nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs to get our schedules at our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> here's a look at what's ahead this morning. .. >> host: this week on "the communicators" we focus on the future of television. we speak with former fcc

chairman julius genachowski and former fcc commissioner robert mcdowell. that's followed by our discussion with congressman greg walden, chairman of the house subcommittee on communications and technology. >> guest: we're in a landscape that's absolutely shifting, and there are areas of the statutory scheme where it would make sense to look at and say are those keeping up with the changes in the marketplace. fundamentally, having this kind of competition, programming innovation, access by new players to consumers and access by the traditional players to viewers in new ways. obviously, what's happening on tablets is amazing. what's starting to happen in the living room is very exciting. we're in just an incredible time when it comes to the delivery of video programming to consumers. there are issues. we heard it at the commission, both of us did, from

distributers who were concerned about the costs of programming. consumers are concerned about the costs of programming, so that's an issue of i think the commission and congress will need to continue to look at. but i do think this is an area where the glass is half full at least because we're seeing exciting new competition and creativity in this, in this part of the landscape. >> guest: i would actually say the glass is overflowing and running over. [laughter] i think it's a terrific time to be a consumer in the video and audio markets, and probably like the ex-chairman, i look at this market through the eyes of my kids. i have three young kids and what are their consumption hasn'ts here, and they have more choices than any human beings in history and through more conduits too. so i think it's a very positive, disruptive market right now. the fcc has really zero authority to forbear from

regulation in the video realm, and i think congress needs to help us out with that. but to -- or help the fcc out -- [laughter] it's only been a week. but also in all areas. so we have these stove pipes of if you're offering services over twisted copper pairs, it's a set of rules, if it's over the air one way, yet another, over the air another way, yet another, and the marketplace has converged well beyond that. these are 80-year-old concepts, and we need to move on. but congress really needs to initiate a rewrite as soon as possible. >> guest: the video world is going through enormous change, i think a huge paradigm change right before our eyes with the, you know, 2-1 decisioning in the court on the aereo case where they can basically download the signal off air, put it up on the internet and say this' okay. that has huge consequences

potentially. and so you've got aereo doing that just a limited basis in one market, but they're talking about expanding. you've got satellite providers thinking, huh, maybe we'll to that. you've got a cable company who said we'll look at that too. and all of a sudden the whole business model in the marketplace is getting tossed around. >> host: you also mentioned the aereo decision. what's your view on that? >> guest: i was surprised by the decision. >> host: did you have an opinion? >> guest: well, i'm an old radio broadcaster, so i'm not a tv guy. but i look at that and think that's a disrupter in the marketplace sort of like hopper's a disruption in the marketplace. disruptions aren't bad necessarily, but this one really has, i think, much bigger consequences as people are beginning to realize into it. >> sure. and just to piggyback off of that, as aereo has progressed through the courts, you have others like fox who have talked

about pulling their signals. how does that lay out? >> guest: at some point producers of programming have to have a way to get paid. i mean, somebody's got to pay the bill, and a lot of that's been through the various financial arrangements among the providers and the tv stations and, you know, all of those very complicated mishmash of laws and recalls and legacies -- rules and legacies. if that goes away and somebody's putting your product up on cable for free basically, all of a sudden, you have to look at how you with change that model. and that's, i think, what chase kerry was carefully saying at the nab in his remarks, and it sort of lit up every switchboard in the telco world. he didn't say they were going to, but this is the point i'm making, you've got everybody sitting back going wait a minute, what just happened here with aereo? what does that mean? does that mean i get around paying retrans fees?

i mean, it's -- i don't think we know all the implications here. and again everybody's like, oh, okay, a 2-1 decision this one court doesn't make this formal everywhere. >> host: this that same nab speech, he said you're not convinced retransmission be needs need conforming at in the time. >> guest: that's true. >> host: why? >> guest: most of these agreements have been reached now. we want a marketplace that works, that's my fundamental philosophy whether it's in broadcast, cable, wireless world. i want competitive marketplaces, and i want the marketplace to work. i don't want government coming in unless the marketplace fails. and so here you are most of these retransmission consent agreements have now been signed. i think virtually all of them are, and some of them are now extended out four years or eight years. and so the marketplace has worked in that respect, and i think that's a more efficient way to deal with this than to

have the government create, you know, what's going to get paid what for what? that, to me, is not agile, nor a good way to go. >> host: what do you think of john mccain's -- >> guest: a la carte? >> host: -- a la carte bill? >> guest: there's a lot of talk about the pros and cons of a la carte, and certainly some of the smaller cable providers like the notion. i'm not sure it's the panacea that many say or think it is, that suddenly you can just pick the shows you want. remember, you still have that whole tier i requirement locally where the broadcast signals are there and you go above that. so there's some -- i don't know if he's talking about getting rid of that. and again, you wonder what that does to the pricing model and to the wide range of programming that's out there. i mean, there is the trade-off that says with the current system you get a lot more programming that, frankly -- and maybe consumers wouldn't want it -- but frankly, wouldn't exit

ourself. because -- exist otherwise. because there wouldn't be the consumer demand for it. it gets bundled in. i think you have to be really care. that would be an interest l disrupter of the market. some people say it would work, others say it would be a disaster. suddenly you're going to pay a whole bunch more for the sports programming or other programming. >> host: you're watching "the communicators" on c-span, and this week our focus is the future of television. as we continue, we'll hear from chet ca yoaj ya, the founder and ceo of a start-up company named aereo followed by gordon smith. we then speak with michael powell, president of the national cable and telecommunications association. >> guest: we think of aereo as a really new way of thinking about how people are going to consume television in the future. it's an online platform which is

direct to consumers, and people can get access today to live broadcast television along with a dvr on any device without a cable connection, just using the internet for the grand old price of $8 a month. >> host: and this is over the air broadcast channels that people can get through aereo. >> guest: that is correct. >> host: what am i holding in my hand here? >> guest: that's actually the key element, the foundational piece of the aereo technology. that's a microantenna. and and think about it as how you used to have over the air antennas in the past. they were large. we miniaturized them through a lot of sophisticated technology. and the purpose of miniaturizing them so we can build hundreds of thousands of these things into a very small room. and by doing that, we can allow a cloud-based implementation of how a consumer can capture the signal which is really the big innovation here because the

cloud technologies allow us to lower the costs down very dramatically, lower barriers to the kerrs very significantly -- consumers very significantly because suddenly you just go online, sign up s and you have access. that's actually the antenna. >> host: what's it made out of? >> guest: just copper. >> host: and that's all it is? is there a chip in here? is there anything? >> guest: no. that's just the loop, the front end of it, and there's a whole host of signal technology that's on a circuitboard. and the equipment in its final form looks like telecommunications equipment. >> host: are there cable channels that are part of aereo's service? >> guest: so we have, we're working with bloomberg television as a first partner in this thing. and that seems to have done really, really well. it sort of coincides with our view that television's evolution is going to be what i call skinny live and deep libraries.

and by skinny live i mean things that are not time sensitive can be in libraries and, in fact, they are. if you go to netflix or amazon or any number of these online libraries, you have a tremendous amount of cable content that makes it there. and we think people want live for things that are relevant, important, unscripted. so it tends to be sports, news, large reality shows, special event, things of that nature. so as a result, we focus on news as a first category that we think we can open this platform up to and allow these consumers to have access to different things. so that's -- >> host: what's your response when broadcasters say you're stealing their signal? >> guest: um, you know, at some point you have to sort of call it what it is, it's name calling. because when three federal courts express an opinion that it is a legal technology and it's consistent with what

congress intended, it's difficult for me to sort of look at it any other way except as name calling. fact of the matter is that this content is paid for by the consumers in advertising spectrum that the broadcasters have. and i think it's worth clarifying that aereo with technology's only applied to tree to air television, free to air broadcast. it is not applied to cable content or cable channels. when we work with a cable channel, for example, in bloomberg's case is it's a productive partnership where we enter into a commercial relationship with them. so it's difficult for me to even answer the question why is it stealing when you're required to ram to consumers' interest -- program to consumers' interest. a consumer has a right to an antenna and whether they buy the antenna from radioshack or from aereo is not relevant. we've consistently established a

paradigm. the length of the wire that connects the antenna to your dvr and your television set isn't a matter of debate with, you know? if you live in an apartment building where you have a 50-foot wire versus a 10-foot wire, how is that any different? >> guest: i would respond just way, it is true the second circuit denied a preliminary injunction against broadcasters, so the case proceeds. yesterday on the merits in the ninth circuit a case called aereo killer, the nine president circuit district -- the ninth circuit district court held it was, in fact, identical fact be, they held that it was a violate of copyright. so that happened yesterday. ultimately, this will have to be decided, i suppose, by the supreme court. but the principle is simply this: if you want to put out our stuff and you want to grab it and charge someone for it, then there's a copyright issuement --

issue. if aereo just want withs to provide the service and not charge for it, then i think they have a better case. but ultimately, when you take someone else's property and you resell it, you owe them for it. you should negotiate for it. that's the requirement of copyright law. and eventually the courts will decide this, and certainly the market will. i mean, as television broadcasting becomes more and more mobile, you know, it used to be ubiquitous broadcasting with a big tv in your living room. now it's on pretty much every device that you can have. that's going to create a real investment problem, return on investment problem for aereo as a business model. >> another new technology that's creating headaches for broadcasters is the dish hopper. and broadcasters recently lost their attempt to get a preliminary injunction there. that goes forward. it allows, basically, consumers to skip commercials.

some folks said perhaps broadcasters will have to figure into the retransmission fee requests if they lose that case. can you give us kind of your sense of where you think that's going? >> guest: yeah, i think if it does not violate copyright, then it probably and most certainly does violate contract. and so it then becomes an issue of, you know, the hopper is just broadcast contempt, not a cable content. and so it's, it's something of real concern to us. it's not for consumer, it's for them. it's for dish. because they don't allow people to block out their ads, just ours. so, you know, at the end of the day i think all of my members when it comes to doing content deals with dish is going, they're going to have to either -- as to past actions, they probably have damages that

they can seek. but as to future, it means that you better have a different number in mind when you want to renegotiate retransmission consent with dish. >> guest: well, i think if i were answering that question, i would say follow the technological trends that are transforming all digital businesses. the first that i would probably observe is the dramatic shift from hardware to software-centric systems. the minute you are able to do more in software rather than proprietary hardware, i think the full creativity of software engineering comes into play. i think that's coming to television. i mean, right now if you ask the consumer what's the tv experience in my home, they'll talk about a box that sits on their credenza above their tv, they'll talk about a remote control, they'll talk about the things they don't like about that, to be perfectly candid. but increasingly, the functions that those devices serve are going to be able to be my grated into software rather than proprietary hardware equipment,

and i think you'll get faster innovation cycles. so a company like time warner or comcast can innovate the divide overnight, not over the course of a hardware replacement. and i think that when you do that, you start thinking about the other great trend that we've seen ushered this by mobile and the be app environment. you'll be able to see little min wets of software that are able to deliver new and intriguing experiences, taking advantage of the premium content we love, but also with the powerful information pipe that we're able to marry with that. and i hope through creative minds that will combine to create really revolutionary new kinds of television watching experiences. >> host: jeff bukes of time warner recently ricketted most channels in a couple years will be like -- predicted most channels in a couple years will be like hbo. you'll be able to -- he didn't

say a la carte. >> guest: i don't think that he would. [laughter] you know, that means many different things to many different people. what it means, what it means which i think is correct is that people will have a very anytime, anywhere, any device kind of approach to their television experience. you know, my life as a child of appointment television when my show was on 7:30 and i'm angry with my mother because we're out shopping, and if we don't get back in the next 20 minutes i'm going to miss it, and i'm not going to, by the way, have any ability to catch up to it or see it again, you know, i can remember that anxiety. when are we getting home to see my show? no child today has that experience, first of all, already. but the new dimension that's going to come into that is the devices, right? more than just the traditional set on the home, but the ability to get to all of these other things. which is why you see people talking about software and ip meaning if i can begin to speak the language of all computing devices, then i can begin to or the my experience to all

computing quites. -- devices. and that will give the consumer dramatically her power to choose time, place and manner. i love "homeland." i haven't seen sunday's episode yesterday. i've heard people talk about it, but i'm picking and choosing when i want to see it. i was buzzy last night, so i didn't want -- i was busy last night, so i didn't watch last night. the redskins can were on, i much preferred to see that. but tonight, slower night p i might watch it tonight. that's what a dvr. but when you start to have the ability to command contact more fully, things will look a lot more like that. but what i don't necessarily agree with just as a tv watcher more than a policy analyst, i think people still love discovery. i don't mean just the channel, i mean the ability to find surprises. every month or every year i giggle a little bit about some show that people are suddenly talking about that i don't think you could have ever imagined choosing.

if you come to me and say, mike, i want you to choose honey boo boo or the show with the duck guy or certain food channel networks, i don't think that if i had to predetermine that was my preference, i would have ever picked them. but the ability to stumble on them or to hear people talk about them and let me go into an environment and kind of dabbling around and find, you know what? i sort of like honey booboo, i still think that's part of the american television experience, and i think it gets sold short when we get tech no be static talking about anytime, anywhere. i do still think a lot of americans love the enjoyment of escapism and passivity and being able to kind of roam around the tv jungle, finding things that they didn't know were there. i mean, television advertising is a great thing to a degree, but it's always ban an odd thing. -- been an odd thing.

if you're procter & gamble and you run an ad, it's very hard to know how well the ad worked. you ran it, you love the looks of it, then you do consumer surveys to see if people were impacted. the internet provides much more realtime answers to those kinds of return on investment questions. so i think you see advertisers chasing a lot of digital advertising because they learn more about the effectiveness of their messages. but don't count the tv ad as dead. i think the tv ad has to become more entertaining x. when it does, it's mini tv. and i think it's hilarious that the super bowl is as much a parade of television advertising experiences as it is a football game. why? because that's the day that advertisers go be for it all. they put their best creative, their most interesting ideas. what i think is starting to happen is the super bowl is expanding into the year. if you really want me to buy

door' tees -- doritos, okay, in july, you're going to have to start showing me stuff against a really fragmented attention span that captures me like you did at the super bowl. and maybe you don't have to pay super bowl prices to get it on, but i think from an entertainment value, you've got to get my son whose world's so infected with media, right? how do you get out of that noise flow and get his attention? humor, other things that make things go viral, you know? you've got to get him out of a big, cacophonous space. >> it sounds like you're still talking about mass media kinds of advertising, though, on television. >> guest: yeah. >> do you think maybe not in ten years, but twenty years we'll reach a point where cable operators can serve up individually-targeted ads to viewers based on what shows they've been watching, you know, over the course of days and weeks the way that the internet can sort of track where you've

been and serve you targeted ads? >> guest: i think the short answer is there'll be no technical limitations to being able to do that. it'll be just a behavioral decision whether to do that, is that the relationship with your consumer that a you're comfortable with or not. but think about it now, that's exactly what happens on the went, right? if i go to amazon right now or if if i go to cnn news.com or c-span.com and you do it at exactly the same time, we very well may not see the exact same advertising environment around us. if you go to aol.com, i guarantee you we will not see the same. and so when you think about where's tv going, back to our first point, software, ip, metadata, the line between tv distribution and internet distribution becomes a lot fuzzier. what you're able to do in the internet model you certainly will be able to do even if the cable model is proprietary or private if some degree -- in

some degree. the basic mechanisms will still be there. we could know, if it doesn't creep you out, what you're watching at the moment, who's doing the watching. you know, xbox has an application out that they're experimenting with which when you walk in the room, its little kinect system knows that it's you and not your son. >> host: you're watching "the communicators" on c-span. and this week our focus is on the future of television. we traveled to the ces international show in las vegas and caught up with troy wolverton, personal technology columnist for the "san jose mercury news". we also speak with phil mckinney, president and ceo of cablelabs with the cable industry. >> guest: right now an hd television is generally defined as one that has 1080p. what that means is you've got 1,080 lines of resolution by about 2,000 what's called

columns of resolution. on a 4k tv, you have double that. so you have double the lines of resolution, and you have double the columns of resolution. so you get about 4,000 columns of resolution on a 4k the. it's actually the resolution -- because both sides are doubled, both the eleventh and -- lengthd the columns, you actually get four times the resolution of a regular television. so it's useful on a big screen tv. most experiments will say it's useful on like a 60-inch and above be tv. below 60 inches you can't tell the difference. but particularly if you're sitting up close to a large screen tv, you can definitely tell the difference. there was a display on the other side of this wall here where they were demonstrating, like, newspaper text on a screen, and they were showing what it looks like on a 1080t and what it looks like on a 4k large screen tv, and you could definitely tell the difference. it's much sharper and clearer on

a 4k tv than on a 1080p tv. the problem right now is the 4k tvs are extraordinarily expensive. sony came out with its first in the past year, and like daryl was saying, they start off at, like, $25,000. so they're hoping to get those prices down, and they probably will come down. but, you know, you're still probably talking about several times the cost of a regular 1080p television at the same size for a 4k version. the other problem is as we were kind of talking about in our conversation, there's just no content out there. so sony is distributing with its 4k tvs a hard drive that has ten movies on it. i don't know about you, but i watch a lot more than ten movies in by regular viewing habits, so you're not going to get any of the latest television shows in 4k, the vast majority of movies this 4k -- in 4k, streaming video services aren't coming this this in 4k, there's just not out

there in 4k right now. so sony's trying to spur that along. and as daryl talked about, sony has a lot of the movies shot these days are actually shot in 4k, they're just distributed to consumers in 2k and 1080p resolution. they're hoping to kind of start moving the ball so you get more of the 4k, but it's going to be a big process. and, you know, frankly, i have my doubts that they're going to put much out in 4k unless there's a market of consumers out there that are going to watch the content. why would they go through the process and the expense, because there is going to be a considerable expense in distribute anything 4k if nobody's out there to buy it. that's kind of what they learned with 3-d. 3-d was the thing they pushed for the last several years, consumers weren't terribly interested, so there's not a lot of 3-d content out there, consumers aren't interested, so they're not putting out more 3-d content. and 4k's going to be even worse

in the sense that it's only applicable to big size televisions, and the market while growing and significant by 20% now, it's still a fraction of the total market p. >> host: is the cable industry a growing industry? do you see a long future for that industry? >> guest: oh, yeah, definitely. i mean, from the standpoint of cablelabs, keep in mind our membership is worldwide, not just the u.s. so if you look in areas like in china, estimations that there's going to be $30 billion of capex spend. if you look at the growth rate in data usage for subscribers from cable data services, we're seeing 40, 50% on an annual basis, and there's no slowing down. there's this insatiable hunger for more capacity, faster speeds. so the cable industry has a long, long future in being able to be that provider of choice

for those services. of. >> host: when you look ten years down the road, how are people going to be viewing video, viewing tv? same way they are today? >> guest: no. i think you're seeing that shift already. the role of the second screen in a living room, what -- in five years from now what's the concept of a channel? you know, today we think of of a channel as being the linear down on your remote control. how many of us really watch, you know, linear television in realtime? other than that if it's a sports activity, we've gotten into this time-shifting model. now you're seeing device shifting. i may record on my dvr in my living room, but be i want to watch on my tablet when i'm out and about. and i think you're going to see an explosion of the devices and the way consumers want to enjoy the content. they want to enjoy it when they want it, and they want to see the content they want. so i think you'll see a shift in what's the concept of subscribing to a channel, and

you'll see the shift as far as what device i want to enjoy it on. >> you've been watching "the communicators" on c-span. view full discussions from this program and more at our web site, c-span.org, by clicking on the series tab and selecting "the communicators." >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> just ahead, the senate intelligence committee hears from nominees for cia general counsel and for assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research. b then a reporter from the gulf region presents her findings of a study examining the funding of syrian government opposition fighters by other nations in the region. >> as 2013 wraps up, we're here on the west front of the u.s.

capitol to tell you about our c-span year in review series, a look at five important issues we've covered over the past year. here's the lineup. tonight, immigration laws. on tuesday, senate filibuster rule changeings. nsa surveillance on wednesday. thursday, a look at gun laws. and we wrap up the week on friday with the u.s. budget and the federal government shutdown. starting tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the nominee for cia general counsel recently went before the senate intelligence committee and was asked about interrogation techniques used during the bush administration. in addition, committee members heard from the nominee to head the state department's bureau of intelligence and research. the hearing runs about an hour and 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> the committee will come to order. we meet today to consider two of president obama's nominees in> h 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 car secretary of state for intelligence and research. of 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 arriveso shortly from another hearing.t when he does come in, i will give him the opportunity to pics his remarks -- to make his remarks, and hen we will go bach to whatever we are doing. we have received answers to oure prehearing questions from bothav nominees.

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 profession 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 options as relative outsiders. caroline krass currently serves 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 this support of her confirmation -- 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 insuring that cia activities are conducted in compliance with applicable law. given the sensitivity and secrecy of post of the cia's --

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, principal deputy secretary for counselor affairs and in overseas posts in bern, 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 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 insuring 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' case and for a master's and ph.d. in ambassador smith's case.

i'd 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. >> well, thank you, madam chair, and i didn't go to stanford. but i hope i can read all of my statements. of. [laughter] thanks, madam chair, and i join you in congratulating ms. krass and ambassador smith on being nominated by the president for these respective positions, and i also want to express our thanks to their predecessors, steven preston and philip goldberg, for their service. last week the committee approved the 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, 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, 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 under your leadership inr will be at the forefront of intelligence issues that concern policymakers 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 if the your many years -- in your many years at the department. ms. krass, the cia's work both carries 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 from the administration to collecting 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 interrogation of suspected terrorists. i remain very concerned about the administration's ongoing failure to develop a clear detention and interrogation policy. i understand the president made a promise to close guantanamo bay, but it is deeply troubling and shortsighted that not one recordist 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 without attorneys. there's no requirement to give a terror suspect miranda rights. it just means you can't use his statements at trial. if we don't stop treating terrorists like ordinary

criminals, we could close -- we could lose realtime 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'd 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, thank you. both the you and the ranking member for letting me come be by and to all my colleagues for being here. i should commend you, the attendance here is much more punctual and much better than on the committees in which 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 longtime friend of mine, old friend of mine in my talking points, but that

wouldn't be correct. we've known be 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 and 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 principal deputy assistant attorney general this the office of legal counsel. she's been special counsel to the president for national security affairs, legal adviser at the national security council and for nine years before that, a career attorney in the office of legal council, not -- counsel, not a legal position. she quickly developed a high-level understanding of the most sensitive national security concerns of our country. caroline's work has earned her

accolades and praise if 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 and furthering the interests of u.s. national security. she also received 2007 team of the year intelligence community legal award. she has a 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. it is truly a privilege to introduce to the committee my friend, caroline krass. i recommend her enthusiastically, and i hope that the senate will swiftly confirm her in this new role. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much, senator.

you're welcome to stay -- >> i wish i could. >> on the other hand, if you can't, it's the i understood. >> thank you. >> 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 anding nothing but the truth so help me god. >> i will. >> thank you. please be seated. now, i have five questions that are protocol that we ask. if you would just indicate yes or no many, please. do you both agree to appear before the committee here or in other venues when invited? >> yes. >> yes. >> do you both agree to send officials from your respected offices to appear before the committee and designated staff when requested? >> yes. >> yes, i do. >> do you both agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the committee in

order for it to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? >> yes. >> yes, i do. >> will you both insure that your respective offices provide such material to the committee when requested? >> i will. >> do you both agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all members of this committee of intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the chairman and vice chairman? >> yes. >> i do. >> thank you. and, um, we will proceed. if each of you has a statement -- either of you or both has a statement you'd like 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. the vice chairman just aptly

reminded me, please, both of you, introduce your families if they're here too. >> okay. i can stop and do that. >> yes. >> i have my husband william and my daughter -- >> why doesn't the family stand up, and then we can easily see who you are. >> william, my daughter and my son. [laughter] >> excellent. thank you. >> it is an honor to appear before you today as the president's nominee to be the general counsel of the central intelligence agency. i am deeply grateful to both 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 many of you before this hearing 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 -- i'm sorry, the deputy director and other agency employees. as the chief legal officer of the cia, the general counsel must insure that the 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 providing legal advice on a wide range of difficult legal issues to many government agencies including the cia. second, general counsel must work closely with lawyers across the executive branch. the protection of our nation's security and the achievement of our foreign policy goals depend on an integrated approach within the intelligence community as well as between the intelligence community and other agent is -- agencies. during my time at the national security council as well as at the department of justice, i worked on many, with many lawyers from across the

interagency community. i strongly value such interagency cooperation. cooperation with the general counsel for the director of national intelligence is especially important for the 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 departments 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 have already worked with many of these lawyers, and i have been impressed by their dedication to rigorously applying the law as well as to the mission of the agency. maintaining high morale is particularly important especially in this time of budgetary uncertainty. including by 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

during my tenure leading olc as well as during my time at the nsc managing the interagency legal review of difficult issues. fourth and equally important, the general counsel assists the director in making sure that the intelligence committees are fully and currently informed and provided with sufficient information to allow effective oversight. this is a critical function and must be -- and the committee must be fully and currently informed of all activities including covert actions. most significant for the general counsel, such information must include the legal basis for the intelligence activity. i strongly believe that it is the general counsel's duty to insure that the 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 engaged. finally, as michael said -- sorry, as senator bennett said, i have dedicated my career to government service because i believe it is essential that the u.s. government comply with the rule of law. i am also committed to protecting our nation's security. if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed as general counsel, i would dedicate myself to both of these tasks. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you for having me. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. ambassador smith? >> thank you, madam chairman. may i introduce my wife, diane, and my son, andrew, my oldest son. >> excellent. >> my middle son, eric, is stationed in the army in text at the present. my youngest son has a final exam which he offered to skip, but i suggested that was not a good idea. [laughter] madam chairman, mr. vice chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before you as president obama's nominee to be

assistant secretary of state for the bureau of intelligence and research. i am deeply grateful to the president and secretary of state kerry for their confidence in nominating me for this position as well as to the director of national intelligence, james clapper, for his support for my nomination. if confirmed, i promise to work closely with this committee and pledge to keep it fully and currently informed as it carries out its vital role in overseeing the u.s. intelligence community madam chairman, as both you and the vice chairman have noted, the inr is a unique and invaluable asset both to the department of state and to the intelligence community. the bureau has a long and celebrated history in providing information and in-depth, all-source analysis that have helped to guide our nation's foreign policy. inr's strong reputation derives not from the size of its staff or budget, but from the tremendous expertise and skills of its personnel. encode, the bureau has some of the greatest subject matter expertise anywhere in the u.s. government. this expertise rests principally with the bureau's outstanding

civil servants who have spent a considerable amount of their professional careers in inr. but the bureau also dearrives significant -- derives assistant strength from officers with relevant experience in the field. if confirmed, i will work hard to insure that inr continue to recruit and retain the highest quality staff and provides them with the training and overseas experience they need to insure the best possible analysis. equally important be, i will vigorously defend the integrity of the analytical process to insure the unbiased analysis for which inr is justly famous. madam chairman, inr also plays a critical function in assuring that intelligence and sensitive intelligence-related law enforcement activities are consistent with and support our foreign policy and national security objectives. 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 the d.'s intelligence requirements -- the department's intelligence requirements, seek clear language for use in diplomatic communications and insure that department policymakers understand and evaluate proposed intelligence activities with potential foreign policy consequences. they also support our chiefs of mission overseas. madam chairman, i believe i will bring extensive experience and relevant skills to the position. i have served successfully in a variety of demanding leadership positions both in washington and overseas including most recently as executive secretary of the state department and as ambassador to greece. i know firsthand the challenges facing senior policymakers as well as the incredible demands on their time and attention. i thus appreciate the critical contribution that inr has made and can continue to make in providing the president, the secretary of state and other senior policymakers with timely, independent and well focused analysis on a broad range of

regional and and global challenges. throughout the course of my 30 years as a foreign service officer, i have worked closely with members of the intelligence , overseen and coordinated law enforcement activities and witnessed firsthand the role that intelligence and analysis can and should play in the formulation of foreign policy. like many professionals within inr, i also have a strong academic background and appreciate very much the importance of drawing on the insights and expertise found in our nation's outstanding academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector. as a leader in the department and as a chief of mission abroad, i have also worked hard to enhance interagency cooperation, to improve communication and information sharing and to insure that we are working together to advance our national security. if confirmed, madam chairman, i will work tirelessly to insure that inr continues to make its unique analytical contribution and continues to insure that our intelligence activities support our foreign policy and national

security can objectives. thank you for having me here today, and i look forward toens toens -- to answering your questions. >> thank you very much, ambassador smith. and is i will ask each of you one question and then move on to the next. ms. krass, as you are aware, we spoke about olc opinions to some extent when you came in for a private visit. and so you know that this committee has long sought access to legal opinions issued by justice, office of legal counsel that describe in detail the law governing intelligence activities carried out by the cia and intelligence agencies. and i think as we said, this isn't just idle curiosity, it is really to understand the direction and rules under which certain programs operate since they are run by the executive branch of government. and we have found that these opinions are actually indispensable to effective

oversight. and, for example, in 2004 the cia inspector general concluded that interrogators use used the waterboard on khalid sheikh mohammed in a manner that did not match the description for the waterboard in olc opinions. at that time and for years afterwards, the committee lacked access to both the doj opinion and operational details describing how the waterboard was implemented. do you agree that the committee needs both the legal analysis and the operational details in order to conduct effective oversight of whether cia activities adhere to the law? >> thank you for that question, chairman feinstein. i do believe that the committee needs to fully understand the legal basis for any activities in which the cia, intelligence

activities in which the cia is engaged including covert action. and were i to be fortunate enough to be confirmed, i would commit to you to make sure that 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 would be able to provide, were i to be confirmed, would be an understanding of how the legal framework intersects with the actual operations that aring with undertaken -- that are being undertaken and how in advice that might have been applied by the justice department is being applied in certain circumstances. >> let me just be clear. so you agree that we should have access to all olc opinions that analyze the legality of intelligence activities carried out by the cia? yes or no? >> the olc opinions represent predecisional, confidential legal advice that's been provided, and protecting the

confidentiality of that legal advice preserves space for there to be a full and frank discussion amongst clients -- or the policymakers and their lawyers within the executive branch. and i believe this really furthers the rule of haw because it allows for the effective functioning of the executive branch. >> so your answer is, no. >> but i would like to say, senator, that i would, if i were confirmed, make sure that you u7bd the legal -- understood the legal basis. i have almost a unique capability to do that having spent so many of my years at the office of legal counsel. i would surely be able to understand their reasoning and explain it to you. >> well, i think we do understand it. i think it has been explained to us. but every olc opinion has been a fight to obtain, and we have obtained very few of them and 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. i had it right here. ambassador smith, inr has a well deserved reputation for the quality and independence of its analysis. often overlooked is inr's responsibility to insure that united states intelligence activities are consistent with united states foreign policy. and that state department officials have adequate opportunity to weigh in on the foreign policy implications of those activities. it's my understanding that you have reviewed the parts of the committee study on the cia's now-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 pertained to the department of state and had an opportunity to meet privately with your staff on this. the report remains highly classified, and i don't want to get into too much detail in this setting, but i would note that i did draw some conclusions based upon my reading of the report about the role of inr with vis-a-vis our ambassadors in the field and ways in which that we could provide additional support to them and additional training and ongoing support. and i would hope to take those lessons learned if i am confirmed and aa ply them -- apply them as assistant secretary. >> thank you very much. mr. vice chairman? >> thanks, madam chair. ..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 ntinto there is only one instance in which the cia pointed out a factual error in the study, a

minor error that has been corrected. forfor the let's where the cia d the committee differ, we differ on interpretation and on conclusions from an agreed-upon factual record. you can't pluckily call our differents -- particularly call our differences errors. it is misleading. these are not factual errors. however, the agency's failure to read the study during the sex months that it -- six months that it crafted its response contributed to false issuances by the agency even after the committee staff pointed out the many errors in the agency's response. madam chairman, i am 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 what 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. ms. krass, it's good to see you again. as i mentioned in our meeting, i do have some 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 that 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 had 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 that the cia could continue to use these techniques, including dietary

manipulation, sleep diply vegas, facial -- deprivation, abdominal slaps and facial slaps. although this opinion has since been withdrawn, it's clear there's disagreement over whether the actions taken by congress in the last decade have settled the legality of the use of harsh interrogation that many consider torture. the current decision not to use cruel interrogation techniques is seen by some as only a decision rooted in current policy. not rooted in law. in other words, president obama's executive order 13491 which explicitly confined interrogation techniques to those found in the army field manual could be rescinded by a future president. this leaves open the possibility that a future president and cia director, perhaps based on the misinformation that is currently in the public realm about their effectiveness, might seek to resume using those techniques. president obama's executive order or current policy not wut standing, do you believe that

the interrogation techniques mentioned previously could legally be used today desite the war crimes act as amended by the military commissions act, the detainee treatment act and common article iii of the geneva convention? >> senator, i have not had an opportunity to evaluate each of the techniques that are covered in the 2007 memo, but as you indicated, first of all, in terms of the current state of the law, the president has outlawed the use of any of those techniques and has said that only techniques consistent with the army field manual are allowed for the cia to conduct any interrogations. of course, the cia is not in the detention business anymore, so were i to be confirmed as cia general counsel, it would be my first duty to make sure that those restrictions and prohibitions were followed. i do think that there are a great deal of protection for detainees in both article iii,

common article iii of the geneva conventions as well as the detainee treatment act which prohibits anyone from being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that is cross-referenced to the type of punishment that would be unlawful under the fifth, eighth or fourteenth amendments. >> madam chair, i believe my time has expired. >> it is. but i'm very generous to you. senator burr? >> thank you, madam chairman. ambassador smith, ms. krass, welcome. let me say to your children, if your mother does not get you everything for christmas you want with, we are still in a position to hold her in this committee. [laughter] so i want you to know that. ambassador smith, the committee has direct jurisdiction over the state department's bureau of intelligence and research. would you agree that for our committee to conduct effective oversight, we should have access

to the intelligence products 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 that inr produces. but if that's not the case, i would certainly undertake to review that and see whether we can share it more broadly. but, in fact, i believe a lot of this is done now electronically. >> you're right, it is. and do i have your commitment that you will continue to provide this committee with all the products that the inr ruses and reporting and staff, if necessary, to assist in oversight? >> >> it would be my commitment if i'm confirmed. >> would you agree that 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 principal customers, obviously, is the president of the united states. >> our committee has found that in the years since the attacks on benghazi, inr did not disseminate any independent analysis related to the attacks. considering that they began at a state department facility, involved the deaths of two with 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 -- of course, i was not in the bureau at the time and i was, in fact, overseas throughout much of this time -- but that inr did contribute and coordinate on a number of intelligence community products related to events in libya and ongoing developments there. it would not have been appropriate necessarily for inr as the bureau of intelligence and research to have played a role in looking back at what happened. there were a number of different vehicles that were doing that

including the accountability review board that was undertaking that study. inr did provide access to all of the information at its disposal and continued on an ongoing basis throughout the course of the year to coordinate on ic products. but i've heard the concerns expressed by members of the committee about whether inr could have provided more information, more analysis on the overall context of what is happening in libya, and i will certainly take that under advisement and see whether we can do that going forward if i'm confirmed. >> the fact is that this committee was told many times by the state department that we didn't have any jurisdiction over the state department. would you agree the fact that you're here, we have some jurisdiction at the state department? >> you have full jurisdiction over the bureau of intelligence and research. >> if you're confirmed, will you commit to the fact that inr's products are more -- [inaudible] >> it is my desire to insure they're timely, appropriate and serve the needs of policymakers,

absolutely. >> do you agree with the state department's ig opinion that the inr should produce for each post based on all available diplomatic and intelligence sources? >> senator, i think this is something that, if i'm confirmed, i would like to look into. what i want to make sure is that we are cooperating closely and providing as much information and access to information as is thesed by department policymakers including the bureau of diplomatic security which has an ongoing responsibility for safety and security of our missions overseas. so that they have the tools and the information that they need to make these determine nations. determinations. whether this should rest more fully with inr, i think, is something that i would certainly look into, but on the surface at least i would say inr's role is a supporting one many this regard. >> and 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? is. >> well, diplomatic security -- >> all of us to be customers. >> diplomatic security is part of the department of state, and we're all subject to congressional oversight. >> great. thank you, body. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. >> 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 the state department, most specifically for roger hilsman. he lost the battle for what the war in vietnam was about, so he lost his job, and i lost hi job. -- my job. but for two years, i was very happy. ms. 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 large 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 pages. >> 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 accuracy of the information that the cia provided me and former chairman pat roberts about this program. we want this report -- i say this with all my heart -- to provide a constructive oversight that has a positive impact on the cia's operation and relationship with this committee

which we have to correct. i expect and hope that the agency's leadership is trying to steer a, perhaps, very recently a 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, what was put out in the paper today, and i think the cia leadership knows that. i look for better things. since we adopted our report, we have invested, as has been said before, tremendous time and effort to refine it. this is a committee that has lived with frustration in which only the four, the gang of four -- the two with, the chairman and vice chair, chair and vice chair here and then the same on the house -- were allowed to go and visit with vice president cheney in the situation room, in his office or whatever. for years and years we had to fight just so we could all be

briefed. it was a massive, lengthy fight. you have to understand that in terms of where we're coming from. but we're honorable people, we're tenacious people, and we have been working diligently with staff to, um, work out some of tedious details. and i myself have had multiple rounds of correspondence and meetings with director brennan and also, you know, dni clapper about the big picture political issues. now, why is this so important to me? because the cia's detention and interrogation program, particularly its use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques was not just an inappropriate way to collect intelligence, it was a tragic mistake of great significance in the history of this country. as mike burrell said more simply, it was wrong. the question now is what are we going to do about it. that's what the report is about.

and what other discussions that have been ongoing recently have been about. as a country we're going to, are we going to learn from this tragic mistake, is the cia going to take a hard look at itself and tackle these problems fort rightly, or is it -- forthrightly, or is it going to circle the wagons once again? as one of the top leaders of the agency and the senior counsel, the next cia general counsel -- which i hope will be you -- will have a centrally-important role in this effort and where we go from here. and where we go from here is everything in terms of not only just this committee which hangs around a long time, but also for the cia as a whole. their relationship, feeling that they can talk to us, that they don't put out the kinds of leaks that the good senator was talking about from new mexico. and he's mad, i'm mad, we're all mad. they just come and they come. so let me be clear.

the general counsel is the cia's legal adviser, not its defense attorney. the general counsel provides the institution and its leaders advice and counsel about the laws that govern the cia's activities and its role in our democracy. my question for you is simple. will you counsel the cia to face forward and learn from the mistakes of this program and implement lessons learned in the future or continue hunkering down in defensive rationalizations of past shortcomings? >> senator, i absolutely would look forward and develop -- take advantage of the lessons learned in moving forward and make sure, um, that the agency is operating legally. that would be my be responsibility were i to be confirmed. and i believe that the p client is the agency, ultimately, and then the american people, not just the director. i would not be a defense

attorney. >> and finally, i know you're familiar with general counsel steve preston's thoughts on the inaccurate information that the cia provided to external policy making and legal authorities about this program. again, most people don't know this. we can't talk about it. you all can't talk about it. the press can say anything they want, and they'll always go for the gotcha area. and people lose confidence in government. if you are confirmed, what are you do to insure 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 also to make sure that this committee is kept fully apprised of any ongoing activities by the cia. >> so it's not just the law, but it's the practices within the agency which you've developed over the years.

practices of suspicion of us and the unwillingness to deal with us and somehow feel that they have to say that we don't though what we're talking about. >> well, were i to be confirmed, i would pledge to you that i would work closely with this committee to make sure that you receive the information you need to conduct effective oversight. >> please remember the about 50,000 footnotes that were on the two studies we spent nine years writing. i thank you, and i thank the chair. >> thank you very much, senator rockefeller. senator levin. >> thank you, madam chairman. ms. krass, the documents that have been looked at by this

committee in great detail, um, showed that the cia provided inaccurate information on its detention and interrogation program to others in the executive branch including information that was intended to inform legal opinions by the department of justice's office of legal counsel, the olc, this which you served at the time -- in which you served at the time. now, in response to pre-hearing policy questions on his nomination to be dod general counsel, then-cia general counsel steven preston said the following, quote: my understanding is that the department of justice did not always have accurate information about the detention and interrogation program in that the actual conduct of that program was not always consistent with the way the program had been described to

the department of justice. of particular note, he said, i understand that in a number of instances enhanced interrogation techniques, specifically waterboarding, were applied substantially more frequently than previously had been described to the doj. i cannot say what doj would or would not have considered material at the time, i can tell you that 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 provided by the cia to the olc was material to legal opinions issued on the program? >> senator, based on my reading of that section of the report, i completely agree with steven preston's assessment, that the sharing of information described in the report fell well short of the current practices that are

followed in interactions between olc and the cia, and i have personal experience with that from the other side, of course. i don't know, um, whether the information that was provided that was not accurate would have changed the end result of the opinions that were drafted by the office of legal counsel. i just, i'm not -- i just don't know. or. >> well, just because you don't have an opinion? >> i have not, um, gone to -- i haven't had the chance to take, um, the types of information that were different and measure them against the opinion. i think steven preston's other assessment that it likely would have -- it certainly would have changed his judgment, i think it likely would have changed my judgment as well, but i'm not sure what my judgment would have been in the first place. >> okay, now i asked you about whether or not inaccurate information was supplied, and your answer was something fell well short. so now my question, though, is was inaccurate information

supplied? >> yes. based on my reading of the report, it seems that inaccurate information was supplied. >> now, i think you made a reference, i believe it was to senator feinstein's question, about legal opinions that go from the olc to the, i presume, to the president or to the white house. and i think your question or your answer was that these are predecisional opinions. now, i don't know whether you've gone into that any further, i had to leaf, but let me -- i had to leave, but 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 branch, presumably 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, senator. i believe that once the agency, for example, the cia has decided on a course of action, you, of course, have the right to know both what course of action they're pursuing as well as to be provided with a 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 intelligence activity, certainly, as members of congress you would be entitled in other capacities to be able to oversee the -- >> that's not my question. assuming there were legal opinions that informed the decision maker, once the decision is made are we then entitled to have access to those opinions? >> you're absolutely entitled to understanding the -- >> no, that's not -- my question is are we entitled to access to the opinions which informed the

decision maker after he makes the decision? >> even after he makes the decision the reason why the executive branch refers to it as predecisional legal advice is because it was given in the context of a situation where there might not be a decision to go forward. and that confidential legal advice, i believe, enables the effective functioning of the executive branch, because keeping that confidentiality allows for full and frank discussions between lawyers and policymakers so they can ask questions and be pulley candid. >> so i take it your answer is we are not entitled to any legal opinion rendered to the executive branch decision makers even after the decision is made? is that correct? >> senator, as you know, there have been -- >> is that correct? is that correct? >> well, it's a caveated answer. i want to -- >> okay. >> in certain circumstances the president has directed the sharing of --

>> other than when the president, i'm saying do we have a right to that as part of our overseeing process? >> i do not think so as a general matter, but i do think we you have the right to finish. >> we have no right to, the president can decide to give us access, but you have no right in your judgment to access -- >> i think you have a right to legal understanding but not necessarily the olc opinion. >> thank you. my time is up. thank you, ma'am. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair. i am -- ms. krass -- first of all, thank you both for your service to our country and for offering yourself up for an additional ohs and congratulations to your family as well and for the sacrifices they make. ms. krass, i wanted to share with you a concern that i have about what i believe is the lack of a coherent policy on terrorist detention and interrogation, and along those lines i just wanted to ask you your opinion on whether there's intelligence value on interrogating terror suspects long term, including those that

are apprehended outside the united states. >> yes, i think there can be intelligence value. and the critical -- oh, i'm sorry. senator, i believe that it is critical when apprehending a terrorist that the first priority should be to gather intelligence from that terrorist, but if it's possible, that the collection of that intelligence should be consistent with the possibility of preserving either a military commission or a law enforcement -- >> do you think the existing policy that's in place row allow us -- allows us to achieve those objectives that you just outlined? >> we. as far as i understand the current policy, yes, i do. >> ambassador smith, i wanted to can ask you -- let me just make the comment about the role, two things i wanted to explore with you. one is just looking back at the tragedy that occurred in the men gads si, it's apparent that there was an increasing stream of reporting. we've had these hearings in foreign registrations as well available to the -- relations as well about the true dangers and

the volatility of the area regarding the diplomatic mission before or it was attacked. despite that, there was no measures taken or at least sufficient measures were not taken. so i wanted to ask you what do you believe the inr's role should be in -- let me go further on that before i ask you this question. in the aftermath of it, both the inr and the intelligence community new knew the day of the attack that, in fact, it was no a spontaneous demonstration that had turned violent. how do you believe the inr provides pin out relevant to the decision makers, etc., in the administration? what is the role moving forward? >> senator, the primary role of the bureau of intelligence and research is to provide, i think, an understanding of the overall context in which we're operating abroad. the broader political and economic environment in which our missions are operating. and to make sure that policymakers and certain elements within the department,

including bureau of diplomatic security, have access in a realtime basis to intelligence information that could affect the safety and security of our mission and personnel overseas. and this is one of the things if i am confirmed that i want to make sure that we have done right in terms of making sure that they have access to everything they need and that we are providing that broader contextual understanding of what's going on. >> my second question is a little bit more policy related, but it involves -- and this, we had a statement here a few years ago from the israeli defense minister about his belief and his concerns that the iranians are using their embassies if central and south america to build a terrorist infrastructure in the western hemisphere. there's a published congressional mandate or mandated strategy to counter that influence. but let me ask you, what are your views on their influence in the western hemisphere and in particular, are you familiar with the state department strategy on this and the criticisms tha