action, you, of course, have the right to know what course of action that i would're pursuing as well as to be provided with the full understanding of the legal basis. >> so that we are entitled to know what the legal basis is, even for a president's decision? >> for any sbel jenls intellige activities, certainly. as members of the congress, you

would be entitled to other capacities to be able to oversee the activities. >> no, that's not the ke. assuming there were legal opinions that informed the decision maker. once the decision is made, are we then entitled to have access -- >> you're entitled -- >> no, my question is are we entitled to access to the pnls which informed the decision? after he makes the decision? >> even after he makes the decision, the reason why the executive branch refers to the pre-decision and legal advice is it was given in a decision where there might not be a decision to go forward. that confidential, legal advice, i believe, enabled the executive wrampk. keeping that confidentiality allows for lawyers and policymakers to ask questions