and m, both on the court off the court, on the field and off the field. and that's a value that i think is at the heart of not just america, but american sports. >> watch all of president obama's end of the year press conference today at 10:35 a.m. eastern here on c-span. now the senate intelligence committee hears testimony and questions about nominees for positions in the c.i.a. and state department. witnesses include caroline dianne krass, nominee for general counsel, who currently serves in the justice department, and daniel bennett smith, nominee to lead the state department's into rowe of intelligence and research this. uns about two hours. >> the committee will come to order. we meet today to consider two

of president obama's nominees in the intelligence committee. mrs. caroline dianne krass, nominee to be the general counsel of the c.i.a., and ambassador daniel bennett smith, secretary of state for intelligence and research, i.n.r. welcome to you both. and to the family and friends with you today. i also understand that senator bennett will be introducing ms. krass and should arrive shortly from another hearing. when he does come in, i will give him the opportunity to make his remarks, and then we will go back to whatever we are doing. we are received appears toss our prehearing questions from both nominees, and those can be found on the committee's website for anyone who's interested. and we look forward to hearing both of your opening statements. this committee has the jurisdiction over all nominees

requiring senate confirmation within the intelligence community, and we try to move that process as quickly as we can. the number of these positions is fairly small, and so i appreciate my colleagues' cooperation to keep the process running. is it my hope we will be able to vote on these two nominees as one of the first orders of business when we return in january. both ms. krass and ambassador smith have long and distinguished careers, but neither has worked for an intelligence agency or in a primarily intelligence position in the past. his is not a disqualification. both of you have been involved in intelligence matters over the course of your careers. but we will ask you both to discuss how you intend to lead and supervise intelligence organizations as relative

outsiders. caroline krass currently serves as the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal council, or o.l.c. she has also serve wanted at the national security council, and previously in legal positions at the department of treasury and state. the committee has received several letters in support of her confirmation from senior officials and colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and i ask unanimous consent that those letters be made part of the record. if confirmed as general counsel, ms. krass would be the chief legal officer of the c.i.a., responsible for providing legal advice for agency operations and ensuring that c.i.a. activities are conducted in compliance with applicable law. given the sensitivity and secrecy of most of the c.i.a.'s work, it is of paramount

importance that 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 oversee post in bayern, istanbul, ottawa, and stockholm, quite a variation. he is a career officer in the senior foreign service with the rank of career minister. he's the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, i&r, is unique in the intelligence community. the into rowe is one of the three all source analytic

agencies within the community, along with the c.i.a. and the defense intelligence community, but its primary customers are the senior leaders of the state department. the assistant secretary for i&r has one foot in each camp, both as a leader of an i.c. agency and as a briefer to the secretary. he is also the conduit between the intelligence community and the state department and is responsible for ensuring that our intelligence activities and the conduct of our foreign policy are cord nature 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 and as a master's for ph.d. in mr. smith's case am i note 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 top ex-or to ask questions that require a classified answer. mr. vice tcharme, would you like to make your opening statement? then i think senator been set here and we will go to him. >> thank you, madam chair. i dent go to stanford. but i hope i can read all of my statement. thanks, madam chair, and i join new con grating them on being nominated by the president for these respective positions. i also want to express our thanks to their predecessors, steven preston and phillip goldberg, for their service. last week the committee approved this report on the september 12 terrorist attacks. this report includes findings and recommendations that are relevant to both the c.i.a. and the state department, including the into rowe of intelligence

and research. there are many lessons to be learned from benghazi, and i encourage to you read this report carefully. ambassador, the into rowe of intelligence and research has made some important contributions to the intelligence community analysis over the years. but die 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 i&r will be at the forefront of intelligence issues that concern policy make others matters involving the state department. we've got many embassies, missions, consulates that, frankly, as we found with benghazi or probably -- well, not probably, are no doubt unsecured. i know that's not directly under you in this position, but

it's an issue that bears an awful lot of looking at, particularly with your experience in your many years at the department. ms. krass's work in collection and covert action is vital to national security, but does carry some risk, especially with the all too frequent leaks of classified information. as you noted in your responses to the committee's questions, unauthorized disclosures or 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 am 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 the c.i.a. 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, we agreed it was critical to ger 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 short-sighted that not one terrorist has been added to the list of those being held and interrogated as long-term detainees in the last five years. as the c.i.a. general counsel, i hope you will be a strong advocate for full interrogations without miranda and without attorneys. there's no requirement to give a terror suspect miranda rights. it just means you can't use the statements at trial f. we don't stop treating terrorists like ordinary criminals, we could lose real-time intelligence needed to keep this country

safe. ambassador smith, ms. krass, we look forward to your testimony today and to your confirmation in the future. thanks very much. >> thank you very much, mr. vice chairman. i'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 to you and the ranking member for letting me come by and all my colleagues. i should commend you. the attendance here is much more picture wall and much more better on the committees than which i sfrpblt i'm sure that's a function of your leadership. it is also a privilege to be here to introduce caroline krass, the president's nominee to be general counsel of the c.i.a. caroline is a long-time friend of mine, an old friend of mine, so that wouldn't be correct. we've known each other since law school, where i barely

could keep up with her. and i know that she's got the character, the intelligence, and the temperament to excel in this incredibly important position, and the position is fortune ar all the reasons the chairman and ranking member said. since a young age, caroline has a passion for serving our country. and her 22-year career reflects that. she served in the white house, justice department, and other federal agencies. she's currently principal deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel. she's been special counsel to the president for national security affairs, legal advisor, national security counsel, and for nine years before that a career attorney in the office of legal counsel, not a political position. in each of these positions, she quickly developed a reputation for thoughtful, deliberative work and a high level understanding of the most sensitive national security concerns of our country. caroline's work has earned her accolades and praise from officials across the political spectrum. she is the recipient of

numerous awards for her high quality work, including the attorney general's award for excellence and furthering the interest of u.s. national security. she also received 2017 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 sbeg lit will be invaluable both to the c.i.a. and most important to the american people. it takes a special kind of person to serving our nation with honorable sandor distinction. through her work, caroline has shown she is exact that will kind of person, and it is truly a privilege to introduce 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. >> thank you very much, senator. you're welcome to stay. on the other hand, if you can't, it's 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 whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me god. >> i will. >> thank you. please be seated. now, i have five questions that are protocol that we ask. if you would just indicate yes or no 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 ensure 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 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, vice chairman, and distinguished members of this committee, it is an honor to appear before you today. >> let me stop you. the vice chairman just aptly minded me, please bovet you introduce your families if

they're here, too. >> ok. >> i can stop that and do. i have here my husband, william, and my daughter. >> why doesn't family stand up and then we can easily see who you are? >> william, my daughter, and my son. >> excellent. >> thank you. >> it is an honorable for 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 to want 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 director, the deputy director, and other agency employees. as the chief legal officer of the c.i.a., the general counsel must ensure that the c.i.a. is complying with the constitution and other applicable u.s. laws. in almost 20 years as an executive branch lawyer, hive the privilege of providing legal advice on a wide range of difficult legal issues to many government agencies, including the c.i.a. second, the general counsel must work close well 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 agencies. during my time at the national security counsel, as well as at the department of justice, i worked on many -- with many lawyers from across the interagency community. i strongly value such inter

agency cooperation. cooperation with the director of national intelligence is especially important for the general counsel of the c.i.a., 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 in the office of general counts self over the years, i have already worked with many lawyers, and i have been impressed by their dedication to rigorous al flying 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. equal necessary is making sthure 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, as well as during my time at the

n.e.c., managing the legal review of difficult issues. fourth, and equally important, the general counsel assists the director in making sure that the intelligence communities are currently informed and provided with sufficient information to allow effective oversight. this is a critical function and must be -- the committee must be fullly and currently informed of all intelligence 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 ensthure 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 oversite is especially important, which increases the need for congress to be fully informed and engaged.

finally, as michael said -- i'm sorry, senator bennett said, i have dedicated my career to government service becausible it's essential that the u.s. government comply with the rule of law. i am also committed to protections 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 lock forward to answering your questions. thank you for having me. >> thank you very much. ambassador commith? >> thank you, madam chairman. may i introduce my wife dyson and my oldest son. my middle son is stationed in the army in texas at present, couldn't be here. my youngest son has a final exam, which he offered to skip, but i suggested that was not a good idea. madam chairman, mr. vice chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before you today as president obama's nominee to be assistant secretary of state for the into rowe of intelligence and research. i am deeply grateful to the president and to 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 close well 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. as both you and the vice chairman have noted, i&r is a unique and valuable asset, both to the department of state and the intelligence community. the bureau has a long and celebrated history in providing information and in-depth analysis that have helped to guide our nation's foreign policy. i&r's strong reputation derives not from the size of its staff or budget, but from the tremendous expertise and skills of its personnel. indeed, the bureau has some of the greatest regional and subject matter expertise anywhere in the u.s. government. this expertise rests principal with the bureau's outstanding civil servants who have spent a considerable amount of mile an

hour professional careers in i&r, but the bureau also derives strength from a constant influx of foreign service officers with relevant experience in the field f. confirmed, i will work hard to ensure that i&r continues to recruit and retain the highest quality staff and provides them with the training, professional development opportunities, and oversees experience they need to ensure the best possible analysis. i will vigorously defend the process to ensure the independence and unbiased analysis for which i&r is famous. i&r also plays a critical function in ensuring 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 intelligence

requirements, seek clear language for use and diplomatic communications, and ensure the department policy makers understand and can evaluate proposed intelligence activities with potential foreign policy consequences. they also support our missions overeast. if confirmed, i believe i will bring extensive skills to the position for research. the challenges facing senior policy makers, as well as the incredible demands on their time and attention. i thus appreciate the critical contribution that we have made and can continue to make in providing the president the secretary of state and other senior policy makers with timely, independent, and well focused analysis on a broad range of regional and global challenges.

throughout the course of my years, i have worked close well members of the intelligence community overseeing and coordinated intelligence and law enforcement activities. and witness firsthand the role that intelligence and analysis can and should play in the formulation of foreign policy. like many professionals within i&r, i also have a strong academic background and very much appreciate the importance of drawing on insandites expertise found in our nation's outstanding academy 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 sharing, and to ensure we are working together to advance our national security. if confirmed, i will work tirelessly to ensure that i&r continues to make its unique analytical contribution and continues to ensure that our intelligence activities support our foreign policy and national objectives.

thank you for having me here today. >> thank you very much, ambassador smith. i will ask each of you one question and then move on to the next. as you're aware, we spoke about o.l.c. opinions to some extent when you came in for a private visit. and you know committee has long sought access to legal opinions issued by justice office of legal counsel that describe in detail the law of governing and intelligence activities carried out by the c.i.a. and intelligence agencies, and i think as we said, this is not just idle curiosity, it is really to understand the direction and rules under which certain programs operate since they are run by the executive ranch of the government. we are found these opinions are actually indispensible to effective oversight, and, for

example, in 2004, the c.i.a. inspector general concluded that interrogators use the water board on khalid sheikh mohammed in a manner that did not match the description for the water board and olc opinions. at that time and for years afterwards, the committee lacked access to both the d.o.j. opinion and operational details describing how the water board was implemented. do you agree that the committee needs both the legal snals and the operational details in order to conduct effective oversight of whether c.i.a. activities adhere to the law. thank you for that question. i do believe that the committee needs to fully understand the legal basis for any activities in which the c.e.o. c.i.a. is

engaged, including covert action. we're 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 was able to provide, were i to be confirmed, would be an understanding of how the legal frame work intersects with the actual operations that are being undertaken and how any advice that might have been provided by the justice department is act plied in specific circumstances. well, let me just be clear, so agree that we should have access to all o.l.c. opinions that analysis the legality of intelligence activities carried out by the c.i.a. yes or no? >> the opinions suffered pre legal advice that's been provided and protecting the confidentiality of that legal advice preserves a space for

there to be a full and frank discussion amongst clients and the policy makers and their lawyers within the executive branch, and i believe this really furthers of rule of law 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 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 will 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 o.l.c. opinion has been a fight to obtain, and we have obtained very few of them, and only those that relate to u.s. citizens. so i know what you said and it's on the record, and i thank you for that.

et me ask a question of of mr. smith, ambassador smith, i had it right here. i&r has a well deserved reputation for the quality and independence of its snals. often overlooked is i&r's responsibility to ensthuret united states intelligence activities are consent with the united states foreign policy and the 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's study on the c.i.a.'s now discontinued detention and intelligence 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 for implications of the program. >> i did at the request of the committee examine parts that have report that pertained to the department of state and had an opportunity to meet private well your staff on this. the report remains highly classified and i don't want to get into too much detail, but i would note that i did draw some conclusions base upon my reading of the report about the role of i&r with 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 apply them as assistant secretary. >> thank you very much. mr. vice chairman? >> ms. krass, as you and i discussed in my office last week, you know that i continue

to have significant concerns for this failure to develop a clear policy n. my view, holding terrorists on a ship and sbeggetting them for a matter of days is no way to collect intelligence. seems like we've gone back to the pre-9/11 days when we treat terrorists first and foremost like criminals. what legal and policy advice would you offer to director brennan about the best way to obtain information from terrorists, including those that are captured and detained overseas? > thank you for that question. i would advice director brennan that the first goal of any interrogation of a suspected strift to collect intelligence to protect this country's security. wherever possible, that intelligence should be collected in a way that does not interfere with a future

possible prosecution and any other military commission or an 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. >> this runs a little differently. it seems like this administration is exerting more control over the intelligence community and the defense department in an effort to avoid any risk that could have consequences. i'm concerned that c.i.a. operations are getting bogged down in lengthy review processes that don't really seem to serve any legal or reasonable policy purpose. what are your legal views on how much an administration should exercise control over operations in order to minimize political risk? >> i do not believe that political risk should be part of the calculation in&determining the appropriate way forward for the interagency process.

die think, as i mentioned in my opening remarks, that interagency cooperation can be a positive influence. >> as the committee meets with analysts across the community, we generally hear positive comments on the value of state department over political reporting. however, when it comes to reporting with embassies, it seems that much of the information is being conveyed by email rather than easily accessible cable traffic. what are your views on the role of the into rowe of intelligence and research reporting with respect to the rest of the intelligent community, what role should i&r play in encouraging or assisting the broader state department as an overt collector, and that specific analytic advantage or expertise does i&r bring to the table for policy makers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would note that i&r played a critical role in terms of coordinating between our

missions oversea and it is intelligence community with respect to reporting an analysis abroad. what we have as a senior foreign officer who is vice chairman of the human national tasking center in order to coordinate the needs of our human collectors of our analysts with our reporting overseas. of course, the rest of the state department with the exception of i&r is not part of the community, so these are advisory taskings, but there is close coordination between the intelligence community and the state department on our reporting overseas and our analysis overseas. i have heard the concerns you've expressed about the degree to which we're reporting in channels, email or others, and not in formal channels, and whether or not that would have an impact on the contribution of our reporters, analysts, political officers, economic

officers abroosmed i will certainly take in that into careful confirmation if i remember confirmed and see if there are ways toen courage or rotting officers to report things so to have share it widely within the intelligence community. >> you've had extensive overseas experience in your very well respected career. as you know, unfortunately, some countries such as russia and pakistan particularly continue to engage in abuse and i have harassing behavior towards americans posted there. environmented all diplomatic norms and protocols, yet the committee has struggled to find anyone in washington who's really willing to take ownership of this problem. what role can i&r play in organizing a whole government approach to ensure equityable treatment for american diplomats posted overseas? >> senator, it's certainly something that i personally take to heart having served

overseas and having seen some of the challenges that we face overseas. this is of great concern to the department of state and to secretary kerry and the department, we take very seriously not only the security and safety, but their treatment by these host governments and countries. there is a very well established procedure by not only will we raise concerns about mistreatment and allegations about mistreatment aimed at our personnel overeast, but we will also take actions as necessary to signal to these governments that there will be consequences in terms of their diplomatic representation in the united states if we don't receive some equal and fair treatment abroad. this is something the department of state takes very seriously. it is a concern to senior officials and to the department s a whole.

>> thank you very much. senator king? i'll just read the list so people know, it's king, collins, udall, widen, hinrich, burr, rockefeller, and levin. >> i could comment being at the top that have list, but thank you, madam chairman. ambassador smith, does your analysis have to be cleared through the d&i and the community generally, or does it go directly to the secretary of state without any other steps along the way? >> senator, our analysis can go directly to the secretary of state without any further clearances. we do coordinate close well other members of the intelligence community on a lot of products and projects that are of interest, want only to the secretary, but the president and others. >> that was going to be my next question. can it go to the president without necessarily being

cleared through the community? >> well, we coordinate closely within the community on any products that are going, whether in the president's daily briefing or others. but sometimes products that are stand-alone products will be shared with other principals outside of the state department. what i'm trying to get it is we want your work to be coordinated, but not homogenized. >> appreciate that very much, senator, and share that desire. >> because i think your agency -- i&r has a very important role to play and has a distinguished record of being right when sometimes others weren't so correct. i hope you'll maintain that independence, if you will. we just recently had a opinion on the constitutionality of section 215 in the patriot act. although it's not strictly within your general counsel of going to the general counsel

office of the c.i.a., but i would like your views on the nub of that decision, essentially that the collection of met adata is a violation of the fourth amendment, and i know you've had ample experience. your thoughts on that issue briefly. >> senator, yes, that is a very topical opinion. i haven't had a chance to constituted at this carefully, but i've certainly read through it quickly, and i think it illustrates some of the very difficult issues that we face as we try to balance between the appropriate balance between more on national security and the protection of national security on the one hand and civil liberty protection and privacy on the other. and i would -- it seems likely that congress will, through you and others, will decide on the appropriate course of action in terms of legislative response

to this discussion, and, of course, i will -- if i am quirgesd i will make sure that the agency follows whatever laws have been enacted. >> separate question. the so-called aumf, which is the fundamental law that allows us to use force internationally nations, d to organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, or committed in the attacks of september 11 or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future attacks. that language is very limiting. it has been interpreted by successions of general counsels of various organizations in the government top much broader by the use of the term associated forces. do you have a view on whether that should be rerouted or are you satisfied that the gloss that's been placed on this by this term of associated forces,

which is nowhere found in the document, is legally sufficient force, y military forces through the c.i.a. around the world when we're talking about people, some of whom certainly weren't involved ith al qaeda and 2011. >> i believe as it's currently drafted is sufficient and that the interpretation that has been adopted by this administration to include the force is legally available interpretation. the definition of associated forces is an intelligent that has an organized armed group that has joined the fight alongside al qaeda against the united states, and its coalition partners, and so there is a strong nexus required between al qaeda and

the potential associated force. >> well, i appreciate your responsibility. 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 essentially can allow us to fight anybody any time anywhere for the next 20 or 30 years. i think that's quite trouble ing, but i appreciate your response. >> thank you, senator king. senator collins? >> thank you. >> thank you. ms. krass, i want to follow one senator king's question about the judicial decision that was issued yesterday on the legality, the constitutionality of section 215. of 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 about the fourth amendment. i think that under smith versus maryland, which i still consider to be good law, there is not a reasonable expectation f privacy in telephony metadata. it's been many years sense smith versus maryland was decided, and because the collection in the program is so broad, it's worth -- the law has changed basically. i definitely 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 counsel decisions, and many of us have felt that

access to those decisions is critical to our ability to exercise effective oversight as far as the intelligence community is concerned. i'm a little troubled by your response to the chairman because you seem to be saying that while you think our committee should receive a full explanation of the legal basis for any actions that are taken, that you do not believe we should have access to the o.l.c. memos themselves because they were -- your words were -- confidential predecisional gal advice, yet unclassified

presumably they contain confidential predecision pohl legal advice. so why do you distinguish between the classified o.l.c. decisions, which after all, would not be made public, they would just come to this committee, on the basis of the fact that they contain confidential 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 where we consult at o.l.c., consult with the clients who receive the opinion, as well as other potentially affected agencies and the significance of the opinion is evaluated, and after all that review, as well as some other reviews that have to

take place, we try to publish opinions when we can't promote transparency, but there are many opinions where we do not publish them, even in the unclassified arena because of the needs to protect confidentiality, but not classification. i do think it's worth exploring whether there could be some kind of a similar process with respect to classified o.l.c. opinions. but the key thing is that, were i to be confirmed, i would have the duty and obligation to make sure that this committee understands the legal basis for any activities that are being conducted by the c.i.a. >> and 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 law.

i'm not talking about a policy dispute, but rather your legal opinion. would you come to this committee and inform us that you believe that unlawful activities are taking place? >> senator, before we got to that point, i would hope that i would have made every effort to have tried to persuade presumably the director, who was deciding not to follow my legal advice to persuade him otherwise. if he continued to disagree with me, he would have the option. he's also just like every other senior official, he's sworn to uphold the constitution. he has the obligation himself, and he he could go to the attorney general and determine whether or not perhaps the attorney general would disagree with my advice, and he could come to a different interpretation. >> well, what i don't like eing is the administration

shopping around with an opinion with which it agrees, and that seems to have happened in the case of libya, where and the general counsel at the pentagon came out one way on the war owers act and found that hostilities, that it -- our actions met the definition of hostilities under the war powers act and what the administration did was disregard what i think was a sound legal interpretation that you and jeb johnson gave from the department of defense, and instead followed the advice of the white house legal counsel and the state department counsel. so what i'm concerned about is we have a situation like that where you don't prevail. i would hope you would share your concerns with the committee if you felt that unlawful activity was occurring.

thank you. >> thank you very much, senator collins. senator udall? >> good afternoon to both of you. welcome. ambassador, with all due respect, i'm going direct my set of comments and then a question to ms. krass. i would note for the record that emboss door smith is from my home state and has done us proud, so thank you for your service. ms. krass, nice to see you begin. we had a chance to sit down last week, and among other things, we discussed the senate intelligence study on the c.i.a. detention and interrogation program, which this committee approved one year ago. you've read a section pertaining to the role that the department of justice played in drafting legal opinions support itself of the c.i.a.'s program. you also told me that you found the study to be hard reading. i think any of us that have read it find it to be hard reading. and that the techniques used by

the c.i.a. during the time frame were "not consistent" with our values. i understand that while you were employed with the office of legal counsel, you were not involved in the drafting of o.l.c. opinions regarding the detention and interrogation program. and after our discussion last week, as well as after reviewing your strong credentials and support for your nomination, die believe you're highly qualified for the c.i.a. general counsel position, but as you know from my discussion and our discussion last week, i've got some deep concerns about how the c.i.a. has interacted with this committee throughout the nearly four years that the committee has been researching and drafting the study. and after the committee sent a study of the c.i.a. for its review and response, i and other committee members repeatedly requested that c.i.a. personnel meet with the committee staff to discuss the study and its methodology, but history shows that the c.i.a.

declined all of the requests to meet. then last week, there were a number of articles discussing the one-year an serious are you of the vote to approve the committee study. some of those reports included a statement from the c.i.a. cia has detailed significant errors in the study. i do not believe that statement is factually accurate. the cia took seven months to review the committee study and written response last june. the committee staff held more than 60 hours of meetings with the cia. after reviewing the material divided in being briefed on the staff meetings, i am more confident than ever in the factual accuracy in the committee's 6300 page study. i strongly believe the only way to correct the inaccurate

information in the public record on the program is through the sunlight of declassification. the cia needs to be more corroborative with this committee with regard to this study. last week, you committed in general to working closely with this committee, which i appreciate. but i need additional information, additional assurances specific to the committee study before i can support your nomination. why? cia has noted the responded to outstanding requests for cables and other information necessary for completion of the study. you placed to look into that request, which i appreciate. i also asked you to ensure that a copy of the ca review of the detention program is provided to the committee. it appears that this review, which was initiated by former director leon panetta, is intelligenceth the

committee report. it conflicts with the ca response to that -- cia response to the committee report. if this is true, why is the review the cia conducted a never gave to the committee? so important we have requested a copy of that internal review. you committed to looking into this as well. internal row view but cia hasn't committed to providing it. you've seen this as well. i'd like the white house fullest possible declassification of the committee's study as well as the response to the study. i understand you're not in a position on your own to provide these documents and statements, but confirmation processes are one way u.s. senators can be assured our voices are heard by the white house and agencies we

oversee. i don't believe my requests are unreasonable and i want the cia to take them seriously. with that i've got a question for you. in our meeting last week we talked about critical roll of intelligence oversight by congress. can you elaborate on your views on these two matters. one, roll of doj in intelligence oversight. two, specifically address how your views will guide interaction with this committee, engagements with doj and counsel to the cia director. >> senator, thank you for that question. yes, i completely agree this committee plays a critical role in the oversight of the cia particularly because so much of the work of the cia has to remain secret by its nature. this committee needs to provide

the important checks and balances that would normally be provided in addition to the american public in those circumstances. i also think the department of justice plays a critical role providing legal advice to the agency. that advice is authoritative for the agency. were it to be confirmed, i would consider it my duty to make sure that the committees were informed of all intelligence activities conducted by cia, in particular committee understands legal basis for those activities. i would also be sure information provided to the department of justice and particularly to the office of legal counsel was accurate and timely and up to date. my experience since i've been back in the leadership of olc i've interacted many times with lawyers from the agency. my experience has been very positive in terms of feeling like we're always get at olc the

information we need to give our advice if things change and that happens to be the case. i think olc advice is not useful to client agency. otherwise the client agency has an opinion but is addressing a different situation than the one presented. if i were to be confirmed, i would make sure that practice continued the way it has been functioning, a good idea what is needed to make judgments. >> thank you for that answer and i do look forward to conversations on these topics. senator collins raised important questions about how this committee and intelligence committee worked together in trusting, open, transparent way, because we all have the same goal in mind, to protect this country, but also protect the most valuable set of principles

we hold dear, which is the bill of rights and constitution. thank you. >> thank you senator. senator wyden. >> senator burr, were you there before me? >> very good. >> not according to the list i have. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. smith, i've heard glowing reports about your professionalism. mi mrs. crass i enjoyed meeting with you. it's my practice to let me know what areas we'll get into. let me start with you on cia interrogation. as you know, the big interrogation report the committee approved last year contained sections, the senator referred to it to discuss cia's representations to the department of justice regarding coercive investigations. you indicated to me yesterday

you had read the report. based on the information in the report, does it appear to you that the cia provided the justice department's office of legal counsel with acceptably accurate information about coercive interrogation program. >> senator, based on my reading of the report, i agree with what former general counsel stephen preston said, which is the information provided fell short of the normal type of information that is provided to olc now. >> so the answer would be no. >> yes, i think that's right. >> okay. so what you've told us is it does not appear to you the cia provided the justice department's office with acceptably accurate information, correct? >> yes. >> very good. the other question i wanted to ask you about dealt with this

matter the olc opinion. we talked about this in the office as well. this is the particular opinion in the office of legal counsel i've been concerned about. i think the reasoning is inconsistent of the public's understanding of the law. as i indicated, i believe it needs to be withdrawn. as we talked about, you were familiar with it. my first question is -- i indicated i would ask, as a senior government attorney, would you rely on the legal reasoning contained in this opinion? >> senator, at your request, i did review that from 2003. based on the age of the opinion and the fact it addressed at the time what it described as an issue of first impression as well as the evolving technology the opinion was discussing as well as the evolution of case law, i would not rely on that opinion. >> i appreciate that. again, your candor is helpful,

because we talked about that. that's encouraging. i want to make sure nobody else ever relies on that opinion. i'm concerned a different attorney could take a different view that it's valid because it has not been withdrawn. we have tried to get attorney general holder to withdraw it. i'm trying to figure out -- he's not answered our letders. who at the justice department has the authority to withdraw the opinion. do you currently have the authority to withdraw that opinion? >> no, i do not have the authority to withdraw that opinion. >> who does at the justice opinion. >> olc withdrawn on olc's own initiative or initiative of the attorney general would be extremely unusual. it happens only in extraordinary circumstances. normally what happens, if there's an opinion for which has

been given to a particular agency, for example, if that agency would like olc to consider an opinion or if another component of the executive branch who has been affected by the advice would like olc to consider the opinion, they will come to olc and say, look, this is why we think you're wrong and why it should be -- we believe the opinion should be corrected. they will be doing that when they have a practical need for the opinion because of the particular operational activities they would like to conduct. i've been thinking about your question, because i understand your serious concerns about this opinion. one approach that seems possible to me is that you could ask for an assurance from the relevant elements of the intelligence community that they would not rely on the opinion. i could give you more assurance if i were confirmed, i would not rely on the opinion at the cia. >> i appreciate that. you are very straightforward in

saying that. what concerns me unless the opinion is drawn someone else might be tempted to reach the conclusions. again, i appreciate the way you've handled a sensitive matter and i'm going to continue to prosecute the case for getting this. >> thank you, senator. senat senator. >> i've looked at both resumes and read letters of recommendation and come away impressed. we've not had the opportunity to talk at length. i look forward to that. i did have a chance to sit down with miss krass last week, and i want to thank her for her candor to fully answer our questions during that meeting. before we begin, let me associate myself with the

comments of my colleague mr. udall of colorado. my staff is waiting for documents we've requested. these requests are not unreasonable but the amount of time it's taking to produce them is. as much as anyone i want to see the committee's study of enhanced interrogation program finished and released. but that cannot happen white the cia slow walks the documents we've requested. we don't have many options available to us to force the agency's cooperation but i will not rule out any in order to get the agency to finally cooperate with our request. i also want to thank the chairman for her leadership in getting this study written. i want to mention something that happened just this afternoon. i am outraged the cia continues to make misleading public statements about the committee study of the cia's interrogation program. there is only one instance in which the cia pointed out a

factual error in the study, a minor error that has been corrected. for the rest where the committee and cia differ, we differ on interception and on conclusions from an agreed upon factual record. you can't publicly call our differences of opinion significant errors in press releases. it is misleading. these are not factual errors. however, the agency's failure to read the study during the six months it crafted its response contributed to these false statements by the agency. statements that continue today, even after the committee staff pointed out the many errors in the agency's response. madam chairman, i'm convinced now more than ever that we need to declassify the full report so that those with a political agenda can no longer manipulate public opinion by making false representations about what may be or is or is not in that

study. my comments are not directed at our nominees but i felt i had to address this given the highly misleading article in "the daily beast" today. miss krass, it's good to see you today. as i membershipsed in our meeting i have follow-up questions related to what we discussed last week. i asked you about the current legality of the cia's enhanced interrogation techniques. in responding you pointed to the detainee treatment act of 2005 and the military commissions act of 2006 and noted those laws were not in place at the time of the cia's detention and interrogation program when it began in 2002. you suggested that these might prohibit the future use of harsh interrogation techniques. however, these have both been signed into law by july 20th of 2007 when a predecessor of yours at the office of legal counsel issued a legal opinion the cia could continue to use these

techniques, including dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation, facial holds, attention can grabs, abdominal slaps. although this opinion has been withdrawn, it's clear there's disagreement whether actions taken by congress in the last decade have settled the legality of the use of harsh interrogation many consider torture. the current decision not to use cruel interrogation technique is seen by some as rooted in policy not law. in other words, president obama's executive order 13491 which explicitly interrogation to those found in the field manual could be rescinded by a future president. this leaves open a future president and cia director, perhaps based on the misinformation currently in the public realm about their effectiveness might seek to resume using those techniques. president obama's executive

order or current policy notwithstanding, do you believe the interrogation techniques mentioned previously could legally be used today despite the war crimes act as amended by military commissions act, the detainee treatment act and common article 3 of geneva convention? >> senator, i have not had an opportunity to evaluate each of the techniques covered in the 2007 memo. as you indicated first of all in terms of the current state of the law, the president has outlawed the use of my of those techniques and has said that only techniques consistent with the army field manual are allowed were the cia to conduct any interrogations. of course the cia is not in the detention business anymore. so were i to be confirmed cia general counsel, it would be my first duty to make sure those restrictions and prohibitions were followed. i do think there's a great deal of protection for detainees in

both article three, common article three of the geneva conventions as well as detainee treatment act which prohibits anyone from being subjected to cruel, inhuman, degrading or punishment and that is with cross reference to the type of punishment that would be unlawful under the 5th, 8th or 14th amendments. >> madam chair, i believe my time is expired. >> it is, but i'm very generous to you. >> senator burr. >> thank you, madam chairman. mr. smith, miss krass, welcome. let me say to your children if your mother does not get you everything for christmas you want, we're still in a position to hold her for this committee. i want you to know that. ambassador smith, the committee has direct over state department intelligence and research. would you agree for our committee to conduct effective

oversight, we should have access to the intelligence production produced by inr and in some cases be provided with the raw reporting that contributed to any analysis? >> senator burr, my understanding is we do provide access to the committee for all of our intelligence reports, our assessments and other products inr produces. if that's not the case, i will certainly undertake to review that and see whether we can share it more broadly. in fact, i believe a lot of this is done now electronically. >> you're right. it is. do i have your commitment you will continue to provide this committee with all the products the inr produces and reporting and staff, if necessary, to assist in oversight? >> it would be my commitment if i'm confirmed. >> would you agree in part inr's charter to provide ct intelligence support to the secretary of state, other state department and u.s. government

customers includes the president? >> absolutely. one of our principle customers is the president of the united states. >> our committee found in the year since the attacks on benghazi inr did not disseminate any independent analysis relating to the attacks. considering they began at a state department facility, involved the deaths of two state department personnel, and were an important indication of the escalating threats against u.s. facilities and personnel in the region, do you feel that was appropriate? >> senator, it's my understanding, i was not in the bureau at the time and, in fact, overseas throughout much of this time but inr did contribute and coordinate on a number of community products related to events in libya and ongoing developments there. it would not have been appropriate, necessarily, for inr bureau of intelligence and research to have played a role

in looking back at what happened. there were a number of different vehicles doing that, including accountability review board undertaking that study. inr did provide access to all of the information at its disposal and continued an ongoing basis throughout the course of the year to coordinate on products. i've heard concerns expressed by members of the committee about whether inr could have provided more information, more analysis on the overall context on what is happening in libya and i will certainly take that under advisement and see whether we can do that going forward. >> the fact was the committee told many times we didn't have jurisdiction over the state department. would you agree since you're here we have jurisdiction over the state department. >> full jurisdiction. >> if confirmed will you ensure inf products will be more responsive to world events. >> it's my desire to do as much as we can to make sure they are

timely, appropriate and serve the needs of policymakers. >> would you agree with state department ig recommendation inr should be the office to produce comprehensive security assessment for each post based on all available diplomatic and intelligence sources? >> senator, i think this is something if i'm confirmed i would like to look into. what i want to make sure we're providing as much accessed information as is needed by department policymakers including bureau of diplomatic security which has ongoing responsibility for safety and security of our missions overseas so they have the tools and information they need to make those determinations. whether this should rest more fully with inr is something i would certainly look into. on the surface at least, i would say inr's role is a supporting one in this regard. >> do you see any difference between diplomatic security or other relevant state components

in relation to congress and your treatment of the analysis you put together? all of us to be customers? >> security is part of the department of state and we're also to congressional oversight. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, madam chair. not madam chairman as our colleagues have said but madam chair. mr. bennett, i'm not going to ask you a question and i apologize for that. i'm simply going to say i spent two very productive years in the early 1960s working for state department most specifically for roger hillsman. he lost the battle for what the war in vietnam was about. he lost his job and i lost my job, but for two years i was very happy. miss krass, i want to just take this up a bit. the committee report that we

adopted a year or so ago was not only historic but it was the single largest and most significant oversight effort in the history of our committee. it took nine years to do that, 11,000 pages, close to 50,000 footnotes. can't argue with footnotes. cannot argue with footnotes. >> 6,000. >> 6,000 plus 5,000, 11,000 total. i personally began working on this project nine years ago. i got on this committee just before 9/11. when i began to doubt the information cia provided me and former chairman pat roberts about this program. we want this report, i say

and relationship with this committee which we have to correct. i expect and hope that the agency is trying to steer a perhaps very recently slightly different course from the approach suggested in that news article today. i see that possibility. clearly. that is not the best path to take. >> but it was put out in the paper today and i think the c.i.a. leadership knows that. i look for better things. since we adopted our -- or we have invested, as we said, for tremendous time and effort to refine it, this is a committee that has lived with frustration in which only the four, the gamg gang of four, the chair and the vice chair here were allowed to go and visit with vice president cheney.

for years and years we had to fight just so that we all could be briefed. it was a massive, lengthy fight. you have to understand that in terms of where we're coming from. we have been working diligently with the staff. i, myself, have had multiple rounds of spore spon dense and meetings with director brennan and also dmi clamper about the big picture political issues. now, why is this so important to me? because the c.i.a. interrogation program, particularly the enhanced interrogation techni e techniqu techniques, was not just an appropriate way to collect sbel jenls. it was a tragic mistake in the li history of this country.

more simply, it was wrong. the question now is what are we going to do about it. as a country, are we going to learn from this tragic mistake? is the c.i.a. going to take a hard look at it? as one of the top leaders in the agency, and the senior council, the next c.i.a. general council will have a centrally important role in this effort. not only for this committee, but the kinds of leaks that the good senator was talking about. he's mad. i'm mad. we're all mad.

so let me be clear. the general council is the c.i.a.'s legal advisor, not its defense attorney. my question for you is simple. will you council the c.i.a. to face forward and learn from the 34is takes of this program. and implement lessons learned in the future. >> senator, i absolutely would look forward and take advantage of the lessons learned in moving forward and make sure that the agency is operating legally. and i believe that the client is the agency, ultimately, and the american people.

not just the director. i would not be the defense attorney. >> and finally, i know you're familiar with steve preston's thoughts and legal authorities about this program. again, most people don't know that. we can't talk about it. the press can say anything they want. and they'll always go for the gotchya area. and people lose confidence in government. if you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure that mistakes and misinformation like this don't happen again from the position of power that you will have? >> senator, i will do everything i can, if i am confirmed, to make sure that the agency follows the law and to make sure that the agency is kept fumly apprised. >> so it's not just the law, but it's the practices within the agency, which have developed over the years.

practices of suspicion of us, unwillingness to deem with us and somehow feel that they have to say that we don't know what we're talking about. >> well, were i to be confirmed, i will pledge to you that i will work closely with this committee to make sure that we receive the information you need to conduct effective oversight. >> there were about 50,000 studies that we have spent nine years writing. i thank you, and i thank the chair. >> mrs. crass, the documents

that have been looked at by this committee in great the executive wranch abranch, including the department justice's office and legal council, the olc, in which you served at the time. now, in response to pre-hearing policy questions on his nomination to be d.o.d. general counsel, then c.i.a. general counsel, steven preston said the following. "my understanding is that the department of justice did not always have accurate information about the detention and interrogation program. and that the actual conduct of

that program was not always consistent with the way the program had been described by the department of justice. a particular note, he said, i understand that in a number of instances, enhanced interrogation techniques, specifically water boarding, were applied subl sty eied subs frequently than applied than d.o.j. i cannot say what d.o.j. would or would not have considered material at the timement i can tell you, if i were in a comparable situation, i would consider information of this nature to be material. >> do you agree with mr. preston that inaccurate information was material to issues on the program? >> senatosenator, based on my r of the section of the report, i completely agree with steven preston's assessment that they

fell a little short of the current practices that are followed in interaktss tweenlctn olc and the other side, of course. i don't know whether the nfgts thafls pinformation that was provided would have changed the office of legal council. i just don't know. >> well, because you don't have an opinion. >> i have not gone to take the types of information that were different and measure them against the opinion. i think steven preston's other assessment, it certainly would have changed his judgment. i think it would have likely changed my judgment, as well. but i'm not sure what my judge lt would have been in the first place. >> i asked you about whether or n not inaccurate information was supplied.

so my question is was inaccurate information supply snd. >> yes, based on my reading of the report, it seems that inaccurate information was supplied. >> okay. i think you made a reference, i believe it was to senator finestein's question about legal opinions that go from the olc to the, i presume to the president or the white house. and i think your answer was that these are pre-decision opinions. i don't know whether you've gone into that anymore further. let me pursue that issue a little bit more. at some point, there's a decision which is made by a president or by someone in the executive wranch, prezumblely the president.

at that point, would you agree that we, in congress, have a right to know what that decision was based on legally? >> yes, senate tosh. i believe that once the c.i.a. has decided on a course of action, you, of course, have the right to know what course of action that i would're pursuing as well as to be provided with the full understanding of the legal basis. >> so that we are entitled to know what the legal basis is, even for a president's decision? >> for any sbel jenls intellige activities, certainly. as members of the congress, you would be entitled to other capacities to be able to oversee the activities. >> no, that's not the ke. assuming there were legal opinions that informed the decision maker. once the decision is made, are we then entitled to have access -- >> you're entitled -- >> no, my question is are we entitled to access to the pnls

which informed the decision? after he makes the decision? >> even after he makes the decision, the reason why the executive branch refers to the pre-decision and legal advice is it was given in a decision where there might not be a decision to go forward. that confidential, legal advice, i believe, enabled the executive wrampk. keeping that confidentiality allows for lawyers and policymakers to ask questions and i'm being fully candid. >> so i take it your annals is we are not entitled to any legal opinion rendering to the executive branch decision makers? >> senator, as you know, there have been -- >> is that correct? is that correct? >> well, it's a caveat of an answer i wanted to say.

that in certain sucircumstances the president has directed -- >> i'm saying do we have a right to that? >> i do not think so. >> we have no right to access -- the president can decide to give us access, but we have no right, in your judge. ment to access? >> i think you have a right to understand the legal basis. >> okay, thank you. my time is up. thank you, ma'am. >> first of all the, thank you both for your service to our country and congratulations to your family, as well, for the sacrifices they make. i wachbnted to share with ya concern of what i believe is a lack of coherent policy. along those lines, i wanted to ask you your opinion on whether there's intelligence valued

including those who were apprehended outside the united states. >> yes, i think there can be intelligence-value. and the critical -- oh, i'm sorry. senator, i believe it is critical when apprehending a terrorist, the first priority should be in gathering sbel jen intelligence from that ter rigs. >> let me just make this comment. one is just looking back at the tragedy that occurred in benghazi, it's apparent that there was the increasing danger

and the volatility of the area regarding the dki diplomatic min before it was in tact. so i wanted to ask you what do you believe the inr role should be -- let me go further on that. in the aftermath, they knew on the day of the attack that, in fact, it was not a spontaneous demonstration that had turned violent. so, specifically, how do you believe the inr provides input, relevant sbel jenls to the inner agency process, the decision-makers, et cetera, what is the role we see in that moving forward? >> senator, the primary role of the bureau of intelligence and research is to provide an understanding for the overall context in k4 we are operating the broader, political and economic environment and to make

sure that poll siicymakers inclg diplomatic security have access to the realtime basis sbel jenls information and personnel overseas. this is one of the things, that if i'm confirmed, 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, con textual understanding going only. >> we had a statement a few days ago from the israeli defense minister about his belief and his concerns that the iranians are using their embassies to build a infrastructure in the western hemisphere. there's a mandate strategy to counter that influence. but let me ask you, what are your views on their influence in the western hemisphere?

and in particular, will you comment on that? >> i'd like to take a question for the record, if you'd like. >> let me verify one thing on the nsa situation. it's my understanding that this judge, judge leon, made his restraining order, which has been -- or his injunctioinjuncth has been stayed, and that was announced last month. a district court judge who was convicted on three counts for

support for terrorism, specifically financial and monetary, specifically involving al-shabaab. and then a case was brought exactly on this point. and the judge's opinion last month said that the program was constitution. no one had a fourth-amendment right on meta data. we didn't have cell phones, as well. so perhaps it is a good opportunity now that we have conflicting opinions and we have 15 fisa judges that have never

found the case unconstitutional as it reviews the program every 90 days. i think now most people believe a federal court judge has declared the case or declared the program unconstitution nal. well, there are differing opinions now. that's the state of play. and the assumption is that it's going to be appeal ed and the supreme court will eventually make a decision. i just wanted to say that i don't think there's any member of this program that wants to support unconstitutional. we do want to support those things that can enable us to protect this country. and we believe that that program is one of -- not the only one,

but one of them and it is our intention to review other programs based on the law. so i think your position is really most important in all of this. and that's where i've been pressing on the olc opinions. unless we know the administration basis for igts sarngsing a program, it's very hard to oversee it. and we have been all during -- and i was going to ask this question -- i mean, olc attorney jay biby wrote congress may no more regular late to maintain and interrogate than it may

regulate its ability to troop movements. well, where am i going with this? where i'm going is we have to know what regulations enable a president to move and say yes, do this. and if we don't see it, it's very hard to exercise oversight. now, an administration might want that. they may not want us to exercise it. i know that up close and personal because you are going to encounter some heat from us in that regard. i think most of us have been here a very long time. and we know that we need this information. and not just well, we can give them that but we can't give them

that. that's why holding um things that this committee has asked for, specifically with respect to the detention and interrogation report, is so very sensitive with us. i have been after the staff, complete the c.i.a. reviews. it's appropriate if we change the report. it isn't appropriate, annotate the fact that the cia disagrees and why they disagree. let's get on with it. lit's vote to declassify the summary and recommendations. and findings which is about 300 pages. i mentioned it again today and the staff said well, we've asked for information from the cia and we haven't received it.

so we can't really complete what we need to complete. i would like our staff sit down with you and explain exactly what it is and take some action because we have been able to -- not to obviously have a positive response. that's cumbersome rhetoric, but it's off the top. lp you do that? >> yes, and i fully would like to work closely with this committee to make sure that you get action as appropriate. i've already taken back your concerns about the pieces of information that you all said were outstanding. >> good. well, if you would please let me know what the response is, i would appreciate that very much. >> thank you. >> and i will also note if there's no response.

so thank you. >> the only thing i would is is add is the chairman and i have made a request of the entire community about all programs that are operational as other entities and we intend to do a full overview. some of which we may find you didn't even know about. so once your confirmation is complete and we'll look forward to working with you in that aren't. to make sure that we have access to the agencies and other entipties within the

jurisdiction of the community are provided to us so that we can make sure that we have the tools with which to do our job. so thank you very much. >> the staff just passed me a note and said you don't have to mention this, but i'm going to mention it anyway. that is that the declassification for the benghazi report is going very slowly. anything you can do to be helpful in speeding that up, we'd very much appreciate. >> senator king? >> a bit of a concluding statement. you all have some of the most important jobs in the united states government. some of the most important jobs of the united states government because i'm convinced we're engamged in a war.

september 11th was pearl harbor, in effect. they're going to come in the hull of a ship with a drublgtive device that looks like a suitcase. your important role that you're going to be the counsel of, presuming you're confirmed, advising the cia as to what the law is. please don't misunderstand that responsibility. i believe you and we, this committee, has a special responseblety because unlike virtually any other part of our

government this is a secret part of our government. all of the checks and balances of the public and the press and the interest groups rnt present. therefore, those of us who have the responsibility of overseeing the conduct of this agency i believe is a special and weighty one. i understand human nature. i feel you have to resist temptation and be very strong in your advice. otherwise, there's nobody else manning the barricades of the fourth amendment and the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment. you have to help protect this. a secret agency in democracy is

almost a contradiction in terms. i understand why we need it. we definitely need it. in this new kind of conflict that we're engaged in. we have to realize it throughout history. we have to have all of the strength that we can muster to protect against that. you're a key person in that process. so i hope you will really think hard about who it is you represent. and it's the people of the united states. it's not the national director of intelligence. you have a gravely pompbt role. i'm impressed wi your experience and background. i don't mean to lecture you, but

i think it's so important, i had to say it. so thank you very much. >> well said. >> in the interest of time, i'll submit some additional questions for the record. >> thank you. i'd ask that you have all requests in by 5:00 on friday. thank you. >> thank you. your response about providing documents, you said you would do so if appropriate. that's a pretty big loophole. what's not appropriate? give us your menu?

what documents do you believe are in the possession of the cia that we should not see. >> yes, but the c.i.a. general counsel is in a different position. i know that steven preston provided an opinion and a written statement for providing classified matters. whatever are in the best interests of the understanding of the legal basis in terms of what is appropriate, i think that -- >> what else would be appropriate? what would not be appropriate for this committee to see? >> i'm not sure. i'm not having insight into what types of documents that the c.i.a. has.

and generally provides or wouldn't provide. it would seem that it would be appropriate to share. maybe situations where there's privileged material. >> what kind of privilege? executive? >> where there could be attorney-client privileged material, for kmampl, where there could be another way, though, of making sure that the committee was informed. so, for example, a white-paper type of approach instead of providing the actual deliberations with a summary of that. it's still true to the underlying reasoning. >> any other documents that aren't appropriate? >> i just really don't know the universe of documents that we could be talking about.

>> as i said, wrapped up in the attorney client is wrapped up. >> and you don't think even if there's no attorney client relationship, that you're not entitled to deliberative documents? >> i think there can be situations in which deliberative documents, where there would be an attorney as part of the scenario, but deliberations without attorneys could be something that would be protected by the dlibl rative process privilege. but i think it's important to understand not only the legal basis, which is what i feel like i would be responsible for if i were confirmed.

but also what types of activities the cia is engaged in. >> it's been a frustrating speernls. you either can't find documents or there's some kind of privilege that might exist. it's pretty vague stuff. it's just not ak sechtble. >> going back to the question that ifgs eluding to before, i want to talk to you about water boarding for just one minute. in your judgment, is water boarding torture? >> yes, both the president and

the attorney general has said that water boarding is torture and the president has out lawed that. >> i would like to say for the people who were involved in the eit program who relied on the advice from the department of justice who did so reasonably and in good faith, i don't believe they should be punished. glp senator, my opinion is yes. >> and is it torture in the geneva conventions? >> it would be a vie lagolation article iii, yes. >> thank you very much, senator. do you have other questions senator king? let me thank our two witnesses. i know this is always hard and an intense time. you are on the record.

want we do is sensitive. and the need really is for cooperation. and we believe that the american people deserve that to the extent we can achieve it. we look forward to having a positive relationship with you: hopefully, we'll be able to move these nominations shortly. so thank you very much and the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you very much. on c-span, washington journal with your calls. later, president obama's end of

the year this conference. as 2013 wraps up, we are on the west front of the u.s. capitol to tell you about our c- span year in review series. here is the lineup. look atp on monday, a immigration laws. tuesday, senate filibuster rule changes. onessay -- nsa surveillance wednesday. we wrap up the week with a you -- a look at the budget and the shutdown. in a moment, your calls and today's newspaper headlines followed by a look at the situation in north rea with ontt snyder of the council foreign relations and a discussion of president obama's national security strategy and legacy with david sanger.

later, we will talk about fund raising and spending for the 2014 elections. dave levinthal with the center for >> thank you mr. president. what was the message you are trying to send by not attending the sochi games? all, i suspect that me attending the olympics when we have other things that people have been talking about -- i will go to a lot of olympic games post-presidency. ♪ good: