Previous post at the white house and the department of justice and we appreciate your continued willingness to serve. Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the committee to consider ms. Elwoods qualification and allow for thoughtful deliberation by our members. Shes provided substantive written questions answers to more than 90 questions presented by the committee and its members. Today, of course, members will be able to ask additional questions and to hear from ms. Elwood in this open session. Courtney comes in front of 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 the associate of kellogg, hubert, hanson in the same firm where she is now a partner. January, 2001, she left the firm to serve as associate counsel to the president rising through the ranks to deputy counsel to the Vice President and then department chief of staff and counsel to the attorney general. During the extremely difficult time in the days and weeks and months after 9 11, ms. Elwood provided sound Legal Counsel to our nations leaders as they considered what tools the Intelligence Community needed to combat terrorism and to secure our nation. Ms. Elwood, youve been asked to serve as the chief legal officer 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 premiere intelligence agency. But 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 counsel is in the position to provide the best legal advice possible to director pompeo and the agency as a whole. This committee has received letters of support from your current and former colleagues. In a letter of support signed by those who 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, the professor at the Harvard Law School who has known you since you were a law student at yale, referred to you as a superb, independentminded lawyer. A letter from the d. C. Bar association on National Security law policy and practices highlighted your deepseeded commitment to the rule of law and to our democratic principles, and your colleague ben powell, former general 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 youve 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 to director pompeo during his nomination hearing, i can assure you that this committee 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 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, ms. Elwood. Again congratulations on your nomination to serve as general counsel of the cia. I see john as well. Although i do have to question to a degree your legal judgment by bringing my friend tim kaine as an introducing factor, but i will overlook that. Obviously this position is a tremendous responsibility, one that requires a careful review of the qualifications and character of the individual nominated and i echo a lot of the comments that the chairmans made. If confirmed, youll be sitting at a critical intersection between intelligence and policy making. As the agencys top legal officer, the director will 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 laws of the United States. Who will apply both sound legal analysis and good judgment, the task of providing counsel to the agency. During our conversation, when we had a chance to visit you and i agreed that politics has no place in the cia general counsels office. We discussed the need to follow the law, including the Army Field Manual to ensure that torture does not tarnish the reputation of the Intelligence Community or this country again. Ms. Elwood, during my questions i will again want your public assurance today that you will always seek to provide unbiased, unvarnished, and timely Legal Counsel to the director of the cia even when doing so might be inconvenient 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 were protecting the privacy and Civil Liberties of the United States citizens as we take on these these new tools moving forward. An issue that i know has a number of us on the committee have been very concerned about and i think will come back again is encryption. Again related to privacy concerns, the Intelligence Community needs to find ways to access the communications of our adversaries while protecting privacy rights and american commercial ingenuity. I believe we cannot tie the hands of our Technology Leaders by unilaterally disarming them with possible security loopholes, an area again that this committee has looked on is information sharing. 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 that has been a lot of the attention of the committee recently. Chairman burr and i have committed to conduct a review of the intelligence supporting the 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 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 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 commit to me and all members of the committee that you will fully cooperate with this review and that you will do all you can to ensure that weve provide the information we, i to conduct it. With that, again, thank you for being here ms. Elwood, and i look forward to todays hearing. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Vice chairman. Id like to at this time recognize our colleague, the distinguished senator from virginia, tim kaine, who will introduce ms. Elwood. Senator kaine. Thank you, mr. Chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. This is an honor. One of my favorite things to do is bring talented virginians who are committed to the body before the council, and ms. Elwood is such an individual. Im just going to warn you doing this in front of my senior senator and also the only alexandria native makes me feel a little bit nervous. And some of you need to know, the nonvirginians need to know, ms. Elwood 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 in the first test of her discretion as an intel professional will be not revealing his costumes that shes seen over the years. As i said its always rewarding. I know all of us feel this way about our states that we have deep talent pools of wonderful people that are in Public Service and they dont get the thanks they deserve, 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 are the creatures of their experience and so frequently that experience begins with an upbringing in Lessons Learned through kids, teachers, grandparents, counselors, or other mentors. And with ms. Elwood thats no exception. She had a foundation in family that really laid the groundwork for her Public Service career. Her father the late general Edwin Simmons served in world war ii, korea and vietnam as a United States marine and his legacy continues. In the marine corps today. One of the buildings in quanitco is named after her dad and her mother was a dedicated Public Servant as well working and traveling the world in the Foreign Service before settling in northern virginia. Courtneys been a path breaker in her career. She was in the first class of a high school in fairfax west Potomac High School that was formed through the merger of two very competitive high schools, and this first class had to create new traditions and brings folks that had at least on the Athletic Field been rivals before. And then she went to undergrad at lee where she was in the second class of women and people say she must have been a feminist because she raised her hand. So shes been willing to be a path breaker and has had encouragement from family and professors do that. When courtney finished at wl, as was mentioned, she went to Yale Law School, and she worked with our senate colleagues, the younger senators bennett and coons, who were at Yale Law School the same time she was. Shes now worked in the Legal Profession for 20 years and the chairman went through some of her experience serving as a clerk in the Fourth Circuit, serving for clerk for chief justice rehnquist, counsel in the white house, the office of Vice President , the department of justice, and also know many of courtneys law partners in private practice well, and its a private firm that is filled with people who are very public spirited, democrats and republicans, they appreciate those who are public spirited. And i know courtney has absorbed that lesson from them as well. Courtney will, i know, talk about her family. Her husband john is here, the two boys ages 15 and 12 live in alexandria, theyre in school today. But ill just conclude and say that so much of what we do depends upon the talent of the people that we bring into these very, very difficult positions. And with courtney elwood, you have somebody of a sterling professional background but more importantly for purposes of this position with a sterling reputation for integrity that is necessary in the cia general counsel position. Its my honor to present her to the committee. And as i said to the chairman, i have a bill marked up in the health committee. Usually my bills go better when im not there, but i probably should at least go up to make sure that thats okay. So i hope youll excuse me so i can head upstairs. Tim, thank you. You are excused and if you would shepard my bill through. His is being marked up 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 do that in closed session. Ms. Elwood, 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, sir. 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. 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 it for us to carry out our oversight function and legislative responsibilities . Yes, consistent with the law. Will you both ensure that your office and your staff provide such materials to the committee when requested . Yes, consistent with the law. Do you agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all members of this committee of intelligence activities and covert action rather than only the chair and the vice chair . Again, consistent with the law, yes, sir. Thank you very much. Well now proceed to your Opening Statement after which ill recognize members by seniority for up to five minutes of questions. Ms. Elwood, 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 as 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 you a little bit more 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 devoted his life to the marine corps and to this country. He spent 36 years in uniform seeing active combat in 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 chosen reservoir. When dad returned home from vietnam in 1971, he formed the 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 there were lessons to be learned from the great achievements and the 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 for this position. It is thanks to them that i believe i have some of the necessary qualifications. Chairman burr has spoken eloquently of 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 shadows, it requires a leader to be unwavering in integrity, who will ensure that the organization operates lawfully, ethically, and morally. I believe the same holds true for its general counsel. I hope and believe that people who know me well would 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, or to be for whats going to happen, 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. They have placed among its Core Competencies for all senior officers, quote, the integrity, courage, moral, intellectual and physical, to seek and speak 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. I have 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 William 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 his colleagues through his modesty and humor by being unfailingly civil and fair, by focusing on points of agreement over disagreement, 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 indulgence, id like to take a moment again to recognize my constant and shining example of all the attributes ive mentioned today, my husband of more than 20 years, john elwood. There are also two other people whom 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 on my service to this country with pride. So that i could give you my undivided attention, they have remained in school today. So with that, i look forward to answering your questions. Ms. Elwood, thank you for that very fine statement and i hope that the school is accommodating by letting your kids possibly watch this on tv. Ms. Elwood, there have been 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 it would require a change in law for the cia or any Government Agency to lawfully employ any interrogation techniques beyond those in the Army Field Manual . Yes, sir. The american Intelligence Community is best when its activities are legal, moral, and ethical and in line with the publics trust. I think its also safe to say that increasing oversight only increases that public trust do. You believe that president bushs terror Surveillance Program was strengthened when we brought it under fisa Court Oversight in 2007 . I agree. I believed at the time and today that the Legal Foundation for what became known as the president s terror Surveillance Program was strengthened by bringing it under the then existing fisa provisions and the review of the fisa court. I would like to make one final comment in lieu of a question. You alluded that a second prerequisite to the job is independence. My colleagues would agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Being an independent voice is not easy. And you will be asked to speak truth to power. I think you displayed in your career the ability to be independent and i am confident you will continue to do so at the cia. Thank you. Ms. Elwood thank you for your eloquent Opening Statement. Im going to revisit some of the things we talked about. Following up on the comments about rendition and the fact that the law is very clear in terms of the fact that the Army Field Manual applies to cia interrogations, one of the things that during the confirmation process of director p pompeo he committed to reviewing some of the study on interrogation that are relevant. We, likewise, commit to reading and reviewing those parts of that classified study. Yes, sir. This committee is spending an awful lot of time and the press has made aware as well on the Russian 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 but the chairman and i have worked through that with the director of the cia. But this is an ongoing process. My question is can you commit to ensuring that this committee will be provided with all the information requested pursuant to our ongoing russia investigation and you, yourself will do everything in your power the make sure this is done including making available all necessary materials, intelligence reports, cia cables, products and other materials requested as promptly as possible and finally to ensure the cia personnel be made available for interviews as requested by this committee. Yes, sir, consistent with the law. I do make that commitment. I view the work that the committee is doing as being vitally important and id like to commend your leadership on that as an american and as a virginian. I was pleased by the leadership you and the chairman have shown on the investigation. This will go to the heart of independence. There were times that director pompeo and i understand he he has equities as well. But it is critical we follow the intelligence wherever it leads and were going to need your help going forward. One other question i have and i know that fellow members of the committee have raised this at times. You know, i think we may need a fresh look at the gang of eight and who is briefed and when theyre not briefed and the timeliness of those briefings. Will you commit to making sure that those matters that are not involving gang of eight covert action notification and other information regarding timesensitive tactical matters that you will commit to fully briefing the whole committee in as timely a manner as possible . Senator, as i have 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 this is an opportunity at this time with director pompeo and director coates having sat in the chairs that you sit in, to sort of 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 the in rare instances sensitive information. I think that the committee often bear the information that the committee has under the frame of the gang of eight, becomes information that gets caught in that bucket and then never at least so far, has been able to be shared with other members. I think its appropriate to have a fresh look at this issue. I will follow the lead of director pompeo and director coates on this. And that is often a conversation with the leadership on when day extend the briefing to the full committee. That he worked or in the past that director has worked with the chair and the vice chair on timing of extending. All the members on the activities the better. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Its good to have you hear. 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 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. I have questions on the terror Surveillance Program and not long to answer. If others would exhaust your answers i will keep these brief. 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 then the rest of your service as a in the Bush Administration and . Leading up to 9 11, no one was anticipating at my level, my role in the associates counsels office had nothing do with National Security, frankly. But we all became know focussed on National Security. We were in the white house on september 11th and after, i and a couple members of my office were sent to the senate and the house to negotiate the patriot act. Were you working then for the Justice Department or the Vice President . On september 11th i was associate counsel to the president. I was in the office of the president and i stayed in that position until may of 2002 when we had our first child. I returned to Government Service in january or february of 2003. I think it was january of 2003 to the office of the Vice President where i stayed until the beginning of 2005. And then you were where . Then with judge gonzalez to the attorney generals front office. And your job was . I was deputy chief of staff and counsellor to the attorney general. As in staffer in your offices will tell you, it changes by the day. But by and large my portfolio fell under the associate attorney generals portfolio. So it would the components that fall in the department of justice under the associate attorney general, the civil division. In addition i would monitor the office of Legal Counsel and the office of the solicitor general. I learned and my work on the terror Surveillance Program began in december of 2005 when the president publicly disclosed that aspect of the president s Surveillance Program. Best of your knowledge, were you aware of it before that . No, sir. And what was did you have a reason to have a reaction at the time to the critics of the program . Critics like david chris who was a former assistant attorney general for National Security . Interestingly enough, david and i are old friends and have known each other forever and he kind of asked me what are the legal authorities that support this. We had conversation. I was aware of the public statements about the legal authorities supporting the program and we had a conversation with some communications about it. And ultimately, he did not agree with the all of the reasoning but he recognized as i did these are complex issues. Be fair to characterize him as a public critic of the program, wouldnt it . Yes, sir. And is he i notice hes one of the people recommending you for this job . Yes, sir. He very kindly sent a letter of support and actually organized a letter of support on my behalf. Are there other critics of that program who are included on that list . Im confident there are people who have signed the letter of support who did not think many of the things that occurred in the Bush Administration would be that they would agree with. But i dont know of any others who have publicly stated. And 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 through the reexamination of the legality of the program in 2004, we hope we learn from how things were handled initially and the intense secrecy around the program even within the executive branch. I believe i am would be more prepared or would be able to better advise the director on how to ensure that programs will necessarily be secret if they should be disclosed if they are thoroughly thought through and recognizing that in some instances youll have to publicly justify how decisions are made on the front end and on the back end. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator feinstein . Thank you 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 the chairman asked you in a harsher view but its a real view. During his campaign, president elect trump called for u. S. Forces to use torture in the war on terror. He said he would reins constitute waterboarding and bring back, quote, a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding. This brought a lot of condemnation from our allies and our own Security Professionals who did not believe that these particular eits were effective in producing operational intelligence. Director pompeo said at one point early on that he would support the return of waterboarding. Gina haskell said 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. 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, what would you do . What would you do as general counsel . I would not follow that order. What would you do . I would inform the president that would be a violation of the law im confident the director would also impress upon the president that would be an unlawful act. You would specifically take it as your responsible 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 fy 16 could you reaffirm your commitment under oath 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. I commit not only to ensure that the cia complies with the letter but also the spirit of that law. Okay. Thank you. Thats good. You informed me earlier this week that you have read the full 500page declassified competitive summary study on the cias detention and interrogation program. While some may have continue 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 6700 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 i would 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 that would obviously my focus. 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 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 shy away from it because it is an official document now. I think it is a 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 things i have been most concerned with. And not the least was it wasnt lost on me that three big cases were materials disappeared and security was broken were done by contractors. Including the largest one, Edward Snowden and more recently, hal martin. Previously, when i was chairman, i worked with directorpy n pine and he agreed to a reduction in the number of contractors. 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. And i think that we need to continue to reduce the number of contractors. Question i have for you is do you agree that intelligence work is clearly an inherently governmental function . 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. Ms. Elwood, and congratulations to you and your family on this tremendous honor. I know you have been asked about the Russian Investigation by senator warner and i would just suggest that the same challenge that you and director pompeo will face and the importance of your integrity, your resilience and courage and withstanding outside pressure, the same sorts of characteristics are going to be need to be demonstrated by this committee to maintain the bipartisan leadership that chairman burr and senator warner has provided because theres going to be an awful lot of people that are going to try to influence this committee and get us off track. The same challenges to our integrity, resilience and courage to resist pressure from outsiders as you will as well. You is 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 since the practices that ask been asked about have 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 you identify they do something that later on theyre going to be criticized, perhaps, for political or other reasons for doing what is legally authorized. So can you tell us who is the final Legal Authority on the scope of activities of the Central Intelligence agency . Well, ultimately, under longstanding 18th century precedent, the attorney general is the ultimate determiner of the scope of 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 where there is the Supreme Court. But i think this is an area where people are somewhat confused. They think this is blackletter law and often its a matter of legal opinion by the office of Legal Counsel. Yes, sir, senator. And as i was eluding to, on many of these complex issues there is a range of reasonable interpretations and the department of justice or the lawyers asked to provide an opinion give their best reading of the law but it doesnt mean there cant be another interpretation that is reasonable. But the department of justice ultimately gives its best reading of the law. Just because somebody disagrees with a legal opinion doesnt mean that the authorities that youve identified or that other lawyers in the administration identify as conferring that authority, doesnt mean that wrong, either, does it . Thats true, yes, sir. 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 place 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 forced to buy Liability Insurance for doing their job. Yes, senator, as part of this process 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. Right. Post9 11, we didnt know as a nation, certainly didnt know as a government whether there were going to be followon attacked the agency and intelligence officials were under tremendous pressure by members of congress and others to go as far as you legally could, correct . Yes, sir, absolutely. And i guess its just human nature in the safety and security and after the passage of years and we dont feel the threat that we say we dont have to go as far as we did. I appreciate your answer to the questions and i, too, believe you are qualified for this position. Thank you for your willingness to take it on and thanks to your family for their support. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you for our meeting as well. I join my colleagues in that. I asked director pompeo about what he considered to be the boundaries that apply to the surveillance of americans. He said those boundaries are set by law. You are the nominee to be the general counsel who if confirmed would advise the director of those boundaries. Because the advice is classified and may not even be known to the committee, its 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. Ive asked director pompeo about this, he said i will consult with the lawyer. You have written that the attorney generalimpose, and i q 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 americans looking for information on americans. So my question to you deals with the statement you gave us. What stringent restriction specifically are you talking about . Senator, as you know the attorney general guidelines are publicly available and they were recently revised, and they are public. Theyre not a secret. I want to know what you consider to be restrictions. There are numerous restrictions and it depends upon the particular information at issue. So there are obviously less stringent and retention requirements with respect to publicly available information. But even there, if it is u. S. Person information, still the cias use of it is restricted. And then there is it is a 30page single space document prying 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 would like to hear you tell me, since you stated it in writing, what stringent restrictions would protect that lawabiding american . Well, 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 for a necessary to a to an authorized activity. So for the purpose of an authorized activity, and no further query with respect to publiclyavailable information cant go any further any further than the necessary extent to further that purpose. Now, with respect to certain categories of different authorities, 702 has a different query standard as you know than a bulk collection of information collected under 12333. I dont want to give i dont want to be inarticulate about the standards, i want to be precise, and they are spelled out in a public document. So none of this and i will hold the record open for this. I would like to just have you give me some concrete examples of im happy to do that when im 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, they there has to be a link to an authorized activity of the cia at a bare minimum, even to search publiclyavailable information. There are more stringent requirements with respect to collections depending upon the type of information also. I dont agree with you, senator, that theres no restraint on it. You get me an example of the stringent restriction. I want to get one more question in very quickly. The agency spied on the committee in 2014, searching our computers. They turned around and then 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 cias office of general counsel. You, if confirmed, would be supervising those attorneys. You think there ought to be any accountability . Senator, i understand there was an accountability board convened that looked at that issue already. So exonerated the lawyers involved. But you you believe you do you believe there should be any accountability when those lawyers, who would be under your supervision, provide inaccurate information. Senator, i understand there was already an independent accountability order im not talking about the past thing. I want to know what you would do going forward. Certainly. Going forward, if there was a situation like that to arise again and if the facts presented themselves and if the situation where the lawyers had not done something properly, absolutely i would insist on accountant and proceed accordingly, but thats going forward, yes. Im not revisiting the past. Thank you. Senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for joining us today, ms. Elwood. In reviewing your responses to Committee Questions there was one thing that concerned me across your responses, and it is 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 in that you have not or that you have not done the legal and Factual Research that would be required to properly answer important questions such as whether the cias former enhanced interrogation techniques are consistent with the detainee treatment act. Always you know, in this role you will be the principle 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 you have you didnt express strong opinions on some very specific questions that the committee has asked. I would like to focus more broadly on the scope of authority granted by covert action authorization and by president ial memorandums of notification. And as im sure you know, these authorizations fell off 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 taken undertaken under the findings are consistent with the findings. Im not sure if i answered your question. What im saying is that they it is my interpretation that those activities have to be explicitly authorized within either a covert action authorization or a president ial memorandum of notification. So 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, that it would not necessarily have to be explicit that every potential action be explicitly stated in the findings, but that would have to be a proper interpretation of the findings. I will give you an example that concerns me. The september 17th, 2001 memorandum of notification that authorized the cia capture and detention program, for example, made no reference to interrogations or to coercive interrogation techniques, yet it was repeatedly cited by the agency as the foundational authorization for that interrogation program. So just putting aside the bigger issues of whether the interrogation techniques themselves were in violation of any laws or treaty obligations, based on the lack of explicit authorization for those techniques, do you believe that use of those techniques were consistent with the approved authorities as it was written . Senator, i have neither looked at that particular mon or do i know anything beyond the executive summary of the senate study. To answer that question specifically. But i believe, you know, these are a fair reading of the nobody has raised that was not a fair reading of the notification. Well, 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 or a mon, 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 Authority as a basic principle, it is 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, you know, 20 years of legal experience and also through 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. I have exceeded it and i assume were going to go to senator king of maine since were the only since im the acting chairman 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, dare liks ereli duty which i find an extraordinary document with important insights. I have to mention, you have given me an opportunity to mention what i think is an important book that should be read by everyone up here. Yes, sir. I understand thats now being taught in the officer training course. And i hope that 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 you thought the 2007 law strengthened the legal basis for the for the terrorist Surveillance Program. That implies does that imply that you believe there was a legal basis for it . In other words does the president have inherent article 2 power to do warrantless surveillance of u. S. Citizens . Senator, the legal authorities underpinning the terrorist Surveillance Program as described in the public paper i reviewed and then in the much longer, thenclassified but largely declassified of the opinion of the oc, did not rest entirely on the president s article 2 authorities, but also rested first on the authorities provided by the aumf. The 2001 aumf . Yes, sir. Lets exclude that for a moment. Do you believe that the president has Inherent Authority under the commander in chief provision of article 2 to order warrantless surveillance of american citizens, 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 you can surveilled foreign persons, and theres 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 american, the u. S. Person . Well, the fisa court, as you know, sets out the parameters, sets out the framework for that type of querying, and then subsequently does not revisit it any time an individual query is taking place, however but you see my question. 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. Well, reverse targeting is prohibited expressly. And you dont believe that that is a potential issue or a 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. Citizen or a u. S. Persons communication but creating the fig leaf by targeting somebody at the side they know they will be communicating with. What were talking about with respect to incidental collection is just that, incidental. Those queries conducted with incidental, theres multiple layers of oversight, first being the one we discussed with the fisa Court Setting the parameters. 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. But no well, without without going back to the fisa court. It would be a i think director brynon and perhaps director clapper said it would be a big mistake to require going back to the court again each time there needed to be a kwury of the and were talking here about the 702 collection. But there is multiple, multiple layers of oversight including by the department of justice, the office of the dni, and the executive branch. Theres also with all of that oversight you just enunciated is all within the executive branch. I like having an independent body called a court have a role. Well, having a court do every warrant, a warrant or an order on every one of those would mean far fewer are done. It could seriously hamper the Operational Impact, and im looking forward to if confirmed getting an opportunity to see how these are but you have towns that this this you have to understand this is a bootstrap operation where you are, in fact, talking about the operation 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 oversees these queries and has looked at it thoroughly and determined there was not a trace, that there was no trace of illegitimate activity with respect to these sorts of queries. So it is layer upon layer upon layer already of existing oversight, and 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 from the front end and there are multiple layers of oversight on the back end. And while it may not it may seem, you know, the fox guarding the hen house, it is not. This is serious oversight by the ogni and by the department of justice checking every single query every 60 days. Im sure well have further discussion on this. I understand your position and i appreciate it. I still remain somewhat concerned that you end up with a trophy 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 fourth amendment, but we can follow up on it. Absolutely. If im confirmed i would look forward to that discussion. Thank you. Senator langford. Thank you. Good chance to visit with you again. I appreciate it. I hope it has been helpful in getting information out, things that youre passionate about. I always like to be able to remind people that for the folks that serve at the cia, they dont wear uniforms. They serve all around the world. They dont get pa raisrades, th dont get recognition. No onesi sees them at a restaurt and buys their meal because no one knows who they are. Would you pass on our gratitude to these folks. Absolutely. Any time im at langley and walk down the hall, i see people Walking Around the hall thinking about tucking in their kids at night and thinking about critical things, but theyre also counting on having a really good counsel because they deal with really hard issues and they need great advice, and sometimes they need it really 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. You have a tremendous back yound in dealing with these hard, legal issues. You have been around a lot of these hard conversations and been through it so were glad to have someone that can engage in it. I need to ask you, one, that your predecessor has also said is hard. Recently, in fact this week carolyn craft, who is the person you would be replacing, had a speech and in her speech at Georgetown University law school of all of the issues that she dealt with they slised this. She said, i think the hardest legal questions were those that surround cyber. It is an evolving area of the law, trying to determine answers to questions like what constitutes the use of force, where the measures to combat such a use of force. Theyre really difficult issues and theyre issues that 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 we have to write new statute, but also an area you have to interpret a lot of the issues. So my question to you is a more general one than it is trying to drive down into it. 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 we dont put the good people at the cia at risk in the future but that we also dont make everyone second guess what can and cant be done. Senator, you raise a very, very important issue. I would be delighted if confirmed to work with you on that, and it is an issue that other members have raised with me in our conversations as well. I certainly respect caroline kraflt, who is a longtime friend. We went to law school together, and she has been advising through this process. I would look forward to working with her in the future if i should be confirmed to this role. This is one of the ongoing issues as you go through this process, when you get to that spot know this committee is thinking about cyber doctrine a lot, how we can get it established, how we work agency to agency, how we work through the whole United States government on that and what is needed legislatively to help provide clarity on that. We look forward to that type of cooperation in the direction were going to go. Tell me as well we have talked a lot about protecting the American People. The other side of this, the folks that work at the cia are counting on having 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, though theres good followup, good tracking of it and good oversight through the process, the first line of that would be you. There are a couple of things that we need, i need to be able to hear quickly from you. One is that you understand youre not only the cias lawyer but youre the first line of defense for the American People in protecting their Constitutional Rights. 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. The clients of the general counsel are 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 allamericans. Thats great. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator. So following up on senator langfords questions, 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 have actually stated the American People generally have the 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. So the question that i have for you is how will you engage this committee to ensure that there is oversight of this significant but often secret legal guidance you will give the agency . Two points 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 i will also provide them with my judgment. So sometimes things are legal, as you know. With respect to ensuring the committee is aware, i have a legal obligation under the National Security act to make sure that this committee is informed of the legal bases that underpin 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 it be through a congressional notification . How can we as a committee expect you will reach out to us and notify and inform us of those decisions . There are a couple of different things. One is any time the Committee Requests information with respect to the legal basis, i have an obligation to respond. And then, 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 legal interpretation under the law, and i would obviously comply with that as well. And so lets talk a bit about what we 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 would obviously look to past practice as well as, frankly, some common sense in determining whether something rises to the level of notification. Now, i know from just conversations i have had with congressional affairs, and also reading about it in the history about it, the amount of notifications that this committee gets is extraordinary, multiple a day. 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 on developments as it relates to russias role in the 2016 election would be considered significant . If something was new in that that the cia had information about, i would imagine that would rise to the level of significance. Well, theyve already done it, the election is passed, so it would not be new new information. Yes. 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. But i would examine it obviously on a casebycase basis and based on how the office has been doing it for 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 it would not rise, that it would be insignificant. It sounds it would be something that is significant given the work this committee is doing on that investigation. Okay. And that means yes . Sounds like it. Okay. Im going to hold you to that. Im interpreting that as a yes. It sounds like my committee is as well. Thank you for that. The role of the general counsel is obviously to provide legal advice to the agency and the director. Do you agree that the role of general counsel requires providing an unbiassed legal position on all matters relating to the cia, free from political consideration . Absolutely. Okay. And if confirmed, will you provide legal guidance even if it runs counter to the administrations policy or statements during the campaign or afterwards . Absolutely, senator. Thank you. Senator collins. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Fi first, let me say, ms. Elwood, i very much appreciated the Office Meeting we had in which we went over many of the issues that have been raised here today, and i believe that you appeared 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 is i 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 Committee 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 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 Committee, i should say. In a more timely way, yes, should have been briefed in a more timely way, the full committee. Second, i want to follow up on an issue that several members have mentioned, senator langford, senator harris, but in a more direct way. That is in the private sector when you are counsel to kpora corporate entity, for example, it is very clear where your loyalties lie and who your client is. So i want to talk to you just a little bit more to plesh oflesh what you have already been asked by asking you what is your understanding of who would be your primary client as general counsel of the cia . It is 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. Now, casually we think of the director or the men and women at an agency as being the cia, the client. That is only true in their official capacity. If their interests diverge with the agency, that representative can no longer represent them. I remember in the general counsels office thinking often that we did not represent the president , we represented the office of the president. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator cotton. Thank you. Ms. Elwood, congratulations on your welldeserved nomination. I want to speak briefly about president ial policy directive 28. The Obama Administration through ppd 28 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 we are talking here about the bill of rights protects the individual rights of the United States citizens and individuals in the United States in large. I am often not aware of any statutory law that extends broad Privacy Protection to foreigners abroad. Is it a controversial statement of law that the u. S. Constitution and statutes do not extend to nonu. S. Persons located outside the United States . I dont think people would find that controversial. I would agree. Do you think the cia should take into account the privacy situations of hostile services and wouldbe terrorists when overseas . No, sir. I agree. Can you commit to me you will read cpd 28 classified annex regarding the Operational Impact 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 pompeo stated in his speech a couple of weeks ago at csic, the cia steals secrets from hostile entities and terrorist organizations. We utilize the whole tool kit, fully employing the capabilities that congress, the courts and executive branch have provide willed to us consistent with our american ideals wrfrmt part of the tool kit is section 702. Recently called it his top legislative priority to have it reauthorized before it expires at the end of the year. Would you please 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. They have with broad consensus all concluded it is a highly effective and valuable tool, and it has disrupted it has played a key role in disrupting specific terrorist threats 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 in 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 query. Outside of the agency and that and the agency querying is then audited by the office of the dni as well as the dog 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 ogni and doj audits every 60 days, and, indeed, every single select selector that is used under 702 is audited. Not a single one is missed. In addition to the executive branch oversight, theres, of course, the Inspector General of the agencies have Oversight Authority as well. Outside of the executive branch theres congressional oversight through the committee. Also provides oversight in setting the standards and reviewing any reports on any mistakes that are made, and then theres the fourth layer of oversight is related 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 in the highlyeffective tool, disrupting specific terrorist plots, and they also found, as i mention, senator king, no strtr of illegitimate activity or intentional misuse of the tool. Thank you for your answer. Thank you for the willingness to serve our country once again. Thanks to all of the 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 it is important to note that weve done a lot of talking about the pclov. 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 keep 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 currently informed, you said, i will according to the law. I have never heard a witness use that. Are you what is your mental reservation here . Well, consistent with the law. I am just holding out as you know, the statute provides that there are limits with respect to protection of sources and methods. So in 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 that have qualified for i think the same reason. Senator warner. I would say i know this will go beyond kind of 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 is it would be very timely to revisit some of those some of those principles because i do feel like there at times when gang of eight information which in my mind should normally be things that advance of a president ial action that Congress Needs to be notified, but not necessarily information that is simply sequestered into this very Discrete Group without having the full benefit of the committee, understanding, would be worth while to reexamine. If confirmed, 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. I will work with the vicechairman 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. Cspan washington general. Every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up tuesday morning, Georgia Republican congressman Drew Ferguson talks about this weeks expect vote on the 1. 1 trillion spending bill. Then new York Democratic congressman joe crowley on the future of healthcare. And a look at President Trumps executive order to review national monuments. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern tuesday morning. Join the discussion. Tomorrow the House Transportation Committee holds a hearing on u. S. Airline customer service, after that incident last month where a passenger was dragged off an overbooked flight, we will hear testimony from unite its ceo, oscar munoz, and united president scott kirby. That hearing is live at 9 30 a. M. On cspan3. Have agreed to a 1. 1 trillion omni bus spending bill to fund the government to the end of the fiscal year. Tuesday the House Committee needs to look at the spending bill and how to proceed with it on the floor. That meeting starting live at 3 00 p. M. Eastern also here on cspan3. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979 cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. It is brought to you today by your cable or appropriations subcommittee, this is an hour and a half. The hearing will come to order. We have a lot of our democratic colleagues are in transit. Well get started. Senator leahy will be a little late, but as soon as he arrives we will let him speak. The hearing today is on United States assistance for egypt. I would like to welcome our witnesses, elliott abern, senior fellow from middle eastern studies, counsel on foreign relations, in a variety of roles back to the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.