>> i would argue that's a conflict. the bombing in libya has implications that are different ones we've been debating in the context of a fight inside iraq and inside syria. it may be worth while. but it should involve this committee coming back and relitigating what that means for american national security going forward. so given the fact that we are talking about very different conflicts with potentially very different implications for the states, i'm in support of this amendment because i think we have the ability to come back make a different decision. to for score senator udall's this, nothing this amendment abrogates the president's articles of authority. an imminent threat to the united states, if isil is

plotting an attack against the states, article two still gives the president the to conduct whatever is necessary to protect the united gives me causet to be confident that we aren't theing the security of united states at risk and that we will be able to come back and decision.dependent if isis poses a threat to the united states in another country as to whether it's a good idea to bring to country as well, which may involve a completely different set of factors. >> for johnson. >> i think much of this discussion underscores my primary point is we should spend a lot of time on definition. of time defining exactly who the enemy is. name one group, defined. so if we spend a lot of time defining

a lote enemy is and spend of time finding exactly what the and then be 100% committed to the objective, anybody's hand, don't ations.imit is is if we do that it will be easier the partners that will also be 100% committed to the exact properly defined objective. example, the first gulf war. when the first president bush not stab when saddam hussein instraighted kuwait, a clear defined objective, drive saddam hussein out of kuwait, and he was able assemble a coalition that by and large paid for the war, over 200,000 other troops were in that coalition, again that was because it was a stated objective and

this country was 100% committed to that objective. no limitations. we were going to make sure that hussein was driven out of kuwait. so again i would just suggest that in our next discussion in the next congress we really spend a lot of time in this committee defining exactly who the enemy is that we're going to declare war on or military the use of force against and then clearly define the objectives. a lot of these concerns really just go away. haven't, i realize we'll be doing this again in january. but i guess the limitations drones?en apply to i would just like for the author to clarify that if the commander to utilizented drones to potentially deal with countries, of these is this amendment intended to

limit our ability to do that? >> i think it's not specified, and i think also that most have used the 2001 --olution but we're sunsetting that. i want to go back to what said.r johnson has there are some details here that are important. be limiting,ing to 2001aumf,etting the which i think limits the ability time. i do look for to, again, and i thankhis, also everyone for their tone and i do hope we'll vote at some time. >> senator paul? >> just a quick point and i think senator markey made a point, he said he had cast 22,000 votes and five of them will stick in his memory that this is one of those that could be that kind of vote. that's why we have to be incredibly or very careful about

our precision on our language. argumentseady heard from senators who say they're worried about being reconvicted from war in libya. strikeses --o let owe they want no restrictions because they already can conceive of places that will need to be entertained. so you can he how an executive wants to expand this is going to say, well, we got libya, we got 30 other countries. i think it's really important that if you want to place restrictions and limitations on this war to one we're and one enemy that going after, it's important that we either define the target more define ther geography more precisely. >> let me speak to this and then we'll vote. this definition, first of all, has been, we've had a whole conversation about the associated persons and

forces. tries tohe definition broach the concerns here, it makes clear that the isil.ization applies onto and only to individuals and organizations fighting for or on isil. of and a potential closely related entity.r surely we have to account for the possibility that this group its name. it's been called several things here during the course of the but it's still the same group at the end of the day. wethat's one way in which try to control not an endless many different boundaries. and the other is, as it the geographic limitation, that's not an amendment i can important. i appreciate the effort of what the senator is trying to do, it would in essence create that isil could

establish sanctuaries in other countries other than iraq, and syria. and in doing so would not be able to feel the power of might with its allies including air strikes. so i think that is not something tot is the wisest way achieve the goal. i the clerk will call the roll.

>> is there any other member wishing to offer an amendment? not, the vote is on final aumf as amended. the clerk will call the roll.

>> the aumf will be reported favorably to the senate. i ask unanimous consent a the

be allowed to make changes to the --orting so ordered. the resolution signed by every member of the committee, andgain congratulations thank you for your service. [applause] >> i want to thank you again for chairman.ce as our i want to thank all the committee members for the tone and seriousness and i look continuing. thank you all. >> thank you very much. this hearing is adjourned.

>> today a discussion about government, public and private surveillance. recognitionce software and sing ray ke vices that locate suspects using their cell phone signals. we'll join the forum at .0:40a.m. eastern on c-span >> here are some of the programs you'll find this weekend. sunday evening at 8:00 on q and a, politico reporters share stories about being on the senator trail with mcconnell. on c-span 2 saturday night at fundraisertical lindsey mark lewis on money and politics and how it's grown and changed. and sunday at 10:00 p.m., shane military's use of cyberspace to wage war. history tv on c pan 3, saturday at 2:00, a panel

timesing washington opinion editor dave keene on how as an raying's career actor and spokesman helped hone communication skills. and frank gannon shows clips of his interview with the former president about watergate and his resignation. you think about the programs you're watching, call us. e-mail us. or send us a tweet. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> last week former secretary of state hillary clinton sat down for an interview about the middle east. topics included terrorism, nuclear talks with iraq, and the palestinian peace process. from the brook, institution,

this is an hour. >> madam secretary, we have had far, you'ves so participated, i believe, in nine of the eleven. jerusalem aled to few times. and i have to share with you that this audience has one very important question on their

mind. as a matter of fact, the ud has an important question, the whole states, the world has a question on their mine. hope and expect that you will give us a straight stage.from this how does it feel to be a grandmother? ( laughter ) [applause] >> well, i was in the senate for eight years and i would like to on this question. it feels fabulous. i have to tell you, you and i have talked about this with cheryl and other friend. just an extraordinary, wonderful blessing, and so for our first thanksgiving with beyondte it was just words for both bill and i. am feeling particularly intesful that we are now this new stage of our lives

together. >> good. try not to be too busy, save time time for the granddaughter. east, it's about bringing communities together. have we succeeded in our country bringing communities together? ferguson andok at what happened in new york, or have we failed? i think we have made extraordinary progress over the nation's history, andfor that i am grateful proud. but we still have work to do, is most obvious when wegic incidents like those

have recently seen occur. recognize that at root is still a problem with our being able to put ourselves toeach other's places recognize the challenges that often face.itizens so we have work to do. but i think our founders were extraordinarily psychologically smart. because they talked about us try chief a more perfect union, and that has been the impetus for all of these years as we have big problems like slavery, like war, like like civil rights, women's rights, like so many of that as adifficulties nation we've had to face.

i support the efforts to work with our law enforcement, justice system so that everybody believes that under justice and that the rule of law applies to all of us. suchhat will take retraining and some additional not just into our law enforcement and criminal justice because i would argue that by and large the majority both are who work in are very, are brave, committed to our values. aboutthink it's also communities. it's not just about our institutions, it's about how we people.o each other as and that's just a task we have to constantly be focused on and doing better with. >> amen. ask you a very theoretical question, very, very

nothing to do with reality. so if you decide to run for president, and let's assume that got elected. the 21st january, 2017, you walk into the oval with it.ou're familiar so you don't need to get acquainted with the environment. first thing,he first thing on that very first day that you tackle? it will not surprise you to hear that i have long answer not to hypothetical, theoretical questions -- then. next question no, no, just joking, please. taking myself out of it and let's talk about who next who ever is our

president in 2017. it always is be as and increasingly so in this we share, ad that long list. there's not going to be one live in anuse we interdepend department, interconnected, networked world where we see so much progress that is occurring around the people making their way into prosperity, into middle classes, advances in science and that are saving and transforming lives, there is a to celebrate in the world

today. unless the united states remains strong economically, unless we

committed to our role in the world, then so many of these we confront that i tried to write about in my those are choices, not going to be as readily dealt with, because we will be rightly concerned about what happens here first, and should be. so i think as we look into the of years, i anticipate the economy will continue to grow. not an --day was we have some tough decisionings to make here at home about how make sure that our economic good news is broadly shared and then how we think of our own leadership globally in a way more secure, helps our friends and allies like as much security and theility as possible, grow

global economy, and do the work that will sustain american 21strship in the century. >> you're absolutely right and i agree with you 100%. but if we were to take just what is the one most urgent issue that we are facing? very difficult to say there is one. quickly mention, i think the continuing threat from terrorism, and especially the we've seen it morph into a more sophisticated delivery system, if you will, in the form of isis. the want abes in other tots of the world, we have remain vigilant. we have to take the coalition that the president and secretary kerry has constructed and make sure it is more than just a rhetorical debating society. by it is a commitment

nations of good will and theitment to deal with threats that the new brand of socially dept, more organized terrorism, particularly as we see with isis holding territory, trying to theblish a state, right in heart of the middle east, and so that remains a high priority certainly i think we have to deal with. i think there are a lot of other issues. russia's aggressiveness, how far putin is intending to go, whether he'll be slowed down by his own economic problems at home, the drop in the rube el, the drop in the oil price, i remain at will challenge for him. but whether he fries to deal instead challenge or just tries to be more nationalistic and more going to have to

and i don't and, think we'll be finished with our work in trying to deal with him in two years. think it's going to be a longer term effort. china, is such a consequential historic event. want china's rise to be peaceful, we want china to continue to lift people out of poverty, but we don't want to see aggressive behavior. we don't want to see nationalism to the forefront. we don't want to see a war of japan or other neighbors over the south china or anythe east china sea other territorial dispute. reach a flash point. you can go, but those are areas i think you have to particularly pay attention to. the middle east, as always, dosia, china, and try to what we can to manage each of those. isis. mentioned

what do you think that we can do differently than what we're now, because they continue gaining territories. expanding.ntinue more or anything different that we can do? a longink we're in for struggle. but i think we have in the last months put together the pieces a strategy, starting first removal oft with the maliki as prime minister in long something that was overdue. he was unfortunately the instigator of a lot of the bad and fears that the others and the kurds and within iraq felt and were frying

to deal with in their own way, with no positive outcome. theink getting him off stage has led to a couple of changes. one that was just announced of effort,er years getting an oil deal with the kurds. being able to get the government in baghdad to recognize the the kurds in the north and to permit the of the military units. think, anl see, i even more concerted effort on the part of the kurds, with respect to isis and joining extent with kurds across the border in syria. way from ana long can defendthat territory and take back territory. doing a lot more than

we had been doing, and the retired general john allen to take on that responsibility, and i have the regard for him, and he's trying to help undo the damage maliki and his cohort did left. iraqi army after we i think it is fair to say that withdrewunited states the time effort, many, expertise been poured into gave ag the iraqi army fighting chance to the iraqis to defend their territory. be in a position to use the army in a positive way to country. what we saw instead with maliki unfortunately was he purged officers, he used sectarian measures to try to the army almost a personal militia for him instead of a army.al

so -- >> it didn't serve him that well. it served him well enough, until isis posed such a threat. >> it's no longer there. >> but the iraqi army had been largely. it was not willing or able to territory. its formeradow of self. and it was a very strong sunnies eitherhe either -- that what the united states and our partners, arab and european, have done in the last several months has laid a stronger foundation for the of a unified iraq, able eventually to take back the that has been lost to

drive isis out of iraq across and as we keep air pressure on them across the ways then tok for finally deliver the death blow to them. this is not going to happen easily or quickly. said, it's going to be a long haul. would you like to take a sip of while i am asking the next question? real?it hypothetical or >> you don't have to, but i cold.want it to get too so should we talk about the palestinians?he >> sure. oslo board was signed about 0 years ago. a palestinian state was supposed come to be five years after that. are the clinton parameters or

some version still real van or do we need to live in a world manage the crisis versus solving it? remain, i think they relevant, and i believe that there is a necessary imperative to try to achieve a resolution between israel and the palestinians. solution, which has been the hallmark of not clinton parameters but the work under president bush, under president obama, woulds an important and i bringessential concept to people together around. i'm well aware of everything that's going on right now. and the increasing tensions that existing in the region, in

israel. in the west bank. to say nothing of the continuing hamassive behavior by coming out of gaza. but i am one who believes that of negotiation filleda vacuum that gets by problems, bad actors, threats, other kinds of behavior that is not booed for israel. thenot good for palestinians. thatthink that the efforts were under taken in the last several years, when i was second arewith secretary kerry, very much in the interest of israel and the interest of the palestinians. >> i hope it happens, but we'll see. issecretary of state, what

the one thing you wish we had done differently? >> oh, my goodness. what?there a list or >> there were a number of things, and i write about a lot of them. thingin the book, one that, looking back, i believe that we could have done or better, was our the iranian unrest following the elections in june 2009. and we consulted broadly and a experts on iran sources inm within iran, sources other intelligence agencies, long list, the consensus was that it would not be productive to bee united states thelly supportive of and really speak

out persistently against the the iranian regime. and the reason for that was seemed, it didn't seem, it was indigenous, it did the iranianom people. the concern was that we would look as though we were directing supporting it and giving an excuse, not just for the iranian government but for who might be on the thelines worried about outcome, to go, to move away from the movement. and looking back at that now, i we had spoken out more. but it would have been against of theice of a majority people with whom we consulted. me, the work for that we did around the world to try to bring people together, israelis oras the

palestinians or after the revolutions in arab countries, with difficultht hard choices, and trying to do in exactly what to uncharted territory. in retrospect you could say maybe we could have done that or that, but i think again we were our way forward trying to do the best we could under that were not within our control, they were rapidly changing, that had been but nobody thought they would happen as they did in egypt and elsewhere. much course i deeply regret the loss of life of any member our state department family, whether it's an aid worker in afghanistan, or foreign libya. officers in that's always something you think, okay, what more could we have done.

>> so you mentioned speaking of iran, you mentioned that we could have spoken more. would haveing more alieniate it ad the government, thewould it have helped people who rised against? know. never you never know what you might say that could give heart to them,, could encourage could get some off the fence and possiblyng on take action. you just never know. that's why if these were easy choices we could do them by didn'tter, if they require any kind of judgment. and in that case, you know, we sort of the expert consensus. but it was such a fraught time, do what we could, sort of below the radar screen to help the demonstrators. thing we did was they were

communicating very much by twitter. learned that twitter was going to go down for a long that hadebooting nothing to do with inch, it was tech --internal and we see don't should down this weekend because we wanted people in the stress to to each other. so we did a number of things to try to provide some support and give mart to to people who were rising up rigged the obviously illegitimate elections. but i can't sit here today and if we had done something different it would have had some impact. remember, weime, were working extremely hard to put together an international to impose international sanctionings. we in unilateral sanctionings of states had adopted. i voted for them when i was in the senate and we were committed to that pathway. but it wasn't enough.

unless we could get sanctions the security council, sanctionings through the union and create an environment in which other countries would feel compelled to abide by those sanctions, we able toer going to be put the economic pressure on the regime. and the turmoil following the electionings tweald helped us to guessent in making the for getting those sanctionings. and 2010 i spent my time trying to convince other countries to impose these tough sanctions, and then we had to enforce them.to so it was a two-part effort. sanctionsse view?egrating in your >> there's always been leakage, always been, you know, holes in them. but they have surprisingly and

largely held. and they have held in part a two-parthad strategy. were not just to try sanctions, they were to to force iran to the negotiating table. economicnk the pressures and the conditions within iran was one of the big we were able to start these negotiations over program.lear so the sanctions have held up now. the extension of the agreement june, i think, will most which be a perfect during the sanctions will hold. there's nibbling around the whongs, there are people are trying to position in the event there is a deal, there isn't a deal. but my assessment is that the

sanctions, the international sanctions have had the effect iran and --d for on >> lately they came to the negotiating table. work. sanctions did >> they did. >> the concern is obviously that have shown some people like to say too many car on thes and -- carrots and not enough sticks. >> i don't agree with that. guess my view, my bottom line deal that verifiably closes iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. verifiably there is and all, including covert efforts. is what is at the center of this negotiation. one might say remarkably our partners have not jumped ship. they have stayed in the

negotiation, and there has been knows, aeverybody now process with the so-called p5 and there's been a bilateral process between the united states and iran. they converged, as they were intended to. because i was involved in making the decision to send the first oman to begin talking about whether or not we could talk. famouslylike churchill said, better to jaw jaw than war war. explore as careful my and thoroughly as possible. such a there was verifiable deal that could be adopted. i remain strongly of the view that no deal is better than a bad deal. also absolutely convinced that the nuclear weapon

negotiations is not the only problem that we have with iran. the most important and in many ways the most urge urgent. but iran's sponsorship much support forran's assad and the havoc that that iran's obvious support for hezbollah and the destabilization in part because of the spill over from syria, pressure onng providing arms to hamas and so much else that it engages in, in greatgion that causes concern to israel, to our air partners in the gulf, that's all part of the ongoing challenge that iran poses. to the nucleart weapon negotiation, i think that we made the correct decision to

sanctions imposed internationally. get our partners to the table, the negotiation, be into theo enter interim agreement, which has so their we know stopped nuclear program, to be absolutely clear about the kind intrusive, constant inspections that would be the thresholdach of verifiability that we would seek. to be very clear about what the consequences would be of any violation by iran, and that say, include, as we keeping all options on the table. so how this is constructed, if can be achieved, will kinds ofave those requirements embedded within it.

but i think it's a very important effort to continue to pursue and to try to see if we reach an agreement that is requirements.ur >> let's hope that indeed we reach an agreement that none much our allies in the region going to feel threatened, because then all hell would breaks will. biggestis one of our concerns. we have to intensify our with our partners, particularly most with israel. closek if you look at the cooperation, forget about the press coverage and the back and forth. the closek at cooperation, and what this administration and the congress the last six years has done with respect to israel's it's quite

extraordinary. on the funding of ierch dome, funding of other military needs and equipment, the continuing strategic beenltations that we've consistently engaged in with israel, it's hard to measure did x andistration who did y, but nobody can argue with the commitment of this israel'sation to security. and that has to continue, it has deepen. regardless of the political back and forth, which we're both -- the heck is going on with the political back and forth? raucous too democracies, and i have such experience in that, so you do get carry away from type to time. but similarly with our friends in the gulf, we have to have an intensely serious ongoing consultation with them too. started something called the gulf cooperation council, u.s. dialogue, we need a forum where we bring them

altogether. that's not easy because they their own differences with each other. but when i comes to iran's intentions votes avery them, when it comes to terrorism and to theireats stability, they need us, we need continue toe we can have a not only a good dialogue of positive outcomes from our cooperation that will will make ther, region safer, and pave the way cooperation strategically between israel and arab states. >> speaking of israel and the enough ofs, is there an alignment of interests israel and some after an state, primarily the gulf a path thatis that may be helps promote kindli-palestinian peace, of an overall deal?

slew on this? >> -- a view on this? >> i think there are a lot of interests. i just mention quicklily a terrorism,hem, iran, instability, and the like. be i know that there has to a lot of work done to create around those interests. but that's something they think israel'such in interest and in the gulf nation's interest. now the gulf and others in are very fixated on isis, other, immediate matters. remain obsessed, understandably so, with iran's i think that is the particular point of convergence. whichab peace initiative, held out a lot of promise back when it was first introduced,

was a form of a deal that if there were progress on front, therean would be actions taken by the arab nationings. isn't that a chicken and the egg? >> it is, yes, i agree. and now, you know, with so much so manyg in the region, serious threats coming from every direction, i know the president just asked for a big increase in aid to jordan jordan is on the front lines of so much of what's happening, not only the refugee syria, but they are cooperating with us in the theytion against isis, remain one of the bull works for security.n on israeli so we have to pay a lot of attention to the entire region. think that when you look at the chicken and the egg that's why you can't give up on any of these channels, you

all to keep working them the time. you can say, you know, let's just throw up our hand and walk negotiations between the israelis and palestinians, vacuum.you do leave a or, you know, let's just forget trying to figure out ways for israelis and the arab states to work together. working back into a relationship on security with egypt that is very much in each much their interests. so you have to keep pushing all the hill at the same time. >> i hope that you continue forum and next time i interview you will be that came to peace the region. i'm not holding my hopes high, hope. till have to row poseg i'd like to something with you. a name, or a noun,

and you have to answer in one or words. can we do that? >> i don't know, we'll see. >> let's start with an easy one. bill clinton. >> fabulous. agree. shimon perez. >> wonderful. >> charlotte. that's her grab daughter. -- granddaughter. >> over the moon. >> women's rights. >> essential. >> writing books. >> hard. >> okay. love. >> inescapable. end on a sweet note, dessert. >> dessert? dessert. oh, gosh. trouble.

>> okay. thank you very much, madam secretary, that was fabulous. [applause] we're going to open it to a couple of questions, and not too many, please. .ait for the microphone, please >> i'd like to ask you about two veryries that could be important building blocks for a new more stable middle east. egypt.and turkey is a nato member, very stablent in rebuilding middle east, but does not really behave as would be expected if you just look at the games they isis, oneen kurds and

illustration of a policy that's desirable. in egypt where the contradiction values andrican american interests is very poignant, what would you do with to both of those nations? ambassador, that the two countries that you ask about biggest two of the challenges and the biggest opportunities. i thinkpect oh turkey, ankey is facing extraordinary period where they sort out how to deal with their internal contradictions. and their external threats, as they see them. no alternative but for the united states and other like countries to do everything we can to work with, tostay with, to try

influence how turkey makes those decisions. that.s nothing easy about they have a kurdish population, as you well know, that they were to resolve to try decades-long internal conflict. now are worried about the kurdish fighters on their borders with syria. that has upended a lot of their calculationings, and it difficult to get them to focus on isis until they have some sense of how they're going to view as at they you prior challenge from the kurds. that.rstand i think it's something that they and getrefuse solve, about the business of resolving. and i think we have to do more would love to see the relationship that turkey and to have slowly knit

back together, if that's possible. so i think both the united states, other members nato, other partners the the region, we can get discouraged or frustrated with some of the difficulties that turkey is instead we've got to double down and try to work with them, and that means even where they say and do things i think many of us are not many about. they are too strategically they can be a force for positive change or a source of difficulties. try to work toward the former. kind is an example of the of difficult hard choices that theaced following revolution and the overthrow of mubarak.

and i want to egypt shortly mubarak fell and i went to and --square tahrir care and met with a large of young people mo were at the forefront of the revolution. incrediblyre quiteed and feeling validated that their efforts had led to the overthrow of mubarak. i asked them, so what do you do next, are you going to party?political are you going to run people for office? elections, oh, no, they said. we don do politics. said, well, in a democracy if that's what you want, you got to do politics. and they looked at me like i was ancientfrom some civilization that had ended up cairo. and i said, look, there are two

organizationed forces in egypt far as i can tell. the muslim brotherhood and the army. if you don't form a political alternative, one of those will win. and indeed what happened is they .on in succession and we're walk to the status quote ante almost, i would argue. so it was hard to navigate competing interests and the values. and we were blamed, as some of you remember, by all sides, we supportivefficiently of the revolution. because we were clinging to mubarak. were jettisoning mubarak and backs on our long-time partners. we were upending the relationship we had and it never got any better, no matter what were criticized for

it. again time it is now to rewould the the relationship -- relationship, get back to trying to do whatever is possible to work with the leadership, to not make the same mistakes. there they're an important partner for us, they will be increasingly so because they will face more internal dissent and violence. are an essential partner in siani. but we ahope that they will pay more attention to fixing their economy. giving the egyptian people more opportunities. extend literacy particularly among women. a lot of the work that needs to done if they're going to create a more stable society going forward. i think again it's not easy

in there's a lot of problems the u.s. trying to help, but we can.to do what we >> in your book in march choices, you peculiar benjamin an yeah you had a complicated man, and i wonder we are right how vis-a-vis the israel and the u.s., how much of it in your opinion due to national netanyahu and how much would be different if the president of israel and the statesnt of the united would get abeen better. also in your book you go boo detail about the days after the 2008 election. and i know you said you don't answer hypothetical and

theoretical. would you be so kind as to share with us what's in the pro column what's in the con column regarding your presidential run. the'll be happy to answer first question. ( laughter ) think about the last few years. and the rapidity of change in the region. and everything that all of us were dealing with. believe that the relationship between the united andes and israel is sold i, will remain sold i, and it will be part of our foreign policy and our domestic concerns, our values, our ideals, you know, forever. mean we have to agree on everything. that doesn't mean that not only but people in our country who care deeply about israel, just like israelis who deeply about the united

states are going to agree with us on everything we do and we on they do.g aat to me is the mark of mature relationship. friendship.biding so are there so are there differences between leaders? absolutely. i think it would be foolish to try to pretend otherwise. but i think what is important is the continuing institutional support that the united states will continue to give israel regardless of lead heship. securityary and support. and i think a lot of the -- you know, the reports of attitudes and the like -- maybe it is because we live in an instantaneous world, where everybody has an opinion, and everybody can say it.

you know, i have dealt with a lot of different leaders. obviously, i have seen my husband deal with a lot of different leaders, israeli leaders as well as others, and at times, there are going to be differences, and i do not think it is personal. i think it is a different perspective about -- sometimes what we think is best for our friends may not be what our friends think is best for them, and when we say that, i don't believe that is disrespectful or rupturing the relationship. i think that is an honest relation ship. that is the kind of friends i want. people that will say that to me and i want to be able to say it back. i think that is a broader and more accurate way to look at the relationship right now. >> we have time for two more questions. so one, martin?

ever >> madame secretary, thank you very much for gracing us with your presence and share your wisdom with us again this year. you referred to the anxiety of the gulf arab about iran and certainly been heightened hayes lately by the surroundedthey are by iran abouts dominance in beirut and damascus anding about now in yemen. given the negotiations with iran and their anxiety about that, as well, and as you said, sharing the anxiety with israel, is it time for you to resurrect that idea that i think you had six years ago in the presidential campaign of some sort of security arrangement that would provide them with an umbrella, both conventional and nuclear, it would give them some greater

sense of reassurance in this for all ofs time them? >> well, martin, i think it is one of the reasons i wanted to form the gulf cooperation council, to begin a much more regular, in-depth discussion about security issues, because, you are right, i did call for what i think i said a security this would include the gulf states. obviously it would require them to have a nonaggression pact toward israel if they were to be part of the security umbrella. and we -- during time i was there, we explored a lot of different approaches. we never formally offered such a potential package, but we looked at how we could try to create a more effective security

environment, and it takes a lot of time and effort, and it needs to be a priority, because, for example, without naming names, where you place certain radar is dependent on geography, but countries want it to be dependent on their interests and needs, so as i said, but if you look at this map, the radar should be here, and they say, no, we want it here, and you say, but that does not help us do what we are trying to do, so it is a lot of work, and it would go back to the ambassador's question and your question. there is no substitute for consistent diplomacy in the face of persistent problems. and on the security umbrella, i think it is an idea in whatever form it could take worth being resurrected because of what you described. if you look at the circle around

the gulf, there are more iranian outposts now than there were, and a lot of that is because the countries themselves, take yemen, take those in the north -- the countries themselves cannot figure out how to defend themselves, and we have tried. we continue to offer aid and assistance there. the lebanese situation is so destabilized with hundreds of thousands of refugees, with hezbollah being basically part of assad's army against the rebels and the inability of various parts of the lebanese leadership to have a united front to protect their own country. i mean, we cannot do that for them, nor can anybody else, so a lot of this is weakness that

iran takes advantage of. and, you know, in this world, you can be mad at somebody taking advantage of you, but at the end of the day, that is your fault. that you haven't figured out how and how toouself protet yourself and how to tend howexternal interests and to treat your on people in a way that they will not look outside borders. hasthat is part of of what been going on, as you know. beenhe iranians have incredibly focused on exploiting any opening. and i think that we have to do what we can to try to bolster a sense of security that the gulf has going forward in order to deal with the constellation of threats that iran poses. >> thank you.

thank you, madam secretary, for your insight and wisdom. one of the good news of the last two months is oil going to $70 per barrel, maybe below. this affects the whole international system. concern in some quarters in iran, in russia. how do you see the international community dealing with the drop in oil price, and is it idea ofg the or someing to pacific other issues that move people asia that you are part idea in the beginning of the obama administration? thank you. >> well, you're absolutely right that the increase in supply on

the international market and the decrease in price has the potential to dramatically reshape strategic and economic relationships. i believe that we don't yet know, however, how this will play out. it appears that the drop in oil prices is having an increasing effect of pressure in iran, which may, on the margins, at least, give us more of an opportunity to get to the kind of deal i was talking about. we certainly believe that the decrease in price is having an impact inside russia and on the decisions that putin will have to make. and with the increase in production in the united states, predominantly a good news story.

however, the cost of extracting oil and gas in the united states is more expensive than it is getting it out of the ground in saudi arabia and other producers. so some think that our good drivingin the gulf are down and keeping the price down in order to begin the process of production in the united states so that they don't have the u.s. surpassing levels in the gulf and they do not have the u.s. able to use oil and gas to a great extent as a tool of our diplomacy in our engagement. it is too soon to tell, but it is a factor that we have to constantly be watching. now, having a low price and so much production does help us in this way. china, and india, in particular,

other countries as well were antsier with the against iran some months ago than they are right now because there is enough supply at the price that the saudis forced opec to accept and lower.go even we have to be smart about this. one of the areas that i emphasized in my time at the state department was energy diplomacy, and i want to thank the former senator dick lugar. he was really the driver behind talking to me as i is preparing tobecome secretary of state try to co and lesce the energy in one place with much more attention and resources behind it and we did so. and it makes a big difference,

because we have to see energy not just as a commodity, not just as affecting the economy, but as a tool in our diplomatic arsenal. too soon to tell. it is having a big inect on our hemisphere venezuela. they are having a lot of internal stress. there are going to be many moves in the next year if the price stays down and it has the impact externally and internally that it is predicted to have. >> thank you very much for your insightful comments and inspiring words, and i will see you next year on that stage, i hope. [applause] thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] on the next "washington journal" karen friedman talks about 2015

federal spending and how to could affect workers and retirees and former attorney alberto gonzalez on the c.i.a. response to the report on techniques,gation his approach and immigration government spending. plus your calls, facebook comments and tweets all on "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. director john. brennan. then 2015 federal spending. first, senator elizabeth what the debate from the house floor. by spending bill was passed the house last night and now heads to the senate. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] today a discussion about government, public and private faceillance including recognition software and

stringray devices that locate suspects using cell phone signals. we will join the day long forum at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> here are some of the grooms weekend onnd this the c-span network. theies about being on campaign trail with senator mcconnell. on c-span2, political fundraiser money andrk lewis on politics and how to has grown and changed. senior correspondent for "the daily beast" shane harris cyber military use of space to wage war. tv,on american his to arery a panel including washington keen opinion editor david careerronald reagan's

honed communication skills. gannon, former aid to president nixon shows clips of his 1983 interview about vietnam, watergate and his resignation. schedule atplete c-span.org. at 202-626-3400. @mail us at comments c-span.org. join the conversation. us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> the director of of the john brennan held ana press conference saying some personnel used enhanced interrogation techniques. he also added the agency did a lot of things right. the director's remarks are 45 minutes.

>> it was 8:46 a.m. on the morning of september 11, 2001 when the north tower of the world trade center in new york was struck by an aircraft commandeered by al queda terrorists. 17 minutes later, the clear blue skies over manhattan were pierced again by another hijacked aircraft, this one tearing into the adjacent south tower. at 9:37, the pentagon, the proud symbol and heart of the nation's military, suffered a similar attack. at 10:03, a fourth plane shattered the serene landscape

of shanksville, pennsylvania, as its passengers refused to allow al qaeda to use one more plane as a missile to strike our homeland. in the short span of 77 minutes, four terrorist attacks would forever change the history of our country. they would rob us of nearly 3,000 lives. it would ultimately cost us trillions of dollars. and they would plunge us into a seemingly never ending war against a globally dispersed collection of terrorists with a murderous agenda. as deputy executive director of c.i.a. on the morning of 9/11, i knew what it was like to belong to an agency that had been ringing the bell about al qaeda's plans to attack. all of us at cia were devastated that operatives were able to carry out such horrific acts in and on american soil. while i remember walking the halls of cia that day to ensure that as many agency officers as possible had left the building

as our headquarters here in langley, virginia was reported on the target list, i also remember that the men and women in our counterterrorism center stayed at their posts despite the danger. they worked through that day and that night and the following days and nights to piece together the clues as to what plans were underway to carry out yet more attacks. their cia brothers and sisters dispursed around the globe, many in dangerous environments, did the same thing. only 15 days after 9/11 on september 26, it was cia that put the first american boots on the ground in afghanistan. less than two months after arriving, the united states suffered its first casualty in afghanistan when a 32-year-old cia officer named mike span was killed in action on november 25. since mike's death, 20 other cia

officers have lost their lives around the world at the hands of terrorists. the events of 9/11 will be forever seared into the memory of americans. not only were our consciences shocked and our hearts and souls ripped open, so, too, our collective national sense of homeland security was shattered, much like the steel, concrete, flesh, bone and lives during those fateful 77 minutes. in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, our nation ached, it cried, and it prayed. in our pain, we pledged to come

together as one and to do what we could to prevent bin laden and his killing machine from ever carrying out another attack against our beautiful country. never again, we vowed, never again. al qaeda had other ideas, as well as additional operatives and more plans to strike us again and again. with a globally distributed network that had concealed itself in many countries over many continents, al qaeda was poised, ready and prepared to pursue its violent agenda. our government and our citizens recognized the urgency of the task to find and stop al qaeda before it could shed the blood of more innocent men, women and children, be it in america or be it in any other corner of the world. and as has been the case throughout its then 54-year history, the cia was looked to for answers, not only to the questions on the threats we faced but also to questions about what we were going to do to stop future attacks. the wick ofsion in the 9/11 attacks would be a

multidimensional one. stopping al qaeda would require the cia to work closely with its intelligence community, military, homeland security and law enforcement partners. as well as with numerous intelligence and security services around the globe. to be successful, cia officers knew that they needed speed, agility, courage, resources, and most important, intelligence. their mission was to acquire through human and technical operations and then to analyze with deep expertise whatever bits and pieces of information might help fill out the menacing yet incomplete puzzle of al qaeda's terrorist plans. indeed, there were numerous credible and very worrisome reports about a second and third wave of major attacks against the united states. and while we grieved, while we honored our dead, while we tended to our injured and while we embarked on the long process of recovery, we feared more blows from an enemy we couldn't see and an evil we couldn't

fathom. this is the backdrop against which the agency was directed by president bush to carry out a program to detain terrorist suspects around the world. in many respects, the program was uncharted territory for the cia and we were not prepared. we had little experience housing detainees and precious few of our officers were trained interrogators. but the president authorized the effort six days after 9/11 and it was our job to carry it out. over time, enhanced interrogation techniques, e.i.t.'s, which the department of justice determined at the time to be lawful and duly authorized by the bush administration were introduced as a method of interrogation. as concerns about al qaeda's terrorist plans endured a variety of these techniques were employed by cia officers on several dozen detainees over the

course of five years before they ended in december of 2007. the legal advice under which they were authorized subsequently has been revoked. when the president came into office in january, 2009, he took the position that these techniques were contrary to our values and he unequivocally banned their use. he has consistently expressed the view that these techniques did significant damage to america's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners. something i have experienced firsthand. but as the president stated this week, the previous administration faced agonizing choices about how to pursue al qaeda and prevent additional terrorist attacks against our country. while facing fears of further attacks and carrying out the responsibility to prevent more catastrophic loss of life.

there were no easy answers. and whatever your views are on e.i.t.'s, our nation and in particular this agency did a lot of things right during this difficult time to keep this country strong and secure. the same year the techniques were banned by the president, the senate select committee on intelligence, the ssci, initiated an in-depth review of the detention and interrogation program. the cia's implementation of the detention and interrogation program is a very legitimate oversight issue. and we gave the committee our full support, providing an unprecedented amount of sensitive cia documents to the committee and devoting considerable resources to help it with its review. our hope was that it would offer an impartial and authoritative assessment of the program, help us learn from our mistakes, and inform how we conduct sensitive activities in the future.

unfortunately, the committee could not agree on a bipartisan way forward and no cia personnel were interviewed by the committee during the course of the investigation. this was unusual. in the vast majority of cases, sscis, congressional reports have been the result of collaborative bipartisan investigations. over the course of my career, i have seen the value of the committee's reviews. even on politically sensitive matters such as the ssci's investigation into the interrogation failures regarding weapons of mass destruction in iraq, the committee succeeded in producing a report that was supported unanimously. in that case, the committee reviewed tens of thousands of documents and conducted interviews with more than 200 officers from the interrogation intelligence community. some of whom were interviewed up times.

this week, the senate select committee on intelligence released the executive summary, findings and conclusions of its study of the agency's former detention and interrogation program. vice chairman chambliss joined by five other senators also released the minority views. the authors clearly worked very hard to produce a report of this magnitude. over several years, they sorted through over a million documents provided by the cia and their commitment to the task is obvious. although we view the process undertaken by the committee when investigating the program as flawed, many aspects of their conclusions are sound and consistent with our own prior findings. over the years, internal agency reviews including numerous investigations by our office of the inspector general found fault in cia's running of the program. we have acknowledged many of these mistakes in our response to the study last year and i will touch on some of them today. acknowledging our mistakes and absorbing the lessons of the

past is fundamental to our ability to succeed in our mission and is one of the great strengths of this organization. even today, we know there are further organizational improvements to be made as a result of our review of the study and we are pursuing them. as i have already noted, the cia was unprepared to conduct a detention and interrogation program and our officers inadequately developed and monitored its initial activities. the agency failed to establish quickly the operational guidelines needed to govern the entire effort. in a limited number of cases, agency officers used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent, and rightly should be repudiated by all. and we fell short when it came to holding some officers accountable for their mistakes. it is vitally important to

recognize, however, that the overwhelming majority of officers involved in the program at cia carried out their responsibilities faithfully and in accordance with the legal and policy guidance they were provided. they did what they were asked to do in the service of our nation. in fact, some of these officers raised objections and concerns with the program and with its implementation which is crucial to ensuring that the system works as it should and that we are able to adjust as needed. but the cia officers' actions that did comport with the law and policy should neither be criticized nor conflated with the actions of the few who did not follow the guidance issued. at the same time, none of these lapses should be excused downplayed or denied. in some instances we simply failed to live up to the standards that we set for ourselves. that the american people expect of us.

to address the concerns identified, the cia has implemented a number of reforms in an effort to make sure those mistakes never happen again. for example, as a result of our own investigations, and our review of the committee's report, cia has taken steps to broaden the scope of our accountability reviews. strengthen the planning, management, oversight and evaluation of our covert action programs, systematically reexamine the legal opinions underlying our sensitive programs and improve our recordkeeping for interactions with the congress. we are also carefully observing the new statutory requirement to provide our oversight committees with notice of any significant legal interpretation of the constitution or other u.s. law affecting intelligence activities conducted by the cia. as to the issues on which we part ways with the committee, i have already stated that our reviews indicate that the detention and interrogation program produced useful

interrogation that helped the united states thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives. but let me be clear. we have not concluded that it was the use of eits within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them. the cause and effect relationship between the use of eits and useful information subsequently provided by the detainee is in my view unknowable. irrespective of the role eits might play in a detainee's provision of useful information, i believe effective noncoercive methods are available to elicit such information. methods that do not have a counterproductive impact on our national security and on our international standing. it is for these reasons that i fully support the president's decision to prohibit the use of

eits. another key point with which we take issue is the study's characterization of how cia briefed the program to the congress, the media and within the executive branch. including at the white house. the record simply does not support the study's inference that the agency repeatedly systematically and intentionally misled others on the effectiveness of the program. to be clear, there were instances where representations that the program about the program that were used or approved by agency officers were inaccurate, imprecise, or fell short of our trade craft standards. we have acknowledged such mistakes. and i have been firm in declaring that they were unacceptable for an agency whose reputation and value to the policy maker rests upon the rescission of the language it uses every day in intelligence reporting and analysis. primarily, however, the study's

contention that we repeatedly and intentionally misled the public and the rest of the u.s. government rests on the committee's view that deans subjected to eits did not produce useful intelligence, a point on which we still fundamentally disagree. now, there should be sufficient trust and credibility between our institutions, enabling us to disagree at times but also to come together and listen to each other's perspectives. our partnership with congress is crucial. in my view, there is no more important oversight relationship than the cia relationship with its intelligence committees. particularly because we do so much of our work in secret, the congress serves as a critical check on our activities closely monitoring the agency's reporting and programs when the public cannot.

one of the most frustrating aspects of the study is that it conveys a broader view of the cia and its officers as untrustworthy. that the institution and the workforce where is willing to forego their integrity in order to preserve a program they were were invested in and supposedly believed to be right. this in no way comports with my experience in the cia. while the agency has traditional bias for action and a determined focus on achieving our mission, we take exceptional pride in providing truth to power. whether that power likes or agrees with what we believe and what we say or not. and regardless of whether that power is affiliated with any particular political party. and as long as i am director, i will continue to defend and fight for these ideals as cia's legitimacy is closely tied to its credibility and we can afford to lose neither. we know we have room to improve and i am committed to addressing the issues identified by the committee that remain a concern. in light of the fact that these techniques were abandoned seven

years ago, however, my fervent hope is that we can put aside this debate and move forward to focus on issues relevant to our current national security challenges. in doing so, this agency will only grow stronger and it is my hope that we can do so under the oversight of the committee and the collaborative and constructive manner that the american people expect of us. i pledge to do my part to facilitate such relationship as we move forward to address the many challenging national security issues we face. i first joined cia in 1980. over the course of my career, i have come to experience and appreciate the cias many national security accomplishments. most cia successes will never be known as we are an intelligence service that carries out its mission without fanfare and without seeking praise. and i have come to admire and

greatly the women and men who come from all over the united states to make up the cia's workforce. they are among the best and brightest our nation has to offer. over the last several days, we here at cia have been touched by the outpouring of support, price, and gratitude our colleagues in government have expressed regarding the work of this agency. these expressions from kindness and support have truly been inspiring. as the president said in his own statement, as americans, we owe a profound debt of gratitude to our fellow citizens who serve to keep us safe. the memorial wall at the cia honor those who is have given their lives to protect ours. our lives as professionals, our patriots, and we are safer because of their heroic service and sacrifices. these stars are a testament to our history and our spirit and a

consistent reminder of the women and men who make sacrifices daily so that they can help keep their fellow americans safe and our country strong. and now i'll be glad to address any questions you might have. >> "the wall street journal." two-part questions and thank you very much for taking questions. the first is did you support the public release of the senate report? and the second is, just if you the could clarify your stance on the eits a little bit. if i recall, the agency's argument for their use was that they were necessary to obtain information that couldn't be obtained another way that would save lives. i'm wondering if that's something that you agree with, that that's what they did or what they were for.

>> first of all, thank you for your service and for the state as you head off to do something else. >> thank you >> i made my views known about this report, its contents as well as its disposition throughout the course of this process. and i participated in the discussions that were held on it. and as you can well imagine, the council that i give to the dni, the white house is something something that i take very seriously but also it is something that i keep to myself. so they knew my views. i continue to express them. >> you can't share them with us transparency? >> i think there's more than enough transparency that's happened over the last couple days. i think it's over the top. as far as eits, i think there is, as i said in my remarks, there is no way if some -- to

information that was obtained from an individual who had been subjected at some point during his confinement could have been obtained through other means. it's an unknowable fact. so i think what the agency's point has been consistently and what certainly my view is after having reviewed the documents is that there was useful intelligence, very useful valuable intelligence that was obtained from individuals who had been at some point subjected to eits. whether that could have been obtained without the use of those eits is something again that is unknowable. i think as others have said recently with the president missed the point that what i think going forward we want to do is to make sure that we're able to do what is necessary to protect this country and we have a very robust counter-terrorism program underway right now. we're working with our partners abroad to make sure we're able to obtain this information from individuals who are captured and that we are able to gain some access to.

thank you. >> thanks, ken delaney from the associated press. director brennan, do you agree with president obama's statement that the cia in common parlance tortured detainees? and then secondly, senator udall gave an impassioned speech on the senate floor yesterday about something called the panetta review which problems the cia is continuing to lie about this program. he said that's a document prepared by cia insiders. i know you disagree with his characterization. why not release the panetta review so we can be the judge of that? >> first of all, i agree that there were times when cia officers exceeded the policy guidance that was given and the authorized techniques that were approved and determined to be lawful. they went outside of the bounds

and terms of their actions that -- as part of that interrogation process. and they were harsh. as i said, in some instances, i considered them abhorrent and i will leave to others how they might want to label those activities. but for me, it was something that is certainly regrettable but we are not a perfect institution. we're made up of individuals and as human beings, we are imperfect beings. but as i think we have acknowledged over the years, we have brought those mistakes, shortcomings and excesses to the attention of the appropriate authorities whether it be to our inspector general, the department of justice and others. the department looked at this for many years and decided there was no prosecutable crimes there. as far as the so-called panetta review, i believe this is in reference to an internal document created here at the agency.

when in the interests of trying to fulfill our responsibility to the oversight committee, leon panetta had authorized the release of, as i mentioned, over release of, as i mentioned, over 1 million documents to the committee and so he also asked at that time that there be an inventory pulled together of exactly what documents were provide. this was an internal document that was never completed and it's one that i believe is an internal deliberative document and therefore, something that was not subject to the committee's oversight. in addition, it was outside of the scope of the period of time that was covered by the agreement that was worked between senator feinstein and leon panetta about the documents that would be provided to the committee. it was subsequent to that. >> reuters.

>> you say in the first page of your statement that you were deputy executive director of the agency on 9/11. tell us a bit about your involvement in that role and perhaps subsequent roles in this program. i mean as deputy executive director, presumably you had some role in managing or arranging parts of the program. what did you actually do in relation to this program and did you ever at any point express reservations about the way it was being carried out while it was going on? >> as deputy director, i was the equivalent of the deputy chief operating officer to make sure all the different support systems and services here at the agency were providing the support to the mission elements and so after 9/11, i worked with others to make sure that our officers, whether they be overseas or here, had what they needed to get their job done. in that position i was aware of the detention interrogation program.

i had some visibility into some activities that were there. i was not in the chain of command. i did not have the authority of that implementation program for the management oversight of it. >> thanks doing this. npr. i wonder if you could clarify. you say here we have not concluded there was use of eits within the program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them and then you say on the following page the committee's view that detainees subjected to eits did not produce useful intelligence a point on which we disagree. did the eits lead to useful intelligence or did they not? you said it's unknowable. which is it? >> what i said was that detainees who were subjected to eits at some point during their confinement subsequently provided information that our

experts found to be useful and valuable in our counterterrorism efforts. and the causen and effect relationship between the application of those eits and the ultimate provision of information is unknown and unknowable. but for someone to say that there was no intelligence of value, of use that came from those detainees once they were subjected to eits, i think that is -- lacks any foundation at all. >> let me follow up on that. what seems to be an inherent conflict. the agency's position and its defenders has been that in particular one of its signal successes, the take-down of osama bin laden, could be attributed to the use of what the president and others have

called torture, what you prefer to call enhanced interrogation techniques. do you think the bin laden case can be attributed in some part to enhanced interrogation techniques or torture? and you've acknowledged in your own experience that what the president described as difficulties in relationships with allies has resulted from this chapter in american history. can you expand on that how you have experienced difficulties as a result of what has been disclosed. and finally, if there is some unknowable value to these techniques -- to waterboarding, near drowning, slamming people against the wall, hanging them in stress positions, confining them in small boxes or coffins, threatening them with drills, waving guns around their head as

they are blindfolded, what or which of these techniques could be used if as the director of central intelligence you and another president or this president were faced with an imminent threat? could there be another covert finding as rulings and advice from the attorney general that would lead you and your successors to say we should do this because there could be some value to prevent an attack on america? >> first question on bin laden. it is our considered view that the detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided information that was useful and was used in the ultimate operation to go against bin laden. again, intelligence information from the individuals who were subjected to eit's provided information that was used in that.

again, i am not going to attribute that to the use of the eit's. i'm just going to state as a matter of fact the information that they provided was used. as far as the relationships with others that sometimes are complicated, i think we see in the international press right now, there is a lot of scrutiny being paid to what different partners did during that period of time. and i think there's a lot of hyperbole that is now fueling the discussion, the debate, and also then is harmful to continuing our intelligence cooperation because there is a lot of exaggeration, misrepresentation of the facts, and therefore, i think certain agendas are being pursued so i certainly wish that this would not be happening. and then finally as far as what

happens if in the future there is some type of challenge that we face here, the army field manual is the established basis to use for interrogations. we, cia, are not in the detention program. we are not contemplating at all getting back into the detention program using any of those eit's. so i defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis. >> actually, sorry. cnn. >> one thing about your answer, sir, was the useful information on bin laden before the torture or the waterboarding was used? >> there was information obtained subsequent to the application of eit's from detainees that was useful in the bin laden operation. >> cnn.

>> mr. director, right now your agency is involved in overseeing the drone program. we know from the government's own statements you know, that there have been some civilians, innocent civilians killed alongside terrorists. i'm wondering if you feel that there's enough control over those programs and that we're not going to be here in a few years with another director having to answer these same questions about the loss of trust from the public, from policymakers. >> i'm not going to talk about any type of operational activity that this agency is involved in currently. i'm just not going to do it. i will tell you during my tenure at the white house as the president's assistant for counterterrorism that the use of these unmanned aerial vehicles that you referred to as drones in the counter-terrorism effort has done tremendous work to keep this country safe. the ability to use these

platforms and advanced technologies, it has advanced the counter-terrorism mission and the u.s. military has done some wonderful things with these platforms. and in terms of precision of effort, accuracy, and making sure that this country, this country's military does everything possible to minimize to the great extent possible the loss of life of noncombatants i think does a lot for this country and this white house and the military to be proud of. >> director brennan, katherine harris, fox news. thank you for taking my question. have you heard from our allies overseas since the report was released, the impact on these relationships, has it reinforced the view that the united states government cannot keep a secret? what has the impact been on

morale here at the agency? and in 2005, interrogation video tapes were destroyed. was that the right thing to do? >> i have spoken to many of my foreign counterparts over the past week to allow them opportunity to prepare for the release of this document in the event that there was going to be any implications for them. as a result of either information that was contained in this document and then could be correlated with other information that is out there and which leads to speculation about what their countries, their governments, their services might have done. and so yes, i've spoken to many of them and there was strong concern. there are things that we do with our partner services under our authorities that -- and we have covert action authorities and covert is something that they were hoping that was going to remain such. but what i've told them is that it's important for our partnership to move forward and to strengthen in the years ahead because of the nature of the national security challenges we

face. so i am interested in making sure we're able to do that. as far as morale here at the agency, this is a tremendous workforce, as i said. i had a session with the agency workforce yesterday and i talked about the importance of the mission and of the cia's mission is as important today as it was before this report came out and it's going to be even more important tomorrow. one of the great things about this workforce is it's able to focus on what it is they're asked to do. the cia officers are operating in some very, very dangerous places and doing this on behalf of fellow americans. so there is some concern and disappointment about what has happened. there certainly is concern about the misrepresentations that they think are circulating now out in the public. but they are determined to make sure that they're able to do what they need to do. what was the third one? >> i'm sorry.

of thediscussion [inaudible question]. >> i think that has been looked at quite a bit over the years and people take actions at the time when the what they believe is the right thing to do. i'm going to leave it at that. >> martha raddatz, abc news. thanks for taking the questions today, sir. you say it's unknowable be whether eit's in fact led to useful information or it was just detainees who were subjected to that. was this a question that was asked at the time? this went on for five years. or were senior officials told, you couldn't get any information except through the eit's that was so valuable? and also, my second question, to you, back to thinking about those methods of interrogation that we all read about in the report.

you say some are abhorrent. can you tell me when, to you, the officers or interrogators crossed the line? >> on your first question, which is a good one, what was the nature of the discussion and how did people decide to continue to go forward with these eit's. do they feel as though that was the only way they were able to obtain information. those are good questions. and i wish the committee took the opportunity to ask cia officers involved in the program at the time, what were you thinking. what did you consider? what was the calculus that you used as far as going forward on it. i think as you can well understand, everything that cia officers did and said at the time was not memorialized in a document. there were a lot of discussions going on. i know when i have various discussions and meetings here, i don't run back and do a memo for the record. i would just be doing nothing but memos all day. as a review of all the documents provided by the agency, it loses

-- you lose the opportunity to really understand what was taking place at the time. it loses that context and again, i think it's lamentable that the committee did not avail itself of the opportunity to be able to interact with cia personnel. >> do you think it was -- [inaudible question ] >> i look back at the record and i see that this was a workforce that was trying to do the right thing. i cannot say with certainty whether or not individuals acted with complete honesty. when i look at what went on at the time, there are clearly the questions about why certain techniques were used. and to your question about which of those do i consider beyond that, i think anything that went outside the bounds of those enhanced interrogation techniques. this agency went back and forth with justice, with the white

house to make sure that there was clear understanding of what were going to be the approved enhanced interrogation techniques and how they should be applied. we were not prepared and the individuals that were given the responsibility to carry out this work early on were ones that were trying to do their best. and i think at times came up short. >> cbs. >> mr. director, bob orr from cbs. thanks for taking the question. you talked about your workforce. you have men and women in the field now confronting threats in a number of places and you're asking them to do difficult things. what have you told them about how you will cover their back in the event that down the road, another committee looks at their actions today and judges them out of bounds? and do you think moreover, you have the full support of your workforce? >> so this workforce continues to be focused on mission and i think the leadership team here has gotten together and has engaged with the workforce to make sure that they feel

genuinely that they have the support of their leadership as well as their government. and i am determined to make sure that i continue to give them the support that they need and deserve. so this is going to be a chapter in our history. it's one they're going to work through, and i am determined to make sure that as we go forward with the committee that there is a better understanding on what exactly it is that we do. i think we keep the committee very fully informed about our activities right now, and one of the things i want to make sure is on the sensitive programs that we're involved in, that it's not just cia's leadership that has their back. it's the policymakers that approve these sensitive programs. it is the committees that oversee them and are briefed on them. and that's why we are determined to make sure that they have the visibility that they need so our officers feel they have the support in the future, irrespective of changes that

might take place in the congress or in the white house. >> mr. director, thank you. the report said it found evidence that suggested that waterboarding was used on more than the three individuals that the agency has identified as undergoing waterboarding. can you categorically say that those were the only three people who were waterboarded or is it possible that more were? thank you. >> one of the things i've learned in life i guess is to avoid being categorical. what i will say based on everything that i've seen, what i've read, it indicates that there were three individuals that were subjected to that. and i can only tell you what i am aware of, what i have read, and the data i have observed. and so, i will stand by that at this time. let's do just a couple more. >> what's the last question?

>> dan delewis, france press. just wanted to ask first if the agency has changed its view of the efficacy of torture or eits because in 1989, apparently there was a report or a correspondence with congress that indicated that the agency believed those techniques were not effective. and then also, your own wording. i was interested if you still stood by it, what you said in 2009. you said that these techniques are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists and increase the determination of our enemies and decrease the willingness of other nations to cooperate with us. in short, they undermine our national security. would you maybe have a different view now? >> i stand by my comments from previously.

when i was at the white house, i spoke out on these issues. and it was at the time when and it was a time when there was a fair amount of propaganda as related to guantanamo as well as other issues. and so these are things that i think we as professionals in the national security environment tried to take into account. and so this is a feature i think of our past. and one that we have to come to terms with. and deal with. and this agency is determined to move forward. the first part of the question. >> involved with congress in 1996. >> oh, yes. you know, the one thing about -- whether it's the intelligence business or national security or something, you can always find something that you can pull out and say, the agency said this. or judged this or this was the

conclusion at that time. now it's going to be different. a lot of times there are differences of views. it was one of the things that the wmd commission encouraged there to be, a diversity of views within the intelligence community so there wouldn't be single group think. there have been a lot of studies done over the years about the value of different types of interrogation methods and whether or not coercive methods can lead to useful information that couldn't otherwise be obtained. i tend to believe that the use of coercive methods has a strong prospect for resulting in false information. because if somebody is being subjected to a course of techniques, they may say something to have those techniques stopped. and i think this agency has said that individuals who are subjected to those techniques here provided useful information

as well as false information. and as our experts tried to pore through a lot of data and information, that job is made more challenging as you get more false information. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> carl levin released new information today that he says is evidence the bush administration misled the u.s.. his remarks coming up in a few minutes. ask for consent to place into the record a statement of mine relevant to a cable sent to cia headquarters. letter to me from c.i.a. director brennan relative to that cable. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: madam president, very briefly, what i am asking and doing in this statement, which is now in the record, i'm