Open Hearing: Nomination of Michael Atkinson to be Inspector General of the Intelligence Community and Jason Klitenic to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence

[Senate Hearing 115-248] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 115-248 OPEN HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL ATKINSON TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND JASON KLITENIC TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2018 __________ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 29-479 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Chairman MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MARCO RUBIO, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio ---------- Chris Joyner, Staff Director Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk CONTENTS ---------- JANUARY 17, 2018 OPENING STATEMENTS Burr, Hon. Richard, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. 1 Warner, Hon. Mark R., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Virginia 3 WITNESSES Klitenic, Jason, Nominated to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.......................... 5 Prepared statement........................................... 8 Atkinson, Michael, Nominated to be Inspector General of the Intelligence Community......................................... 18 Prepared statement........................................... 21 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Nomination material for Jason Klitenic Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........ 42 Additional Prehearing Questions.............................. 62 Additional Prehearing Questions for the Record............... 87 Nomination material for Michael Atkinson Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........ 92 Additional Prehearing Questions.............................. 112 OPEN HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL ATKINSON TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND JASON KLITENIC TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ---------- WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2018 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:32 a.m. in Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Burr (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Committee Members Present: Senators Burr, Warner, Risch, Collins, Blunt, Lankford, Feinstein, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Manchin, and Harris. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA Chairman Burr. I'd like to call this hearing to order. I'd like to welcome our witnesses today: Jason Klitenic, President Trump's nominee to be the next General Counsel for the Office of Director of National Intelligence; and Michael Atkinson, President Trump's nominee to be the next Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Gentlemen, congratulations to both of you on your nominations. I'd like to start by recognizing the families that you've brought with you today. Jason, I understand you have your wife Kate--wave; good. [Kate Klitenic waves.] As well as your children Amelia, Hazel, and Clark; your Mother, Joyce--Joyce, where are you? [Joyce Klitenic waves.] I know you're proud. Michael, I believe you have your wife, Kate. Have you guys got something going on here? [Laughter.] Your sons Ian and Chris; and your parents, Nelson and Janice. Welcome to all of the family members. This is a very special day. Kate, your parents are here, John and Ellen Cameron; and your brother-in-law and sister-in-law Scott and Beth Atkinson. Good. Thank all of you for your support of Jason and Michael. I'm confident that they would not be here today if it were not for your years of love, encouragement, and, potentially more important, your patience. Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the Committee to consider both nominees' qualifications and to allow for thoughtful deliberation by our Members. The witnesses each have already provided written responses to over 40 questions presented by the Committee and its Members. Today, of course, Members will be able to ask additional questions and hear directly from the nominees. Mr. Klitenic graduated from Johns Hopkins University and received his law degree from the University of Baltimore Law School. Jason then served as Deputy Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice, where he oversaw antitrust, civil rights, and environmental law. Thereafter, from 2003 to 2005 he served as the Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. Following his government service, Jason worked in the private sector, most recently as a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight. Mr. Atkinson earned his undergraduate degree from Syracuse University, his law degree from Cornell. After his time in the private sector as a partner at Winston & Strawn, Michael served as a trial attorney in the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice Criminal Division from 2002 through 2006. From 2006 to 2016, Michael served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. During that time, he was Deputy Chief of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section and Acting Chief of the Fraud and Corruption Section. Michael currently serves as the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice National Security Division. Jason, you've been asked to be the lead counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at a time we're facing threats from state and non-state actors and are engaged in a robust debate at home on the scope and scale of intelligence collection and what authorities are right and appropriate and lawful. I trust that you will provide sound legal counsel and judgment and will speak truth to power as the Director of National Intelligence works through some incredibly complex and divisive issues. Michael, independent and empowered inspectors general are critical to the integrity and the efficient management of the intelligence community. I trust that you will lead the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's Office with integrity and will ensure that your officers operate lawfully, ethically, and morally. The Committee will ask for your responsive, transparent, and timely responses in our interactions, a necessary condition for us to conduct effective oversight. As I have mentioned to other nominees during their confirmation hearings, I can assure you that this Committee will continue to faithfully follow its charter and conduct vigorous and real-time oversight over the intelligence community, its operations, and its activities. We will ask difficult and probing questions of you, and your staff, and we expect honest, complete responses. I enjoyed meeting both of you and discussing your qualifications and the reasons for pursuing continued public service. I look forward to supporting your nominations and ensuring their consideration without delay. I want to thank you both again today for being here, for your years of service to our country. I look forward to your testimony, and I now recognize the Vice Chairman for any comments he might have. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Klitenic. Congratulations on your nominations to serve as Intelligence Community Inspector General and General Counsel for the Office of the DNI. Both of these positions are critically important to ensuring the intelligence community runs efficiently and effectively, that it abides by the laws of this country, and that the IC protects against waste, fraud, and abuse. One of the most important attributes that both of you, if you're confirmed, will have to bring to these roles is the willingness to speak truth to power. For this reason, I'll be asking each of you to uphold your principles, to always provide unbiased, unvarnished, and timely advice to both the Director of National Intelligence and to the Congress. You're also aware that this Committee is leading the review into the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During this hearing I want to hear assurances from both of you that you will fully cooperate with this review and provide this Committee with all the information requested in a timely fashion. Mr. Atkinson, as the Inspector General of the Intel Community your job is especially critical because of the nature of the material that they handle every day, whistleblowers within the IC generally can't go public to expose misbehavior and misuse of official resources. We the Congress and the American people will depend upon you as an independent agent of accountability for the Office of the DNI and, for that matter, for the whole intel community. While you don't have previous experience as an inspector general, I look forward to hearing your plans for the righting of the ship at the IC's IG when it comes to both whistleblower protections and investigations. I'm very concerned by the significant number of open cases that I believe have lingered too long. If confirmed, I will ask you to make the whistleblower program a priority. This is an area that cuts across party lines and committee jurisdictions. Senators Grassley, Wyden, Collins, and I together have requested a GAO study to review IC-wide whistleblower policies and procedures. This study, when completed, will help inform your approaches and ours as we seek to address some of the gaps. Mr. Klitenic, your job will be to give Director Coats the best possible legal counsel possible, even when doing so, as we discussed, might be inconvenient or even uncomfortable. I value your commitments that you have made to me and I hope you'll reiterate some of those commitments publicly. One, that you will ensure that all of the work of the ODNI and the IC is consistent, is constitutional and consistent with the law; that, again, that you'll speak truth to power regardless of political considerations or the willingness of those in power to hear that truth; that you will see your legal obligation to keep the intelligence oversight committees--and this is terribly important--fully and currently informed of all significant intelligence activities, as just the bare minimum of our engagement; that as chief lawyer for the intelligence community, I believe you'll have to make sure, as we touched on as well, that policies like issues that particularly Senator Feinstein has been a champion of, of making sure that interrogation practices--that we don't go back to the past. To both of our nominees, again echoing the Chairman, congratulations. It's an honor that you've been nominated to serve our country. I want to thank you for accepting these opportunities and these positions and look forward to the opportunity to question you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Thank You, Vice Chairman. Mr. Klitenic and Mr. Atkinson, would you please stand. I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to give the Committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Mr. Atkinson. Yes. Chairman Burr. Please be seated. Jason and Michael, before we move to your statements I'll ask you to answer five standard questions that the Committee poses to each nominee who appears before us. They just require a simple yes or no response. Do you agree to appear before the Committee here or in any other venue when invited? Mr. Atkinson. Yes. Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Chairman Burr. If confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the Committee and designated staff when invited? Mr. Atkinson. Yes. Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Chairman Burr. Do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the Committee in order for us to carry out our oversight and legislative responsibilities? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Mr. Atkinson. Yes. Chairman Burr. Will you both ensure that your office and your staffs provide such materials to the Committee when requested? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Mr. Atkinson. Yes. Chairman Burr. Do you agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all Members of the Committee of the intelligence activities and covert action, rather than only the Chair and Vice Chairman, where appropriate? Mr. Atkinson. Yes. Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Chairman Burr. Thank you very much. We'll now proceed to your opening statements, after which I'll recognize Members by seniority for up to five minutes of questions. Jason, I'll ask you to begin, followed by Michael. STATEMENT OF JASON KLITENIC, NOMINATED TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Mr. Klitenic. Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, Members of the Committee: Thank you for providing me the opportunity to appear before you today as you consider my nomination to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I also want to thank the President and Director Coats for placing their confidence in me. If confirmed, I commit to working every day to maintain this confidence and to demonstrate to them and to each of you that I will uphold the highest standards of the office. With your indulgence, I would like to recognize my family, without whose love and support I would not be here. Joining me today are: my mother, Joyce Klitenic; my sister Jenny Whittaker; my brother-in-law John Whittaker; my brother-in-law Evan Howell; and my sister-in-law Helen Wray. I would also like to recognize my sister, Sarah Wear, who is back home with her husband awaiting the birth of their child, which I believe to be imminent. Also seated behind me are four more very important people in my life: my wife of 24 years, Kate; and our three children, Amelia, Clark, and Hazel. In a setting such as this, it is difficult to explain how grateful I am to my family for their never-ending support. And thank-you to my close friends and colleagues who took time out of their busy days to join us here today. Additionally, I want to remember someone who is not with us today. My father, Earl Klitenic, passed away three years ago. I think about him each day as I strive to live up to the high standards that he and my mother set for me. By way of background, I grew up in the Washington, D.C., area, fortunately in a house with parents who loved me and who from the beginning taught me the difference between right and wrong, the importance of unyielding integrity, and the value of hard work. My parents also taught me how lucky I am to be an American and that I should never take the attendant freedom for granted. They taught me about patriotism, democracy, security, free speech, and the rule of law, and that the role of our government is to keep us safe from harm while protecting the civil liberties that enable us to live in a free, open, and diverse society. Millions of people throughout the world suffer under regimes that provide neither security nor freedom. Here we are blessed to have both. My parents also taught me the importance of public service. They were career government civil servants. My father served in the Department of Defense, the Justice Department, and the United States Information Agency. Before retiring, my mother spent the bulk of her career at the Justice Department, where she served in the Office of Intelligence Policy Review and, after its creation, the National Security Division. Following in my parents' footsteps, I have had the privilege to serve both in the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. I've been among and around the national security community throughout my life, both personally and professionally. I have the highest regard for the men and women who serve in the intelligence community. Both in private practice and while serving in government, I have had the opportunity to work closely with the people who protect us from our adversaries and in doing so preserve our values as a Nation. These people, who work outside the limelight and beyond the scope of credit and accolades, each day perform their jobs with discipline, attention to detail, and unrelenting dedication to the mission. If confirmed, it would be an honor for me to serve with them again on behalf of our country. My past experience has prepared me well for this position. During my tenure at DHS and DOJ, I worked on complex legal issues involving counterterrorism, cyber security, data privacy, and government-wide information-sharing initiatives, work that I believe helped keep this Nation safe while preserving our civil liberties. Through my past government service, I also gained significant management experience and became adept at navigating the inter-agency processes that are integral to the effective functioning of our government. In all this work, I stressed the importance of working together across the government to do what was lawful and what was right. Once public service is in your blood, you can never truly step away from it. In private practice, I lead my firm's homeland security team and continue to work closely and collaboratively with the people who serve in our national security agencies. The General Counsel position for which I have been nominated is, of course, a legal position, an important legal position. If confirmed, my allegiance would be to the constitution and my vow would be to uphold the rule of law. Based on my prior government experience, I am keenly aware that legal advice cannot be given in a vacuum. By that I mean, while I may be opining on a legal issue within the safe and comfortable confines of the headquarters office, the ultimate end consumer of my advice might be a career analyst or operator out in the field. When I render legal advice, I will be thinking of people whom I may never meet, but who are relying on my views in the course of performing difficult and dangerous jobs on behalf of our country. I never want to fail those people. It is important to me that they be able to rely upon my legal advice with the full confidence that it is timely, clear, actionable, and fully supported by law. There is no corner-cutting in this line of work. I also believe strongly in my responsibility, if confirmed, to keep Congress fully and currently informed and my responsibility to support your oversight over the IC. The IC's unique missions are often practiced in secrecy to protect critical sources and methods in support of our national security. That secrecy makes my relationship and engagement with this Committee all the more important. I pledge to build open relationships of trust with this Committee and your House counterparts, as I recognize the critical role that you play in representing the American people for these sensitive matters. In closing, I want to stress that, if confirmed, I would very much look forward to working with each of you and your staffs. I am mindful of this Committee's important oversight role and I would hope that you would find me to be a trusted resource and dependable public servant. I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Klitenic follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Jason, thank you very much. Michael, the floor is yours. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ATKINSON, NOMINATED TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY Mr. Atkinson. Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, Members of the Committee: Thank you for scheduling this hearing to consider my nomination to be the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community. I am honored to have been nominated for this position by President Trump, with the support of the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. I first want to thank and recognize my family members and friends who are here today and watching remotely. Here with me today are: my wife Kate; and our two sons, Ian and Christopher; my parents, Nels and Jan Atkinson; my wife's parents, John and Eileen Cameron; and my youngest brother and his wife, Scott and Beth Atkinson. I also see friends and colleagues in the audience and I thank them for their support. I also want to thank my family and friends who are watching this hearing remotely. The prehearing materials that I submitted to the Committee summarize my background and experience. I want to take just a few minutes to add some context to those materials and to recognize additional people who have helped me to be here today. After graduating from law school at Cornell University, I went to work as an associate at Winston & Strawn here in Washington, D.C., where I stayed for 11 years and was elected partner. Winston & Strawn provided me with good, excellent legal training, superb mentors and colleagues, and challenging legal experiences in complex civil litigation and white collar criminal defense matters. I was fortunate to have such an enjoyable start to my legal career. But I also felt that some things in my professional life were missing. I wanted more challenges, greater responsibilities, and different rewards. After the September 11th attacks, I decided to seek public service work. In 2002, I was delighted when the leaders in the Criminal Division in the United States Department of Justice offered me a position as a trial attorney in the Fraud Section. The Fraud Section filled the professional gaps I had been feeling in private practice. I was able to work exclusively on complex white collar criminal fraud matters, with talented and experienced prosecutors and law enforcement agents from around the country. I was given greater responsibilities, including an opportunity to try my first jury trial. Thankfully, I was paired with a hard-working and much more experienced trial partner, as we were up against some of the best defense attorneys in the country. I am thankful that one of those defense attorneys, Reid Weingarten, was gracious enough to write a letter of recommendation for me in support of my nomination. While at the Department of Justice, I also had the opportunity to experience the different professional rewards I had been seeking. My sense of professional accomplishment was never higher. For that I also have to thank my wife, who remained in private practice and made her own personal and professional sacrifices to help me realize my professional goals. I left the Fraud Section in 2006 to become an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. The U.S. Attorney's Office provided me with all the challenges and rewards that I had come to enjoy at the Fraud Section, but with some added benefits. I was able to reduce the amount of time I was on the road and to spend more time in the area as my wife and I raised our two sons. Becoming an AUSA also gave me an opportunity to become part of a new family at the U.S. Attorney's Office and to experience an extraordinary camaraderie with colleagues, special agents, and investigators. I am grateful to them for their work ethic, professionalism, and friendship, which allowed me to be part of a highly effective team in helping to root out fraud and public corruption here in our Nation's capital. I left the U.S. Attorney's Office after ten years to take on greater responsibilities within the Department of Justice in an area of the law that I did not have much experience, national security. I joined the Department's National Security Division in 2016 and began to learn in detail about cyber security, export controls, and sanctions, economic espionage, unauthorized disclosures, and foreign direct investment. I thank my colleagues at the National Security Division for their patience and support in helping me to learn these complex areas of the law, especially for helping someone like me, who once had to pay a $75 fine as a teenager for illegally spearing fish to understand that illegal spear phishing in today's world typically has nothing to do with fish. I believe that my prior experiences and substantive knowledge suit me well for my next challenge, which, if confirmed, would make me the Intelligence Community Inspector General, or the IC IG. As I have made my rounds through your offices during the past several weeks, meeting with the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, several other Committee Members, Senator Grassley, and numerous professional staff members, I've been left with two primary impressions about the Office of the IC IG. I want to share those impressions, and I particularly want to share them with any current employees of the IC IG who may hear or read my statement. First, I am left with the impression that this Committee and other members of the Senate are unified in their desire to see the IC IG succeed as an office. As was the case when Congress created the IC IG in 2010, there are many contentious issues within the intelligence community, but the need for an IC IG is not one of them. My impression is that the Committee remains unified in its support for an IC IG that can identify problem areas and find the most efficient and effective business practices required to ensure that critical deficiencies are addressed before it is too late, before we have an intelligence failure. There also remains strong bipartisan support for an Inspector General of the Intelligence Community who, as the Chair of the IC IG Forum, works together with the intelligence community IGs to build a strong coalition, identify issues of common interest, and initiate cross-jurisdictional reviews. Such unified support is a good thing for any organization and is especially good for a relatively new governmental organization in today's budget climate. But this goodwill must not be taken for granted, because it can be squandered. This brings me to my second impression. My second impression about the Office of the IC IG is not nearly as favorable. I do not believe I am revealing any confidences when I share my impression that there is a broad view among the Committee, its staff, and other Members that the Office of the IC IG is not currently functioning as effectively as Congress intended. It is not difficult to find some of the sources for this view. One recent press article reported that the Office of the IC IG is `ìn danger of crumbling,'' ``barely functioning,'' `òn fire,'' and ``gutted.'' Now, perhaps things inside the Office of the IC IG are not as bad as the press and others portray them. I for one certainly hope so. And as a prosecutor and former defense attorney, I know there are at least two sides to nearly every story. Nevertheless, real or not, this is an ultimately unsustainable impression for the Committee to have of the IC IG. The impression is also that the current problems are internal. This needs to change before the IC IG loses the support of this Committee and the Congress as a whole. Simply put, it appears that the IC IG needs to put its house in order, and the sooner the better. My experience has taught me that the effectiveness of any team is dependent first and foremost on having the right people on the team, with a shared set of goals and values. I see no reason to believe that an Office of Inspector General is any different. My first objective as Inspector General, if confirmed, will be to make sure that the IC IG's house is in order. This will involve making sure the right people are in the IC IG. I am confident there are right people for the IC IG already there, people with a commitment to integrity, discipline, excellence, and independence, and I hope they stay. If I'm confirmed, the IC IG will work together as a team to achieve Congress' most ambitious intentions for the office. In the near term, we will work together to encourage, operate, and enforce a program for authorized disclosures by whistleblowers within the intelligence community that validates moral courage without compromising national security and without retaliation. Over the long term, if confirmed, we will work together and with the IC IG Forum members to look across the intelligence landscape, as Congress and this Committee intended, to help improve management, coordination, cooperation, and information- sharing within the intelligence community. Throughout my tenure, we will work together to be responsive to this Committee so that you are able to fulfill your oversight obligations and to ensure that U.S. intelligence activities meet our Nation's security needs, respect our laws, and reflect American values. I thank you for your time in listening to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Atkinson follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Thank you to both of you for your testimony. Members should know that I'll recognize Members based upon seniority for up to five minutes after the Chair and the Vice Chair. I recognize myself. Jason, the Committee's access to legal analysis is sometimes crucial to our ability to assess the intelligence community's collection tools. If confirmed, can our Committee be assured that you or your designee will keep us appropriately informed of any and all legal opinions and interpretations that your office performs as to intelligence tools? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Chairman Burr. If asked by the Committee, will your office provide briefings and assessments of the intelligence community's views and findings on legal matters? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Chairman Burr. Michael, to you: The Committee's timely access to intelligence is crucial to our ability to conduct vigorous oversight over the intelligence community and meet our Congressional obligations. We view the IC Inspectors General as partners in oversight. We rely on Inspectors General to identify problems and to bring issues to this Committee's attention. If confirmed, can our Committee be assured that you or your designee will keep us appropriately informed of any significant complaints received by your office? Mr. Atkinson. Yes. Chairman Burr. If asked by the Committee, will you provide the interview subjects or methodologies behind your office's finished reports and assessments? Mr. Atkinson. Yes. Chairman Burr. One last question on my behalf to you, Mr. Atkinson. As you mentioned in your statement for the record, the IC IG is an office with some reported challenges, particularly regarding the whistleblower program that has been frequently reported about in the media over the past few months. Strong whistleblowers are essential. Further, ensuring the IC workforce understands and believes in the whistleblower program is paramount. Tell the Committee what you plan to do to address these issues we're hearing about and how you're going to work to reassure the workforce that the IC IG has a well-functioning program that they can trust? Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Chairman, the intelligence community understands the importance of cultivating and protecting sources of information, and that includes whistleblowers. Whistleblowers play an important role in safeguarding the Federal Government against waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. In terms of what the IC IG can do as an office, it can do three things primarily: first, provide organizational support and encouragement for whistleblower programs for lawful, authorized disclosures; second, it can disseminate information and make sure that there's appropriate training across the intelligence community to make the workforce aware of the authorized ways to make lawful disclosures and report unethical or illegal conduct; and third, it can enforce a safe program where whistleblowers do not have fear of retaliation and where they're confident that the system will treat them fairly and impartially, so that we can secure national security and allow whistleblowers to make their complaints of unethical or illegal behavior without risking unauthorized disclosures. Chairman Burr. Great. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll start with you, Mr. Klitenic. As you know, the SSCI is continuing its work to investigate the Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Can you commit to ensuring that this Committee will be provided with all information requested pursuant to our ongoing Russia investigation? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you. Let me also editorially comment that I very much appreciate what you talked to me about and reiterated in your public statement, that you're going to be asked to render legal opinions from the relatively ivory tower of a certain office in Northern Virginia, but that those, your legal opinions, will have huge ramifications for people in the field and across the country and across the world. Do you want to add any more on that? That's obviously one of the things you talked about in terms of your willingness to make sure that we adhere to the law in thinking through how you make those legal opinions. Mr. Klitenic. Yes, thank you. As it relates to providing legal advice, I take it both professionally and personally. Some of the people who are running around all corners of the globe so we can sleep safely at night, some of those people are my friends. Some of them are former colleagues. Some of them are other associates. Again, from my perspective, I think it's always important to keep in mind the context of the legal advice that you're providing and knowing that it's not simply an academic exercise. Vice Chairman Warner. One of the things you also mentioned in your opening statement was you understood the statutory obligation to keep this Committee fully and currently informed. Do you want to drill down a little bit more on how you define ``currently''? Mr. Klitenic. Yes, thank you. I view the duty to keep the Committee currently and fully informed--there's obviously the 502 statutory requirement, but, quite frankly, as a working matter I view this Committee--and I'm saying this respectfully and in the context of understanding that you are United States Senators and, if confirmed, I would simply be agency counsel. But I view this Committee to be my friend. This Committee is not my foe. My foe, our foes, are the people out there across the globe who wish us ill. So my view as an attorney, when I'm provided with information that I believe this Committee should have, I will be viewing it from the perspective of how can I get this information to the Committee, as opposed to looking at it from the perspective of, okay, how can I keep this from the Committee? In terms of the timeliness of it, from my perspective notification has little to no value, more likely no value, if it is not timely. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you. Mr. Atkinson, my questions were similar to the Chairman's, and I just want to reiterate--and I appreciate the fact that in your opening comments you did allude to the fact that there have not been as strong a working relationship between the current IG's Office and this Committee. You made quite clear your intent to improve that and you said you felt that there were the appropriate people in the IG's Office that were already there. If there are people that need to be removed, I'd like to hear whether you will take on that responsibility as well? Mr. Atkinson. Yes, Senator. In terms of managing any organization, the key is getting the right people into the organization. That also involves getting any of the wrong people out of the organization and then, once the right people are in the organization, getting the right people in the right positions. So yes, to the extent there are wrong people in the IC IG, we will work to either improve their performance or, if necessary, remove them. Vice Chairman Warner. Let me also reiterate so we make sure that everybody gets their time. You don't have to respond to this. But let me also echo the Chairman's comments in terms of the importance of the whistleblower program. I think there needs to be greater protections and, should you be confirmed, I look forward to working with you to make sure that those protections are increased and improved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Risch. Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say I think both of these nominees come with a strong, strong background and obviously come with also very good recommendations. I've had the opportunity in a different setting to get my questions answered, which I appreciate. I feel very good about these two and at the present time I'm a strong supporter of them, so I'm going to pass on questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Thank you. Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Atkinson, the IC IG is not an easy position in my view. You can't get sucked in. You have to be independent, and you have to be able to call them as you see them and run an office that's going to be effective to the overall goal. Are you prepared to do this? Mr. Atkinson. Yes, Senator. I think that my training as a prosecutor helps in terms of having a commitment to independence and integrity, as well as discipline, and understanding that there is a need to speak truth to power. The hardest part sometimes is finding the truth. The truth--as a prosecutor in a criminal case, it's difficult. I expect it will be even more difficult dealing with secret organizations. So I certainly appreciate the challenge that is out there for me. But in terms of the independence and integrity required of the position, I think my training as a prosecutor will come in very handy. Senator Feinstein. I think that's probably true, and I thank you very much for those comments. Having an open, honest IG is really very important to the functioning of what is a highly secret intelligence-gathering organization. I know you can see that. To both of you, I'm sorry, I didn't have a chance to meet with you before. You tried and my schedule got overly complicated. But I would hope that we would have a chance to sit down, because there are a couple of things that I'd like to mention to both of you. One of them is the area in which I believe the IC did get out of control, and that was during the 1990s, particularly on the subject of interrogation and detention. This Committee over six years did a report. There is a 500-page summary of that report; and before you come to see me, I would ask that each of you read that summary, which has been published. Will you do so? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Mr. Atkinson. Yes, Senator. Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I think that I'd like to ask the IC IG: What do you see as the most essential and effective tool of an Inspector General overseeing an intelligence agency? Mr. Atkinson. I think it goes back to the people, Senator. I think you have to have the right people with the right skill set to try to handle the task that's before it. The effectiveness of the intelligence community is in large part a function of its secretiveness, and so in terms of trying to find the truth or audit programs, investigate whistleblower complaints, inspect other agencies, you need the right people. There's plenty of tools available in terms of subpoena power and the ability to come to this Committee and to this Congress to provide reports. But ultimately, in terms of the most powerful tools that the office will have, in my view it has to be the people. Senator Feinstein. Mr. Klitenic, because of the position you're going to be in as General Counsel and your background, you're clearly qualified and I have no questions of you. But I would hope that you would feel free when there are issues to bring them before this Committee as well. I don't think anybody does a service to stifle truth or not bring forward problems. I think you'll find that the Committee is really a very good one. We pay attention. We put in a lot of time, and we care very deeply about the appropriate functioning of the agencies that you're going to be in charge of. So thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Klitenic. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Burr. Senator Collins. Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Klitenic, whom do you view as your client if you are confirmed as the General Counsel? Mr. Klitenic. Thank you, Senator. That frequently is the-- sometimes that can be a difficult question for lawyers. The first question is: Who is the client? I think as it relates to being the General Counsel to the ODNI, the agency is the client, embodied by the leadership. So it would be the Director of National Intelligence. I would not be representing anyone in his or her personal capacity. Then ultimately my client--I would view my client to be the people of the United States. Senator Collins. That's the right answer. One of the greatest challenges for the intelligence community is that it's very difficult for the public to separate out fact from fiction in certain press reports. If confirmed, you will be in an important position to be fully aware of what the IC is doing, while also being responsible for ensuring that its activities are lawfully conducted. There are two aspects of this problem. First, if you uncover misinformation about the lawfulness of the intelligence community's activities as reported in the press, what would you do about that? Mr. Klitenic. Thank you, Senator. Yes, there definitely would be a tension. Obviously, one of the fundamental principles of the intelligence community is to protect sources and methods. So a challenge would be if there were an instance where, if you're reading something in the paper that you know to be untrue or, let's just say, a nation-state is putting out information about things that are happening in our own country that we know to be untrue, and if that information is classified that would present a challenge. So if that were to arise, that's something that, if confirmed, I would take a serious look at, work with the people that I would need to consult with, and make sure that in correcting the information, if it needed to be corrected, it would be done in a way that again preserved sources and methods and other sensitive information. Senator Collins. Let's take a situation where the opposite is the case and you uncover activity in the intelligence community that is not lawful. Obviously, you would report it to the ODNI. What is your obligation to report beyond the Justice Department and the ODNI with respect to the oversight committees of Congress, in particular our Committee? Mr. Klitenic. I would view that I--that we, the ODNI, if confirmed, would have the obligation to report it to the Committee. I believe that the Section 502 notification requirements also talk about intelligence failures, so perhaps there would be an argument that this would be a form of failure. But again, it would be done in a way to protect sources and methods. I would view this Committee to be an ally of mine and I would just want to make sure that you have access to the same information to which I have access. Senator Collins. Thank you. Mr. Atkinson, you have heard many of us talk about the importance of whistleblowers, and I just want to follow up on a question that the Ranking Member asked you since I joined in the letter of the Vice Chairman and the Co-Chairs of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus requesting that the GAO conduct an audit of whistleblower programs and activities conducted by the offices of the inspector general within the IC. It's important that you know that we sent this letter because we began to perceive discrepancies in the way that each IG approached whistleblower protection and we wanted an independent look at what recommendations could be made to ensure that whistleblowers are willing to come forward. So, first I encourage you, if you're confirmed, as I believe you will be, to use this GAO audit as an opportunity for you to learn about the state of whistleblower complaints within the IC. But my question is this: Do you commit to ensuring that the IC Inspector General remains a place where whistleblowers feel confident that they can come forward, disclose allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, illegal activity, and they can be confident that their concerns will not fall on deaf ears? Mr. Atkinson. Yes, absolutely, Senator. I look forward to reading the GAO report. I welcome GAO's assistance if confirmed, given the subject matter expertise they bring to it and the force multiplier that they can be, particularly in auditing. In terms of the whistleblower protection, I talked about a commitment to integrity and that to me is what is essential so that whistleblowers have trust in the process. That does two things. One, it makes sure that the disclosures go to the right people; and second, it really takes away an excuse that some people have used that: I would have made an authorized disclosure, but I didn't know how to do it, or I didn't have faith in the process. So yes, absolutely, if confirmed, the commitment to integrity will be to make the whistleblower program effective and objective and impartial. Senator Collins. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator King. Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Klitenic, I love your characterization of the Committee as your friend. I hope a year from now you hold to that. Mr. Klitenic. Yes, sir. Senator King. That idea. I consider your two positions two of the most important in the United States Government, for the following reason. It's an anomaly in a free society to have secret agencies that don't operate in the ordinary open air of controversy and reporting and interest groups and all of those kinds of things. Our system--we're always talking about checks and balances of the courts and the Congress, but there are lots of other checks and balances. One of them is public disclosure and transparency, and yet we understand the necessity for secrecy and for defending our national security. Therefore, one of the checks and balances that's invisible is the rule of law. You gentlemen more than any others in these agencies have the responsibility for upholding the rule of law. Like my colleague from Maine, I was going to ask, who is your client? Your client is the Constitution, it seems to me. Your client is the people of the United States. It's not a particular director, it's not a particular president, it's not a particular agent. It is the--this is in the essence of the checks and balances that otherwise just aren't there for these agencies. The natural tendency of an agency that operates outside of the public view in some cases is to abuse its authority. I would urge you--again, I'm echoing my colleague Senator Feinstein--to read that summary of the torture report, because what comes through is not people who were evil and who were setting out to do harm. They were people who were genuinely concerned about the future of the country, but they did things that they should not have done; and the lawyers did things that they should not have done. And that's where it becomes hard. So I hope you will read that report. It's a stunning piece of work and I think it will help guide your work, because it'll make you realize how hard these decisions are. Now, what actions would you take, Mr. Atkinson, if a senior IC official said: Let's not go into this investigation, let's not do this audit; there's a lot of heavy-duty national security here and it could result in a serious compromise of something that we're trying to accomplish on behalf of the country? Mr. Atkinson. Well, I'd do a couple things. First, I would talk with that senior official to try to understand the reasoning behind the request. If I thought that the investigation or review was necessary or in the best interests of the United States, I would pursue it. If other senior officials within the intelligence community still were advising me to stop, I would continue to talk to them and try to convince them that in my view, in my independent view, this review or assessment was necessary and in the best interests of the United States. I would take that--I would have that discussion all the way up to the Director of National Intelligence if necessary. By statute, he does have the authority to prevent an investigation or an examination if he deems that that's necessary or vital to United States national security. I would also talk to this Committee if that situation arose to that level, to keep you informed about those events. Senator King. If you were prevented by the Director or by some other official from pursuing an investigation that you thought was important, significant, and represented a potential abuse of the agency, would you consider resignation? Mr. Atkinson. The answer is yes, but in context. The Congress has given the Director of National Intelligence the authority, the statutory authority, to prevent the Inspector General from conducting a review if the Director determines that that's in the vital interest of the United States. And there's a process in place where he then has to inform the Committee, the Congress, the oversight committees, of his decision. And I as the Inspector General would also have an opportunity to come to the Committee and talk to you about the decision that was made and my own views. So I would consider it, but I think the process is in place that people who--can disagree without necessarily having to resign. But if I felt strongly enough and it really went to a core principle, yes, I would consider resigning. That would be part of my thought process. Senator King. I think the hard part here is that these are not going to be easy black-and-white questions. They're not going to be presented--it's always--and again I go back to the torture report. It's always going to be people thought there's going to be a second attack and we have to prevent it and we have to move aside some of these rules and regulations in order to do so. That's the context in which these decisions have to be made and that's why they're so difficult. Mr. Klitenic, your thoughts on this issue? Mr. Klitenic. I guess what I would say, Senator, is as an attorney it's not unusual to be facing a situation where you're trying to advise someone on the law or the parameters of the law, and then also not unusual to occasionally get pushback. The way I am hard-wired, I probably am more of a fighter than a quitter, but if I were ever--if I exhausted all my remedies and there was nowhere else to go but to resign, then that is an action I would seriously consider. Senator King. Well, I appreciate both of your willingness to undertake this important responsibility. I've been impressed in our discussions and with your answers here today, and I look forward to supporting your nominations when they come to the floor. I just hope you will continually remember and realize what a solemn and heavy responsibility this is in this particular setting. Not that the IG of the Department of Agriculture isn't important, but there are lots of other people watching the Department of Agriculture. There are very few other people watching the agencies that you are working with, that are crucial to our national security. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Atkinson. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Klitenic. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Manchin. Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank both of you for attending and being here and willing to serve, which I appreciate very much, and for your families that are supporting you. I also appreciate our discussions we had in the office when you both came in. It was very good and very enlightening. I would like to hear, with your previous experience at the Department of Justice, can you tell the Members of this Committee your views on the pending reauthorization of the 702 FISA, Section 702 of FISA? If you could, either one? Mr. Atkinson, you can start if you will. Mr. Atkinson. Well, as a member of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, I know that the Department feels very strongly about reauthorizing Section 702. Mr. Klitenic. It's my understanding it's an incredibly important tool in the toolkit of the intelligence community and the law enforcement community. It's also my understanding it may be the most important tool. So obviously, from my perspective, at this point I am an outsider, but I would strongly support it. Senator Manchin. Do you have concerns of the invasion of privacy for the American citizens? Do any of you have that concern? Have you looked into it that much or have you been brought up to speed on it? Mr. Klitenic. I guess what I would say is that, as it relates to 702, that provision, that Act, that section of the Act, has been--I would defer to the courts, and the courts have reviewed it and my understanding is and my reading of it is that each court that has reviewed the 702 program has found it to be constitutional. Now, as with everything, you always want to--again, in my earlier comments they were sincere about providing for the national defense and the national security, but also protecting our civil rights and civil liberties. I don't think that's just a throwaway line. But as it relates to the 702 program, I would defer to the courts, and again they have upheld the constitutionality of it. Senator Manchin. Mr. Atkinson, you'll serve as the chair of the Intelligence Community Inspector Generals Forum. How do you plan to implement the necessary oversight that comes with your office without becoming too intrusive to the other organizations' inspector general activities? Mr. Atkinson. That is a real challenge to this office, Senator. It's actually one of the things, though, that was most appealing to me about it, is there's no other inspector general that serves in that sort of chair role and has the ability to coordinate other inspector generals such as the IC IG does as the chair of the IC IG Forum. I think the challenge is balancing out the autonomy of action that the individual IGs need to have to fulfil their duties and responsibilities with the unity of effort that we all need to have collectively so that we maximize our efficiency and effectiveness. I think that part of that in terms of ways to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the group, it goes to relationships, meeting with the folks on a regular basis, both at the IG level as well as at the committee levels for the investigators, the auditors, and the inspectors. I look forward to meeting with all of the IC IG Forum members as soon as possible if I'm confirmed. Senator Manchin. Mr. Klitenic, how do you view your break from government, your departure there and then coming back? Do you feel that it was a positive or a negative as you prepare to assume your new duties? Mr. Klitenic. I would view it as a positive. Being in the private sector has given me a perspective that I wouldn't have if I had spent the balance of these years in government service. I do very much miss government service, but there is something about working closely with industry and seeing it from that perspective, and it relates to a whole variety of issues, relating to, for example, the protection of our Nation's critical infrastructure, 85 percent of which is in private hands. So seeing some of the challenges that industry experiences when working with the government, I would view that to be helpful. Another added benefit--I can't quantify this, but I am not coming from any particular member of the IC and to that extent I would view--I'm not beholden to any particular agency, and I would just view my role to again to continue to play things straight and provide counsel on issues that come before me. Senator Manchin. This will be one for both of you. If asked by the President, would you render your professional assessment regardless if that assessment is counter to what the Administration has been espousing or what the President may feel? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Mr. Atkinson. Yes, Senator. Senator Manchin. I think what we're all talking about, no matter who the President, he or she may be, truth to power is something that we have to have professionals such as yourself be willing to speak up and protect the citizens in this great country of ours and the Constitution we all hold so near and dear. Thank you both. I look forward to supporting both of you. Thank you. Mr. Atkinson. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Klitenic. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Lankford. Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you again for going through this laborious process. Very few Americans understand just how painful and long and difficult this process and how many documents you had to turn over, how many interviews you had to have to even get to this desk. Then there is still the process to get through the long filibusters on the floor of the Senate, as last year the Senate faced literally a record number of nominees that were delayed. So there are still more delays to come to actually go through the process. So I want to say to you: Thank you for stepping up and going through this very long, difficult process, because our Nation needs people to both be good counsel for the intelligence community and to be good inspectors general for that community. So thank you for stepping up to be able to do that. A lot of folks that are some pretty remarkable professionals are going to count on your advice and they're going to look towards your insight on that. So buckle up. We're ready for you to be able to get into that spot. Let me ask you several questions on this. Mr. Atkinson, let me ask specifically for you: The IC role of the Inspector General is exceptionally difficult in this setting, because most everything that we handle is secret and classified and is compartmentalized. But the Inspector General has a very unique role to be able to step in and not only check for efficiency-- are we spending the right money in the right places; are there recommendations to be able to do that; do we have the right personnel in the right spot? That takes a lot of relationships and a lot of tenacity to go after the information that's needed. But the American people need individuals on this dais to provide oversight and they definitely need an Inspector General to be able to do that as well. What's your plan to be able to engage, to be able to make sure we have good recommendations, but also you have the information you need to do it? Mr. Atkinson. Well, as I said in my opening statement, Senator, I think it begins with people, getting the right people in the office to be able to perform the difficult tasks that we have to perform, whether it's inspections, audits, or investigations. It also--as you talked about relationships, it also has to deal with getting relationships with the other intelligence community inspectors general, the individual elements, working with them to maximize their efficiency and effectiveness, so that together as a group we multiply our forces rather than dividing them. So that's what I would look forward to doing if confirmed, is working with the IC IG Forum to maximize all of the resources that we have available to tackle these very serious challenges that you've mentioned. Senator Lankford. What will you need to be the eyes and ears of the American people, to provide--on the multiple layers of oversight on 702 specifically, what will you need that you don't know if you have access to now, to be able to make sure that's there? 702 already has oversight from DOJ. It has oversight from the inspectors general. It has oversight within the Department. It has oversight by this Committee. There is a Civil Liberties Board that we have added to it to provide another layer of oversight into it. So there's already multiple layers of oversight on that. Is there anything that you know of that you don't have access to to provide the oversight that's needed for that in your responsibility? Mr. Atkinson. Senator, I don't know the answer to that. I'm not an expert on 702. I'm familiar with the statute as a prosecutor and being in the National Security Division of the Department of Justice. But I don't know all the challenges associated with it. I look forward, if confirmed, to learning about them and working with this Committee and with the other IC IG Forum members to understand if there are additional tools that we need to help the Committee perform its functions. Senator Lankford. This Committee would have an expectation that if there are things you do not have access to, that you need access to for oversight, that you would come back to us. Mr. Atkinson. That's my expectation as well, Senator, that I would come back. Senator Lankford. Terrific. Let me ask you about a hard question on this dealing with leaks and classified information leaks or individuals that are leaking that information. The FBI has told us it's one of the most difficult areas to be able to prosecute. I want to know from you, what do you need to do to be able to help us not have leaks of information, both from a document or from someone telling information that is classified, and how do we clamp down on that? Mr. Atkinson. I think there's a lot in that question. But the whistleblower protection program is essential and, as Senator King talked about, secrecy--the United States intelligence community is largely effective because of its secretiveness, but secrecy is a grant of trust, it's not a grant of power. So the whistleblowers play an important role in making sure that the trust given to the intelligence community is not abused or mismanaged. So you want to do what you can, everything possible, to make sure that when hard-working government employees or contractors identify waste, fraud, or abuse, that there are avenues available to them and they have trust in those avenues, that they will disclose that type of unethical or illegal conduct. You want to make sure as part of that program that they don't have a fear of reprisal. So they need to trust the process and they need to be protected. So as a prosecutor, I understand deterrence and I understand that investigations have to be timely, they have to be thorough, and they have to be effective. If you find a whistleblower that's been retaliated against, there need to be consequences. Senator Lankford. Thank you. Thank you both. Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, I know I'm senior by technicality. With your leave, Mr. Chairman--I think I see you over there--could Senator Harris go first and then I follow her? Chairman Burr. Absolutely. Senator Harris. Senator Harris. Thank you, Senator Wyden. Mr. Klitenic, I appreciate your comments about the nobility of public service, and you so clearly care about the men and women of the IC and I really do appreciate that. So thank you for those comments and the spirit behind them. During the 2016 presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump said, I quote: `Ì would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring it back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.'' End quote. In your opinion, is waterboarding illegal? Mr. Klitenic. Thank you, Senator. The short answer is, as it relates to today, the enhanced interrogation techniques, the law is through the Defense Authorization Act, the techniques that are authorized are found in the Army Field Manual. So as an attorney, I would go to the Army Field Manual and see if that was a technique that is approved. Senator Harris. Have you consulted the Army Field Manual? Mr. Klitenic. I have. Senator Harris. And in your opinion, based on that review, is waterboarding illegal? Mr. Klitenic. Thank you. I have not seen anything in the Army Field Manual that would persuade me that waterboarding is permitted under the Army Field Manual. Senator Harris. Can you guarantee this Committee that you would so advise the members of the IC if you were confirmed in this position? Mr. Klitenic. Yes, that's definitely an issue I would--that would get my attention. Senator Harris. And that you would express---- Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Yes, Senator, yes. Senator Harris. Thank you. Do you believe it is appropriate for the FBI to search information on Americans' communications without a warrant when that information was collected through an authority such as Section 702 of FISA and does not permit the targeting of U.S. persons, which we know it does not? Mr. Klitenic. My understanding again of the 702 program-- and I think we're now getting into queries--my understanding is that's been reviewed by the courts. It has been reviewed by the courts and was found to be---- [Room lights blink.] Senator Harris. There's a light flashing. Mr. Klitenic. Yes. I'm hopefully not accountable for a power outage. Things do happen on my watch, but hopefully this is not attributable to me, Senator. But my understanding is that that aspect of the program has been reviewed by the courts and has been found to be constitutional. Senator Harris. And the IC has consistently declined to produce an estimate of the number of Americans who have been impacted by Section 702 in terms of their privacy. Do you see any legal barriers to generating that estimate? Mr. Klitenic. That is an issue, Senator, I would have to look at. I do not have a security clearance and so all I can tell you is, if confirmed, that's an issue I would certainly explore and spend time on. Senator Harris. If confirmed to this position, can you commit to the Committee that you will take a look at that and return to us with your perspective on whether there is a legal barrier to providing that estimate to this Committee? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Again, the answer is I do not have a clearance and so if I commit something to the Committee I want to make sure I can stand by it. But it is something I would look at, and I would also look to see if there were any legal impediments as well. Senator Harris. And come back and report? Mr. Klitenic. Yes. Yes, Senator. Senator Harris. If the IC lacks the technical expertise or resources to generate such an estimate and you do determine that it is legally permissible for them to offer that estimate to this Committee, as has been requested, do you see any legal barriers to bringing in outside experts like academic researchers to help generate such an estimate? Mr. Klitenic. The honest and short answer is I don't know the answer to that question. But that is something I would certainly look at. Senator Harris. And will you, again, report back to this Committee, if confirmed, about your perspective on bringing in outside experts to help generate the information that gives us an estimate of how many Americans have been impacted by 702 queries? Mr. Klitenic. I would look and see if there were--if it was appropriate and lawful to have experts review the issue. Again, I don't have a clearance, so I don't want to commit something to you that for some reason I would be precluded from reporting back on. But if it were legally permissible for me to report back to you on it, I absolutely would. Senator Harris. I appreciate it. And I should premise all of these questions by stating that I agree completely with your testimony that 702 provides a very important tool to our intelligence community and it is something that should be preserved, but of course with striking a balance with the protections and privacy protections that Americans deserve to receive in terms of their private information. I'm especially concerned with the issue where the IC appears to lack a uniform and written policy to ensure that Americans receive appropriate notice of Section 702 surveillance. Can you commit to promulgating such a policy if confirmed in this position? Mr. Klitenic. Senator, that's something I would have to look closer into. As I sit here today, I can't speak to the notification requirements of 702. But again, I do promise, if confirmed, I would look very closely at that and then report my findings to the Committee. Senator Harris. I want to emphasize that the concern specifically is that there is not a uniform written policy within the IC. So I'd appreciate you looking into that if confirmed, and thank you. Thank you. Mr. Klitenic. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Atkinson, I appreciated our discussion in the office. I feel strongly that the current acting leadership of the IC Inspector General's Office has seriously damaged its whistleblower mission. We talked about your cleaning house. Tell me how you're going to do it? Mr. Atkinson. We did talk about cleaning house, and let me say this about that. As I said in my opening statement, the whistleblower protection program, like any other part of the office, is dependent on having the right people in the office. As we talked about in your office, my first priority is to get the right people in the office, get any of the wrong people out of the office, and then get the right person or people running the whistleblower protection program within the IC IG. Senator Wyden. So how are you going to protect whistleblowers from reprisals? I think whistleblowers want to know they're going to be encouraged. They want to know their complaints are going to be followed up expeditiously, but they're especially interested in having the leadership at the top make it clear how they're going to be protected from reprisals. So this is really part of the new day, cleaning house. How are you going to protect whistleblowers from reprisal? Mr. Atkinson. Similar to the way we protect witnesses in criminal cases. We're going to take their case, treat it very seriously, treat it impartially, follow the facts, wherever they lead, protect the witnesses to the extent permitted by law, do what we can to---- Senator Wyden. What's your understanding of what the law offers? Because they're going to say: Okay, you're saying I'm going to be protected to the extent of the law; what does that really mean? Give me an example of what you're talking about? Mr. Atkinson. That they will not be reprised against, they will not suffer demotion or any sort of pay cut or any negative job factor because of their willingness to come forward and make an authorized disclosure. Senator Wyden. And you will make it clear you see that part of your new day, that they're not going to face pay cuts, they're not going to face demotions? That's the message you want to send? Mr. Atkinson. That is the message I want to send. As a prosecutor, I see the unauthorized disclosures and I see the harm that they do, and I understand how critically important it is for people to have trust in the authorized disclosures. Senator Wyden. Mr. Klitenic, let me ask you a question about the law. If an intelligence operation is inconsistent with the public's understanding of the law, that is a prescription for trouble, and we have faced that in the past with the Patriot Act, where people would go to a coffee shop and they'd read the Patriot Act and they wouldn't hear about how it has been contorted into something where you'd collect millions of phone records on law-abiding people, which was the reason that we passed a reform bill. I talked to you about secret law. It's a doctrine that we really developed here, that says: Look, if there's a secret interpretation that's different than what people read in the coffee shop, that's what we ought to be concerned about. So tell me what you would do to declassify secret law? As you know, I made the distinction between sources and methods, which have to be classified, but the law, which always ought to be public. What are you going to do to declassify secret law? Mr. Klitenic. Thank you, Senator. As we discussed, there will be instances where there will be legal opinions or there may be FISA Court opinions that within them necessarily contain information that is classified, and that classified information may be classified because it is to protect sources and methods. Also when we met, we also talked about my belief in transparency. I think transparency is important for any number of different reasons. One of the fundamental reasons why I think transparency is so important is because I think as the American people learn more about what the intelligence community is doing on their behalf they would have even greater confidence in the community. As it relates to declassifying certain portions of legal opinions or FISA Court opinions, again that's something I would, as I told you in our meeting, I would very much commit to taking a hard look at. For me that is something---- Senator Wyden. Would you make that a priority? Because secret law has been a problem for years and it remains one to this day. I want to see somebody come in there and say: Look, we've got a job to do; sources and methods are sacred; you don't mess with them, because if you do people die. But the public has a right to know what the law is. I'd really like to see somebody in your position, consistent with protecting this country's security, say this is going to be a priority. Will you do that? Mr. Klitenic. Senator, I'm very comfortable telling you that, yes, I would make that a priority. Senator Wyden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator King. Senator King. A brief follow-up on a different topic. Mr. Atkinson, part of your role as IG, of course, isn't always about high policy; it's about fiscal responsibility, prudent expenditures, and those kinds of things. There is a huge force multiplier out there that's available to you called the GAO. Unfortunately, in the past the intelligence community has resisted utilizing the resources of the GAO, even though they have clearances and those kinds of things. In fact, two years ago or three years ago Senator Coburn and I had to literally get an Act of Congress to get the IC to use the GAO to analyze utilization of facilities. Do you view the GAO as an asset to your work and will you commit that you will utilize them as a resource in the analysis that you do of things like fiscal prudence, efficiency, utilization of resources, staffing, and those kinds of things? Mr. Atkinson. Yes, absolutely, Senator. I think that one of the challenges for the IC IG as I understand it is on the auditing side of the house and getting qualified, cleared auditors within the IC IG to look at the intelligence community's programs and activities. So it makes perfect sense to make use of GAO, since they have subject matter experts, in auditing. So yes, I see them as a force multiplier and I would use them as much as possible. Senator King. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Thank you, Senator King. Seeing no other Members wishing to ask questions, let me thank both of you on behalf of the Committee. Let me thank you for your service in the past, for your willingness to serve in the capacity you're here nominated by the President, and thank you for your honest testimony and candid testimony today. I'll end where I started: The Committee takes oversight extremely serious. The two roles that you'll be in are absolutely crucial to our ability to implement that oversight properly and effectively. We're grateful to you. We look forward to the process as your nominations move out of Committee and to the floor. But as of this time, enjoy the next little bit with your families, who are here to support you. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] Supplemental Material [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]

Committee Leadership

Tom Cotton

Mark Warner

All Committee Members

Recent Legislation Activity

Hearings & Meetings

Reports & Publications

Committee Resources