U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

53–268 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–936 

NOMINATION OF J. PATRICK ROWAN TO BE 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FOR NATIONAL SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE 

OF THE

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE 

[Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri, Vice Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

HARRY REID, Nevada, Ex Officio 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Ex Officio 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio 

ANDREW W. JOHNSON, Staff Director 

LOUIS B. TUCKER, Minority Staff Director 

KATHLEEN P. MCGHEE, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from West Virginia .. 1 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Missouri ....... 3 

WITNESS 

Rowan, J. Patrick, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for National 

Security ................................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 

Prehearing Questions and Responses .................................................................... 20 

Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees .................................... 51 

Letter from Don W. Fox, Office of Government Ethics, Dated June 26, 2008 

Transmitting Public Financial Disclosure Report ............................................. 69 

July 23, 2003 Congressional Testimony ................................................................ 80 

July 20, 2006 Congressional Testimony ................................................................ 84 

January 29, 2008 Congressional Testimony .......................................................... 92 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF J. PATRICK ROWAN TO BE 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FOR NATIONAL SECURITY 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., in Room 

SDG–50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Honorable Jay Rockefeller (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Committee Members Present: Senators Rockefeller, Wyden, 

Bond, and Warner. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. The Committee will come to order. 

We meet to consider the nomination of J. Patrick Rowan to be 

Assistant Attorney General for National Security. 

I would like to begin by congratulating the nominee and asking 

whether—as I sorely suspect is the case—he has anybody he’d like 

to introduce. 

Mr. ROWAN. Yes, Senator. Thank you for providing me that opportunity. 

Behind me here is my mother, Anne Rowan, a retired math 

teacher, and my father, William J. Rowan, who is a judge in the 

Montgomery County Circuit Court in Maryland. I’m also joined by 

a number of my colleagues from the Department of Justice, including a number of colleagues from the National Security Division. I 

really appreciate that they’re able to come as well. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Good. We welcome you. A math teacher 

and judge. 

Mr. ROWAN. A lot to live up to. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Yes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

In the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in 2006, Congress established the National Security Division of the Department of Justice 

and the position of Assistant Attorney General to head that division. That legislation also established a somewhat unique, at least 

rare, procedure which brings to our Intelligence Committee the 

nomination of a Justice Department official. The nomination was 

first considered by the Judiciary Committee, which favorably reported it two weeks, glad to say. It was then automatically referred 

to our Committee. 

2 

There is an important reason why the 2006 statute provided for 

an automatic sequential referral to the Intelligence Committee. The 

Assistant Attorney General for National Security carries out intelligence-related functions that are at the heart of the legislative and 

oversight responsibilities of this Committee. These include representing the government before the FISA Court and being the government’s chief counterterrorism and counterespionage prosecutor. 

Mr. Rowan is a career Department of Justice prosecutor who has 

rendered very important service in the U.S. District Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia, at the FBI, and in several offices 

in the Department of Justice. Of particular relevance to the nomination that brings him here today, Mr. Rowan has been in the 

leadership of the National Security Division from its beginning in 

2006. He first served there as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General. In that capacity, he managed the Department of Justice’s 

national security investigations and prosecutions. And from April, 

2008 to the present he has been the Acting Assistant Attorney 

General. 

That’s the only thing I don’t like about the Justice Department, 

is all the assistant levels. It’s difficult for those of us who aren’t 

in that profession. But that’s not your fault. 

Mr. ROWAN. It certainly is. Thank you. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Rowan has obviously earned the 

confidence of Attorney General Mukasey, and I am advised that the 

Director of National Intelligence, DNI, strongly supports his nomination. We treat both as high recommendations. 

If confirmed, Mr. Rowan will head his office at a time of important challenges and responsibilities for the National Security Division. The National Security Division has a leading role in implementing the recently-passed FISA Amendments of 2008—a very 

noncontroversial matter—in a manner that is true to the twin objectives of the law—providing for the effective collection of intelligence and preserving the liberties and privacy of Americans, if 

those two are entirely reconcilable. And that’s, I would think, one 

of the fascinations of what probably lies before you. 

Robust congressional oversight of the new law, as well as older 

parts of FISA that were unchanged by that law, is essential. Our 

ability to conduct this oversight will depend on full and informative 

reporting by the Attorney General, which will rely in turn on comprehensive and penetrating reviews and reporting by the National 

Security Division. 

Our oversight responsibilities will be particularly important in 

areas that are not subject to judicial review. Key among them is 

the adequacy and adherence to the Attorney General’s guidelines 

required by the FISA Amendments to ensure adherence to the Act’s 

limitations, including the prohibition on reverse targeting. We will 

be looking forward to the National Security Division’s full participation in that effort. 

It is not too soon to note that several FISA provisions added by 

the 2001 PATRIOT Act, and extended in the 2006 reauthorization, 

will sunset at the end of 2009. One is the business records title of 

FISA. A challenge Congress will face that will also occur when provisions of the FISA Amendments sunset at the end of 2013 is how 

3 

to enable public considerations of interpretations of these laws by 

the FISA Court and its Court of Review. 

We would welcome the nominee’s thoughts on what he would do, 

if confirmed, to work with those courts and the intelligence community to release publicly any opinions on important issues of law, to 

the extent consistent with national security. 

There are important challenges for the National Security Division apart from FISA. The Assistant Attorney General is the government’s chief counterterrorism prosecutor. The time is rapidly 

approaching when, in my opinion, this Senator’s opinion, there 

needs to be a thorough reconsideration of the effort to substitute 

military commissions for military court martial or federal criminal 

trials. 

Simply put, seven years have passed since the terrorist attacks 

of September 11th, and more than that since the USS COLE attack. And it is clear that the effort to bypass established ways, both 

military and civilian, for trying terrorism cases has failed to bring 

to justice the participants in those attacks. While the nominee may 

be limited in what he can say at this time, I hope that if confirmed 

he will quickly and energetically make the National Security Division an active participant in the search for a better course. 

I now turn to the distinguished Vice Chairman for his opening 

remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, VICE 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with you 

in welcoming Mr. Rowan, his parents, Judge and Mrs. Rowan. 

You have adequately described, Mr. Chairman, very eloquently 

how we got to this position. I add just a few comments about Mr. 

Rowan’s predecessor, Ken Wainstein, now serving as the President’s Homeland Security advisor. 

We provided an outline for this position, but there are many competing visions and some very strong opinions on what the NSD 

should look like. And I think Ken sifted through them and made 

some very tough decisions. So far, overall it appears to me that 

they were good decisions, and for that we owe Ken our country’s 

gratitude and praise. 

There is still a lot to be done. Executive Order 12333 and its implementation to NSD will be on the frontline. As the Chairman 

said, the IC continues to implement this summer’s FISA Act 

amendments and the new extensive oversight and reporting requirements on the IC and the NSD. 

As I understand it, virtually on a daily basis the FBI seeks FISA 

applications for physical search, electronic surveillance on terrorists, spies inside the U.S. It has to be drafted by the NSD in coordination with the FBI. 

And that’s why I think it’s important that we get a permanent 

leader at the helm. Having a Senate-confirmed AAG would enable 

him to act in the place of the Attorney General to certify FISA applications or authorize emergency FISAs when the Attorney General is not available. And if we cannot confirm him, that means 

there could be lengthy delays while we wait to track down General 

Mukasey. 

4 

There are also a number of other issues we’ll get into on the proposed new guidelines for FBI criminal national security investigations. And I’d like any wisdom you have as a career prosecutor and 

solid security experience if this works well, and I also look forward 

to hearing your opinion on the impact the FISA Act amendments 

have had on the National Security Division in its processing of 

FISA applications. 

But Mr. Chairman, since we’re running very short of time, I hope 

we can move it quickly to the floor, assuming that none of the people here have any problems with this nominee, that we could get 

him confirmed before we leave town to give the Attorney General 

the resources he needs. 

I thank the Chairman and thank our witness. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. I agree with the Vice Chairman. Mr. 

Rowan, we will welcome your opening statement at this point. 

STATEMENT OF J. PATRICK ROWAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 

GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY-DESIGNATE 

Mr. ROWAN. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Vice Chairman 

Bond. 

It’s my pleasure to appear before you today as the President’s 

nominee to be the second Assistant Attorney General for National 

Security. As a federal prosecutor and attorney for the FBI and in 

my work in the last several years at the Department of Justice, I’ve 

devoted much of my career to protecting the security of this nation 

and its citizens while defending our civil liberties. I hope to have 

the opportunity to continue this service as the Assistant Attorney 

General for National Security. 

At the outset, I’d like to thank you for holding this hearing, 

knowing the many pressing demands you face at the end of this 

Congress and in this period of financial crisis. I appreciate your 

support for the critical mission of the National Security Division. 

Since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the first priority of 

the Department of Justice has been combating terrorism and other 

threats to our national security. The department worked hard in 

the years immediately following September 11th to fulfill this mission, but it became clear that a restructuring of the department 

was needed. The President and the Congress authorized the creation of the National Security Division, and we’ve been up and running for almost two years now. 

We’ve made significant strides in realizing the benefits of bringing together the department’s prosecutors and its counterterrorism 

and counterespionage sections with its intelligence lawyers in the 

Office of Intelligence Policy Review to form a new, streamlined national security organization. As one who’s been there since the beginning, I’m proud to report that the transition has gone well. Our 

new structure enables us to provide quick, fully coordinated responses to national security threats. 

Of particular importance to this Committee, the creation of the 

division makes the department more responsive to the needs of the 

intelligence community by having the Assistant Attorney General 

for National Security provide a single Justice Department point of 

coordination and contact for our colleagues in the intelligence community. If confirmed, I will act as the primarily liaison to the DiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053268 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\53268.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
5 

rector of National Intelligence, and I look forward to developing 

further the already strong relationship between our offices. 

I recognize that congressional oversight plays an important role 

in promoting accountability and improving government operations, 

especially those of the intelligence community. I’m committed to 

ensuring that we provide information responsive to Congress’s 

oversight needs, consistent with our law enforcement and national 

security responsibilities, in a thorough and expedited manner. 

Specifically, I look forward to discussing national security issues 

of significant interest to this Committee, including what the National Security Division has done and is planning to do to implement the FISA Amendments Act. I’d like to pause here to thank 

this Committee for its invaluable and tireless efforts in pursuing 

the modernization of FISA. It was a historic achievement, and I’m 

proud that the NSD was a part of it. 

In conjunction with the DNI and the agencies of the intelligence 

community, the NSD has made significant strides in implementing 

the FISA Amendments Act. And in particular, consistent with Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, the NSD has taken appropriate steps to ensure there’s an efficient and effective transition 

from the Protect America Act to the newly enacted authority. 

The specific details of the certifications and related procedures 

are necessarily classified and must remain so. Staff members of 

this Committee have been fully briefed on these certifications and 

related procedures and any court action on them. In addition, the 

NSD has implemented other provisions of the FAA, including provisions that streamline the applications under FISA. 

In closing, I want to thank the President and the Attorney General for the trust they have placed in me. I want to assure this 

Committee that if I’m confirmed I’ll continue to devote all my energies to the mission of protecting our national security and defending the civil liberties and freedoms that give meaning to our security. 

I look forward to working with the Committee should I be confirmed as an Assistant Attorney General, and I welcome any questions that members of the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rowan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. PATRICK ROWAN

Chairman Rockefeller, Vice Chairman Bond, Members of the Committee: 

It is my pleasure to appear before you today as the President’s nominee to be the 

second Assistant Attorney General for National Security. As a federal prosecutor, 

Special Counsel for the Office of General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Associate Deputy Attorney General, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General in the National Security Division, and Acting Assistant Attorney General 

for National Security, I have devoted much of my career to protecting the security 

of this nation and its citizens and defending our civil liberties. I hope to have the 

opportunity to continue this service as the Assistant Attorney General for National 

Security. 

At the outset, I would like to thank the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the Members of the Committee for holding this hearing knowing the many pressing demands 

you face at the end of this Congress and in this period of financial crisis. I appreciate your support for the critical mission of the National Security Division. 

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the first priority of the Department of 

Justice has been combating terrorism and other threats to our national security. 

The Department worked hard in the years immediately following September 11th 

to fulfill this mission, but it became clear that a restructuring of the Department 

was needed. The President and Congress authorized the creation of the National SeVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053268 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\53268.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
6 

curity Division. The Division has been up and running now for almost two years 

and we have made significant strides in realizing the benefits of bringing together 

the Department’s prosecutors in its Counterterrorism and Counterespionage Sections with its intelligence lawyers in the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review to 

form a new, streamlined national security organization. I am proud to report that 

the transition has gone well and the National Security Division now consists of the 

fully integrated Office of Intelligence (01) (formerly the Office of Intelligence Policy 

and Review), the Counterterrorism and Counterespionage Sections, and a new Office of Law and Policy devoted to national security issues. Our new structure enables us to provide quick, imaginative, and agile responses to national security 

threats. Of particular importance to this Committee, the creation of the Division 

makes the Department more responsive to the needs of the Intelligence Community 

by having the Assistant Attorney General for National Security provide a single 

Justice Department point of coordination and contact for our colleagues in the Intelligence Community 

The Attorney General expects that the National Security Division will continue 

to pursue the following primary objectives that led to the creation of this new division: the centralization of the management of the Department’s national security 

program; the coordination of operations and policy across the national security spectrum; the implementation of comprehensive national security oversight; and the further development of national security training and expertise. If confirmed, I will act 

also’ as the primary liaison to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and I look 

forward to developing further the already strong relationship between our offices. 

In addition, the Attorney General expects that if confirmed I will help ensure that 

our national security responsibilities are met during the first transition of government following September 11, 2001. 

I recognize that congressional oversight plays an important role in promoting accountability and improving government operations, especially those of the Intelligence Community and, if confirmed as the Assistant Attorney General for National 

Security plan to actively participate in the congressional oversight process. In my 

previous positions at the National Security Division I have participated directly in 

the oversight process by testifying at hearings before House Committees and by 

briefing numerous members of the Senate and House, as well as the staff of their 

committees. I am committed to ensuring that we provide information responsive to 

Congress’s oversight needs, consistent with our law enforcement and national security responsibilities, in a through and expedited manner. 

Specifically, I look forward to discussing national security issues of significant interest to this Committee, including what the National Security Division has done 

and is planning to do to implement the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). I would like 

to pause here to thank this Committee for its invaluable and tireless efforts in pursuing the modernization of FISA. It was an historic achievement, and I am proud 

that the NSD was a part of it. It will always serve as a reminder of what we can 

achieve when we work together. 

In conjunction with the DNI and the agencies of the Intelligence Community, the 

NSD has made significant strides in implementing the FISA Amendments Act. In 

particular, consistent with Section 702 of the FAA, the NSD has taken appropriate 

steps to ensure there is an efficient and effective transition from the Protect America Act to the newly enacted authority. The specific details of the certifications and 

related procedures are necessarily classified and must remain so. Staff members of 

this Committee have been fully briefed on these certifications and related procedures and any court action on them. In addition, the NSD has implemented other 

provisions of the FAA including provisions that streamline applications under FISA. 

In closing, I want to thank the President and the Attorney General for the trust 

they have placed in me. I want to assure this Committee that if I am confirmed, 

I will continue to devote all my energies to the mission of protecting our national 

security and defending the civil liberties and the freedoms that give meaning to our 

security. 

I look forward to working with this Committee should I be confirmed as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security and I welcome any questions the 

members of this Committee may have. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir. We have our tradition, 

Mr. Rowan, and we always ask individual questions of our members before we get to that. We have several questions that we ask 

all of our nominees. 

Do you agree to appear before the Committee here or in other 

venues when invited? 

7 

Mr. ROWAN. Yes, Senator. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Do you agree to send officials from the 

National Security Division to appear before the Committee and 

designated staff when invited? 

Mr. ROWAN. Yes, Senator. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Do you agree to provide documents or 

any other material requested by the Committee in order for it to 

carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? 

Mr. ROWAN. I do, Senator. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. You’re sure about that? 

Mr. ROWAN. Yes. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Will you ensure that the National Security Division provides such material to the Committee when requested? 

Mr. ROWAN. I will, Senator. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Good. Well, you’re virtually confirmed. 

As I said in my opening statement, seven years after the attacks 

on 9/11, eight years—seems a lot longer since the attack on the 

USS COLE—it’s clear that the effort to bypass established ways, 

both military and civilian, for trying terrorism cases has failed to 

bring to justice the participants in those attacks, and it’s a rather 

stunning fact, because they were very large events. 

From your long experience in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, at the 

FBI, in the Criminal Division at Justice, and now in the National 

Security Division, can you describe both the challenges and the 

successes that the Department of Justice has had in trying terrorism cases in the United States district courts? Specifically, I 

would like your comments on the risks posed by abusive interrogation methods to the ability of the United States to successfully 

prosecute terrorists. 

Mr. ROWAN. Well, Senator, there are, obviously, quite a few examples in which we’ve been able to successfully prosecute in the 

federal criminal courts individuals involved in international terrorism. There’s obviously been a number of successful trials in the 

Southern District of New York. The most recent case involving 

something associated with the 9/11 attacks, of course, is Mr. 

Moussaoui’s prosecution and conviction in the Eastern District of 

Virginia. 

And that case is actually, I think, an example of, on the one 

hand, how we have very talented, very dedicated prosecutors who 

are dealing with very experienced judges, and they work their way 

in a very impressive fashion through some very difficult problems— 

problems with the classified information that is put at risk by a 

prosecution, problems with a defendant who doesn’t accept our 

courts as being legitimate in the first instance, the myriad of issues 

that everybody who watched the Moussaoui case saw arise. And 

the court and the prosecutors and the defense attorneys, all being 

very professional, worked their way through them, and of course, 

he’s been convicted. 

At the same time, I think it’s fair to say that wasn’t an easy 

road. There were a lot of difficulties that were encountered along 

the way. So I think it demonstrates that these cases do present 

unique challenges for our courts, particularly in the context of protecting classified information. 

8 

Mr. Moussaoui was someone who obviously was caught here in 

the United States and quickly placed in immigration custody. I 

think it’s even more challenging when you consider the examples 

of individuals who are detained and there’s a concern that they 

have urgent threat information. And so the first interest of the government is what kind of intelligence information can we get from 

this person? 

So I think that wrinkle is what adds a great deal of complexity 

to the problem that we face. And I think that that issue is one that 

we have tried to work on on a case-by-case basis, but we struggle 

with that in each instance. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Okay. That doesn’t sort of get at the— 

I know it’s a popular subject, and I don’t want you to think that 

I’m starting out in a badgering mood, but the whole question of the 

so-called abusive techniques thing. Because, as you know, there are 

schools of thought on that, some saying, particularly the FBI and 

the military officials, JAG officials, et cetera, that you don’t get 

your best information that way, and others saying that that may 

be true in a variety of cases, but sometimes you just have to—if 

there’s an imminent national security—something that you see on 

the horizon, and this person might be able to tell you about that. 

How that would be surmised I don’t know. Do you have any 

thoughts on that? 

Mr. ROWAN. Again, my experience has been as a federal prosecutor, and in that context I’ve certainly seen how effective an experienced FBI agent can be in building rapport and extracting information from a defendant when it’s clearly not in his interest to 

provide that information. So I certainly have a great deal of respect 

for a rapport-building technique. 

I think that they are difficult issues when you’re trying to—when 

you’re on the front line of trying to determine how to interrogate 

a person where there’s a concern about them having imminent information. 

I do think that, regardless of what technique you’re pursuing, 

that we need to keep in mind that the Miranda model, which we 

obviously use here in the United States, is a difficult one to apply. 

I’m not talking about coercion. I’m talking about like the traditional set of protections that we have expected to be provided to detainees when we want to use their statement in an Article 3 court. 

I think that the Miranda protections are difficult to square with 

some of the urgencies of overseas interrogations. 

You know, I think there’s plenty of room, obviously, over and 

above Miranda, to determine how an interrogation should take 

place, and I think that we are now in a better position than we’ve 

ever been to judge the relative adequacy and effectiveness of rapport-building techniques against more coercive techniques. 

And we’re obviously also working through in the military commissions context how do we address statements that were obtained 

in the aftermath of techniques that were certainly more aggressive 

than the classic FBI rapport-building techniques. 

So to the extent that there continues to be a substantial disagreement about how to go about this, I would hope that we would 

at least be able to draw on everything that we’ve learned over the 

last years since 9/11 as the entire intelligence community and the 

9 

law enforcement community was mobilized to try to extract information. We’ve got a lot more experience now than we did on 9/11. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. I want to pursue that a little bit, but 

my time is up. 

Vice Chairman Bond. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am concerned about some of the implications of trying to apply 

all of our constitutional protections for U.S. citizens to people we 

may detain on the battlefield. Obviously, we have standards by 

which they must be handled, but exposing in public witnesses who 

may be undercover assets—there are a lot of things that I’m concerned about. So we will get into the discussion of what kind of justice system is appropriate. 

I would like to turn to the new Attorney General guidelines. As 

I said, you’re a prosecutor. You were with the FBI in the National 

Security Division. What’s your personal opinion of it, or did you 

have such a big hand in writing it that that’s your handiwork? 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator, the National Security Division, we did have 

plenty of opportunity to input into the new guidelines, so I am 

somewhat biased, but I believe even if I did not have that bias I 

would have little trouble concluding that the basic premise of the 

guidelines—which is we should have one set of guidelines for all investigations—is a rock solid point. I think it really is the case that 

FBI agents in the field are very concerned about following the 

guidelines properly. The amount of confusion that can result when 

you don’t know which box you’re in, and so therefore you’re not 

sure which guidelines to pull out and refer to, can be maddening 

at the least, if not dangerous to agents in the field. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Good. Quick question. Since the FISA Act 

Amendments were signed earlier this summer, have you seen any 

benefit in attorney resources, improved oversight? How is that 

working? 

Mr. ROWAN. Well, it’s a little bit early, I think, to say with any 

certainty, but so far we are starting to see numbers that would 

suggest that we’re going to enjoy—that the amount of work that’s 

going to be done under Section 702 is such that our attorneys are 

going to have a little bit more time for the oversight work that is 

also, obviously, required by the FISA Amendments. 

So I think we are going to find over time that it will reduce the 

demands on our resources, particularly in the context of Section 

702 coverage, and we will hopefully then have more of an opportunity to pursue other FISAs that maybe people haven’t been in a 

position to pursue in the past, and more generally, we’ll certainly 

have more time for our oversight work. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Well, we really want to make sure you are 

exercising oversight to accomplish the additional duties and observe the additional limitations placed in the amendments. I think 

that’s important. 

I understand the Executive Order has been drafted. Do you know 

when it will be signed by the President to designate a Deputy Director of the FBI to certify FISA applications? Do you know where 

that stands? 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator, I don’t. Like you, I’m aware that it has not 

yet been signed, but I’m not certain of where beyond that it is. 

10 

Vice Chairman BOND. Can you tell us briefly the steps you’re 

taking to ensure that the privacy interests of U.S. persons are 

being protected when the government requests or implements a 

FISA order? 

Mr. ROWAN. Well, Senator, you know, obviously, we have minimization procedures that we were required to put into place under 

FISA, and those procedures are something we’ve spent a lot of time 

working on. It’s an issue that we want to make sure that the procedures themselves are up to date, that they are consistent with the 

age of information sharing that we are in now. I think we are doing 

a reasonably good job of updating them to ensure that U.S. person 

information is properly protected under those procedures while at 

the same time giving the members of the intelligence community, 

the FBI and the other agencies, the opportunity to share the proper 

information. 

Vice Chairman BOND. NSD has reviewed FBI’s use of national 

security letters. Have you identified any abuses? 

Mr. ROWAN. Nothing—you know, Senator, we’ve been doing these 

field office reviews since 2007, since the IG determined that there 

had been abuses of national security letters. And to my knowledge, 

while we’ve done a number of those reviews in field offices, both 

in 2007 and so far in 2008, we do provide feedback to the FBI. Certainly what we have observed so far is that the FBI is learning the 

lessons of what happened with national security letters. And I don’t 

have knowledge that we’ve uncovered anything like a systemic 

problem that existed. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you. We’ll be interested to hear if 

you do, and, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to have some other routine 

questions, informational questions, I’m going to submit to the 

nominee for his reply. One or two of them may require a classified 

answer. I apologize, but not surprisingly, I’ve got a few other things 

to do this afternoon for a change. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Are you the one with the $700 billion 

in your hip pocket? 

Vice Chairman BOND. No, but I’ve got a couple of strings on it. 

I want to make sure that it works right. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Thank you. 

Vice Chairman BOND. Thank you. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank 

the nominee. I’ve very much enjoyed our visit and the chance to get 

together. 

As I indicated to you, when the Committee was writing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments, I authored the legislation to expand privacy protections for the law-abiding Americans who travel overseas. It was co-authored with Senator Feingold 

and Whitehouse. Senator Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond 

were all involved. So it was a great deal of effort from our Committee on it. 

The amendment said if the government wants to target the communications of an American overseas, the government would have 

to get a warrant, just like it would if the American was located in 

the United States. So my first question is, now that the amendVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053268 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\53268.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
11 

ment has become law, is the process of implementing it going 

smoothly? 

Mr. ROWAN. Thank you, Senator, for that question, and I do appreciate the opportunity to have met with you the other day. As I 

told you then, we have implemented—the provision you’re referring 

to we know as Section 704. We have implemented Section 704, and 

we have not encountered any obstacles in the course of implementing that provision. 

Senator WYDEN. And this is an open session, but because I want 

this to be a learning experience, let’s see how much additional information we can put on the record. Has the Department gotten 

warrants already? 

Mr. ROWAN. We have used Section 704 to get warrants. I would 

be uncomfortable getting into a number, but I’m certainly comfortable telling you that we have used it to get warrants. 

Senator WYDEN. And it’s fair to say—and again, I want to respect the fact we’re an open session you all have used it multiple 

times already. 

Mr. ROWAN. Certainly more than once. 

Senator WYDEN. Okay. With respect to the timeliness question— 

this was something we worked with the Vice Chairman on, we 

worked with the Department on, because we all felt very strongly 

about making sure that when we really were dealing with those individuals that represented a threat to our country we had to be in 

a position to move in a timely fashion—have you all felt that you 

could pursue these warrants and still protect the security interests 

of the United States in a timely way? 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator, I’m not aware of us having any timing 

problems in connection with our implementation of Section 704. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. Let me just ask you one other question, again because you in the private session did really address 

many of my concerns. 

I want to see what can be done in cooperation with the Executive 

Branch and the Judicial Branch to provide greater access to the 

opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. As we 

talked about, it seems clear to me that you’ve got to make sure 

that any matter that goes to targets or collection methods, the 

kinds of things that are operational, absolutely has to remain classified. 

But at the same time I want to make sure that when you’re talking about legal analysis, for example, interpretations, matters that 

don’t go to these operational matters involving targets and collection methods, I think that that kind of area ought to be something 

that there could be opportunity for more understanding by the people of this country and how the courts handle these matters. 

First, do you think that that’s the case? Do you think that more 

of this can be given broader access? And two, if confirmed, would 

you be willing to work with me—and we’ll do this in a bipartisan 

fashion here under the Chairman and the Vice Chairman—work 

with this Committee to try to strike the right balance, to keep classified court matters that absolutely must be classified, but get 

these issues of legal analysis and interpretations—to find a way to 

make more of that accessible. 

12 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator, with respect to the second question, I certainly would be willing to work with you and other members of the 

Committee on the issue. We are aware of the importance of trying 

to identify those decisions that can be released to the public. 

The problem that we’ve run into on occasion when we’ve looked 

at this in connection with specific decisions is that the analysis and 

the facts are so intertwined that there’s really nothing left that’s 

meaningful once we declassify it. That’s not to say that we wouldn’t 

continue to look at this and work on this, but it’s a bit more of a 

challenge than I think one would have imagined in the abstract. 

We do recognize it’s an important issue. Obviously, the FISA 

Court of Review decision from 2003 is very important, that that’s 

a matter of public record, and so we do feel that we need to keep 

a very close eye to determine if there are decisions that we can assist in getting released so the public will get some sense of what’s 

going on with the FISA Court. 

Senator WYDEN. My time is expired. I understand that there are 

a number of these areas that are intertwined, where you’re talking 

about legal analysis and you’re talking about facts. At the same 

time, I think that to have the kind of informed, reasonable debate 

about national surveillance law, people have got to understand how 

these laws are interpreted by the courts. And I will especially look 

forward to the fact that you’re willing to work with us, because I 

think it is possible to strike a balance and expand access and still 

be sensitive to protecting matters that absolutely have to be protected to ensure the security of the country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve been very impressed with Mr. 

Rowan in both our private session and this afternoon. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share my colleague’s high professional regard for our nominee, Mr. Rowan. I enjoyed a rather lengthy office consultation that we had here this 

week. So I wish you well. 

I’d also like to have the record reflect my view, and I think the 

view of many on this Committee, that his predecessor, Kenneth 

Wainstein, discharged his responsibilities very professionally and 

capably. 

I’d like to return to the general subject that my colleague raised, 

Vice Chairman, the Chairman, all of us, this question of privacy interest. You have a division in your organization that does oversight, correct? 

Mr. ROWAN. That’s correct, Senator. 

Senator WARNER. So perhaps we should have in this record a little description of that and what supervision you have over that division, and what mission do they have? 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator, one of the clear mandates that when we 

had when we set up the National Security Division was to create 

a more robust and systematic oversight mechanism in connection 

with our intelligence work. So our Office of Intelligence Policy and 

Review, which is what it was called back then, basically the core 

problem was they had always had an oversight function, but they 

had been drowning in FISA work post-9/11 and they hadn’t been 

13 

in a position to do as much as they would have liked because of 

the urgency of the FISA work. 

So one of the things that my predecessor, Ken Wainstein, did 

working with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen 

and others in the Division, was to reorganize that office—we actually now call it the Office of Intelligence—to have a dedicated oversight section within it. And the attorneys in that section, they are 

able to call on other resources of the Division, but their whole job 

is to do oversight. 

And in particular, they do national security reviews, which is a 

new concept that we’ve begun in the Division where they go out to 

an FBI field office. They look through all the case files on their intelligence matters. And they try to ensure that the predication is 

there for every step in an investigation, try to ensure that the facts 

that are pleaded in the FISA application are accurate, try to make 

sure that the national security letters that have been obtained in 

the course of an investigation were properly obtained, a sort of 

searching review of investigations, intelligence investigations. 

Those reviews, we did—I think in 2007 we did 15 of those. Fifteen separate field offices were reviewed. We’re going to hopefully 

do even more in 2008. We also do what we call minimization reviews where we go to the FBI to make sure that they’re properly 

handling the information that they’re getting from FISA collection. 

And of course we also, in the context of the FISA Amendments 

Act, have a new obligation to work with the ODNI and members 

of the intelligence community to do six-month reviews of the operations of the intelligence community as they relate to how they’re 

collecting under the FISA Amendments. 

Senator WARNER. That’s reassuring, but I’d like to point out that 

our records here in the Committee show that since September 11th, 

the terrorist attacks, the number of applications for electronic surveillance and physical search that have been approved by the FISA 

court have increased from 934 to 2,370. Now, that’s understandable 

in view of the absolutely extraordinary attack on our country, and 

I think it doesn’t reflect any weakness to the FISA court. 

So we’d like to have your impression of the FISA court, how it 

functions, and what steps you would take to oversee that so that 

it doesn’t ever have a foundation in fact that would give rise to the 

infamous term that it’s a rubber stamp. 

Mr. ROWAN. Senator, I think it’s actually far from a rubber 

stamp in my experience. The judges of the FISA court—obviously, 

these are Article 3 judges who are taking on an additional duty. 

They’re very familiar with the probable cause standard from their 

work in Article 3 cases. And they quickly learned the intelligence 

community and the nature of the work they’re doing on the FISA 

court. 

We have a great deal of back and forth with the court where we 

will come to understand that a judge believes that our application 

is deficient in some way, and we work with the agents and the 

members of the intelligence community to try to make sure our applications are solid. And for that reason I think we have a fairly 

high success rate when it comes time for the court to actually sign 

an application. But that’s not an indication that they’re a rubber 

stamp there. They put us through our paces every day, and we unVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:31 Dec 01, 2009 Jkt 053268 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\53268.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT
14 

derstand and appreciate the importance of their work, and we have 

learned to live under that kind of a regime. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. I thank you. I thank the witness. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, will you indulge me for a 

minute? 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Of course. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman and members who are absent 

and the staff, this is my last meeting with this Committee. I complete very shortly 30 years of service in the Senate, and I was on 

one six-year term, another term for a couple of years, and now I’ve 

enjoyed with your chairmanship several more years, actually had 

the title of Vice Chairman. I took a lot of pride in that title, but 

I just talked to my colleague here about it, and I don’t want to put 

in the record his remarks about it, but I think it’s a very important 

recognition. I recall one time making arrangement that the title 

was given to you. Do you recall that? 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. I do. 

Senator WARNER. I do, indeed. And I also just want to take this 

opportunity. It’s been a marvelous, marvelous perspective of my life 

here in the Senate for these many years, and that’s been largely 

possible through the extraordinary men and women who’ve served 

on this Committee. And I also want to recognize the tremendous 

support that has been given me and the means by which I’ve been 

able to learn from a superb professional staff. So I thank all 

present, and with that, I bid you all a fond farewell. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Not yet. 

Senator WARNER. Oh. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. I gave a fairly lengthy peroration filled 

with truth and sobriety and some emotion about Senator Warner’s 

leaving, as well as Senator Hagel’s leaving, and the sadness of 

that, not knowing that we would be doing this today simply because when you’re dealing with a $700 billion crisis you don’t know 

what you’re doing the next ten minutes, much less the next day 

and who’s going to be at the hearing. 

Senator Warner, I don’t think you can dismiss yourself so easily. 

We cry out in this Congress for comity, for statesmanship, for civility, all of which seems to flow from you as from springs of Dunmore, which is very near a farm that Sharon and I have in Pocahontas County, West Virginia, just on the Virginia border right 

across from Highland County. 

And it isn’t just the colleagues that you work with, because 

you’ve got some contentious colleagues on both sides. I think a lot 

of this hope stems that there will be more people like you, Senator 

Warner, who are profoundly engaged in public service and who will 

commit themselves, as you have for a period of 30 years, in many 

areas and gain through your nature your—simply, it’s just within 

you. You either have it or you don’t, and you do, a special kind of 

integrity. 

And it’s been an enormous honor for me to be associated with 

you, if I reach that level of praise, because you’re honest. You vote 

your convictions. You’re not afraid to break when you want a break 

and to not break when you don’t want a break. You’re real. Some 

people would say that you’re old school. Some people would say 

15 

that Thomas Jefferson was old school. And I don’t think that you 

would be unhappy with that comparison. 

I think you’re remarkable, and frankly I’m just going to miss you 

enormously in spite of the fact that when you had your picture 

taken in your recent marriage that you invited my wife to join the 

photograph, but not me. I’m a forgiving man, so I only remember 

the nobility of your service. [Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have enjoyed 

a very close working friendship and professional relationship these 

many years. 

I think some of the staff might be interested to know I first came 

to know you—not having met you, but having the privilege of working with your father for some several years on a project of mutual 

interest. And you have carried on the traditions and the heritage 

of an extraordinary family with great dignity and modesty, if I may 

say. You serve your state as well, and our states adjoin. 

And in the few remaining days I have here I wonder if once 

again we could determine whether or not we could put the two 

states back together. I’m stepping down; therefore, you could continue on. They’ll have to replace me. Simple as that. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. And you do have a Democratic governor, don’t you? [Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Yes, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

the witness and the guests present for this indulgence. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

I just want to pursue one matter, Mr. Rowan, that I brought up 

before in outline, and that is this really quite interesting and 

amazing debate which takes place in public, but really takes place 

much more in sort of private conversations, about ways of interrogation. How do you best get information out of people? And the 

feelings are very, very strong. 

I think the CIA, if you want to be cynical about it, you can say 

that they have a facility down at Guantanamo, and therefore, 

they’re going to hold on to that facility. They say there are things 

they don’t do anymore which they used to. But that doesn’t get into 

the nature of how you interrogate. 

And it is very interesting to me how SERE, those who say that 

you can get interrogation and then your, the Department of Justice 

and particularly the FBI is one of those. When you treat people 

with dignity, they will tell you things because they don’t expect 

that, particularly because they’ve read the recent history since 

2001 of what we do do, that they’re surprised and are willing to 

cooperate. 

Now, I guess in one sense I have two questions. One is, people 

are dug in. That’s human nature. If you’ve done it a certain way 

for the FBI—we’ve had so many—I’m just thinking of so many people who’ve come before us, open session and closed session, and 

talked about how they extracted information. And there’s groups 

from the outside, there’s professionals who’ve been doing it all their 

lives. And they talk about the way to be respectful and yet end up 

with that because of persistence, and I’m not going anywhere, and 

I’ll be here a month from now. And, you know, they’re tough, but 

they’re respectful. 

16 

And then you hear from the other side. Well, if there’s going to 

be—and I mentioned this before—an incident, and we think there 

is that chance, we don’t want to take the chance of letting somebody get it by without saying something. 

And then you get into the question of how much can people take? 

And the fact that the Koran, in fact, actually provides a method by 

which you can say I can take one more of these things but I can’t 

take anymore, so if you do it once again, I’ll tell you what you 

want—and it gets very confused. And if what you want is what the 

truth is, there’s also a very important consideration of that. 

My question of you is, is this a debate which has no solution, or 

ought not to have a solution, or is this a debate which as we get 

further in, as our soldiers are subjected to some of this and the 

American people learn about it, where there can be some kind of 

reconciliation? Is that possible in this business? 

Mr. ROWAN. I think that it may be very hard to have a reconciliation. One of the things that’s always struck me is there’s—it 

seems from what I have heard—there seems to be some value—unfortunately, for the public debate there seems to be some value in 

leaving the capabilities and powers of our interrogators vague—in 

other words, that I do believe that al-Qaida trains to meet in those 

interrogation techniques. And to the extent that they are able to 

get on the web and understand exactly what they are and what 

they are not, I fear that we lose a little bit by that kind of openness, which is the kind of thing that you’d want to have—— 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. May I interrupt? I’d like to take that 

aspect of it off the table. I’d like to pretend that these discussions 

have all been held behind closed doors, classified, and that therefore the business of informing the enemy, which your case is hands 

down—if they don’t already know—I’d like to take that off the 

table, just have your view. 

Mr. ROWAN [continuing]. Right. Well, I think that one of the 

things I said before is, you know, we really didn’t have any experience in this from what I can see at 9/11 except for the rapportbuilding experience that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies had. 

And now we do have much more of a record to look back upon 

and try to determine—you know, if a certain set of techniques, if 

one of the arguments in favor of those techniques is, yeah, but— 

I understand rapport building may work over time, but we need 

the information urgently, then I think we now have a little bit better handle on it. I can’t say I’ve seen anything systematically used 

to examine this, but I think we’d be in a better position now to look 

back and say, well, how long did it take to get that, how long did 

it take to get that, and get a better handle on whether or not the 

sort of urgency argument is one that the evidence supports or the 

evidence doesn’t support it. 

As I sit here, I don’t know the answer to that. But it does strike 

me that that’s a critical fact in favor of those who say rapportbuilding isn’t viable in all instances. But if in fact it is the case 

that you look back and you say you know what, it took some 

lengthy period of time before these other techniques worked also, 

then I think that that would obviously be an important factor that 

I’m not sure has really been analyzed in any systematic way. 

17 

I also think that since we have more experience, we have more 

experienced interrogators, it’s clear to me that some people just 

have a talent for this. And I’m really talking about here rapportbuilding techniques. I think sometimes rapport-building techniques 

don’t work because the person who’s conducting the interrogation 

just isn’t very good at it. I mean, it’s something that you see even 

in a law enforcement setting as a prosecutor in the District of Columbia. Some Metropolitan Police detectives were good at getting 

a confession. Others were not good. And it’s a skill like other skills. 

And I think that some of what occurred after 9/11, particularly 

in the context of DOD interrogators, may have been sort of frustration and inexperience that manifested itself, frankly, in abusive 

techniques, the kind of things that have been studied and reported 

on in the Schmidt-Furlow Report and the various studies that have 

been done. 

So I think that the people need to come up with rules, with the 

understanding that either these are going to be used by a small 

and an elite group of interrogators who are very well trained, very 

disciplined, and very good at what they do, or you’re going to have 

a set of rules for a much larger set of people who don’t have the 

experience, and you don’t want to give them nearly as much flexibility because it will probably go bad at some point. 

So I think those are some things that we’ve learned, and I think 

that if we looked more at this in the context of a classified setting 

it may be that there’s other factors that we could tease out that 

would help us to understand where the balance ought to be struck 

to determine what’s the appropriate system for us going forward? 

I also think at some point we need to determine how we use intelligence interrogations in the context of prosecutions, because the 

problem arises that even in a rapport-building context it’s hard to 

go in and advise somebody of their Miranda rights and hope to get 

useful information. 

So we need to sort of decide that we’re either going to give up 

an admissible statement, in the case of an Article 3 court, or we’re 

going to use the military commissions because that doesn’t require—these statements, we need to be able to prove that they’re 

reliable, that they were—just under all circumstances use them, 

but we don’t have to prove that there was a waiver of Miranda. 

So I think it’s a very difficult issue, and I don’t think that it 

would be easy to nail down, but I still believe there’s a possibility 

of having a consensus that’s clearer than may exist right now 

about the way we ought to do this. 

Chairman ROCKEFELLER. That’s helpful and thoughtful. 

I have other questions and I’ll submit them; I won’t give them 

now. I do want to call particular attention to the math teacher and 

to the judge. And I think you’ve been very fortunate to start out 

in life with that. And I think there’s a lot of respect for you in this 

Committee. It’s interesting when people say what they feel before 

they’ve even talked to you. That means they have a judgment, and 

the judgment’s been on the circuit, and they hear their—people 

they hear that they respect, what they have to say. And I think 

you’ve come out very well on that. 

And with that in mind, under Committee Rule 5.5, a Committee 

vote on a confirmation shall not be sooner than 48 hours, which is 

18 

not in your favor the way things appear to be going on this bailout. 

After the Committee receives transcripts of the confirmation hearing, unless the time limit is waived by unanimous consent to provide us with the flexibility in proceeding with this nomination in 

the closing days of Congress, closing hours of Congress, whatever 

it might be, I ask unanimous consent that this time limit be 

waived. And since I’m the only person here, it is waived without 

objection. 

And this hearing is adjourned, and I thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the Committee adjourned.] 

(19) 

Supplemental Material 

20 


Insert offset folio 1 here 53268.001
21 


Insert offset folio 2 here 53268.002
22 


Insert offset folio 3 here 53268.003
23 


Insert offset folio 4 here 53268.004
24 


Insert offset folio 5 here 53268.005
25 


Insert offset folio 6 here 53268.006
26 


Insert offset folio 7 here 53268.007
27 


Insert offset folio 8 here 53268.008
28 


Insert offset folio 9 here 53268.009
29 


Insert offset folio 10 here 53268.010
30 


Insert offset folio 11 here 53268.011
31 


Insert offset folio 12 here 53268.012
32 


Insert offset folio 13 here 53268.013
33 


Insert offset folio 14 here 53268.014
34 


Insert offset folio 15 here 53268.015
35 


Insert offset folio 16 here 53268.016
36 


Insert offset folio 17 here 53268.017
37 


Insert offset folio 18 here 53268.018
38 


Insert offset folio 19 here 53268.019
39 


Insert offset folio 20 here 53268.020
40 


Insert offset folio 21 here 53268.021
41 


Insert offset folio 22 here 53268.022
42 


Insert offset folio 23 here 53268.023
43 


Insert offset folio 24 here 53268.024
44 


Insert offset folio 25 here 53268.025
45 


Insert offset folio 26 here 53268.026
46 


Insert offset folio 27 here 53268.027
47 


Insert offset folio 28 here 53268.028
48 


Insert offset folio 29 here 53268.029
49 


Insert offset folio 30 here 53268.030
50 


Insert offset folio 31 here 53268.031
51 


Insert offset folio 32 here 53268.032
52 


Insert offset folio 33 here 53268.033
53 


Insert offset folio 34 here 53268.034
54 


Insert offset folio 35 here 53268.035
55 


Insert offset folio 36 here 53268.036
56 


Insert offset folio 37 here 53268.037
57 


Insert offset folio 38 here 53268.038
58 


Insert offset folio 39 here 53268.039
59 


Insert offset folio 40 here 53268.040
60 


Insert offset folio 41 here 53268.041
61 


Insert offset folio 42 here 53268.042
62 


Insert offset folio 43 here 53268.043
63 


Insert offset folio 44 here 53268.044
64 


Insert offset folio 45 here 53268.045
65 


Insert offset folio 46 here 53268.046
66 


Insert offset folio 47 here 53268.047
67 


Insert offset folio 48 here 53268.048
68 


Insert offset folio 49 here 53268.049
69 


Insert offset folio 68 here 53268.068
70 


Insert offset folio 69 here 53268.069
71 


Insert offset folio 70 here 53268.070
72 


Insert offset folio 71 here 53268.071
73 


Insert offset folio 72 here 53268.072
74 


Insert offset folio 73 here 53268.073
75 


Insert offset folio 74 here 53268.074
76 


Insert offset folio 75 here 53268.075
77 


Insert offset folio 76 here 53268.076
78 


Insert offset folio 77 here 53268.077
79 


Insert offset folio 78 here 53268.078
80 


Insert offset folio 50 here 53268.050
81 


Insert offset folio 51 here 53268.051
82 


Insert offset folio 52 here 53268.052
83 


Insert offset folio 53 here 53268.053
84 


Insert offset folio 54 here 53268.054
85 


Insert offset folio 55 here 53268.055
86 


Insert offset folio 56 here 53268.056
87 


Insert offset folio 57 here 53268.057
88 


Insert offset folio 58 here 53268.058
89 


Insert offset folio 59 here 53268.059
90 


Insert offset folio 60 here 53268.060
91 


Insert offset folio 61 here 53268.061
92 


Insert offset folio 62 here 53268.062
93 


Insert offset folio 63 here 53268.063
94 


Insert offset folio 64 here 53268.064
95 


Insert offset folio 65 here 53268.065
96 


Insert offset folio 66 here 53268.066
97 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 67 here 53268.067