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

72–746 PDF 2012

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 

(II) 

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 Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

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 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF LISA O. MONACO TO BE 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 

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 docuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:58 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 072746 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72746.TXT DPROCT
2 

ments, 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:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 1 here 72746.001
4 


Insert offset folio 2 here 72746.002
5 


Insert offset folio 3 here 72746.003
6 


Insert offset folio 4 here 72746.004
7 


Insert offset folio 5 here 72746.005
8 


Insert offset folio 6 here 72746.006
9 

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 orVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:58 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 072746 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72746.TXT DPROCT
10 

ganization 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:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 7 here 72746.007
12 


Insert offset folio 8 here 72746.008
13 

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. 

14 

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 alQa’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 buildingblock 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. 

15 

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. 

16 

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-orno answer. 

Ms. MONACO. Well, respectfully, Senator, the whole notion and 

the reason we have the FISA court is sometimes the manner in 

17 

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 

18 

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 

19 

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 wellknown 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.] 

(21) 

Supplemental Material 

22 


Insert offset folio 9 here 72746.009
23 


Insert offset folio 10 here 72746.010
24 


Insert offset folio 11 here 72746.011
25 


Insert offset folio 12 here 72746.012
26 


Insert offset folio 13 here 72746.013
27 


Insert offset folio 14 here 72746.014
28 


Insert offset folio 15 here 72746.015
29 


Insert offset folio 16 here 72746.016
30 


Insert offset folio 17 here 72746.017
31 


Insert offset folio 18 here 72746.018
32 


Insert offset folio 19 here 72746.019
33 


Insert offset folio 20 here 72746.020
34 


Insert offset folio 21 here 72746.021
35 


Insert offset folio 22 here 72746.022
36 


Insert offset folio 23 here 72746.023
37 


Insert offset folio 24 here 72746.024
38 


Insert offset folio 25 here 72746.025
39 


Insert offset folio 26 here 72746.026
40 


Insert offset folio 27 here 72746.027
41 


Insert offset folio 28 here 72746.028
42 


Insert offset folio 29 here 72746.029
43 


Insert offset folio 30 here 72746.030
44 


Insert offset folio 31 here 72746.031
45 


Insert offset folio 32 here 72746.032
46 


Insert offset folio 33 here 72746.033
47 


Insert offset folio 34 here 72746.034
48 


Insert offset folio 35 here 72746.035
49 


Insert offset folio 36 here 72746.036
50 


Insert offset folio 37 here 72746.037
51 


Insert offset folio 38 here 72746.038
52 


Insert offset folio 39 here 72746.039
53 


Insert offset folio 40 here 72746.040
54 


Insert offset folio 41 here 72746.041
55 


Insert offset folio 42 here 72746.042
56 


Insert offset folio 43 here 72746.043
57 


Insert offset folio 44 here 72746.044
58 


Insert offset folio 45 here 72746.045
59 


Insert offset folio 46 here 72746.046
60 


Insert offset folio 47 here 72746.047
61 


Insert offset folio 48 here 72746.048
62 


Insert offset folio 49 here 72746.049
63 


Insert offset folio 50 here 72746.050
64 


Insert offset folio 51 here 72746.051
65 


Insert offset folio 52 here 72746.052
66 


Insert offset folio 53 here 72746.053
67 


Insert offset folio 54 here 72746.054
68 


Insert offset folio 55 here 72746.055
69 


Insert offset folio 56 here 72746.056
70 


Insert offset folio 57 here 72746.057
71 


Insert offset folio 58 here 72746.058
72 


Insert offset folio 59 here 72746.059
73 


Insert offset folio 60 here 72746.060
74 


Insert offset folio 61 here 72746.061
75 


Insert offset folio 62 here 72746.062
76 


Insert offset folio 63 here 72746.063
77 


Insert offset folio 64 here 72746.064
78 


Insert offset folio 65 here 72746.065
79 


Insert offset folio 66 here 72746.066
80 


Insert offset folio 67 here 72746.067
81 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 68 here 72746.068