Transcripts For CSPAN3 CIA General Counsel Nominee Vows Independence At Confirmation Hearing 20170426

Today, miss courtney ellwood, the president s nominee to be the next general counsel of the Central Intelligence agency. Courtney, congratulations on your nomination. Id like to recognize your husband john. John, wave your hand there. Thank you. Whos in attendance today and i thank you for the support you give to courtney. Courtney, you served the country with distinction in your Previous Post at the white house in the department of justice and we appreciate your continuing willingness to serve. Our goal in conducting the hearing to enable the committee to consider miss ellwoods qualifications and allow for thoughtful determination by our members. Shes already provided answers to 90 questions presented by the committee and its members. Today, of course, members will be able to ask additional questions and hear from miss ellwood in the open session. Courtney comes before the committee with a distinguished legal career. After graduating Yale Law School in 1994, courtney clerked for the u. S. District court of appeals for the fourth circuit, after which she went to clerk for chief Justice William rehnquist of the Supreme Court. Courtney then took a job as an associate at kellogg, hubert, hanson and the same firm where she is now a partner. In january 2001, she left the firm as associate counsel to the president. Rising to the ranks of deputy counsel to the Vice President. And then deputy chief of staff and counsel could to the attorney general. During the extremely difficult times in days and weeks after 9 11, miss ellwood provided sound Legal Counsel to our nations leaders as they considered what tools the Intelligence Community needed to combat terrorism and secure our nation. Miss ellwood, youve been asked to serve as the chief league operative of the Central Intelligence agency at a time when the agency and the Intelligence Community as a whole faces complex legal questions, and a host of challenging priorities. The cias general counsel must provide sound and timely legal advice to the director. And must manage an office responsible for legal oversight and compliance at the worlds premier intelligence agency. More than that the cia general counsel maintains a vital public trust. Part of your job will be to ensure for the American People that above all, the agency operates lawfully, ethically, and morally. Since you left Government Service, the nature and number of challenges and threats the Intelligence Community is tracking have multiplied significantly. While americans continue to engage in robust debate about which intelligence authorities are right, appropriate and lawful. I expect you to ensure that the agency operates within the bounds of the law. And to ensure that the office of general counsels position to provide the best legal advice possible to director pompeo and to the agency as a whole. This committee has received letters of support from your current and former colleagues. And a letter of support signed by those who have served in both democrat and republican administrations. Your former colleagues praised your acumen, integrity and judgment. And i quote, deep respect for the rule of law. Jack goldsmith, a professor at the Harvard Law School who has known you since you were a law student at yale, referred to you as a superb, independent minded lawyer. A letter from the d. C. Bar Association Committee on National Security policy and practices highlighted your deepseated commitment to the rule of law and to our democratic principles. And your colleague ben powell former counsel to the dni had this to say. Shes simply one of the finest lawyers and persons ive ever worked with in my career. After meeting you, its easy to see how you garnered such widespread consistent accolades. I know that your strong moral compass and sharp legal mind will serve you well as the general counsel of the Central Intelligence agency. As i mentioned director pompeo in his nomination hearing, i can assure you that this continue will continue to faithfully follow its charter and conduct vigorous and realtime oversight over the Intelligence Community, its operations and its activities. Well ask difficult questions. Probing questions of you and your staff. And we expect honest, complete and more importantly timely responses. I look forward to supporting your nomination. And ensuring its consideration without delay. Thank you again for being here. And for your service to the country. I look forward to your testimony. I now recognize the vice chairman for any Opening Statements he might make. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome, miss ellwood. Again, congratulations on your nomination to serve as general counsel to the cia. I see john as well. Although i do have to question to legal degree your function by bringing in my colleague tim kaine as an introducing factor. Obviously, this is a tremendous responsibility. One requires a careful review of the qualifications and character of the individual nominee. And i echo a lot of the comments that the chairman has made. If confirmed youll be sitting at a critical intersection between intelligence and policy making. As the cias top legal officer, the direct letter turn to you to make judgments on whether a contemplated activity is legal or not. This job requires a leader with unimpeachable integrity and unwavering commitment to the constitution and laws of the United States who will apply sound legal intelligence and a task to the agency. During a chance that we had a chance to visit you and ial agreed that politics has no place in the cia general counsel office. We discussed the need to follow the law, including the army field name to ensure that torture does not tarnish the reputation of the Intelligence Community or this country again. Miss ellwood, during my questions ill again want your public assurance that youll always seek to provide unbiased ungarnished and timely Legal Counsel to director of the cia, even when doing so might be inconvenience or uncomfortable. Obviously, there will be a number of challenges that will require that kind of legal judgment going forward. Those challenges will include making sure we continue to protect the privacy and Civil Liberties of americans. The increasing use and relevance of vast amounts of Public Information creates a significant challenge and opportunity for the whole cia and the whole ic. Weve got to always make sure that we are protecting the privacy and civil lints of United States citizens, as we take on these new tools moving forward. An issue that i know has a number of us on the committee very concerned about. And i think will come back again as inscriptioencryptioiencrypti. Intelligence needs to find way to access needs of our adversaries while protecting privacies and american personal ingenui ingenuity. I believe we cannot tie the hands of our leaders by unilaterally tying them. The rapid change of Information Technology enables significant sharing of classified information and we must find work to find ways to have the appropriate level of sharing. And finally a subject thats been to a lot of the attention of the committee recently. Chairman burr and i have agreed to conduct a review Intelligence Communitys assessment. That russia, at the direction of president Vladimir Putin sought to influence the 2016 u. S. President ial election. Its important that all americans to an extent fully understand the extent of russias involvement. It is vital that the cia pursuant to your legal guidance support our investigation to the maximum extent possible. And allow this committee to follow the facts wherever they may lead. This is a charge i know i take seriously. All of the members of the committee take seriously. On behalf of the American People, and we will continue to pursue this both thoroughly and expeditiously. I will, again, during my questions ask you to admit to me and all members of the committee, that youll fully cooperate with this review. And that you will do all you can to ensure that weve provided the information weve required to conduct it. With that again, thank you for being here, miss ellwood and i look forward to todays hearing. Theyre mr. Chairman. Thank you. Id like at this time to recognize our colleague the distinguished league from virginia, tim kaine, who will introduce miss ellwood. Senator kaine. Thank you, this is an honor. One of my favorite things to do in the senate is to bring talented virginians to the body who are committed to Public Service and ms. Ellwood is such an individual. Im just going to warn you, doing this in front of my senior senator. And also the only alexandria native in the senate. Senator king from maine makes me feel a little bit nervous. And some of you need to know the nonvirginians need to know that ms. Ellwood lives down the street from senator warner and on that score, mark, will you take your Christmas Lights down that was a joke. Actually, she has trick or treated at senator warners house and the first test of her discretion as an intel professional is not revealing the costumes shes seen over the years. We have deep talented pools of wonderful people who are Public Servants. And Public Servants often dont get the thanks they deserve. And they dont get the appreciation they deserve. But bringing somebody before this committee or others who is willing to serve in a really important position does give me a real sense of pride. I think that people who arrive here, theyre creatures of their experience. And so frequently, that experience begins with an upbringing in Lessons Learned through kids, through parents, teachers, grandparents, counselors and other mentors. And with ms. Ellwood, thats no exception. She had a foundation in family that really laid the groundwork for her Public Service career. Her father the late general edward Edwin Simmons served in world war ii, korea and vietnam in the United States marine. And his legacy continues one of the marines corporate at quantico was named after her dad. Her mother was a Public Servant as well, working in Foreign Service before settling in virginia. Courtney has been a pathbreaker in her career. She was in the first class of a high school that was formed through the merger of two very competitive high schools. And this first class had to create new traditions and bring together folks who had been, at least on the athletic fields, rivals before. And then she went to washington lee for undergrad where she was in the second class of women. And people used to say she must be a feminist because she raised her hand. So shes been willing to be a pathbreaker and has had encouragement from family to do that. When courtney finished she went to Yale Law School. And she worked with our senate colleagues. The younger senators bennett and coons who were at law school at the same time. Shes now worked in the Legal Profession for 20 years. And the chairman went through some of her experience, including Public Service experience, serving as a clerk on the fourth circuit. Serving in the very prestigious position as a clerk on the Supreme Court for chief justice rehnquist. As counsel in the white house. The office of Vice President , the department of justice. And i also know many of courtneys law partners in private practice well. And its a private firm that is filled with people who are public spirited. Democrats and republicans. They appreciate those who are public spirited. And i know courtney has absorbed that lesson from that as well. Courtney, i know will talk about her family, her husband john is here. The two boys 15 and 12 live in alexandria. Theyre in school today. But ill just conclude and say so much of what we do depends upon the talent of the people that we bring into these very difficult positions with courtney ellwood, you have somebody of a sterling professional background but more importantly with a sterling reputation for integrity that is necessary in the cia and general counsel position. Its my honor to present her to the committee. As i said to the chairman i have a bill being marked up in the health committee. Usually my bills actually go better when im not there. But i probably should at least go up to make sure that thats okay. I hope youll excuse me so i can head upstairs. Tim, thank you. Youre excused. And if you would shepherd my bill through as well. Thank you so much. I was hoping wed have a chance to question senator kaine. I would second that. I think id prefer to do that in closed session. Mrs. Ellwood, would you please stand and raise your right hand do you solemnly swear to give this committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god . I do. Please be seated. Courtney before we move to your statement, id like to ask you to answer five questions that the committee poses to each nominee who appears before us. They require just a simple yes or no answer for the record. Do you agree to appear before the committee here or in any other venue when youre invited. Yes, sir. And if confirmed do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the committee and designated staff when invited . Yes, sir. Do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the committee in order for us to carry out our oversight function and legislative responsibilities . Sh, consistent with the law. Will you both ensure that your staff provides materials when requested. Yes, consistent with the law. Do you agree to fully brief to the fullest degree possible all members of this intelligence act tifivities and covert actio with only the chair and vice chair . Again, consistent with the law, yes, sir. Thank you, well proceed with your Opening Statement by which ill recognize members of seniority up to five minutes. Miss ellwood, welcome and the floor is yours. Thank you, chairman burr, vice chairman warner, members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you to be the nominee to be general counsel of the Central Intelligence agency. I want to thank President Trump and director pompeo for their trust and confidence in me. I also want to thank senator kaine for that nice introduction. It was a great privilege and pleasure to meet not just one but both of my home state senators as part of this process. Id like to use this opportunity to tell me a little bit about me and what i view as essential qualifications for a cia general counsel. I come from a National Security family. As senator kaine alluded my father dedicated his life to the Marines Corps and this country, she went 36 years seeing world war ii, korea and vietnam. There is little doubt that good intelligence kept him and his men alive during those years. He would later write about the remarkably good intelligence brought by bold foreign agents during his fight at the chisholm reservoir. When dad returned home from vietnam in 1971, he formed mat Marine Corps History Division which he led for 24 years. He was a prolific author of military histories and he supported the work of many other military historians. He did so because he believed that dlthere were lessons to be learned from the great achievement its and mistakes of u. S. Warfare. Mistakes that future generations must not forget. My mother in her own way, was no less brave and tough than her marine husband. She overcame poverty and more than her share of lifes adversities, to have a career in the Foreign Service before she married and raised our family. The lessons around our Kitchen Table were about personal responsibility, honor and valor. We were taught to adhere to our principles, even if it comes at great personal or professional sacrifice. We were taught there is a clear difference between right and wrong. And we heard stories about americas place in this world as a force for good. If my parents were alive today, they would take great pride in my being considered do for this position. It is thanks to them that i believe i have some of the necessary qualifications. Chairman burr has spoken about the first prerequisite, unwavering integrity. In addressing director pompeos fitness for his position, chairman burr rightly observed that because the cia is an agency that works in the shadow, it requires a leader to be unwavering in integrity to ensure that the operation opera operates ethically and morally. I believe the same holds true for its general counsel. I hope and believe that people who know me well will tell you that im a person of integrity. I certainly have lived my life with that goal at the forefront of my mind. A second prerequisite for the job is independence. There have been many times in my life where it would have been easier to go along to get along. But i havent done so. When the law or circumstances have required, i have told clients and superiors things they didnt want to hear. If i were not prepared to do the same in this position, i would not accept the challenge. And if confirmed for this position, i will tell the attorneys of the office that i expect the same from them. But these qualities, integrity and independence are already embedded in the culture of the cia. The Intelligence Community has placed among its Core Competencies for all senior officers, quote, the integrity and courage, moral, intellectual and physical to seek and see the truth. To innovate and change things for the better, regardless of personal or professional risk. It would be an honor to join a community that quietly lives those values. And to work side by side with the dedicated and skilled professionals who have labored in anonymity to keep this country safe. Of course, an effective general counsel of the cia must also have strong legal skills. You have heard my background in this respect. Ive had the privilege of many great teachers, mentors and role models. More than i could possibly thank. But today, one stands above the rest. Chief Justice Williams h. Rehnquist. The chief showed us it was possible to adhere to your principles without alienating those who hold other views. A prime example is that Justice William brennan considered the chief to be his best friend on the court. The chief built warm personal relationships with all of this colleagues through his modesty and human by being unfailingly civil and fair. By focusing on points of agreement over disagreements. And by listening and making accommodations where possible. I have tried to follow his example in all aspects of my life. Finally, and with your indul indulgence, id like to take a moment to recognize my constant and shining example of all of the attributes ive mentioned today my husband of more than 20 years john ellwood. There are also two other people who id like to mention and who are dearest to our hearts, our two wonderful children. I hope that 50 years from now they will look back at my service to this country with pride. So that i could give you my undivided attention they remain in school today. So with that, i report to you to answer questions. Miss ellwood, thank you for that very fine statement. And i hope your school is accommodating by letting your kids possibly watch this on tv. Miss ellwood, theres been much discussion about the role of the Central Intelligence agency and how it played into the detention and interrogation of terrorism subjects as part of the rdi program. Those detention facilities operated by the cia have long since been closed. And president obama officially ended the program seven years ago. I think the debate space on this subject has become confused. And im certain that the law is now very clear. Heres my question. Do you agree that it would require a change in law for the cia or any Government Agency to lawfully employ any interrogation techniques beyond those defined in the Army Field Manual. Yes, sir. The Intelligence Community is at its strongest when operating with the full confidence that its activities are legal, moral and ethical and there be in line with the publics trust. I think its also safe to say that increasing judicial and congressional oversight only increases that public trust. Do you believe that president bushs terrorist Surveillance Program was strengthened when we brought when we brought it under fisa court and congressional oversight in 2007. Yes, mr. Chairman. I agree. I believe that the time and i believe today the Legal Foundation for what became known agency the president s terror Surveillance Program was strengthened by bringing it under the then existing fisa provisions. And the re view of the fisa court. Great. Before i turn to the vice chairman, id like to make one final comment in lieu of a question. You noted in your Opening Statement that a second prerequisite to the job is independence. I and many of my colleagues would agree wholeheartedly with that statement. Being an independent voice is not always easy. And youll be asked repeatedly to speak truth to power when the cias general counsel. I think youve displays the ability to be independent. And im confident that you will continue to do so at the cia. Thank you. Thank you. Vice chairman. Miss ellwood thank you for your eloquent statement and our opportunity to revisit it. Im going to revisit some of the things we talked about. Following up on the chairmans comments about rendition and the fact that law is very clear in terms its beyond the field manual aal applies to cia interrogations. One of the things that during the confirmation process of director pompeo, he committed to reviewing parts of the classified Committee Study on rendition interrogation that are relevant. We, likewise, commit to reading and reviewing those parts of that classified setting that are relevant to the office of general counsel . Yes, sir. This committees spending an awful lot of time as youre aware and the president is mas aware as well on the russia investigation. We have asked, the chairman and i and received in many ways unprecedented access. And that has been the subject of some fairly extensive discussion. Mr. Chairman and i have worked through that with the director of the cia. This is an ongoing process, so were going to need Additional Information. My question is can you commit to ensuring that this committee will be provided with all of the information requested pursuant to our ongoing russia investigation. And that you, of course, will do everything within your power to make sure that this done . Including by making available all necessary materials, intelligence reports, cia cables. Products and other materials requested as promptly as possible . And finally making sure the cia personnel be made available for interviews as requested by this committee. Yes, sir, consistent with the law. I do make that commitment. As we expressed through private conversation, i view the work that the committee is doing as being vitally important. Id like to commend your leadership on that as an american from virginia, i was very pleased by the leadership that you and the chairman on the investigation, it was very serious work. Well, this will go to the heart again, to the independence, there were been times with director pompeo, and he has equities as well. But its absolutely critical that we follow the intelligence whenever it leads. And again, were going to need your help going forward. One other question i have, and i know other members. Committee have raised this at times. I think we may need a fresh look at kind of the whole gang of who is briefed and not briefed. And the timeliness of those briefings. Will you commit to making sure that those matters that are not involved in the gang of eight covert action notification and other information regarding timesensitive tactical matters that will you commit to fully briefing the whole committee in as timely manner as possible . Senator, as ive heard in my private conversations with you and others, the frustration that you feel, or that other members of the committee feel when they dont get briefed in. And i do think that this is an opportunity at this time, with director pompeo and with director coates, having sat in t the chairs that you sit in to revisit some of the practices of the past. And to make sure that the full committees are briefed to the maximum extent possible consistent with obligations to protect, in the rare instances exceptionally sensitive information. I think chairman and i both would rather the committee bear all of the information that we have. I think there have been times and other members of this committee have brought this up under the frame of the gang of eight, that becomes information that gets caught in that bucket and never, at least so far has been been able to be shared with other members. I think its appropriate to have a fresh look at this issue. Yeah, i certainly will follow the lead of director pompeo and ill admit that director coates had commented its often a conversation with the leadership on when they extend the briefing to the full committee. That he works, or in the past, the director has worked with the chair and the vice chair on timing of extending that. The more we can get all of the members read in on their committees i think the better. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Ellwood, its good to have you here. I was appreciative of your testimony and your desire to follow in the Public Service commitments that both your mother and your father had. And very much in line with when i asked you when we had a chance to visit, why would you take this job . This is a hard job at a hard time. And its good to have you step forward to do it. Ive got several questions about, frankly, the terror Surveillance Program. And not very long to ask them. So if others want to further exhaust your answers, id ask you to keep these relatively brief. And i notice a number of the questions you were asked to respond to, it was about that program. Give me a sense, what were the jobs you had on 9 11 and after and in the rest of your service in the Bush Administration . So, leading up to 9 11, nobody obviously was anticipating, at least in my level, my role as an associate counsels office had nothing to do with National Security, frankly. But we all became sort of focused on National Security. We were in the white house on september 11th. And immediately thereafter, i and a couple members of my office were sent to the senate and the house to to negotiate the patriot act. And were you working then for the justice department, or the Vice President . No, its september 11th, i was working associate counsel to the president. So, i was in the office of the president. And i stayed in that position until may 2002, when we had our first child. I returned to Government Service in january or february of 2003, i think it was january 2003 to the office of the Vice President. Or i stayed until the beginning of 2005. And then you were where . Then i went to judge gonzales. And your job was . Deputy chief counsel. And as your staff and office will tell you, it changes by the day but by and large, my portfolio fell under the associate attorney generals for the fellportfolio, so it would those that fall, in the civil division, in addition, i would monitor the office of Legal Counsel. The office of solicitor general, the office of legal policy, among others. What would you have have known in that job . Or what did you know about the terror Surveillance Program . Senator, i learned or, my work i learned and my work on the terror Surveillance Program began in december 2005 when the president publicly disclosed that aspect of the president s Surveillance Program. Best of your knowledge, were you aware of it before then . No, sir. And what was generally did you have a reason to have a reaction at the time to the critics of the program, critics like david christ who was a former assistant attorney general . Interestingly enough, david and i are old friends and once he heard about that, he kind of asked me, he said what are the legal authorities to support this. We had a conversation. I was aware of the public statements about the Legal Authority. Supporting the program. And we had a conversation, communications about it. And ultimately, he did not agree with all of the reasoning. But he recognized that, you know, as i did that these are complex issues on which reasonable people could disagree. Be fair to characterize him as a public critic of the program, wouldnt it . Yes, sir. And did is he i notice hes one of the people recommending you for this job . Yes, sir, he very kindsly sent a letter of support and actually organized a letter of support on my behalf. Are there other people who are critics of that program who are included on that list . Im quite confident that there are people who have signed the letter of support who did not think many of the things that occurred in the Bush Administration, that they would be things that they would agree with. But i dont know of any others who have publicly stated. Then how do you think that experience of the terror Surveillance Program and what happened when there was a disagreement how do you think that would impact the way you would serve in this job . Thats a very interesting question. I think that my experience with respect to that Important Program and how it was handled initially and then through the reexamination of the legality of the program in 2004, we hoped we learned from how things were handled initially. And the intense secrecy around the program, even within the executive branch. I believe i would be more prepared or would be be able to better advise the director on how to ensure that programs that were necessarily the secret, if they should be disclosed, are fairly thought through. And recognizing that, you know, youll have to publicly justify how decisions are made on the front end and the back end. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. I just want to begin by saying i was really very pleased to meet you. Have an opportunity to speak with you. And i very much respect your experience and your intellect. Im going to put the question that the chairman asked you in a slightly, well, harsher view. But i think its a review. During his campaign, president elect trump publicly called for u. S. Forces to use torture on the war on torture. He said he would reinstitute waterboarding which he called a minor form of torture. And bring back, quell, a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding. This brought allies and Security Professionals who did not believe that this these particular eits were effective it producing operational intelligence. Director pompeo said, at one point, early on, that he would support the return of waterboarding. Gina haskell said that she would. When i talked with both of them and asked hard questions, they had made very strong statements against it. Both in writing and before this committee. So, let me ask you the same question, i asked director pompeo in his confirmation hearing. If you were ordered by the president excuse me, if the cia were ordered by the president to restart the cias use of enhanced interrogation techniques that fall outside the Army Field Manual, would you do what would you do . What would you do as general counsel . Absolutely would not follow that order. But what would you do . I would inform the president that that would be a violation of the law and that i would ensure im confident that the director would also impress upon the president that that would be an unlawful act. So you would specifically take it as your responsibility as general counsel to do so . Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. In your prehearing questionnaire, you were asked do you support the standards for detainee treatment specified in the revised Army Field Manual on interrogation. As required by section 1045 of the National Defense authorization act for fy16. Could you please here, under oath, reaffirm your commitment, to fully comply with all governing interrogations, including the legal bar on the use of any interrogation method not listed in the Army Field Manual . Senator feinstein, i admit to ensuring not only that the cia complies with the letter but also the spirit of that law. Thank you, thats good. You informed me earlier this week that you have read the full 500page declassified executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee Study on the cias detention and Interrogation Program. While some may have continued to have differences of opinion, the Senate Report is factbased on documents, cables, emails and to the best of my reading nothing in the report has been refuted. I think i mentioned to you if the cia had a problem with any of it, we looked at that. We made some changes where we felt the cia was correct. And where we felt they were wrong, we so noted it. But their view is in that report. The full report is more than 6,700 pages with nearly 38,000 footnotes. I believe its time to acknowledge truthfully what was done. And then move forward with strength and resolve to make sure that a program like this never happens again. Would you commit to this committee that you will read the classified version of the reports findings and conclusions if confirmed as general counsel . Yes, senator feinstein id be particularly interested in the parts of the report that address the general counsels office. Thank you. But thats just a small part of the report. Ill commit to the whole thing but those are where my its a long read. But if you look at things like where the agency has detailed 25 cases, where they believed it was responsible for their apprehension, the report and classified version details where the information actually came from that led to that. And i think that i feel very strongly that the time is coming for this report to be declassified. That it should not be hidden. That people in government ought to read it. People in areas of responsibility ought to read it and to shy away from it because it is an official document now. I think it is an mistake, as you know, president obama did put it in his library, so at least its perpetuated there. Second question. Use of contractors. This is one of the thing i have been most concerned with. And not the least was it wasnt lost on me. The three big cases where materials disappeared and security was broken. Were done by contractors. And including the largest one ever, edward snowden, and more recent lly hal martin. Previously, when i was chairman, i worked with director panetta, and he had agreed to a decrease of a certain percent every year and the number of contractors. And the number of contractors has gone down. Government contractors are only supposed to be used if they are performing tasks that are not an inherent governmental function. So intelligence collection clearly is inherently governmental as a function. As i think that we need to continue to reduce the number of contractors. The question i have for you is, do you agree that intelligence work is clearly and inherently governmental function . Senator feinstein, you raise an excellent point. And it does sound like a core government function to me. And i think you raise a very important issue with respect to the use of contractors. Thank you. I agree with that. And i have my time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator cornyn. Miss ellwood, welcome. And congratulations to you and your family on a tremendous honor. I would i know youve been asked about the russia investigation by senator warner, i would suggest that the same challenge you that and director pompeo would face and the importance of your integrity, your resilience and your courage withstanding outside pressure, the same sorts of characteristics i think are going to need to be demonstrated by this committee to maintenance the bipartisan leadership that senator burr and senator werner has provided because theres an awful lot of people that are going to try to influence this committee and get us off track. So the same characteristics of integrity and courage that youll be having to demonstrate, we will as well. Youve been asked a lot about post9 11 interrogation and other practices. It really is kind of amazing to me that here we are 16 years after 9 11, the chairman mentioned seven years, i think, since some of the practices have been asked about have long such ended. Where we continue to revisit these decisions which were made, i think, consistent with the appropriate Legal Authority at the time. Im very troubled by the idea that you, as the general counsel and the lawyers in the administration are going to be telling Intelligence Officers you can do this. You cant do that. And if consistent with Legal Authority that youve intent ded you do something that later on theyre going to be criticized perhaps for political or other reasons for doing what is legally authorized. So, you can tell us who is the final Legal Authority on the scope of activities on the Central Intelligence agency . Well, ultimately, under a longstanding 18th century precedent, the attorney general is the ultimate determiner of the scope of you know, the legal authorities by any Government Agency. And thats because these cases dont go to court typically, right . Generally, not. There are, of course, exceptions the hamdan days whcae there is the Supreme Court. But people are confused. They think this is black letter law and often its legal opinion by the office of Attorney Generals Office . Yes, senator, as i was alluded to in my conversations with david chryst on these complex issues theres a range of interpretations. And the department of justice or lawyers being asked to provide their opinion or give their best reading of the law. But it doesnt mean that there cant be another interpretation that is reasonable that the department of justice ultimately gives its best reading of the law. And just because somebody disagrees with the legal opinion doesnt mean that the authorities that youve identified, or that other lawyers in the administration identify as conferring that authority, doesnt mean thats wrong either, does it . Thats true, yes, sir. So, i think this is a real problem for the Intelligence Community, because, as i mentioned during director pompeos confirmation hearing, i like general haydens book and concept of playing to the edge. But youre going to be the one that draws that line of demarcation and identifies where that edge is. And if Intelligence Officers play to the edge in order to maintain our National Security here in the United States, i dont want them to be criticized later on. Or taken to court, publicly humiliated. Or even forced to buy Liability Insurance for doing their job. Yes. Senator, as part of this in preparation for it, i reviewed the transcripts of some people who were nominated to this position. And i noted that some of the senators were stressing the importance that the lawyers go to the legal limits. So, you know, back not that many years ago, the lawyers were being criticized for being too conservative. Well, post 9 11, we didnt know, as a nation, certainly didnt know as a government whether there were going to be followon attacks so youre under and the agency and intelligence are under tremendous pressure to go as far as you legally could, correct . Yes, sir, absolutely. And i guess its just human nature that in the safety and security and after the passage of years when we dont feel thi years, we dont feel an imminent threat, we finally realize, maybe we didnt have to go as far as we did. I appreciate your answer to the questions, i do believe youre eminently qualified for this position. Thank you for your willingness to take it on, thanks to your family for their support. Thank you, senator cornyn. Senator wyden. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I asked senator pompeo what he considered to be the boundaries. He said those boundaries are set by law. You are the nominee to be the general counsel who if confirmed would advise the director about those boundaries. Because the advice is classified and may not even be known to the committee, it is critical that we get a sense of your views on the law prior to voting. So to me, one of the most important legal matters facing the agency is how it should handle large amounts of information on americans who are not suspected of anything. Ill ask director pompeo about this. He said he would consult with a lawyer. And, so to speak, now the committee gets to ask the lawyer. You have written that the attorney general guidelines coverage collection on 12eee would impose, and i quote here, stringent and detailed restrictions on big batches of information that include information on americans. I read the guidelines differently. The cia can actually conduct searches of those batches, looking for information on americans. So my question to you deals with the statement you gave us. What stringent restrictions specifically are you talking about . Senator, as you know, the attorney general guidelines are publicly available. They were recently revised. They are public, theyre not a secret. I want to know what you consider to be stringent restrictions. There are numerous restrictions. And it depends upon the particular information at issue. So there are obviously less stringent use and retentioned i requirements with respect to publicly available requirements. Even there, if its personal information, the cias use of it is restricted. Its a 30page singlespaced documents providing a framework give me an example. Because the way i read it, none of this changes the fact that the agency can conduct searches looking for information on lawabiding americans where there is no requirement that theyre suspected of anything. So i just would like to hear you tell me, since you stated it in writing, what stringent restrictions would protect that lawabiding american . For example, senator. Good. For example, senator, before certain information is queried, it has to the standard that is applied would restrict it is not simply they cant go and query anything they want. It has to be necessary to an authorized activity. So for the purpose of an authorized activity. And no further query with respect to publicly available information, cant go any further than the necessary extent to further that purpose. Now, with respect to different categories of information that are collected under different authorities, 702 has a different query standard, as you know, than a bulk collection of information collected under 12eee. And i dont want to give an innin innar inarticulate i dont want to be inarticulate about the standard. I would like to have you give me some concrete examples of im happy to do that, when the point is, the answer weve gotten this morning is none of what you have said changes the fact that the agency can conduct searches, looking for information on lawabiding americans, where there is no requirement that theyre suspected of anything. Senator, there has to be a link to an authorized activity of the cia, at a bare minimum, even to search publicly available information. There are far more stringent requirements with respect to collections depending upon the type of information. I dont agree with you, senator, that theres no you get me the example of the stringent restrictions. Let me see if i can get one other question in very quickly. The agency spied on the committee in 2014, searching our computers. They turned around and filed a crimes report with the department of justice against committee staffers. The Inspector General found there was no basis for the crimes report and it was based solely on inaccurate information provided by two attorneys from the cia office of general counsel. You if confirmed would be supervising those attorneys. Do you think there ought to be accountability . Sir, i understand there was an accountability board that was convened that looked at that already and exonerated the lawyers involved. Do you believe, do you believe there should be any accountability when those lawyers would be under your supervision, from providing inaccurate information. Sir, going forward, i would if there was a situation like that to arise again and if the facts presented themselves in a situation where the lawyers had not done something properly, absolutely, i would insist on accountability and proceed accordingly. But thats going forward. Im not revisiting the past. Thank you. Mr. Hinrich. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you for joining us, ms. Elwood. In reviewing your responses to committee questions, there was one theme that concerned me across your responses, and its that you repeatedly repeat some very similar verbiage. And i want to get this right, but you said at one point that you have not, quote, had personal experience with, end quote, issues raised by the committee. You, quote, have not previously had the opportunity to consider, end quote, issues raised by the committee, and that you have not or that you have, quote, not done the legal and Factual Research that would be required to properly answer, end quote, important questions such as whether the cias former enhanced interrogation techniques are consistent with the detainee treatment act. So as you know, in this role, you will be the principal Legal Adviser to the cia director. And you will be responsible for overseeing the cias office of general counsel. If confirmed, i hope that your lack of exposure to the important National Security issues that weve raised will not encumber your ability to provide thorough, accurate, and effective legal advice to the cia from day one. So i want to go from here, since youve you didnt express strong opinions on some very specific questions the committee has asked, i would like to focus more broadly on the scope of authorities granted by covert action authorizations and by president ial memorandums of notification. And as im sure you know, these organizations spell out the strategic goals and approved activities of individual covert actions. Is it your view that the authorized covert actions of the cia are bound by the text of those authorities and that the cia may not read into those authorities activities that are not explicitly approved within there . Senator, i assume that there is vigorous oversight by the general counsels office to ensure that the findings are written carefully, and that the activities undertaken you had been the findings are consistent with the findings. Is that im not sure i understand your question. What im saying is that it is my interpretation that those activities have to be explicitly authorized either within a covert action authorization or a president ial memorandum of notification. Is it your view that the authorized covert activities of the agency are bound by the text of those authorities in terms of explicitly authorizing activities . Or can the agency just read into those authorizations . I would interpret it as a statute, which is that it would not necessarily have to be explicit, that every potential act be explicitly stated in the findings. But a proper interpretation of the findings. Ill give you an example that concerns me, the september 17, 2001 memorandum of notification that authorized the cia capture and detention, program, for example made no reference to interrogations or coercive techniques, yet it was repeatedly cited as authorization for the Interrogation Program. So putting aside the issues of whether the interrogation techniques themselves were in violation of any laws or treaty obligations, based on the lack of locksmith authorization techniques, do you believe the use of those techniques were consistent with the approved authorities as it was written . Senator, i have neither looked at that particular thing nor know anything beyond the executive summary of the senate study to answer that explicitly. I think nobody has raised that that was not a fair reading of the notification. Im raising it. Right. So whether or not youve reviewed it isnt relevant to my underlying concern. When the committee receives a covert action finding, we need to be confident that the agency is not exceeding its approved authority. So if you cant give us your view on the proper scope of covert action authorities as a basic principle, its difficult for me to be confident that under your legal guidance, the agency wont engage in activities that go beyond that legal guidance. It is a common practice in my 20 years of legal experience, and also my experience as a clerk, to have a statute or a rule of law provided. And youre not going to have a statute describe every possible activity to fall within the scope of the statute. But there could be a fair reading of the statute that would put things within the statute or without the statute. And i would envision the same sort of legal analysis, legal analysis that ive been doing for more than 20 years, would apply in the context of a memorandum of notification. Im going to yield back my time. Ive excited eeded it. I assume were going to go to senator king of maine. Thank you, i didnt see you over there, senator. Thank you. Ms. Elwood, thank you very much, welcome to the committee. You started your introductory by talking about your dads experience with military history. And i want to commend to my colleagues, im in the middle of h. R. Mcmasters book about vietnam, dereliction of duty, which i find an extraordinary document with really important insights. I have to mention, youve given me an opportunity to mention what i think is a very important book that should be read by everyone up here. Yes, sir. I understand thats now being taught in the officer training corps. And i hope general mcmaster is also rereading it himself, given his new position. In your answer to i think it was chairman burrs one of his opening questions, you said that you thought the 2007 law strengthened the legal basis for the terrorist Surveillance Program. That implies does that supply that you believe there was a legal basis for it . In other words, does the president have inherent article ii power to do warrantless surveillance of u. S. Citizens . Senator, the legal authorities underpinning the terrorist Surveillance Program as described in the public white paper i reviewed and then in the much longer thenclassified but largely declassified opinion did not rest entirely on the president s article ii authorities but also rested first on the authorities provided by the aumf. The 2001 aumf . Yes, sir. Its exclude that for a moment. Do you believe that the president has Inherent Authority under the commander in chief provision 2 to order warrantless surveillance of american persons . Under existing law, absolutely not. Thank you. And that gets to a more subtle question along these lines, which is reverse targeting under fisa. As i understand the way fisa is now interpreted, you can surveil foreign persons, and there is incidental, there may be socalled incidental pickup. Collection. Collection on american persons. The question then is, does it take further interaction with the fisa court in order to query the data that involves the u. S. Persons . Well, the fisa court, as you know, sets out the parameter, sets out the framework for that type of querying. And then subsequently does not revisit it any time an individual query wants to be taken place. But you see my question. The my question is reverse targeting. Yes. You can be going after a foreign person, you pick up an american person, and that becomes the focus of the query. Reverse targeting is prohibited expressly. And you dont believe that that is a potential issue or problem, because of that express prohibition . I dont, senator, because i think that reverse targeting is with the intention of actually picking up a u. S. Citizens or u. S. Persons communication, but creating the fig leaf by targeting somebody on the outside that they know theyre going to be communicating with. What were talking about with respect to incidental collection, is just that, incidental. And those queries conducted with incidental, theres multiple layers of oversight, the first being what we discussed with the fisa Court Setting the parameters for those. But my understanding is the government has taken the position in the recent past under the Prior Administration that once that data is in the database, then they can query about the u. S. Person without further approval of anyone. No, not well, without going back to the fisa court. It would be a i think director brennan and perhaps director clapper as well said it would be a big mistake, to require going back to the court again each time there needed to be a query, and were talking about the 702 collection. But there is multiple, multiple layers of oversight, including by the department of justice, the office of the dni, in the executive branch. All that oversight you enunciated is all within the executive branch. I like having an independent body like a court. Having a court doing a warrant or order on every one of those mean far fewer of them are done. It can seriously hamper the operational impact. And im looking forward to, if confirmed, getting an opportunity to see how these are implemented. But you have to understand, this is a bootstrap operation, where you are in fact talking about the authorization of a warrantless examination of a u. S. Persons correspondence. But if i might add, sir, there is more than just there is an independent bipartisan board that also overceasees the queries and has looked at it thoroughly and determined there was not a trace, that was their words, no trace of illegitimate activity with respect to these sorts of queries. So it is layer upon layer upon layer already on existing oversight. Youre right, you dont have to go back to the fisa court each time you want to query. But the fisa court is involved in setting up the procedures on the front end, and there are multiple layers of oversight on the back end. And while it may not it may seem like, you know, the fox guarding the hen house, its not. This is serious oversight by the odni and the department of justice checking every single query, every 60 days. Im sure we will have further discussion on this. I understand your position and appreciate it. I stale remain somewhat concerned that you end up with a trove of data that involves american citizens that can then be queried without further intervention by the court, which to me is the essence of the fourth amendment. But we can follow up on that. Absolutely. If im confirmed, i really look forward to that discussion. Thank you. Senator langford. Thank you. Its good to get a chance to visit with you again, i appreciate it. I hope this has been helpful in getting information out, things that youre passionate about. I always like to be able to remind me that for the folks that serve with the cia, they dont wear uniforms. They serve all around the world. They dont get parades. They dont get recognition. No one sees them at a restaurant and buys their meal to say thank you, because no one knows who they are. But would you pass on our you cant tell gratitude, i see people at the halls at langley, thinking about tucking their kids in at night, but theyre also thinking about really hard issues and they need great advice, and sometimes they need it fast. Thank you, senator. You make a very valuable point about these men and women who labor in anonymity to keep this country safe. Grateful to be able to have you engaged, youve got a tremendous background to deal with these hard legal all by yourself. Youve been around a lot of these hard conversations and have been through it. We are glad to have someone who can engage in that. I need to ask you one that your predecessor has also said is hard. So recently, in fact this week, caroline krass, the person youre replacing, had a speech and in her speech at Georgetown University law school, of all the issues shes dealt with, she listed this. She said, i think the hardest legal questions were those that surround cyber. Its an evolving area of the law. Trying to determine answers to questions like what constitutes a use of force, where the measures to combat such a use of force. Theyre really difficult issues. And theyre issues were struggling with on this committee. Theyre issues that this committee and other committees have complained about bitterly to the administration to say there seems to be no cyber doctrine, and were well behind the curve on dealing with a clear cyber doctrine issue. This is going to be an area well have to write new statute, but its also an area youll have to interpret a lot of the issues. My question to you is a lot more general one. Will you be a part of helping craft a cyber doctrine and will you be willing to interact with this committee to say, this is area that is too gray, im going to have to make a decision that puts the people at the cia too vulnerable, we need statute to clarify this and to be able to help us through that process so that we dont put the good people at the cia at risk in the future, but that we also dont make everyone secondguess what can and cant be done. Senator, you raise a very, very important issue. And i would be delighted if confirmed to work with you on that. And its an issue that other members have raised with me in our conversations as well. And i certainly respect caroline krass, who is a long time friend, we went to law school together. Shes been an adviser in this process and well Work Together in the future and shell advise me if i get confirmed in this role. When you get to that spot, just know this committee is thinking about cyber doctrine a lot and how we can actually get that established. How we work agency to agency, how we work through the whole of the United States government on that, and what is needed legislatively to help provide clarity on that. We look forward to that type of cooperation and the direction were going to go. Tell me as well, weve talked a lot about protecting the American People. Thats the other side of this. The folks that work at the cia are counting on having a really good counsel. The American People are also counting on having a really good lawyer in the middle of it thats able to push back and be able to say no, that is something that violates Constitutional Rights and freedoms. You are in many ways the first line of that accountability. Theres good followup. Theres good tracking of it. And theres good oversight through the process. The first line of that would be you. So there are a couple of things that i need to be able to hear quickly from you. One is that you understand that youre not only the cias lawyer but youre the first line of defense for the American People in protecting their Constitutional Rights. And the second part of that is protecting sources and methods worldwide that are also essential for their security and for National Security as well. Yes, senator. You know, the client of the general counsel of the cia is the agency as an institution and ultimately the United States. And it is important for the agency to use the intelligence gathering tools that congress has provided. But they must do so lawfully, protecting the privacy rights and Civil Liberties of all americans. Thats great. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Senator harris. So following up on senator langfords question, when the cia is considering doing something of dubious Legal Authority, and the director and the men and women of the cia look to you for guidance, i know, and you actually stated, the American People generally have a right to make sure that this agency is following the law. But the American People generally will have no ability or visibility into the process by which you counsel your client, the agency. And so the question i have for you is, how will you engage this committee to ensure that there is oversight of the significant but often secret legal guidance that you will give the agency . Two points that i would like to make in response to that, senator harris. The first is, i will obviously provide the director and the men and women of the agency with my sound legal advice. But ill also provide them with my judgment. Sometimes things are legal, as you know, but unwise. And then with respect to ensuring this committee is aware, i have a legal obligation, as you know, under the National Security act, to make sure that this committee is informed of the legal basis that underpins any of the cias intelligence activities. And i would fully and timely provide that legal advice, legal basis. And how would you propose to do that . For example, would this be through a congressional notification . How as a committee can we expect that you will reach out to us and notify and inform us of those decisions . There are a couple of different things. Any time the Committee Requests information with respect to the legal basis, i have an obligation to respond. Secondly, there is a new provision within the National Security act that requires a notification to the committee of any sort of novel or significant new legal interpretations under the law. And i would obviously comply with that as well. And so lets talk a little bit about i would like to hear about your interpretation of what becomes significant. So in your questions for the record, you mentioned that, and indicated that you would give a timely and complete information about the agencys significant intelligence activities and failures as subject to the limitations around protecting trade craft and other sensitive information. Based on your experience, what circumstances would be considered significant, and who would make the determination of significance . Senator harris, thats an excellent question. And i actually have not had firsthand experience with what is significant and what falls under significance. I obviously would look to past practice as well as, frankly, some common sense in determining whether something rises to the level of notification. Now, i know just from conversations ive had with congressional affairs, and also reading about the history of it, the amount of notifications that this committee gets is extraordinary. Multiple a day. And i would so i assume from that that the threshold is fairly low on what is significant. But i dont have any Additional Information to provide with respect to how i would define that. What character for example, lets talk about the russia investigation. Would you agree that any information or developments as it relates to russias role in the 2016 election would be considered significant . If something was new in that that the kcia had information about, i would imagine that would rise to the level of significant. Theyve already done it, the election is past, so it would not be new conduct. New information. So youre saying if theres any information, if it is not new, you would not consider that significant in terms of sharing that with this committee . Well, if it had already been shared, if it was just redundant. I would examine it obviously on a casebycase basis, and based upon how the office has been doing it for many, many years, and be consistent with that. Are you willing to commit to this committee that if you come across information that relates to that incident of russia tampering with the 2016 election, and if you become aware that that information has not been shared with this committee, that you will share it with this committee, because it is significant . I have no reason to think that it would be insignificant. It sounds like something that would be significant given the work that this committee is doing on that investigation. And that means yes . Sounds like it. Okay. Im going to hold you to that. Im interpreting that as a yes, it sounds like the committee is as well. So thank you for that. The role of general counsel is obviously to provide legal advice to the agency and the director. Do you agree that includes providing unbiased legal position on all matters relating to the cia, free from Political Considerations . Absolutely. If confirmed, will you provide legal guidance even if it ran counter to the administrations policy or statements during the campaign or afterwards . Absolutely, senator. Thank you. Senator collins. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First let me say, ms. Elwood, that i very much appreciated the Office Meeting that we had in which we went over many of the issues that have been raised here today. And i believe that you appear to have an extraordinary background for this very important post. I do want to get on the record a couple of the issues that we discussed in my office. One referred to the fact that john rizzo, cias general counsel during the agencys enhanced Interrogation Program wrote in his autobiography that it was a big mistake that all members of the Intelligence Committees were not briefed on the program until 2006, which was four years after the program began. And indeed, the existence of the program for a time was concealed even from the secretary of defense and the secretary of state. Do you agree with his view that it was a mistake for congress not to have been briefed on this program, the Intelligence Committees, i should say, the full. In a more timely way, yes, it should have been briefed in a more timely way, to the full committee. I want to follow up on an issue that several senators have mentioned, senator langford, senator harris, but in a more direct way, and that is, in the private sector, when you are counsel to a corporate entity, for example, its very clear where your loyalties lie, and who your client is. So i want to talk to you just a little bit more to flesh out what youve already been asked, by asking you, what is your understanding of who would be your primary client as general counsel of the cia . Its a very good question, an important one for all of Us Government lawyers, if i become one again, to remember. The client of the general counsel of the cia is the agency as an institution, and ultimately the United States. Casually we think of the director or the men and women at an agency as being the cias client. That is only true in their official capacities. If their interests diverge with that of the agency, that cia lawyer can no longer represent them. And i remember very well, when i was in the counsels office, thinking often and being reminded often that we did not represent the president. We represented the office of the president. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cotton. Thank you. Miselwo ms. Elwood, congratulation on your nomination. The Obama Administration through ppd28 and in other ways spoke about the need to consider and recognize the privacy rights of nonu. S. Persons located outside the United States. Do you agree that u. S. Constitutional and privacy rights do not extend to nonu. S. Persons located outside the United States . It is true that our constitution, and of course were talking here about the bill of rights, protects the individual rights of the United States citizens and individuals in the United States by and large. And i am also not aware of any statutory law that extends it to foreigners abroad. Is it the law, that those are not extended to people outside the United States . I dont think people would find that controversial. I agree. Do you think the cia should take into account hostile terrorists when conducting espionage overseas . I dont think so, sir. I agree. Would you agree if you read the classified annex regarding the operational impacts on the Intelligence Committee once you have received your security clearance . Yes, sir, i look forward to doing that if im confirmed. Thank you. I want to turn my attention to section 702 now of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Director copompeo stated a coup of weeks ago, hostile entities and terrorist organizations, we will use the entire toolkit provided to us consistent with our american ideals, end quote. Part of that toolkit is section 702. Dan coates recently called it his top legislative priority to have it reauthorized before it expires by the end of the year. Would you comment on the importance of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act in general and section 702 in particular to the cias mission . Yes, senator. I obviously have not been had access to the classified information on the benefits of 702. But i have spoken to and i have read the statements of those who have. And the have with broad consensus all concluded that it is a highly effective and valuable tool. And it has disrupted it has played a key role in disrupting specific terrorist threats that were aimed at the United States and abroad. Could you please describe some of the various layers of oversight and compliance that occur at the cia general counsels office as well as the department of justice and odni and here at this committee . Well, there are many, many layers. As i was discussing with senator king, with respect to inside the general counsels office at the cia, cia lawyers provide inperson training, and they sit with the officers who are doing the querying. The cia does not do the collection under the 702, although they do have the authority to do querying. And that the agencys querying has been audited by the office of the dni as well as the doj on a regular basis, and the general counsels office is involved in those audits. That same level of oversight occurs at the nsa with respect to odni and doj audits every 60 days, and indeed every single selector that is used under 702 is audited. Not a single one is missed. In addition to the executive branch oversight, there is of course the Inspector Generals of the agencies have Oversight Authority as well outside of the executive branch. There is congressional oversight through the committees. The fisk provides oversight by setting the standards and getting reports on any mistakes that are made. And then there is the fourth layer of oversight, which you alluded to, the privacy and Civil Liberties oversight board, which did a thorough and detailed review of the use of 702, established that it had been an highly effective tool in disrupting specific terrorist plots. They also found, as i mentioned to senator king, no trace of illegitimate activity or intentional misuse of the tool. Thank you for the answer. And thank you for your willingness to come serve our country once again. And thanks to all the many men and women you will be leading in the office of general counsel, which i think is great. Thank you, sir. Senator cotton, thank you. Senator king. Two very quick followups. One is, i think its important to note that weve done a lot of talking about the pclob. Theres only one member confirmed. And i hope that you will use your good offices to try to move that process along, because this is an important part of the overall scheme here. And right now, we dont have a full complement of board members. Number two, i couldnt help but notice when you answered the chairmans sort of five routine questions at the beginning, that you qualified them. When he said, will you keep the committee fully and committed informed, you said, i will, according to the law. Ive never heard a witness use that. Whats your mental reservation here . Right, consistent with the law, Im Just Holding out, as you know, the statute provides that there are limits with respect to protection of sources and methods. So in the the agency is obligated to provide information subject only to withholding specific operational details about sources and methods. Thats fine. So thats what you were referring to. Yes, sir. I understand that. That is fine. I was hoping there wasnt a broader expectation. Theres no broader principle i was alluding to. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator king. Let me note for the record there have been some other witnesses who have qualified for i think the same reason. Senator warner. I know this will go beyond the focus of your job, but this whole revisiting of how were all briefed, what falls into which bucket, you know, im candidly not even fully sure i fully appreciate and understand, although i do think it would be very timely to revisit some of those principles, because i do feel like there are times when gang of eight information, which in my mind should normally be things in advance of a president ial action that Congress Needs to be notified, but not necessarily information that is simply sequesterred into this Discrete Group without having the benefit of the committees understanding. Senator, i would be very interested in digging into that and discussing it with you further. I thank all of my colleagues for the thorough questioning of our witness. Ms. Elwood, thank you very much for, one, your willingness to serve, two, the expertise you bring to this nomination. Ill work with the vice chairman as quickly as we can to have any posthearing questions presented to you. If you would expedite those back to us, well very quickly set up a confirmation hearing and hopefully get your nomination to the floor. We need you at the cia yesterday. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, vice chairman. [ indiscernible conversation ] [ indiscernible conversation ] President Trump will mark his 100th day in office with a rally in harrisburg, pennsylvania on saturday night. Thats scheduled to start at 7 30 p. M. Eastern. You can see it live on our companion network cspan. And for the First Time Since Ronald Reagan was shot, the president is not attending the White House Correspondents Association dinner. The dinner is going on nonetheless. The entertainment is hassan menaj of the daily show. Our coverage begins at 9 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Check out our cspan classroom website at cspan. Org classroom. Its full of free Teaching Resources for cspan classroom members. The improved layout gives teachers easy access to ready to go resources for the classroom, including short Current Events videos that highlight important events in washington, dc. Constitution clips that bring the constitution to life. Social studies lesson plans. As well as on this day in history resources. Our search function allows cspan Classroom Teachers to search and filter by date, person, keyword, topic, and grade level. Our bell ringers video clips of teacher favorites, short videos paired with vocabulary discussions that make them more accessible to your students. I love the bell ringers, ill use them in conjunction with an activity were doing that day, as more of like a wrapup. The new website is something that is fabulous. My students use it regularly. Its so easy that theyre in fact right now working clipping videos and making questions that they can design and turn into their own bell ringers. Probably my favorite aspect of the cspan classroom is the deliberations page. Its a perfectly set up, ready to go classroom deliberations, classroom discussion on a variety of topics that are current and relevant today. If youre a middle school or high school teacher, join your fellow teachers across the nation as a member of cspan classroom. Its free and easy to register at cspan. Org classroom. You can request our free classroomsized american president s timeline poster, a graphic display of the biographies of all 45 president s. Find out all about it at cspan. Org classroom. Now on cspan3, a conversation on the Obama Administrations opening of diplomatic relations with cuba and what to expect from the Trump Administration when it comes to that country. From Florida International university in miami, this is just under two hours. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all for being here. Special thanks to our audience in cspan world for joining us. This event is being recorded by the cspan, so thank you for the cspan team for being here and to the audience for joining us