-- >> from the public affairs of and from washington directly to you. but he knew in the room at congressional hearings, white house fence, briefings and conferences. and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house of all is a public service of right industry. we are c-span, created by the two cable tv industry 35 years ago, and about you as a public service >> joining us on "newsmakers" this week is adam schiff, a senior member of the house intelligence committee. thank you for joining us. our two reporters are michael lillis of "the hill" and chris

strohm with bloomberg news. it has been an interesting week to have you here. we had edward snowden be a keynote speaker at the sxsw conference by video. we also had some very serious accusations, a supporter of the cia, diane feinstein, on the senate floor that on making many people who cover national security and privacy wonder what is next in this national debate we're having. let's start by asking your reaction to the accusations against the cia and their spying on the senate. >> they are very serious. senator feinstein has been a great champion of the cia and intelligence community. this is a senator who does her homework.

she is very lawful and substantive. what is interesting about it, one of the allegations is that the cia was auditing the senate computers, the database, and although there have been denials, that is not seen to be a denial that the cia did do some investigation of those computers without the senate authorization. that is a very serious problem. if the cia was concerned that the senate had access to documents that they were not supposed to have, whether because the cia was careless for putting them in the database or whatever reason, that should have been taken up with senator feinstein. they should not have done any type of surreptitious act. i think it could have

substantial repercussions. >> or specifically on the cia response, nancy pelosi yesterday said on thursday that director brennan's response was befuddling. she cannot understand it. check concerns. what do you think of his response? do you still have faith in them as director of the cia? >> i can understand his wanting to go to bat and support his agency. i do not think a confrontation with the senate is in his interest or just of the agency. i've been taken aback by the degree to which they have pushed back without any kind of conciliation on this. that has surprised me. my interactions have been very positive. there's nothing that has given

me any pause. his first response should have been if they access these without going to the senator first that we made a mistake. we have concerns we need to explore with you. we should have done this working with you, not working against you. it is not how i would have handled it. >> senator feinstein is very upset with the idea that the cia was searching the computers that were given to her staff to review the bush administrations enhanced interrogation program. what is the next step here that needs to be done? what can you say about the underlying report? it looked into the enhanced interrogation.

what do you know about that? >> a couple of things. with respect to the report, i strongly believe that this should be made declassified. there are areas that have to be redacted. it should be made publicly available. this is a key debate we have had over the last several years. that program is a thing of the past. the debate goes on about whether it was useful or counterproductive. it is at the heart of the current debate. this was more in line with the senate reports construction. even as a member of the house intelligence committee, i can i

get access to this report. i have been asking for a year. it has been very tightly held. i'm glad the white house has come on board in terms of supporting declassification. in terms of the next steps, i would hope what is happening right here is that cooler heads are prevailing. they are taking a pause. i hope they will reevaluate the adversarial pose there taken him find a way to reestablish a good working relationship with the senate. it is incredibly important in terms of our oversight role in for the agency. i think of mark twain's saying do not pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. it is not wise as an agency to pick a fight with the committee that funds you and can make your life difficult.

>> on the cia issue, civil liberties groups have been campaigning about government spying on civilians. what do you say to the charges that now members of the intel committee to have been some of the strongest supporters are up in arms only when they are the target of similar spying? is there a double standard? >> no. there's a certain intellectual appeal to that argument. many of us have been fighting for referral of the metadata program, for example, and trying to champion the right balance between privacy and national security. it is the debate that goes back to the founders. it will frankly be with us for some time. in addition to the privacy considerations, there are additional ones when you have

potential spying by an intelligence agency. then you get into added consideration of separation of power, violation of other particular provisions, the speech and debate clause in the constitution as well as some of the statutes governing this. they are wrapped. does that mean they are more weighty? it does add another layer to this debate that we have been having. i understand the criticism. it is one. >> while you referenced metadata reform, you authored legislation. i wondered you could explain it to our viewing audience what you hope to do. you were quoted as saying this would be a difficult year for reform. >> i still think it will be difficult but there may be a convergence on the metadata

program. for your viewers, what is involved in here, this is the bold data collected by the government of that involves phone numbers connected to other numbers, duration of calls, time of calls. it does not include subscriber information. it is not like a phone record. the numbers are not connected with the people who have those phones. it is also not the content of the communications. people think that all of their phone calls are being listened to. none of the content is involved in this data. nonetheless, there's a vast amount of data. it has the potential it could be used to be used in a way to find out who is calling who and what time.

there are real privacy interests at stake. i have been championing among several others a restructuring of the program, an end to book collection. we would go to the phone companies like we do in the criminal context rather than gathering all the data in searching at ourselves when we believe a number is connected with a plot. i think that is where we are headed. if we are successful, we can bring about those reforms proactively. if we are not successful, in the middle of next year the program will sunset and simply go away. we will largely moved to the law enforcement model. >> i wanted to ask you about the national security agency spying in terms of what you're going to do with people phone records. the latest developments are that the chairman of the house intelligence committee are reaching some sort of agreement for a bill to adjust the book records.

>> the administration announces their plans. the administration set that it for themselves. i do not know whether they are on track to meet that deadline. it looks like the model is much like the bill that i introduced months ago which would have the telephone companies hold onto their own data. when we needed to go and request a certain number we would go to the company with legal process. but we would also have a prior court review. apart from emergency circumstances where there is a real need for speed, we would go to the court, they would approve legal process to go to the phone company. that would be the alternative to gathering all the bulk data. what is an issue initially is

how fast can you do that? the advantage of bulk election is that you have all the data. you can merge the formats so that when there is a need you can search through all of that data without having to go to multiple carriers and take the time and inefficiency. there are technological answers to the problem that i think and get the response times down very considerably and close to as if we had all of the data. that is where i think we're moving. what are the issues that remain? one issue i think is whether we go to the court before we go to the carriers or whether it is an after the fact process. i think the administration has made properly in the direction of prior court review. i think that makes a lot of sense. >> i want to shift to another issue, ukraine. you are on the frontlines of the intel debate. is anything the intel community could've done better to foresee

this invasion of russia into crimea? what that could of been, if so? >> it is a bit too early to say. we certainly understood that these military exercises could be a cover for a plan to move troops into crimea. we understood there were several scenarios that were all possible. predicting that this would be the path putin would take means you have to predict putin. we may have good insight on where he is coming from but at the end of the day, as one person put it, we are one synapse away from any particular decision. predicting that is a bit like predicting the impossible at times. he is not always predictable and can act erratically and irrationally like i think he has here. i cannot say there has been any intelligence failure.

if we learn later that we had intelligence, that their discussions with putin and others or other telltale military signs that were not consistent with the military exercise, if we learn subsequently that we had information that we did not put together, then we can conclude there was intelligence failure. i have not seen that yet. >> i just want to say on the nsa spying, there's been a lot of attention paid to the attention of bulk phone records. there are other extensive spying programs that are taking place such as the prism program which is collecting internet data from the technology companies like facebook and google. there are revelations that came out in the document leaked by edward snowden that showed that the nsa has been weakening encryption and hacking into

fiber cables without companies knowing. what is your understanding of how effective the collection of internet data has been? has it contributed to stopping any terrorist plots? as far as the other programs go, what if anything should be done to rein in the nsa? >> as you might imagine, i cannot get into specifics of some of the programs or allegations you have mentioned. i can't say a lot of the focus of the bulk metadata debate has been on section 215. there's another, 702, which deals some of our foreign collections. it has been more access will importing product at home and abroad. it is a very important effort not only to protect ourselves but a lot of our allies and some allies of that were complaining

are the ones i have been the biggest beneficiaries of collection under 702. you mentioned a range of different topics. without going into any specifics, i can say is important for the intelligence community to be working with our technology companies, allowing them to be more transparent about when they are asked for information. these companies are doing a lot of business overseas. it is part of their business model. we want them to be successful. giving them the ability to be more transparent will help them. more quick response to fourth requests, a process when they come to us when they need help and information and more swiftly processing those requests. it will help in terms of some of these issues. some of the other allegations that he mentions are going to be

very tough for the companies to overcome. they remain healthy and strong. we need to work much more closely. >> do you think congress or the administration should do anything in response to these other allegations that is the nsa hacking into data centers abroad or potentially compromising millions of computers globally with malware? >> those of us on the committee have urged the intelligence agencies to much more readily respond each time there is a new snowden disclosure or a new allegation. we are seeing that happen with the most recent snowden allegation. he very quickly put out a statement disputing some of the more sensationalist claims.

that i think is very important. the antidote to misinformation is getting good information out there. they're going to be constrained by the nature of the work they do. we have to do a much better job. that is letting our foreign partners known that the type of surveillance that we do not do, the efforts that we may to maintain the privacy of people not just at home abroad, i think all of these things are very important for us to continue to emphasize. one particular area we need to draw a distinction is other countries like china. they spy for some of the same purposes we do, to protect them selves. they also said i to gain economic advantage, to still intellectual property.

we do not do that. it is a very important distinction that is lost in all of this. it is important for our friends and allies to understand the project. there are things we do not do such as try to prevail for the purpose of giving ourselves and economic benefits. >> i am wondering if you have had any reflections about the capabilities or limitations of technology and international cooperation? >> absolutely. the one that leaps out at me most is the gaping hole that we have in terms of people flying was stolen identification. they may have had nothing to do with the disappearance of this plane. they probably did have nothing to do with it.

has revealed millions of people board planes without the identities being vetted. that is a real problem. even if they were not involved in the disappearance, others may take advantage of the fact most countries do not check with interpol to see whether the documents people are providing are their own documents. that is something we need to focus on correct thing. it is fascinating here that some of the best data we are getting is from an unlikely source. that is the maker of the engines on that plane had a technology in place where it could get a ping with feedback on how they were performing. that was for their own quality control. it has given us some pretty key information that the plane was in the air perhaps much longer than we might have known. >> i wanted to shift one more time to syria. saturday is the third

anniversary of the civil war there. more the 100,000 people dead. i'm wondering if there's anything that president obama or congress should be doing differently or were aggressively to end the crisis. if so, what? >> that is a great question. this is the most distressing thing going on right now. the loss of life. in terms of what we can be doing on the humanitarian front, there's a lot more that we can be doing to step up and help these people that are in need. i think the united states can be more welcoming of some of the refugees. a particular issue i have been working with, many thousands have immigrants in the united states they cannot get a visa because they have reached the visa limits. on the broader military negotiations, on of the most significant things we need to do is get our allies on the same

page about who they are supporting and make sure the weapons that are falling into this conflict are not flowing into the hands of jihadis who also oppose a great threat to us after the conflict. that is far more important this. apart from this it is keeping up pressure on the diplomatic front. something that has become far more difficult with russia's territorial aggression and crimea. nonetheless, we have to try to keep the pressure on. i think there is an answer to this conflict. there is one that views assad as indispensable. i think we can all agree on him going. we have difficulty agreeing on what should come next.

if we can focus on coming on an agreement and phasing him out and trying to get to the basis of the subsequent successor regime. i think there is enough common ground to put an end to this war. >> quick closing comments. >> i just wanted to ask you. over the last year, it has been almost a year since the revelations about the nsa spying. now we have additional revelations about the cia's spying on senate staffers. i am wondering what you think about congressional oversight and if it is failing. and if there needs to be some kind of significant reform to the oversight? >> the biggest problem in oversight is the fact that there is a tremendous mismatch of resources.

even at the house and senate intelligence committees that have a very talented staff but a very small staff. then you have the behemoth agencies. we can oversee agencies, but if the agencies are not forthcoming, we do not necessarily know the right questions to ask or the right places to look. it is tremendously difficult. there are steps we can take to improve our capabilities. at the end of the day, we need cooperation of the agencies themselves. that is why it is so important that we have the right leadership and why this conflict with of the cia and senate may be so debilitating. i think probably beefing up our capabilities would be very important in making sure that in the confirmation process where they are vetting people. it is a relationship of the congress overseeing the agency and not the other way around? there are some within the agency that think is their job to oversee the overseers.

>> congressman adam schiff, thank you for being our guest. >> my pleasure. >> let's pick up the conversation. the congressman earlier has thought the reform might be difficult. now he thinks perhaps just this week with allegations about the cia getting into congressional senate computers and spying on the senate itself. might it change the game? >> i thought it was interesting. he said there could be an agreement reached by the end of the month.

data must ration as they have their own timeline. president obama has said that by the end of march 28 they want to have the plan for going forward. we do not know if that plan will be. they could be a plan to study it more or put something in place that takes time. it does not seem that the hill want to wait much longer. the idea that there's going to be legislation taking up seems to be here given the cia regulations. >> is there a change in this area at all? >> it was interesting there as well. you have nancy pelosi on thursday. a very good friend of director brennan. she said i will see him on monday at the st. patrick's day party. she said i still do not understand any of his answers. you have mr. schiff said we do not understand the response. they had time to come up with some kind of defense.

what we are hearing you do not like. it is a separation of powers issue. we want more intel. this is a guy you can get it done. i think you're going to see a lot more criticism of her and in particular. his response is not been up to the standards of what congress things that should be. >> to some degree the debate is because of the pressure that has been put on the existing policies and legislation. there's also a sunset provision facing the original patriot act in 2015. how will that meet the requirement to visit some of these approaches to the discussion? >> i think the safety net to do something. there are three provisions which expire june 2015. that includes the section 215 under which the bulk phone records are collected. regardless of the main thing is done, the deadline looms. it will force them to do something.

i think that is something down the road that is the deadline. there seems to be a sense to do something sooner than later. going back to the issue of the tension that exists between the hill and the cia, it has been a state of low intensity conflict for several years now. i can recall back when congresswoman pelosi said the cia lies to the hill all the time. from time to time, we have seen these skirmishes. i am not sure there is the institutional force to reprimand him or do anything with regard to his position. >> how much leverage do they

have buy a controlling the purse strings? >> a bit. nancy pelosi was on the intel committee for a number of years and now has access to data. she said clearly on thursday the administration is custodian of the intelligence but not the owner. if there's any indication that they are abusing it we have the power of the purse. it was an unveiled threat that congress does fund of these things. >> at the heart, this is all over the report on investigation into torture techniques. were you surprised to hear that a senior member cannot get access to this report? >> i was when he initially said it but i have been thinking of and i'm not really surprised. we have heard even members of the intelligence committee have not been given the access to these spy programs. the reports that are within the intelligence agency that is part

of why i asked him about the lawyer of oversight. he did seem to agree that there needs to be stronger oversight. he said it needs to be made clear that the committees oversee the agencies. >> as the debate finds the sweet spot between national security and privacy, the conversation will definitely continue. and thank you very much for your questions. >> tomorrow, michael alan, he will talk about allegations of cia's spying on senate staffers followed by political reporter on the obama administration push for young adults to sign up for health care. we will discuss the five-year

anniversary of the home modification program and more than one million people who have received assistance. former assistant treasury secretary is our guest. all of that bus your calls and facebook comments beginning live at 7:00 here on c-span. >> the suggestion is a when we say freedom of choice, let people go their own way. what we often mean is and they know best. the government does not know best. the notion of autonomy, a pretty elaborate word, it is basically one-word way of saying that people know better than outsiders do. about what would make their lives go well. it sounds academic and abstract. the mistakes are real and concrete which is the question really when we think of our policies, at least a lot of the

questions, are people going to be sick? are they going to be miserable? are they going to be dad -- dead? if we have policies about savings or privacy on the internet or it involves air quality, if we can think of some way that makes them less likely to be sick or miserable or dead while also letting them ultimately go their own way if they want, that is probably a good bargain. >> farmer -- former obama sonstein onon, cass q and a. >> i think what happens to hoover as the depression deepens , people do not know it was a great depression. they thought it was probably a typical cyclical event.

when it did not hold and it'd deepened, hoover found himself facing increasing pressure from the left for deeper expenditures. he started to hold the line against that and became a fiscal conservative to balance the budget and save the gold standard and a republican in the last two years of his life. he got the reason why attacked as supposedly not doing anything. including some policies that might not have been all of that effective. on the other hand, he was valiantly struggling against a total turn such as he saw coming in the new deal. >> editor george nash on the missing link of hoover's memoirs. in a few weeks, military strategist and former assistant defense secretary will take your calls and comments on the mideast and the wars in iraq and

afghanistan. this month on book tv, join the discussion on camilla joseph's new biography. enter the chat room. >> last week, the chair of the senator intelligence committee accused the cia of disrupting investigation. cia director later denied her allegations. the next day, the visor chair spoke on the senate floor. he said there may be a need for a special prosecutor to look into the situation. the confirmation hearing from late last year of cia's general counsel. she tells by the agency's techniques. first, some of senator feinstein's remarks. the c.i.a.'s actions. based on what director brennan has informed us, i have grave

concerns that the c.i.a.'s search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the united states constitution, including the speech and debate clause. it may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function. i have asked for an apology, and a recognition that this c.i.a. search of computers used by its oversight committee was inappropriate. i have received neither. besides the constitutional implications, the c.i.a. search may also have violated the fourth amendment, the computer fraud and abuse act, as well as executive order 123 3 which

3reub9s the c.i.a. from conducting domestic surveillance. days after meeting with director brennan, the c.i.a. inspector general, david buckley, learned of the c.i.a. search and began an investigation into c.i.a.'s activities. i have been informed that mr. buckley has referred the matter to the department of justice, given the possibility of a criminal violation by c.i.a. personnel. let me note, because the c.i.a. has refused to answer the questions in my january 23 letter and the c.i.a. inspector general is ongoing, i have limited information about exactly what the c.i.a. did in conducting its search. weeks later, i was also told that after the inspector general reviewed the c.i.a.'s activities to the department of justice --, excuse me,

referred the c.i.a.'s activities to the department of justice, the acting counsel general of the c.i.a. filed a crimes report with the department of justice concerning the committee staff's actions. i have not been provided the specifics of these allegations or been told whether the department has initiated a criminal investigation based on the allegations of the c.i.a.'s acting general counsel. as i mentioned before, our staff involved in this matter have the appropriate clearances, handled the sensitive material according to established procedures and practice to protect classified information, and were provided access to the panetta review by the c.i.a. itself. as a result, there is no

legitimate reason to allege to the justice department that senate staff may have committed a crime. i view the acting counsel general's referral as a potential effort to intimidate this staff, and i am not t >> john brennan denied senator feinstein's allegations. this portion is about 15 minutes. >> while we are especially support, we have not been perfect. we have made mistakes. we have tried to learn from them and take actions.

that many of the things in the agency has done that it was asked to do and i rented to do that it alone had the authority and responsibility to do remain subject of intense courtney and debate and controversy. the rendition and interrogation program is arbi case in point. there've been many things are written and said including this morning. , some fact inram some pure fiction. these remarks to address the reviews and actions related to the report on the r.b.i. program. i want to take the opportunity to say two things. first, my colleagues and i believe strongly in necessity of effectiveness thomas strong, and bipartisan overview. we are a far better organization because of congressional oversight and as long as i am

director of the cia, i will do whatever i can to be responsive of the elected representatives. our overseers ask us the tough questions. hold our feet to the fire and work every day to make sure taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively and efficiently to keep our country strong. most important, they work to ensure the cia and other organizations are carrying out of the responsibility and at times they fully and in full accordance with the law. i do not always agree with them. we frugally have what i call "spirited discussions." we are fulfilling our responsibilities. cia has more than enough challenges on its plate which is why far more than any other institution of government, the cia was to put the rendition and interrogation chapter of its history behind it. the agency about risk facilities have been close.

agency's facilities have been close and president obama closing them five years ago. over the past decade, there have been numerous reviews of the program and the cia has taken steps to address the shortcomings and deficiencies that became evident. senate select committee has done a selective review. considerable resources to supporting over the last several years for stop cia has tried to work as collaboratively as possible on its reports. we will continue to do so and i have told extensively with a sinister feinstein and senator chambliss and to the way for. we have taken corrective measures.

we owe it to the men and women who executed this program to make sure any historical record of it is a balanced and accurate one. we have worked closely with the committee to resolve outstanding issues and look forward to working with the committee. even as we have learned from the past, we must be able to put the past behind us to devote ourselves to the challenges ahead of us. i was sworn in as a g.s.-9 officer never believing that one day i would have the honor and privilege of leading the courageous, dedicated and exceptional talented men and women of c.i.a. i go to the main lobby once a month to administer the oath of office to our newest employees. many speak several languages. some have had successful careers in the private sector and want to give something back to their country. for all of them, this moment is

a culmination of years of hard work and see the enthusiasm in their eyes. as i watched them raise their right hands, i feel a sense of obligation to these officers. they have chosen a profession that is filled with great rewards but also have challenges and sometimes grave danger and it's my job to prepare them for it. from day one, i want them to understand they are joining more than an organization but a tradition of service and sacrifice unlike any in government. i always administer the oath of office in front of our memorial wall. there are 107 stars on that wall. each one representing an agency hero who made the sacrifice on behalf of our nation and i emphasize that we all have the responsibility to remember the officers and sacrifices represented by their stars and carry on their work in a way that would make them proud.

it underscores the defining trait of c.i.a. and our commitment that we serve. the women and men have devoted themselves to protecting our nation and advancing american interests around the globe. their contributions often go unrecognized but no doubt, they are essential to the strength and security of our republic. thank you and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you all very much. [applause] >> thank you, director. we are going to have a conversation here and obviously bring the audience in. first of all, the topic of the morning, which you have addressed here, you said you want to get the past practices behind you, but senator feinstein went to the floor and said she did it reluctantly and dealing with you privately

trying to resolve this since january and only went public today because of the referrals from the inspector general and because a lawyer in c.i.a. had referred a crimes report separately accusing the senate of going in improperly into c.i.a. computers. her claim in a scathing speech was that the c.i.a. has hacked into the senate intelligence committee staff computers to thwart an investigation by the committee into those past practices. she also alleges that the panetta-era report was very similar to the conclusions of those past practices. but you, who were involved in that era in the program itself and the c.i.a. currently was trying to thwart the full review of the harshness of the interrogation and practices, can you respond? >> we are not trying to thwart

this report's progression release. as i said in my remarks. we want this behind us. we know the committee has invested a lot of time, money and effort into this report. and they are determined to put it forward. we have engaged with them extensively over the last year. we had officers sit down with them and go over the report and point out where we believe there are factual errors or errors in judgment or assessments. we are not trying to prevent its release. as far as the allegations of c.i.a. hacking into senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. we wouldn't do that. that is just beyond the scope of reason. >> she says there are potentially illegal and unconstitutional breaches by the c.i.a. >> there are appropriate authorities right now inside c.i.a. as well as c.i.a. -- >> justice department.

>> as what the staff members did and i defer to them to determine whether there was any violation of law or principle and i referred the matter, myself to the c.i.a. inspector general to make sure he was able to look honestly and objectively what the c.i.a. did there. when the facts come out, i think a lot of people claiming that there has been this spying, monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong. >> you said at your confirmation hearing you wanted to restore the trust of the c.i.a. and overseers in the senate. this is pretty major goal. if it is proved that the c.i.a. did do this, would you feel that you would have to step down? >> i am confident that the authorities will review this appropriately. and i will deal with the facts as uncovered in the appropriate manner.

i would just encourage some members of the senate to take their time to make sure that they don't overstate what they claim and what they probably believe to be the truth. these are some complicated matters. we have worked with the committee over the course of many years. this review done by the committee was done at a facility where c.i.a. had the responsibility to make sure they had the computer wherewithal to carry out their responsibilities. if there were any inappropriate actions either by the c.i.a. or the staff, i will be the first one to say we will get to the bottom of this. if i did something wrong, i will go to the president, i will explain what i did and what the findings were. and he can ask me to stay or to go. >> malaysia air and the investigation, a lot of people have been shocked that two years

after passports were stolen and reported stolen that people using stolen passports whether or not there was a terror link could still board airlines. what flaw is still in this system post-9/11 that permits stolen passports to be used so commonly around the world? >> when you think of people who get on airlines around the world it is hundreds of thousands. since 9/11, there have been strides to share as much information as possible not only threats but individuals who are trying to carry out attacks, to include stolen passports. the authorities are looking what went wrong, why they were not aware of it and all of us have to make sure we are doing everything possible. it's close to 13 years since 9/11. the tragedies of 9/11 are still in the minds of many people and this is not the time to relax because we know there are

terrorist groups that are still determined to carry out attacks especially against air raft craft. >> is there any chatter? >> i think there is a lot of speculation right now. some claim responsibility that have not been confirmed or corroborated at all. we are looking at it closely with the c.i.a. and f.b.i. and others and our malaysian counterparts are doing everything to put the pieces together. but this is a mystery that is very disturbing and until we can find out, we will have to do a forensic analysis. >> at this point you are not ruling out it could be a terrorist organization? >> not at all. >> what is the state of al qaeda in malaysia. in the 1990's, they were very active. and there were plots as well. is al qaeda still active as a cell in malaysia?

>> al qaeda, which had its -- first in the afghan-pakistan area, earlier in sudan, has spread over the years. it is found throughout africa and southeast asia. there are a number of areas in southeast asia where al qaeda has tried to develop contacts and cells and put in place the infrastructure, whether for fundraising activities or support and facilitation. there is no place in the globe where al qaeda said they weren't going to seek some type of presence. southeast asia is where al qaeda has had a historical presence. >> the next day, vice chair spoke briefly on the senate floor about the possibility of a special prosecutor to resolve

the issue between his committee and the cia. the quorum call be diswendz with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i rise somewhat reluctantly to speak about an intelligence committee matter. allegations have been discussed in the halls of congress and in the press. based on press reports today, yesterday, and even last week, allegations have been made regarding the central intelligence agency's actions toward the committee as well as staff and members' actions on the international intelligence committee towards the c.i.a. the reason i feel compelled to speak on this matter is the following. although people speak as though we know all the -- all of the pertinent facts surrounding this matter, the truth is, we do not. the republican committee members on the senate intelligence committee and staff were not involved in the underlying

investigation of the detainee and interrogation report. we do not know the actual facts concerning the c.i.a.'s alleged actions or all of the specific details about the actions by the committee staff regarding the draft of what is now referred to as the panetta internal review document. both parties have made allegations against one another, and even speculated as to each others' actions, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions that must be addressed. no forensics have been run on the c.i.a. computers or, as my colleagues refer to them, as the sissy computers exiewrs at the c.i.a. facility to know what actually happened either regarding the alleged c.i.a. search or the circumstances under which the committee came into possession of the panetta internal review document.

given that both of these matters have been now referred to the department of justice, it may take us a while before any accurate factual findings can be reached and a satisfactory resolution of these matters can be achieved. it may even call for some special investigator to be named to review the entire factual situation. eventually, we will get to the bottom of this. but today i cannot make a statement that a will reflect what actually occurred, and therefore what recommendations we ought to make as we move forward. right now our committee members are conducting an internal assessment of the facts and circumstances involved in both of these matters. this will be an ongoing process that should not be described or discussed in the public domain. but like all other intelligence committee matters should remain within the purview of the

confines of the intelligence committee. today, i simply wanted everyone to know where i stand on this matter and how we need to get to the ground truth of these very >> the confirmation hearing. before the intelligence committee, she answered questions about the agency's interrogation techniques and legal bases. last week, she was confirmed by the senate in a vote of 95 yays. paul votingz and against. this portion is one hour.

>> i would note he is from my state and he has done us proud. nice to see you again. we had a chance to sit down last week. we discussed the intelligence committee study on the detention which it is committee approved a one year ago. did you read the section pertaining, that it played in the drafting support for the program a you said you found the study to be hard reading. hardf us would've find a reading. and the techniques used by the cia were not consistent with our thats and i understand 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, u 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 anniversary of the vote to approve the committee study. some of those reports included a statement from the c.i.a. claiming that the c.i.a. has detailed significant errors in the study. the factual accuracy. i strongly believe that the way to correct the information is through the sunlight of the classification. the cia also needs to be more cooperative and with the community in regard to the study. last week, you committed in a general to working closely with this committee and staff which i appreciate. i will need additional information and assurances to

support your nomination. why? i noted the cia has not responded to requests for other information that are necessary for completion of the study. it pledged to look into which i appreciate. secondly, to ensure a copy of the review and programs is provided to the committee. it appears this review which was initiated by panetta is consistent with the report but amazingly it conflicts with the official cia response to the report. if this is true, it raises fundamental questions about why a review conducted internally years ago and he never provided to the committee is so different from the formal written response . you can see the disconnect.

if this is true. we have requested a copy, but the cia has yet to provide it. to see ai would like public statement from the white house committing to the fullest possible declassification of the committee's study as well as the cia's response to the study. i understand that you are not in a position on your own to provide these documents, but confirmation processes are one way that u.s. senators can ensure that our voices are heard. i do not believe my requests are unreasonable. i want the cia to know that i take them seriously. with that, i have a question for you. in our meeting last week, we talked about the critical role of the justice in reviewing intelligence rogue rams and the importance of intelligence oversight byon