Hearings
Hearing Type:
Open
Date & Time:
Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 3:30pm
Location:
Dirksen SD-562
Witnesses
Full Transcript
[Senate Hearing 112-306]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-306
NOMINATION OF LISA O. MONACO TO BE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 17, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-746 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
[Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.]
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia, Vice Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
Virginia RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
RON WYDEN, Oregon JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland DANIEL COATS, Indiana
BILL NELSON, Florida ROY BLUNT, Missouri
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK UDALL, Colorado
MARK WARNER, Virginia
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ex Officio
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Ex Officio
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio
----------
David Grannis, Staff Director
Martha Scott Poindexter, Minority Staff Director
Kathleen P. McGhee, Chief Clerk
CONTENTS
----------
MAY 17, 2011
OPENING STATEMENTS
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from California. 1
WITNESS
Monaco, Lisa O., Assistant Attorney General for National
Security-Designate............................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Letter dated April 12, 2011, from Kenneth L. Wainstein to Senator
Dianne Feinstein and Senator Saxby Chambliss................... 3
Letter from Philip Mudd.......................................... 5
Letter dated April 8, 2011, from Willie T. Hulon to Senator
Dianne Feinstein and Senator Saxby Chambliss................... 6
Letter dated April 5, 2011, from Joseph Billy, Jr. to Senator
Dianne Feinstein and Senator Saxby Chambliss................... 7
Letter dated April 13, 2011, from Dale L. Watson to Senator
Dianne Feinstein and Senator Saxby Chambliss................... 8
Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees............ 22
Prehearing Questions and Responses............................... 38
Additional Responses to Questions for the Record................. 76
NOMINATION OF LISA O. MONACO TO BE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
??-??? PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m., at
3:37 p.m. in Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, the
Honorable Dianne Feinstein (Chairman of the Committee)
presiding.
Committee Members Present: Senators Feinstein, Wyden, and
Risch.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CHAIRMAN, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Chairman Feinstein. The Committee will come to order.
We meet today in open session to consider the President's
nomination of Lisa Monaco to be the Assistant Attorney General
for National Security, replacing David Kris, who resigned in
March of this year.
Ms. Monaco was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee,
of which I am a member, by a unanimous vote on May 9th. And her
nomination was referred under Senate rules to this Committee,
the Intelligence Committee. Now, that's consistent with the
joint jurisdiction that both of our committees have over
national security of the Department of Justice.
The Assistant Attorney General for National Security is a
fairly new position, but it's a very important one. This
position represents the government before the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act court and serves as a senior
adviser to the Attorney General on matters relating to national
security, such as intelligence collection, detention, and
counterintelligence.
I might just say--most people don't know--the FISA court,
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, is capable of
meeting 24/7, 365 days a year. I believe it has 11 judges, all
appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So they
are ones that review certain intelligence-related matters.
This Assistant Attorney General serves as the primary
liaison to the Director of National Intelligence for the
Department of Justice.
We are all mindful of the need to fill this position
quickly, especially in light of the May strike against Osama
bin Ladin. The strike provided for a collection of a large
cache of al-Qa'ida documents, communications, and videos that
will no doubt lead to new counterterrorism leads.
A Senate-confirmed official at the Department of Justice
has to sign off on applications to the FISA court and other
investigative techniques. So having Ms. Monaco in place quickly
will allow the government to move much more quickly.
Of course, the strike against bin Ladin may also lead to
reprisal attacks. So this is a time of an additional potential
threat of terrorism to this country. And the Attorney General,
the intelligence community, the FBI, and the entire
administration need to have their teams in place.
Ms. Monaco has already testified before the Judiciary
Committee. She's responded to written questions for the
Judiciary Committee and for this Committee. Her views and
positions are already a matter of public record.
Let me just quickly describe her background. She has served
as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General or acted in
that capacity and served as Associate Deputy Attorney General
from January of 2009 through February of 2010. She has
considerable experience with the FBI, having served as chief of
staff to Director Bob Mueller for two years.
She spent six years as an Assistant United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia, where she received the Attorney
General's award for exceptional service, the Department of
Justice's highest award.
She also received the Department of Justice awards for
special achievement, not one year, but in 2002, 2003, and 2005.
She skipped a year there, which we'll have to find out about.
[Laughter.]
She received her law degree from the University of Chicago
Law School in 1997, her B.A. from Harvard in 1990. Her
nomination has received support from a range of individuals,
with letters submitted on her behalf from former Attorney
General Michael B. Mukasey, former Assistant Attorney General
for National Security Kenneth Wainstein, and former senior
officials at the FBI and Department of Justice, which I now
request be placed in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
So I want to welcome you, Ms. Monaco. And I think this will
be a relatively brief hearing, particularly since you've
already been through the Judiciary Committee. So if I may turn
to a distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee who is
now acting as vice chairman of that Committee, Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I'm
anxious to get on with the hearing, and I'll submit any
comments for the record.
Chairman Feinstein. Okay. Very good. Do you have a
statement that you would like to make?
STATEMENT OF LISA O. MONACO, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
NATIONAL SECURITY-DESIGNATE
Ms. Monaco. I do, Madam Chairman. And if I might at this
time also introduce the members of my family who are here with
me today.
Chairman Feinstein. Please do.
Ms. Monaco. I'm very happy that my parents, Dr. Anthony
Monaco and Mary Lou Monaco could be here from my hometown of
Newton, Massachusetts. I'm very thankful for their support. My
brother Mark and his wife Jennifer Monaco are here from New
York, and I'm especially happy that they brought their
children, my niece Sophia and my nephew Nicholas----
Chairman Feinstein. Hi.
Ms. Monaco [continuing]. To come and be part of this
proceeding. I think they're particularly happy, however, that
they got a day off from school.
Chairman Feinstein. I think that's more important. No?
They're saying, no, it isn't.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Monaco. I think we'll probably have a debate about that
later.
I'm also very thankful that I have a few friends in the
audience and colleagues from the Department, including
colleagues from the National Security Division. And I'm
particularly honored that they're here today.
Madam Chairman, if I could make a few brief remarks.
Chairman Feinstein. Please do.
Ms. Monaco. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and Vice
Chairman Risch. I want to thank the Committee for holding this
hearing. I know you have extremely pressing business before
you, and I appreciate the thoughtful consideration being given
to this nomination.
At the outset, I would like to thank the President for his
confidence in nominating me and the Attorney General for his
support. I am tremendously honored to be here today.
In my statement before the Judiciary Committee a few weeks
ago, I discussed the changes the Department has undergone since
September 11th. I won't repeat those remarks here except to say
that, over the course of my career, I have been privileged to
participate in those changes. As a senior adviser, as the
Chairman noted, and chief of staff at the FBI, I worked with
Director Mueller to help advance the FBI's transformation from
a law enforcement organization focused on investigating crime
after the fact to a national security organization focused on
preventing the next attack.
I've also seen the evolution of the National Security
Division into a highly effective organization, and I've had the
opportunity to work with colleagues across the intelligence
community.
These changes reflect an intelligence-led approach to
combating national security threats. And, if confirmed, I will
be honored to continue that focus alongside the dedicated men
and women of the National Security Division and their equally
dedicated partners in the intelligence community.
Thanks to this Committee and to the Congress, the Assistant
Attorney General for National Security sits astride the law
enforcement and intelligence responsibility of the Justice
Department. And, if confirmed, I will serve as a bridge between
the department and the intelligence community. This is a
critical role and one which this Committee had the wise
judgment to create.
The mission of the National Security Division, quite
simply, is to prevent terrorism and to protect the American
people. As someone who has worked in both the Congress and in
the executive branch, I know this Committee plays an important
role in combating national security threats. I recognize that
oversight helps promote accountability, and I understand the
need to be responsive appropriately and quickly to
congressional oversight. I am committed to forming strong and
cooperative relationships in that regard.
Every morning for the last several years, I have sat
alongside talented analysts, agents and national security
professionals and reviewed intelligence and assessed how the
country is responding to the latest threat streams. This
experience has taught me that our nation faces complex and
evolving threats. To combat them, we must be aggressive and
agile in our approach, and we must do so consistent with the
rule of law. If confirmed, I pledge to give my all to that
effort.
Thank you very much, and I welcome the Committee's
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Monaco follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much. And we will begin
with five standard questions that just require a yes or no
answer.
Do you agree to appear before the Committee here or in
other venues when invited?
Ms. Monaco. Yes.
Chairman Feinstein. Do you agree to send officials from the
Department of Justice and designated staff when invited?
Ms. Monaco. Yes.
Chairman Feinstein. Do you agree to provide documents and
any other materials requested by the Committee in order for it
to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities?
Ms. Monaco. Yes.
Chairman Feinstein. Will you ensure that the Department of
Justice and its officials provide such material to the
Committee when requested?
Ms. Monaco. Yes.
Chairman Feinstein. Do you agree to inform and fully brief
to the fullest extent possible all members of this Committee of
intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the
Chairman and Vice Chairman?
Ms. Monaco. Yes.
Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much.
And now, I'd like to ask this question because this is very
pertinent to something we're going to be doing before the end
of this month.
Three provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, commonly referred to as FISA, are due to expire. They were
part of PATRIOT Act provisions. As you know, we are working to
extend the provisions, preferably to 2013. These three expiring
provisions are: one, roving wiretaps to monitor foreign
intelligence targets who attempt to thwart FISA surveillance
such as by rapidly changing cellphones; two, what's called the
lone-wolf provision to monitor a non-United States person who
engages in international terrorism but it is unknown whether he
is connected to a specific international terrorist group; and
three, the business records provision to obtain records as part
of a foreign intelligence investigation.
I'd like you to elaborate on your answer to the Committee's
prehearing questions on this topic. And please tell us how the
expiration of these three provisions would affect DOJ's
intelligence and law enforcement work at this very critical
period.
Ms. Monaco. Well, Chairman, as you noted in your opening
remarks, we are at a critical juncture and facing a stepped-up
threat, and we need to be able to respond to that with all the
leads that we receive in any number of different areas.
The provisions that you mention are absolutely critical to
that effort. The roving wiretap provision, as you mentioned,
enables investigators to essentially have the same tools that
criminal investigators have had for years and years, an ability
to keep up with those who would thwart the government's
surveillance efforts.
If these provisions were to expire, we would be, I think,
quite diminished in our ability to keep up with both rapidly
evolving threats like those who use sophisticated means to try
and thwart our surveillance effort and it would diminish our
ability to keep up with threat streams as they come in.
The business records----
Chairman Feinstein. Could you give us a couple of examples
of lone-wolf attacks in this country?
Ms. Monaco. Certainly, Senator. As this Committee is well
aware and having received a number of briefings in other
settings about the threat we face, I think I number of
experts--the DNI and the FBI director have spoken about the
particular threat we face from those who are self-radicalized,
those who are not necessarily part of al-Qa'ida or directed by
al-Qa'ida but rather inspired by al-Qa'ida's violent message.
And individuals such as Nidal Hasan from the tragic events
at Fort Hood, those type of individuals, who we may not be able
to directly associate with al-Qa'ida but who are inspired, are
the type of people that we need to have that tool, the lone-
wolf tool.
I would note, of course, for the Committee that that tool
can only be used against non-U.S. persons. It has not been used
to date, but it is certainly a tool that we need in order to be
able to keep up with the evolving threat that we face.
Chairman Feinstein. And the business records provision and
why that's important in the United States?
Ms. Monaco. Certainly. The business records provision, as
you noted, allows agents and investigators to obtain critical
building- block pieces of evidence in order to use, frankly,
more intrusive methods down the line. It's a critical way to
get information to build a case. It enables investigators to
get things like hotel records, FedEx records, the type of
things that, quite frankly, are very important in plots like
the package plot that we saw last year. In order to get
information from a shipping company to determine the origin of
a plot like that, we need the business records exceptions.
Chairman Feinstein. Was the business records provision used
in the Najibullah Zazi attempted attack with the goods from
the----
Ms. Monaco. The peroxide?
Chairman Feinstein. The peroxide----
Ms. Monaco. I think I know what you're referring to. Yes,
Senator, that is exactly the type of plot that we need that
provision for. You're alluding to, I think, the ability of the
investigators to track down the purchase of the peroxide that
formed the base for the explosive device that Najibullah Zazi
was plotting to use in September of 2009.
Chairman Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Madam Chairman, this candidate has been well
vetted by the Judiciary Committee, and I think that she has
received high marks from virtually everyone I've talked to, so
I'm going to pass. I was particularly impressed with her
analysis of the expiring FISA provisions. And obviously we're
going to have a spirited debate on some of those, but her view
on them is important, I believe. So thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much.
I may have one other question on this--but I may not, too.
Senator Risch. That's Okay.
Chairman Feinstein. Let me speak about one thing, and
that's in the subject of increased leak prosecutions by DOJ.
In responding to the Committee's prehearing questions, you
provided short status reports on four major prosecutions where
the Department of Justice charged individuals in connection
with unlawful disclosure of classified information to the
media. Could you put the number and complexity of these
prosecutions in historical context?
Ms. Monaco. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As you noted, just a few of the summaries that I provided
in my response to the prehearing questions I think reflect a
stepped-up effort and, indeed, a priority placed on the
prosecution of leak matters in the Department. These, I think,
in the last 18 months--I'm going to estimate here--I think it's
twice as many as has been done historically in this area.
These are very, very important prosecutions. This Committee
has, I think appropriately, pressed the Department and the
intelligence community to bring these matters, to focus on
these matters, to ensure that unauthorized disclosures are
prosecuted and pursued, either by criminal means or the use of
administrative sanctions.
Leaks do tremendous damage. I know from my time at the FBI
what they can do to an investigation, to a prosecution,
frankly, to the lives of sources that are very important to
these investigations. And they do tremendous damage to our
ability to use specific methods, if those methods are
disclosed, and to use those methods for collecting
intelligence.
If I'm confirmed, it would be my priority to continue the
aggressive pursuit of these cases, challenging as they may be,
but those challenges should not slow us down in aggressively
pursuing those matters.
Chairman Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Let me
just apologize for being late and also missing an earlier
statement.
Chairman Feinstein. I saw you on the floor.
Senator Wyden. Today has been bedlam, even by Senate
standards, and I apologize for that to you.
Chairman Feinstein. No problem.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Monaco, welcome. And I want to start by
talking about the matter you and I talked about in the office,
and that really is my philosophy with respect to national
security law.
I think it is absolutely essential to protect the
operations and methods that are employed day in, day out by the
courageous people who serve us in the intelligence community. I
think protecting those sources and methods is just sacrosanct,
and I feel it as strongly as anything that relates to my public
duty.
But I also believe that all intelligence activities have to
be conducted within the boundaries of public law. And as you
know, when we talked in the office, I make a major distinction
between public law and the operations and methods that I feel
so strongly about protecting. Members of the public won't
always know the details, obviously, about what intelligence
agencies are doing but they also ought to be able to look at
the law and figure out what actions are permitted and what
actions are prohibited.
In other words, the government is allowed to conduct these
secret operations to protect national security, but I don't
think our government ought to be able to write secret law. Do
you disagree with that judgment?
Ms. Monaco. Well, first, thank you very much, Senator, for
taking the time to meet with me last week, and I very much
enjoyed our conversation. I appreciate your taking that time.
I did review the correspondence that you mentioned and, as
we discussed, in this setting, I think I will simply refer to
it in a general way, since it is classified. But I reviewed the
points that you asked me to in that correspondence, and I think
that there are very valid points that you made in that
correspondence.
I think that we need to ensure that we balance the need to
keep certain information secret, to protect, as you noted, the
intelligence sources and methods. But on the other hand, there
is a tremendous value in making clear to the public how we use
these authorities. It engenders trust, I think, in the way the
government uses those authorities, and we rely--those of us in
positions of trust rely on the public's trust in how we
exercise our duties.
And I understand the Committee's interest and importance of
your knowing how we're exercising those functions, because you
stand in the shoes of the public in exercising your oversight
responsibility. So in short, I think the points you made in the
correspondence that we discussed are quite valid.
Senator Wyden. I think that's helpful. And, of course, you
know, we're talking only in this unique language that you have
for an open intelligence hearing. You then agree with me--and
this is the part I want to nail down--that the application of
secret law is wrong, because that's what I'm raising in the
letter.
And this is right at the heart, you know, of my concern--
protect the operations and methods, but I want to see an end to
all of this secret law. Because I think and we certainly see
this on the PATRIOT Act, if the public thinks that the law is
this, and the law ends up actually being that, that's a
prescription for trouble.
And so what I really need to get on the record--and
obviously I haven't talked about any of the points raised in
the letter or anything that relates to operations and methods--
is I want to get on the record whether you share my view that
the way law is being applied secretly is wrong.
Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, I absolutely agree that we need
to make as much of the types of documents that you're referring
to public as possible. There is a process, as I think the
Committee is aware, to try and make sure the FISA court
opinions that can be made public and the portions of them that
can be made public are--that that is done to the fullest extent
possible. I share your view that we need to make sure that we
protect the sources and methods, and I think that we can do
that while at the same time making clear and making public how
we're applying the law in the open for evaluation of the
Congress and the public.
Senator Wyden. Do you agree that the government's official
interpretation of the law should be public? That is to me a
yes-or-no answer.
Ms. Monaco. Well, respectfully, Senator, the whole notion
and the reason we have the FISA court is sometimes the manner
in which we're applying the authorities and the facts
surrounding them have to necessarily be kept secret from our
adversaries so that those tools can't be used against us. I
certainly agree that we need to make as much public as possible
and to be as transparent as possible in how we're using the
authorities that the Congress has given us.
Senator Wyden. Are key interpretations of the PATRIOT Act
classified?
Ms. Monaco. I think that there are a number of applications
and orders from the FISA court that are in the process of being
reviewed pursuant to a process that the Committee has been
notified of.
Senator Wyden. Well, it seems pretty clear to me that key
interpretations of the PATRIOT Act are classified. That's the
problem and I don't think the Department's releasing a bunch of
statistics are going to clear that, you know, up. I mean, the
big problem in my view is that the American people are being
kept in the dark about their government's interpretation of a
major surveillance law. And I think most Members of Congress
aren't aware of how it's being applied either, even though
they're being asked to vote for it. And I don't think this
situation is sustainable.
And my own view is, is when members of the public find out
how their government is secretly interpreting the PATRIOT Act,
they're going to insist on significant reforms. And I will only
tell you: I think you're very highly qualified, but I still
don't get a sense of urgency or conviction that this issue of
secret law is of any real concern, because when I've asked
specifically about it, you've either said it's complicated and
there are other kinds of issues or referred me to something
else.
So if you're confirmed, I can assure you, you're going to
keep hearing from me about this, because I think secret law is
an increasing, you know, problem in this country. The American
people are fair-minded and they understand this is a very
dangerous world with very significant threats. And they want
our operations and methods, as I do, protected so our men and
women who serve in the intelligence community can do their job
and know that they can do it with the maximum amount of
personal safety, but that's very different than secret
applications of statutes like the PATRIOT Act.
Madam Chair, what's your pleasure? I had a couple of other
questions, but I am well over my time, and I can wait for
another round.
Chairman Feinstein. Well, why don't you go ahead and ask
them, because I think we're ready to wrap it up.
Senator Wyden. Well, I thank you.
Let me ask you about the FISA court opinions, which
involves, of course, both secrecy and the law.
In 2008, Senator Rockefeller and I wrote a letter to the
Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence and the
Chief Justice of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
expressing our view that there ought to be a more regular
process for reviewing, redacting, and then publishing the
courts' major opinions.
Now, I believe it makes sense to classify routine warrant
applications that contain information about sensitive
intelligence sources and methods, but a few of the court's
decisions actually contain important rulings on the meaning of
national surveillance law. And it's been my judgment that these
decisions ought to be redacted and declassified so that the
Congress and the public can better understand how national
security statutes are being interpreted by the judicial branch.
Now, in 2009, Senator Rockefeller and I followed up and we
were told that the executive branch was working with the FISA
court to set up this process. We've been updated a couple of
times about what the new process would look like. But again,
nothing has really changed. There haven't been any declassified
court opinions as yet. And given this process has now been two
years in the making, when can you tell the Committee that we
might see some declassified opinions?
Ms. Monaco. Well, Senator, as I understand it--and I know
this was raised and I tried to respond to some extent in my
prehearing questions, but as I understand it, there is a
process under way by which the National Security Division
reviews opinions and orders from the FISA court, and pursuant
to the section, of course, of FISA that requires that the
Committee be provided with significant interpretations and
constructions in those opinions, that those documents are
reviewed by the National Security Division and then, of course,
shared with the intelligence community so that determinations
can be made as to what can be declassified.
These are, of course, judicial documents, as you noted. And
I know there has been considerable discussion with a number of
judges on the FISA court so that they too understand and agree
that we should be providing as much of that material in an
unclassified form as possible.
So I know that there is a process under way for the
substance of the opinions to be reviewed and for the
intelligence community to determine what can be declassified.
And if I am confirmed, I think one of my first priorities would
be to check in and determine the status of that full review and
to see when you can be provided a number of those opinions.
Senator Wyden. Well, the process is two years in the
making. I mean, what can you tell me is likely to change? When
you tell me that you're going to review the process, that's
what people have been doing for two years and nothing has
changed. So what are you going to do differently?
Ms. Monaco. Well, I think I'm going to have to make a
determination. I don't have the facts in front of me. I think
what would be the wise course, from my perspective, is to--if
I'm confirmed--to get the facts on the ground, to do my own due
diligence to determine what procedures have been set up. Are
there efficiencies that can be realized? Are there things that
could be done in a more expedited fashion--and make those
assessments. I simply haven't been in a position in order to do
that yet.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to wrap up.
I just want to convey in the strongest possible way that I
think business as usual is unacceptable. And you have very
fine, you know, qualifications, but I am still very troubled
about your thinking with respect to secret law. I think that is
going to be an increasing problem as the American people think
the statute is really being applied over here. They're going to
find out it's over there and it's going to undermine, you know,
public confidence.
And after two years of persistent efforts to try to get a
fresh approach with respect to FISA opinions and making them
publicly, you know, available when there aren't any national
security risks to the public and say we're just going to study
it some more--isn't acceptable to me.
Madam Chair, you've given me an awful lot of time and I
thank you for the usual Chair-Feinstein courtesy and grace.
Chairman Feinstein. You're very welcome. Your views are
well-known and somewhat appreciated.
[Laughter.]
I'd like to thank you very much for this hearing. I want to
wish you well. We'd like to keep the record open for a couple
of days so members can ask questions. And so I'd ask that those
questions be submitted by Thursday.
If you could respond very quickly, we could vote on your
nomination next Tuesday and then hopefully move it very
quickly. You have been through consecutive review of two
Committees. So I think a number of Senators are very well aware
of your views and your qualifications.
So I thank you and your family, and particularly your niece
and nephew for being here and being so polite and quiet, which
is sometimes a problem for young people.
[Laughter.]
So thank you very much, and the hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Monaco. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]