News reports about the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. The hearing is twoandahalf hours. I call this hearing to order. I would like to thank our witnesses today, director of National Intelligence dan coats, welcome back to your family here in the United States senate. Department of Justice Deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. Director of National Security rogers, andral mike acting director of the federal bureau of investigation, andrew mccabe, welcome. I appreciate you coming to discuss one of our most critical and publicly debated foreign intelligence tools. Title vii of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, commonly known as fisa, is set to expire on december 31, 2017. Title vii includes several crucial foreign intelligence collection tools, including one known primarily as section 702. Section 702 provides the capability to target foreigners who are located outside the United States, but whose Foreign Communications happen to be routed to and acquired inside the United States. Section 702 collection is exceptionally critical to protecting americans both at home and abroad. It is integral to our foreign intelligence reporting on terrorist threats, leadership plans, intentions, counter proliferation, counterintelligence, and many other issues that affect us. Subject to multiple layers of oversight and reporting requirements from the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. The foreign Intelligence Surveillance court must approve procedures for each Relevant Agency before the agency can review collected information. At the end of the day, fisa collection provides our government with the foreign intelligence that our nation needs to protect americans at home and abroad, and in many cases, our allies. I understand theres an ongoing debate pitting privacy against National Security and there are arguments within the debate that has merit. As we all know, the Intelligence Communitys valuable fisa collection was thrust into the public spotlight following the illegal and unauthorized disclosures by former analyst edward snowden. As a result, the United States government and this committee we doubled its efforts to oversee fisa collection authorities, which already were subject to historical robust oversight. I also think its fair to say that some entities overreacted following snowdens disclosures and now Congress Must justify what courts repeatedly have upheld as a constitutional and lawful authority. I also think it is fair to say that nothing regarding this lawful status has changed since director clapper and attorney general holder wrote to congress in february 2012 to urge us to pass a straight reauthorization of fisa, and since the Obama Administration followed suit in september 2012. What has changed is the intensity, scale, and scope of the threats that face our nation. This is not the time to needlessly rollback and handicap our capabilities. A lot of people will use this hearing as an opportunity to talk about the committees Russian Investigation. I would like to remind everyone that 702 is one of our most effective tools against terrorism and foreign intelligence targets. I hope my colleagues and those watching this hearing realize that our constitutional obligation is to keep america and our citizens safe. The Intelligence Community needs section 702 collection to successfully carry out its mission and it is this committees obligation to ensure that the icc has the authorities and the tools it needs to keep us safe at home and abroad. I look forward to your testimony and continued efforts to maintain the integrity of this vital collection tool and i turned to the vicechairman for any comments he might have. Mr. Chairman, and thank you for hosting this hearing 702 on the very important 702 program and ways we might ensure its effectiveness. Given the panel of witnesses here, and given the recent news about Ongoing Investigations into russian interference in our 2016 elections, i have to take at least part of my time to pose some questions during my question time. Each of you here today have taken oath to defend the constitution. As leaders of the Intelligence Community, you have committed to act and provide advice and counsel in a way that is devoidd, impartial, and of political considerations. This is the essence of what makes our Intelligence Community and all the men and women who work for you so impressive. No mattert straight which Political Party is in charge. Thats y its so jarring to hear reports of white house officials , perhaps even the president himself, attempting to interfere and enlist our Intelligence Community leaders in any attempt to undermine the ongoing fbi investigation. Obviously tomorrow theres another hearing. We will be hearing from former fbi director comey. I imagine he will have something to say about the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. President ard the himself say that he was thinking about the russia investigation when he fired comey. The very individual who was overseeing that same investigation. Today we will have an opportunity to ask Deputy Attorney general rosenstein about his role in the comey firings as well. Reportsally, weve seen , some as recently as yesterday, that the president asked at least two of the leaders of our nations intelligence agencies to publicly downplay the russia investigation. The president has alleged to have also asked director coats, nci director pompeo, to intervene directly with director comey to pull back on his investigation. I will be asking director coats and admiral rodgers about those reports today. True, it wouldis be an appalling and improper use of our intelligence , an act that could erode the Publics Trust in our institutions. The ic, as ive grown to know, rides itself appropriately on its fierce independence. Any attempt by the white house or even the president himself to exploit this community as a tool for political purposes is deeply troubling. I respect all of your service to the nation. I understand that answering some of the questions the panel will post today may be difficult or uncomfortable given your positions in the administration. But this issue is of such great importance, the stakes are so high, i hope you will also consider all of our obligations to the American People, to make sure that they get the answers they deserve to sew many questions that are being asked. We may return to the subject of our hearing. I agree that the reauthorization of section 702 is terribly important. As the attacks in london, paris, manchester, melbourne, and the the goes on, all those text illustrated that terrorists continue to plot attacks that target civilians. Section 702 collects intelligence about these terrorist plots. It authorizes Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community to collect intelligence on nonu. S. Persons outside the United States, where there is reasonable suspicion that they seek to do us harm. Ive been a supporter of reauthorizing section 702 to protect americans from terrorist attacks, and im eager to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure we reauthorize it before the end of this year. A reauthorization of section 702 should ensure also that there is robust oversight and restrictions to protect the privacy and Civil Liberties of americans. Those protections remain in place and if there are areas where those protections can be strengthened, we ought to look at those as well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Sen. Burr thank you, vicechairman. Members,y for all votes are no longer scheduled for 10 30. Votes have been moved to 1 45. When this hearing adjourns, we will reconvene at 2 00 p. M. For a closed door session on section 702. I intend to start that hearing probably at 2 00. Members will be recognized for seniority for questions up to five minutes. With that, thank you for being here today. Director coats, you are recognized to give testimony. Mr. Coats thank you, mr. Chairman, members of the committee. We are pleased to be here today at your request to talk about an important and perhaps the most important piece of legislation that affects the Intelligence Community. Im here with my colleagues. I would like to take the opportunity to explain in some detail section 702. Given this is a public hearing, and hopefully the public will be watching, our efforts to provide transparency in terms of how we protect the privacy and Civil Liberties of american citizens needs to be explained. The Program Needs to be understood. As ireciate your patience talk through the value of 702 to our Intelligence Community and to keeping americans safe. Intelligence collection under section 702 has produced and continues to produce significant intelligence that is vital to protect the nation against International Terrorism, cyber threats, weapons proliferators, and other threats. At the same time, section 702 provides strong protections for the privacy and Civil Liberties of our citizens. That the horrific attacks recently occurred in europe are still at the top of my mind. I was just in europe days before the first attack in manchester, thatwed by other attacks have subsequently taken place. I was in discussion with my british colleagues through this as well as colleagues in other european nations. My sympathies go out to the victims and families of those that have received these heinous attacks, and to the incredible resilience that these communities have shown. Having just returned from europe, im reminded of why section 702 is so important to our mission of not only protecting american lives but the lives of our friends and allies around the world. Although the many successes enabled by 702 are highly classified, the purpose of the authority is to give the United States Intelligence Community the upper hand in trying to avert these types of attacks before they transpire. Which is why permanent reauthorization of the fisa , without further amendment, is the Intelligence Communitys top legislative priority. Based on the long history of oversight and transparency of this authority, i urge the congress to enact this legislation at the earliest possible date to get our intelligence professionals the consistency they need to maintain our capability. Let me begin by giving an example of the impact of section 702. It has been cited before but i think it is worth mentioning again. An nsa fisa section 702 collection against any mail address used by an al qaeda courier revealed communications with an individual located within the United States. The u. S. Based person was seeking advice on how to make explosives. Nsa passed this information on to the fbi, which was able to quickly identify the individual. And hisnow, zazi associates had imminent plans to detonate explosives on manhattan subway lines. And hiszi coconspirators were arrested, the Oversight Board stated in its report, without the initial and his plans,zi which came about my monitoring an overseas foreigner under section 702, the subway bombing plot might have succeeded. This is just one example of the impacts this authority has had on the icys ability to thwart plots against the united state citizens and our friends and allies overseas. Since it was enacted nearly 10 acts ago, fisa, the fisa has been subject to rigorous and constant oversight by all three branches of government. We regularly report to the intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the house and senate how we have implemented the statute. The operational value it is afforded, and the extensive measures we take to ensure the governments use of these authorities complies with the constitution and the laws of the United States. Over the past few years, we have engaged in an unprecedented amount of public transparency on the use of these authorities. Transparencyst of and because this is a public hearing, allow me to provide an overview of the framework for section 702 and the reasons why the congress amended fisa in 2008. I will then briefly address why 702 needs to be reauthorized and finally i will discuss oversight and compliance and how we are conjuring ensuring and continuing to ensure the rights of u. S. Citizens, writes that need to be protected. I want to stress three things as a backdrop to Everything Else my colleagues and i are presenting today. As i mentioned at the outset, collections under 702 has produced and continues to produce intelligence that is vital to protect the nation against International Terrorism and other threats. Secondly, there are important legal limitations found within section 702, and let me note four of these limitations. First, the authorities granted under 702 may only be used to target foreign persons located abroad for foreign intelligence purposes. Secondly, they may not be used to target u. S. Persons anywhere in the world. Third, they may not be used to target anyone located inside the United States regardless of their nationality. Fourth, they may not be used to target a foreign person when the intent is to acquire the communications of a u. S. Person with whom a foreign person is communicating. This is generally referred to as the prohibition against reverse targeting. The third item i would like to stress is that we are committed to ensuring the intelligence ismunitys use of 702 consistent with the law and the protection of the privacy and Civil Liberties of americans. In the nearly 10 years since congress enacted the faa, there have been no instances of intentional violations of section 702. I would like to repeat that. In the nearly 10 years since congress enacted the amendments to the freedom act, the act that established fisa, there have been no instances of intentional violations of section 702. Backdrop, points as a let me turn to a discussion of why it became necessary for congress to enact section 702. I do this so the American Public can better understand the basis for this law. The foreign intelligence and surveillance act was passed in 1978, creating a way for the federal government to obtain court orders for electronic surveillance of suspected spies, terrorists, and foreign diplomats inside the United States. When originally and acting fisa, congress decided that collection against targets located abroad would generally be outside of their regime. That decision reflected the fact that people in the United States are protected by the Fourth Amendment, while foreigners located abroad are not. Congress accomplished this in large part by defining electronic surveillance based on the technology of the time. In the 1970s, overseas communication were predominantly carried by satellite. Fisa as passed in 1978 did not require a court order for the collection of these overseas satellite communications. Intercepted aa satellite communication of a foreign terrorist abroad, no court order was required. However, by 2008, technology had changed considerably. The first u. S. Based email services were being used by people all over the world. The overseas communications that in 1978 were typically carried by satellite were now being carried by fiberoptic cables, often running through the United States. To continue the same example, if in 2008 a foreign terrorist was communicating by using a u. S. Based email service, a tradition of fisa court order was required to compel a u. S. Based company to help with that collection. Under traditional fisa, a court order can only be obtained on an individual basis by demonstrating to a federal judge that there is probable cause to believe the target of the proposed surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. This would become an ever more difficult and resource intensive process. Therefore, due to these changes in technology, the same resource intensive Legal Process was being used to conduct surveillance on terrorists abroad who are not protected by the Fourth Amendment as was being used to conduct surveillance on u. S. Persons inside the United States who are protected by the Fourth Amendment. In 2008 and702 renewing it in 2012, both times with significant bipartisan support, congress corrected this anomaly, restoring the balance of protections established by the original statute. Although i will not go into great detail regarding the legal iamework for section 702, will simply note a few key items. First, the statute requires annual certifications by the attorney general and the director of National Intelligence regarding the categories of foreign intelligence that the Intelligence Community will acquire. Second, the statute requires targeting procedures that set forth the rules by which the Intelligence Community ensures that only foreign persons abroad are targeted for collection. Requiresthe statute minimization procedures protecting u. S. Persons information that may be acquired by targeting foreign persons. And finally, each year, the fisa Court Reviews this material to make sure the Governments Program is consistent with the statute and with the Fourth Amendment. Released lately redacted versions of these documents, including the most recent opinion, to ensure the public has a good understanding of how we use this authority. The government section 702 program, as we have said, is subject to rigorous and frequent oversight by all three branches of government. The first line of oversight and compliance is within the agencies, whose offices of general counsel, privacy, and Civil Liberties offices, and inspectors general, all have a role in fisa 702 program oversight. The majority of the incidents of noncompliance reported to my office and to the department of justice are selfreported by the participating agencies. In addition, the office of the dni and department of justice conduct regular audits focusing on compliance with targeting procedures as well as on ing ofng query collected data and dissemination of information. Also, we have regular engagements with an extensive reporting to congress about the fisa 702 program. The judiciary and Intelligence Committees receive relevant orders of the fisa court, descriptions, and analysis of every compliance incident, and certain statistical information such as the number of intelligence reports in which a known u. S. Person was identified. And finally, the fisa court regularly checks our work both through the annual recertification process and through regular interactions on particular incidents of noncompliance. Members of the fisa court, who are appointed to the chief justice of the supreme court, represent the best of the best of our judicial community. They have fast experience and are committed to the Constitutional Responsibilities of protecting the privacy of u. S. Persons. We are particularly proud of our oversight and compliance track record. The audits of the program conducted by the odni and doj have shown that unintended error rates are extremely low, substantially less than 1 . Further, and i want to emphasize once,we have never, not found an intentional violation of this program. There have been unintended mistakes, but i would note that any system of zero compliance incidents is a broken system, because human beings make mistakes. The difference is that none of these mistakes has been intentional. When we do find unintentional errors in compliance, we ensure they are reported and corrected. This is an extraordinary record of success for the diligent men and women of the Intelligence Community who are committed to ensuring their neighbors privacy is protected in the course of their National Security work. With that, i would like to turn to the most recent incident which resulted in a significant change in how the National Security agency conducts a portion of its fisa 702 collection. A recent example of the oversight process at work, as a recent example, nasa identified a compliance incident involving queries of u. S. Persons identifiers in upstream data. Upstream data refers to when nasa receives communications directly from the internet with the assistance of companies that maintain these networks. The fisa court was probably notified and doj and odni worked with nsa to understand the scope and causes of the problem as well as to identify potential solutions to prevent the problem from reoccurring. The details of the incident are publicly available. Admiral rodgers can go into more detail if you would like. Just allow me briefly to state what happened. Nasa identified and researched a compliance issue. Excuse me, nsa. Reported that issue to doj, odni, and the fisa court. The Court Delayed its consideration of the 2016 certifications until the government was able to correct the issue. Nsa determined that a possible solution was to stop conducting one specific type of upstream collection. Ultimately, we decided the most effective way to address the courts concerns was to stop collecting on this basis. It is the abouts stream. I am referring to an essays ability to collect communications where the foreign intelligence target is neither the sender nor the recipient, but is referenced within the communication itself. The fisa court agreed with our solution and approved the program as a whole on the basis of the nsa proposal. What im trying to say here is that a compliance issue was identified and after a great deal of hard work the department of justice and the Intelligence Community proposed to the fisa court an effective solution that took the relevant collection costs and benefits into account and the court agreed with the proposed solution. That is how the process works and it works well. Before i conclude, i would like to speak about an issue that has been the subject of much public discussion. There have been numerous requests from congress and the Advocacy Community for nsa to attempt to count the number of United States persons whose communications have been incidentally acquired in the course of fisa 702 collection. During my confirmation hearing and in a subsequent hearing before this committee, i committed to sitting down with ers and the experts in the Intelligence Community to understand why this has been so difficult. I visited nsa, discussed with and his technical people, and follow through on my commitment. What i learned is that the nsa has made it is hard for me to say. They have made extensive efforts. Herculean, i think . All right. You know what i mean. I mean really tough efforts, all right . To devise a counting strategy that would be accurate and that would respond to the question that was asked. I also learned that it remains infeasible to generate an exact, accurate, meaningful, and responsive methodology that can count how often a u. S. Persons Communications May be incidentally collected under section 702. To determine if communicants are u. S. Persons, nsa would be required to conduct significant Additional Research trying to determine whether individuals who may be of no foreign intelligence interest are u. S. Persons. From my perspective as the director of National Intelligence, this raises two significant concerns. First, i would be asking trained nsa analysts to conduct intense Identity Verification research on potential u. S. Persons who are not targets of an investigation. From a privacy and Civil Liberties perspective, i find this unpalatable. Second, those scores of analysis that would have to be shifted from key focus areas such as counterterrorism, counterintelligence, counter proliferation, issues with nations in which such as north korea and iran, we need continuous and critical Intelligence Missions i cant justify such a diversion of Critical Resources, and the massive Critical Resources we would need to attempt to reach this even without the ability to reach a definite number. I cant justify that at a time when we face such a diversity of serious threats. Decided the privacy intrusions were justified, and if i had unlimited staff to tackle this problem, we still do not believe it is possible to come up with an accurate, measurable result. Im aware that the Senate Intelligence Committee Staff will be meeting in a classified hasion and admiral rogers instructed his experts to a dress issue in greater detail. I want to provide one final example that i have, for the purposes of todays hearing, chosen to declassify using my authority as the director of National Intelligence, to further illustrate the value of section 702. Before rising through the ranks to become at one point the second in command of the selfproclaimed Islamic State of haji iman was a high. Chool teacher and imam his transformation from citizen to terrorist caused the u. S. Government to offer a 7 million reward for information leading to him. It also made him a top focus of the spent over two w years looking r haji imam. Indeed, based almost exclusively on intelligence activities under section 702, nsa collected a significant body of foreign intelligence about the activities of haji imam, and his associates. Nsa learned of an individual closely associated with haji imam. Nsa permitted and authorized under section 702 to protect the and associates of haji his close associates. Over a twoyear period, using section 702 collection, and in close collaboration with our partners, nsa produced more intelligence on the associates including their location. Nsa and its tactical partners then combined this information, section 702 which was continuing and other assets to identify and ack haji and track his movements. That enabled u. S. Forces to attempt the apprehension of haji and two of his associates. During the attempted shots fired. And u. S. Forces returned fire killing haji and other associates at that location. Subsequent section 702 collection confirmed hajis death. As you can see from this sensitive example, section 702 is an extremely valuable intelligence collection tool and one that is subject to a rigorous effective Oversight Program and therefore allow me to reiterate my call on behalf of the Intelligence Community without hesitation, my call for perpt reauthorization of the amendments act without further amendments. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience and we would be willing to be open to your questions. Thank you. The chair will recognize himself now for five minutes in questions. In 2012, i mentioned in my letter to jim clapper and attorney generic holder, i wrote a letter asking for the reauthorization of fsa. This would be to director coats and a. G. Rosinstein. That is position changed at all since the time of the february 2012 letter . No, we strongly support the 012 letter and we quest. We agree 100 . Since Congress Last authorized this authority in 2012, again, have there been any instanced involving a deliberate or intentional compliance violation . Not that im aware of. No, sir. Admiral rogers, this is to you. If 702 statutory authorities were to end or be diminished, that would be the impact on our National Security . I could not generate the same level of insight that we count on. I could not be able to recreate the insights on the russian efforts to influence the 2016 election cycle. Without 702, we could not have roduced that level of insight. This is a jump ball. It held two certifications including its targeting. Awful under fzas statute. The only reason our laws even require the certification to cover these nonamericans who are not in our country, is because their communications transfering, u. S. Based networks and systems yet others have suggested imposing a Fourth Amendment retirement on foreigners located outside the United States. This is really nsaa justice, would imposing such a warrant requirement impact our National Security tools to protect america . Ill be happy to take the ball. Yes, it would, senator, i think whats important to recognize is that in the absence of section 702, the department of justice and Intelligence Community in every case in which we wanted to obtain foreign intelligence information to collect against a particular target, wed be required to obtain a court order, it would need to be supported by probable cause. The consequence of that is number one it would be very time consuming because these are thorough investigation and we produce lengthy documents. Director mccabe and i spent fair amount of our time every morning reviewing a stack of documents with our career agents and prosecutors in which they have determined its appropriate to seek those orders. It would be time consuming, it would require a significant commitment to resource and it would require a showing of probable cause. As you know, the probable cause showing which is required under the constitution, in circumstances in which privacy interests of americans are at stake and its required by the 4th amendment, thats a relatively higher threshold than we require for foreign intelligence information. We think its important we not apply that 4th amendment standard to foreigners who are not in the United States. Thank you, mr. Rosenstein. Admiral rogers this is to you. Theres a lot of news reporting much of it inaccurate that characterizes section 702 as a means of targeting u. S. Persons. You know that targeting u. S. Persons is prohibited. As is what is termed reverse targeting. Could you explain and clarify the reverse targeting prohibition and what does it prevent the ic from targeting and collecting. Reverse targeting is designed to bypass the law. The law is designed to insure were not using this Legal Framework as a capability to target u. S. Persons. Reverse targeting is the following scenario. Say were interested in generating insight on u. S. Person a. We know we cant get a title one we cant get a fisa warrant. The theory would be why dont you just target a foreign entity that that u. S. Person talks to and then youll get all the insights you want on the u. S. Person but youll bypass the Court Process and entire legal structure. 702 specifically reminds us we cannot do that. We cannot do 702 as a vehicle to bypass other laws or to target u. S. Persons. Can you last question. Can you please clarify for members and for the public whats meant be incidental collection . Question. Can you please clarify for members and for the public whats meant by incidental collection . Incidental collection and the statute itself if you read the law, the statute acknowledges that in the execution of this framework we will encounter u. S. Persons. We call that incidental collection. That happens under two scenarios. Number one, which is about 90 of the time. We are monitoring two foreign individuals and those foreign entities talk about or reference a u. S. Person. The second scenario that we encounter are what we call incidental collection is we are targeting a valid foreign individual and that valid foreign individual, a foreign intelligence target, ends up having a conversation with a u. S. Person. Thats not the target of our collection, its not why we are monitoring in it in the first place. Were interested in that foreign target. That happens of the times we have incidental collection, that scenario happens about 10 of the time. And were that incidental collection to happen, you have a procedure in place in both instances to minimize that we do. The law specifically gives us a set of processes that we have to follow so if we do encounter a u. S. Person incidental in the course of our collection, we ask ourselves several questions, number one, are we looking at potential criminal activity . If we do that, we have a requirement to report or to inform the department of justice and the fbi and they make the determination if its illegal or not. Were an Intelligence Organization were not a Law Enforcement organization. The second question we ask ourselves is there anything in this conversation that would lead us to believe that were talking about harm to individuals. In that case we do report it. If we think were dealing with something that is criminal or harm to individuals, we report it. Other than that unless theres a valid intelligence purpose depending on the authority in the case of 702 we specifically purge the data. We remove it. We dont put it in to our holdings. If we dont assess it theres intelligence value and its a u. S. Person, we have to purge the data. Thank you for that. Vice chairman. As i indicated ive got some questions on another matter and dr. Coats and admiral rodgers, theyll mostly be directed to you gentlemen and thank you for your testimony this morning. We all know now in march then director comey testified about the existence of an ongoing fbi investigation into links between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. And there are reports out in the press that the president separately appealed to you admiral rodgers and do you director coats to down play the Russian Investigation. And now weve got additional reports and we want to give you a chance to confirm or deny these,ing that the president separately addressed you director coats and asked you to in effect intervene with director comey again to down play the fbi investigation. Admiral rodgers, you draw the short straw. Ill start with you. Before we get to the substance of whether this call or request was made, youve had a very distinguished career, close to 40 years. In your experience, would it be in any way typical for a president to ask questions or bring up an ongoing fbi investigation, particularly if that investigation concerns associates and individuals that might be associated with the president s campaign or his activities . So today i am not gloing to that you can about theoreticals. Im not going to discuss the specific of any interaction or conversations that if i could finish, sir, please that i may or may not have had with the president of the United States but i will make the following comment. In the three plus years that i have been the director of the National Security agency, to the best of my recollection, i have never been directed to do anything i believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, i do not ever recall feeling pressured to do so. In your course prior to the incident that well discuss, was it in any regular course where a president would ask you to comment or intervene in any Ongoing Investigation . Not talking about this circumstance im not going to talk about theoreticals today. Let me ask you specifically. Did the president , in the reports that are out there, ask you any way, shape or form to back off or down play the Russian Investigation. Im not going to discuss the specifics of conversations with the president of the United States but i stand by the comment i just made to you, sir. Do you feel that that those conversations were classified. We know there was an ongoing fbi investigation. Yes, sir. And press reports. Yes, sir. I understand your answer. Im disappointed with that answer, but i may indicate and i told you i was going to bring this up. Sure. There is we have facts that there were other individuals that were aware of the call that was made to you, aware of the substance of that call and that there was a memo prepared because of concerns about that call. Will you comment at all i stand by the comments that i have made to you today, sir. So you will not confirm or deny the existence of a memo. I stand by the comments i have made to you today, sir. I think it will be essential, mr. Chairman, that other individual who served our country as well with great distinction, whose no longer a member of the administration has the chance to relay his version of those facts. Again, i understand. Yes, sir. Your position, but i hope youll understand the enormous need for the American Public to know. Youve got the administration saying theres no there there, we have these reports and yet we cant get conversation. Director coats, when you appeared before sask, you said and i quote, if called before an Investigative Committee i will provide them with what i know and what i dont know. I have graduate respect for you. You served on this committee. I remember as well when we confirmed you and i was proud to support your confirmation. You said that you would cooperate with this committee in any aspects that we request of the Russian Investigation. We now have press reports and you can lay them to rest if theyre not true, but we have press reports of not once, but twice that the president of the United States asked you to either down play the Russian Investigation or to directly intervene with director comey. Can you set the record straight about what happened or didnt happen . Senator, as i responded to a similar question during my confirmation in a second hearing before the committee, i do not feel its appropriate for me to in a Public Session in which confidential conversations between the president and myself, i dont believe its appropriate for me to address that in a Public Session. Gentlemen, i understand. I stated that before. I thought you also said if brought before the Investigative Committee, you would quote, certainly provide them with what i know and what i dont know. We are before that Investigative Committee. I stand by my previous statement that we are in a Public Session here and i do not feel that its appropriate for me to address confidential information, most of the information ive shared over the president obviously is directed toward Intelligence Matters during our oval briefings every morning at the white house or most mornings when both president and i are in town, but for intelligence related matters or any other matters that have been discussed, it is my belief that its inappropriate for me to share that with the public. Gentlemen, i respect all of your service and i understand and respect your commitment to the administration youre serving. We will have to bring forward that other individual about whether the existence of the memo that may document some of the facts that took place in the conversation between the president and admiral rodgers. I would only ask as we go forward, this is my final comment, mr. Chairman, that we also have to weigh in here the publics absolute need to know. Theyre wondering whats going on. Theyre wondering what type of activities. We see this pattern that without confirmation or denial appears that the president , not once, not twice, but we will hear from director comey tomorrow, this pattern where the president seems to want to interfere or down play or halt the Ongoing Investigation not only of the Justice Departments taking on but this committees taking on and i hope as we move forward on this youll realize the importance that the American Public deserves to get the answers to these questions. Senator, i would like to respond to that if i could. First of all, im always i told you and i committed to the committee that i would be available to testify before the committee. I dont think this is the appropriate venue to do this in, given that this is an open hearing and a lot of confidential information relative to intelligence or other matters. I just dont feel its appropriate for me to do that in this situation. And then secondly, when i was asked yesterday to respond to a piece that i was told was going to be written and printed in the the Washington Post this morning, my response to that was in my time of service, which is interacting with the president of the United States or anybody in his administration, i have never been pressured, ive never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an Ongoing Investigation. All i can say, director coats, there was a chance here to lay to rest some of these press reports. If the president is asking you to intervene or down play you may not have felt pressure, but if hes even asking, to me that is a very relevant piece of information and again, at least in terms of the conversation with admiral rodgers, i think we will get at least some another individuals version, but at some point these facts have to come out. Thank you, senator coats director coats and admiral rodgers for your testimony with all due respect to my colleague from virginia, i think you have cleared up a substantially your direct testimony that you have never been pressured by anyone including the president of the United States, to do something illegal, immoral or anything else. Thank you for that. Lets go back to section 702 which is what this hearing was supposed to be all about. Its becoming obvious, i think those of us that work in the Intelligence Community that were in a different position than europe is. Europe is theyre risks are obviously very high and theyre suffering these attacks on a very regular basis and becoming more regular. So lets talk about our collection efforts versus the european collection efforts and particularly as it relates to section 702. And obviously, we here in the media frequently about spats between us and the europeans regarding Intelligence Matters but we all know that there is a robust communication and cooperation between our european friends and ourselves. So i want to talk about it in i want to talk about 702 in that respect. Why dont we start director coats with you and ill throw it up for anybody else that wants to comment on this. How important is 702, the continuation of the section 702 and its related parts to doing what we have been doing as far as helping the europeans and the europeans helping us and doing the things that were doing here in america to see that we dont have the kind of situations that have been recently happening in europe. Director coats, start with you. Having just returned a few weeks ago from major capitals in europe and discussing this very issue with my counter parts, i throw out the intelligence communities of these various countries, they voluntarily before i could even ask the question expressed extreme gratitude for the ability for the information we have been able to share with them relative to threats. Numerous threats have been avoid on the basis of collection that we have received through 702 authorities and our notification of them of these impending threats and they have been deterred or intercepted. Unfortunately, what has happened just recently, particularly in england, shows that regardless of how good we are, there are bad actors out there that have bypassed the more concentrated large attack efforts and taken it either through inspiration or direction from isis or other terrorist groups have chosen to take violent action against the citizens of those countries. The purpose of the trip was to ensure them that we would continue to work and share together. Their collection activities, capabilities in many cases are good but in some cases lack the ability that we have and so this ability to share information with them that helps keep their people safe also is highly valued by them. But i dont think we should take for granted that just because europe has been the recent target of these attacks, that the United States is safe from that. We know through intelligence that theres plotting going on and we know that theres lone wolf issues and individuals that are taking instructions from isis through social media or that for whatever reason our copycatting what is happening and so that threat exists here also and let me lastly say that the nations ive talked to many of which have been extremely concerned about violating privacy rights have initiated new procedures and legislation and mandates relatively to getting the intelligence agencies better collection because they think they need it to protect their citizens. Thank you very much. Just a few seconds that ive got left, mr. Rosenstein, could you could you tell me, please we get a lot of pushback from the privacy people and weve now haertd testimony that theres been no intentional violation over the ten years. Could you tell the American People whats in store for someone who these guys catch intentionally misusing 702 since youre the highest Ranking Member of the department of justice. I can assure you, senator, that in the department of justice we treat with great seriousness any allegations or violations regarding classified information so if there were a credible allegation that someone had willfully vie lawsuited section 702 that was in violation of a criminal law, we would prosecutor it. Our director mccabe with me shares that commitment. We recognize that we have an obligation to the American People to make sure that these authorities are used appropriately and responsibly, that we comply with the constitution and the laws and the procedures and were committed to devote whatever resources are required that if there are willful violations people are held accountable for them. And this is your commitment and the department of justices commitment to the American People . Thats correct. Senator feinstein . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments on section 702. Its a program that i support. Its a program that i believe has worked well. Its a big program. Its an important one. It is a content Collection Program involving both internet and phone communications, so it can raise concerns about privacy and Civil Liberties. In the year 2016 there were 106,469 authorized targets out of 3 billion internet users. Thats the ratio. The question of unmasking has been raised. Its my understanding that 1,939 u. S. Person identities were unmasked in 2016 based on collection that occurred under section 702. So my question is going to be the following and ill ask it all together and hopefully youll answer it. I would like a description of the certification process and the use of an ameek cuss. I would like your response to the fact that the question the program sunsets after five years about raising that sunset versus no sunset because of the privacy concerns, its my belief there should be a sunset and the use of an amicus which is currently used as part of the certification process and whether that should be continued and form youllized so admiral, programs under your aus business. The department of justice is going to be smarter on the ameek cuss. Would you take that piece . Im not sure i am smarter. I can tell you this, though, with regard to the question of unmasking and this is actually primary a question not for the department. The department is made by the intelligence agencies if there is a situation where a foreign person has been communicating about an american person and a decisions made whether or not the identity of that american person is necessary in order for that intelligence to be properly used. I think whats important for people to recognize is thats an internal issue. That unmasking is done internally within the cloak of confidentiality within the Intelligence Community, thats a different issue from leaks. In other words, if somebodys identity is disclosed because its relevant for intelligence purposes, thats the goal mr. Rosenstein, let me just tell you, i just listen to somebody who should have been known better talking about unmasking in a political sense, that its done politically and that of course is not the case and so what im looking for is the definition of how this is done and under what circumstances. And i think, senator, because thats really a decision made by the ic not by the department it would be appropriate for them to respond to that. I can do that. With respect to unmasking, the following criterias apply. First, for the National Security agency, we define in writing who has the authority to unmask a u. S. Person identity. That is 20 individuals in 12 different positions. I am one of the 20 in one of those 12 positions, the director. Secondly, we outline in writing what the criteria that well be applied to a request to unmask, in a report, part of our process under 702 to protect the identity of u. S. Persons as part of our minimum maization procedures. When we think we need to u. S. A reference person in a report, we will not use a name or identity. We will say u. S. Person one, two, three. That report is then promulgated. Some of the recipients of that report will come back to us and say i am trying to understand what im reading. Can you tell us who is person one or person two . You must make the request in writing. Number two, the request must be made on the basis of your official duties, not the fact that you just find this report really interesting and youre just curious. It has to tie to your job and finally, i said two but theres a third criteria and that is the basis of the request must be that you need this identity to understand the intelligence youre reading. We apply those three criteria, we do it in writing and one of those 20 individuals then agrees or disagrees. And if we unmask, we go back to that entity who requested it, not every individual who received the report, but that one entity who asked for us, we then provide them the u. S. Identity and we also remind them the classification of this report and the sensitivity of that identity. By revealing this u. S. Person to you, we are doing it to help you understand the intelligence, not, not the, so that you can use that knowledge indiscriminately. Thank you. Senator, if i could just add something to that. Given the nature of this issue and its a legitimate question that youve asked. Ive talked with my colleagues at nsa and cia, fbi and so forth, and suggesting that we might ask our Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection agencies to take a look at this, to see if theyre laid out the procedures, are they the right procedures, should we be doing Something Different, would they have recommendations that better protected people from misuse of this. So and theyve all agreed to do that, so i think its a legitimate issue to followup on. Ive talked to the agency heads about doing so and theyre willing to do it. If i could, i have an internal review that i have directed. Given all the attention, given the focus, lets step back and reassess it and lets ask ourselves is there anything that would suggest we need to do Something Different in the process. Good, good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, id like to more thoroughly ask the first question the senator asked. Am me cuss was used in 2015 that decision was made by the court that has the statutorily authority if it believes its appropriate in a particular case so that was was done in 2015. Thank you. Would you feel it would be helpful to make it a part of the regular certification process . My understanding, senator, is that the statute permits the court to do it if the court believes its appropriate so i believe the court has that authority and i live it to the judges to decide when its appropriate to exercise that. Senator rubio. Thank you all for being here. I understand fully the need of the president of the United States to be able to have conversations with members of the Intelligence Community that are protected, particularly in a classified setting. I understand the ability of this community to function depends both on its credibility, the work that its doing is in the natural security interest of the United States and its importance of its independence that it is not an extension of politics no matter which administration is at play. In the absence of either one of those two things, impacts everything we do including this debate were having here today and the challenge we have now that while the folks here with us this morning or constraining what they can say, there are people that apparently work for you that are not and are constantly speaking to the media about things and saying things and it puts the congress in a very difficult position because the issue of oversight on both your independence and on your credibility falls on us and i actually think if what is being said to the media is untrue then it is unfair to the president of the United States and if it is, if it is true, it is something that the American People need to know. We need to know that too in order to conduct our jobs. My questions are geared toward director coats and admiral rodgers. You testified that you have never felt pressured by the president or by anyone to influence any Ongoing Investigation by the fbi. Are you prepared to say that you have never felt never been asked by the president or the white house to influence an Ongoing Investigation . Senator, i just hate to keep repeating this but im going to do it. I am willing to come before the committee and tell you what i know and what i dont know. What im not willing to do is to share what i think is confidential information that ought to be protected in an open hearing. And so im not prepared to answer your question today. Director coats, with the incredible respect i have for, i am not asking for classified information, i am asking if you have ever been asked by anyone to influence an Ongoing Investigation. I understand but im not going to go down that road in a public forum. And i also was asked the question if the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him to ask his questions, i said i would be willing to do that. I likewise stand by my previous comment. In the interest of time, has anyone ever asked you now or in the past, this administration or any administration, to issue a statement that you knew to be false. For me i stand by my previous statement. Ive never been directed to do anything in the course of my three plus years asked. That i felt to be inappropriate, nor have i felt pressured to do so. Have you ever been asked to Say Something that isnt true . I stand by my previous statement. Director coats. I do likewise. Is any one aware of any effort by anyone in the white house, or elsewhere to seek advice on how to influence any investigation . My answer is absolutely no, senator. No one has anything to add to that . I dont understand the question. The question is, are you aware of any efforts by anyone in the white house or the executive branch looking for advice from other members of the Intelligence Community about how to potentially influence an investigation . You talking about me, no. No. Okay. Who wants to answer . Im sorry. Im not sure i understand the question, but if youre asking whether we im aware of requests to other people in the Intelligence Community i am not. Seeking advice on how it could potentially influence someone, youre not aware of anyone ever saying or reporting that to you . No, sir. Has anyone ever come forward and said i just got a call from someone at the white house asking me what is the best way to influence someone on an investigation . Ive never received anything. I have no direct knowledge of such a call. There was an allegation made in one of the press reports and thats why i ask. Im sorry. Who does . The answer is no, as i understand it, but im not sure im familiar with the particular media report that youre referring to. Im running out of time. I do want to ask this because this is important. Did the nsa routinely and extent civil and repeatedly violate the rules that were put in place in 2011 to minimize the risk of collection of upstream information . Have we had compliance incidents, yes. Have we reported any one of those to the court, yes. Have we reported those to our congressional oversight in congress, yes. Have we reported those to the department of justice and the director of National Intelligence, yes. Did under the Obama Administration was there a significant uptick in efforts on incidents of unmasking from 2012 to 2016 . I dont know that. I have to take that for the record. Who would know that . We have the data but i dont know that off the top of my head. I couldnt tell you unmasking on a year by year basis for the last five years. I just dont know off the top of my head. Thank you. Senator widen. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Ive noted the conversations that youve had with my colleagues with respect to the content of conversations that you may have had with the president. My questions a little different. Did any of you four write memos, take notes or otherwise record yours or any one elses interactions with the president related to the russia investigation . I dont take any notes. Lets just get the four of you on the record. Senator, i rarely take notes. Im actually taking a few today but im not going to answer questions concerning the Russian Investigation. I think its important for you to understand not on whether you wrote a memo. Im not going to answer any questions about the my times going to be short. Whether you wrote a memo, notes, anything . I also am not going to comment on any conversations i may have had or notes taken or not taken relative to the Russian Investigation. And the likewise, i take the same position. Director coats on march 23rd you testified to the Armed Services committee that you were not aware of the president or white house personnel contacting anyone in the Intelligence Community with a request to drop the investigation into general flynn. Yesterday the Washington Post reported that you had been asked by the president to intervene with director comey to back off of the fbis focus on general flynn. Which one of those is accurate . Senator, i will say once again, im not going to get into any discussion on that in an open hearing. Both of them cant be accurate, mr. Director. Mr. Director, as recently as april you promised americans that you would provide what you called a relevant metric for the number of lawabiding americans who were swept up in the fisa 702 searches. This morning you went back on that promise and you said that even putting together a sampling, a statistical estimate would jeopardize National Security. I think that is a very, very damaging position to stake out. Well battle it out in the course of this, because there are a lot of americans who share our view, that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We can have both and you rejected that this morning. You went back on a pledge and i think it is damaging to the public. Now let me senator, can i answer the question . Mr. Director, my time is short and i want to ask you about one other 702. I would like to answer your question. Briefly. What i pledge to you in my confirmation hearing is that i would make every effort to try to find out why we were not able to come to a specific number of collection on u. S. Persons. I told you i would consult with admiral rodgers. I told you i would go to the National Security agency to try to determine whether or not i was able to do that. I went out there and talked to them. They went through the technical details. There were extensive efforts on the part of i learned on the parts of nsa to try to come to get you an appropriate answer. We were not able to do that. Director, respectfully, thats not what you said. You said and i woet, we are working to produce a relevant metric, now let me go to my other question. But we were not able to achieve it. So working to do it is different than doing it. You told the American People that even a statistical sample would be jeopardizing americas National Security. That is inaccurate and i think detrimental to the cause of insuring we have both security and liberty. Heres my other question, which are trying to sort out can the witness respond . Who are the targets apparently not. Who are the targets of a 702 investigation . Director comey gave three different answers in a hearing a month ago and i think it would be very helpful if you would tell us who, in fact, is a target of these investigations . I want to go after serious foreign threats but we dont know as of now with director comey having given three different answers who the targets are, mr. Director . Well, i cant speak for Director Director clapper. Targets as i understand are nonu. S. Persons, foreign individuals are the targets and 702 is directed and prohibited from directing targets on u. S. Persons. My time is up. I will tell you, director comey gave three answers. He finally said i could be wrong but i dont think so. I think its confined to counterterrorism, to espionage and finally he said he didnt think a diplomat could be targeted. So we need you all in addition to protecting the liberties of the American People to tell us who the targets are. I would like to respond to that by saying some of those targets are classified, highly classified. I understand that. Some of those targets by revealing the names of those targets released the methods that we use and then is turned against us and could cost the lives or put some of our agents in significant director comey listed a number of targets which is why theres confusion. He said that on the record. We need you to tell us on the record as well consistent with protecting sources and methods. Senator collins . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director coats, first let me thank you for a very cogent explanation of section 702 and the fact that it cannot be used to target any person located in the United States whether or not that person is an american. I think theres a lot of confusion about section 702 and i appreciate your clear explanation. Thank you. This morning. I have a question for each of you that i would like to ask and i want to start with the admiral rodgers. Admiral rodgers, did anyone at the white house direct you on how to responded to or to were there discussions of executive privilege . Have i asked the white house is it their intent to invoke executive privilege, yes. The answer i gave you to today reflects my answer. Director coats. My answer is exactly the same. Deputy attorney general rosenstein . I have not had any communications with the white house about invoking executive privilege today. Director mccabe . I have not had any conversations with the white house about executive privilege today either. Admiral rodgers, in january the fbi, the cia and nsa jointly issued and Intelligence Committee assessment on russian involvement in the president ial elections. Youve testified today that the ic relied in part on 702 authorities to support its conclusion that the russians were involved in trying to influence the 2016 elections. Can you provide us with an update on nsas further work in this area . In terms of the russian efforts . Yes, maam. We continue to focus an alicic insight on what the russians are doing, u. S. Processes like elections. We continue to generate insights on a regular basis, if my memory is right i testified before the open threat assessment and in that hearing which i think was the 11th of may i reiterated we continue to see the similar activity that we identified and highlighted in the january report. Those trends continue, much of that activity continues. Its my understanding that president obama requested the report that was issued in january. Is that correct . Yes, maam, he asked for a consolidated single input from the ic as to the question did the russians or did they not attempt to influence the u. S. Election process. So could you explain the difference between the requests from president obama for that unclassified assessment and the allegations that President Trump requested that you publicly report on whether or not there was any intelligence that concerning collusion between the russians and the members of the Trump Campaign, President Trumps campaign . I apologize i guess im confused bill the question. Im not going to comment on any interactions with the president. I just dont feel that that is appropriate. As i previously testified, i stand by that report. Let me ask a broader question that i truly am trying to get a handle on and that is how does the Intelligence Community reach a decision on whether or not to comply with the requests that comes from the president of the United States . Obviously you report to the president of the United States and im interested in what process you go through to decide whether or not to undertake a task thats been assigned by the president , by any president . So, off the top of my head, we comply unless we have reason to believe that we are being directed to do something that is illegal, immoral or unethical. We will not execute that. Thank you. Senator hine drik . Director mccabe, did director comey ever share details of his conversations with the president with you in particular did director comey say that the president had asked for his loyalty . Sir, im not going to comment on conversations the director may have had with the president. I know hes here to testify in front of you tomorrow. Youll have an opportunity to ask him those questions im asking you did you have that conversation with director comey. And i responded im not going to comment on those conversations. Why not . For two reasons. First, the as i mentioned im not in a position to talk about conversations that director comey may or may not have had with the im not asking you that. Im asking about conversations that you had with director comey. I think that those matters also begin to fall within the scope of issues being investigated by the special counsel and wouldnt be appropriate for me to comment on those today. So youre not invoking executive privilege and obviously its not classified, this is the Oversight Committee, why would it not be appropriate for you to share that conversation with us . I think ill let director comey speak for himself tomorrow in front of this committee. We certainly look forward to that but i think youre unwillingness to share that conversation is an issue. Director coats, youve said as well that it would be inappropriate to answer a simple question about whether the president asked for your assistance in bluntsing the Russian Investigation. I dont care how you felt, im not asking whether you felt pressured. Im simply asking did that conversation occur. And once again, senator, i will say that i do believe its inappropriate for me to discuss that in an open session. You realize and obviously this is not releasing any classified information you realize how simple it would be to simply be to say no, that never happened . Why is it inappropriate, director coats . I think conversations between the president and myself are for the most part you seem to apply that standard selectively. No, im not applying it selectively. Im just saying i dont think its appropriate you can clear an awful lot up i dont share with the general public conversations that i have with the president or many of my colleagues within the administration that i believe are should not be shared. I think youre unwillingness to answer a very basic question speaks volumes. Its not a matter of unwillingness, senator, its a matter of how i share and with whom i share it to and when there are Ongoing Investigations, i think its inappropriate to involved you dont think the American People deserve to know the answer to that question. I think the investigations will determine that and youre part of the investigation. Mr. Rosenstein, did you know when you wrote the memo that was used as the primary justification for firing director comey that the administration would be using it as the primary justification . Senator, i know youre aware, there are a number of documents associated with me that are in the Public Record. The memorandum i wrote concerning director comey is in the Public Record. The order appointing the special counsel is in the Public Record. The press release i issued accompanying that order is in the Public Record and a written version of the statement that i delivered to were you aware that the primary justification for his firing . Pardon me, 100 United States senators and 535 congressman is in the Public Record. I answered many but youre not answering this question. As i explained in those briefings, senator, i support mr. Mccabe on this. We have a special counsel who is investigating now responsible for the russian at this point you filibuster better than most of my colleagues so ill move on to another question and say that given that the president stated that the fbi director that his firing was in response to investigations into russia which he made very clear in lester holts interview, youve talked with both the president and the attorney general about this firing. In light of mr. Sessions recusal, what role did the attorney general play in that firing and was it appropriate for him to write the letter that he wrote in this case . Im not trying to filibuster, senator. I think i only took about 30 seconds but i am not going to comment on that matter. Ill leave it to special counsel mueller to determine if thats within the scope of his investigation and i believe thats appropriate for mr. Mccabe and me to do that you cant comment on recusal and whats inside and outside the scope of that recusal we ought to let the witness answer the question, mr. Chairman. Second the motion. Im sorry your specific question is whats in the recusal and my understanding is the recusal youre referring to is also in the Public Record and i believe it speaks for itself. Thank you, mr. Chair. Senator blunt. Director mccabe on may the 11th when you were before this committee, you said that there has been no effort to impede the Russian Investigation, is that still your position . It is but let me clarify, senator. I think youre referring to the exchange that i had with senator rubio and my understanding, at least my intention in providing that answer was whether or not the firing of director comey had had a negative impact on our investigation and my response was then and is now that the fbi investigated and continues to investigate and now of course under the rubric of the special counsel the Russian Investigation in a appropriate and unimpeded way. Before director comey was fired and since hes been gone. I think i recall that conversation it was a discussion about whether there were plenty of resources, wlg the funding was adequate and what you were reported to have said. I havent looked at the exact transcript. Was that you were aware of no effort to impede the Russian Investigation . We did talk about resource issues and whether or not we had asked for Additional Resources to pursue the investigation. I believe my response at the time was we had not asked for Additional Resources and that we had adequate resources to pursue the investigation. That was true then. Its still true today. And you would characterize your quote, as no effort to impede the Russian Investigation as still accurate . Thats correct. On the 702 issue, when the fbi wants to wants to followup on or pursue a u. S. Person in or outside the United States, what court do you go to to get that to happen . Do you go to the fisa court as well . If we are collection under 702 . No. If youre how do you relate to 702 . Do you ever seek collection under 702 . Sure, yes we do. Let me step back, just a minute. When the fbi seeks electronic surveillance collection on a u. S. Person we go to the fisa court and get a title 1 fisa order to do so. If we have an open full investigation on a foreign person in a Foreign Place and the collection is for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence, we can nominate that person or the selector whether its an email address, we can nominate that for 702 coverage. We convey that nomination to the nsa and they pursue the coverage on their authority. But you would be the person that would pursue coverage for a u. S. Person either here or outside the United States . Thats correct, senator. You would be the fbi. We are the u. S. Person agency, thats right. And admiral rodgers, senator feinstein mentioned that last year 1,139 u. S. Persons were the phrase were using now unmasked for some purpose. Is that a number you agree with . Its in the 2016 generated transparency report. The member is 1,934. I misheard but what would the number have been in 2015. To be honest i dont know. Id have to take that one for the record. I do know that we didnt start with the Transparency Commitment that we made partnering with the d i. We didnt start that until the latter part of 2015, so the 2015 data thats blushed is a matter of Public Record. 2016 is the first calendar year where we have published all the data. I dont recall what it was and i just asked my staff. What im asking and we can you can take this for the record is was there an increase in 2016 . Did you have significantly more requests based on your subset in 15 happen in 16 than you had had before i dont know if offer the top of my head. I will say this 702 collection has continued the amount of total collection has increased generally every year. Its more and more impactful for us. It generates more and more value. When 702 generates information that would indicate there was a u. S. Person involved in criminal activity, what do you do with that information . If we we report it to either to doj or the fbi. What do you do if you get that information, mr. Rosenstein, information from a 702 collection that clearly indicates theres a crime involving a u. S. Person. I hesitate only because that i would defer to the fbi. We take that referral and if thats a u. S. Person we begin to build an investigation aiming towards title 1 fisa collection. With adequate protections for u. S. Persons and that entire chain of transmission of material. Of course. Thats right. Thank you, chairman. Senator cain. First on 702 like senator feinstein i want to express my support for this important tool for our intelligence agencies. I do have a concern which we can discuss perhaps in closed session about the process by which american names which are dinlly collected are then queried. I am concerned about queried and search and where we run into the Fourth Amendment. It strikes me at boot strapping to say we collected it legally under 702 and we can go and look at these american persons and i believe that the Fourth Amendment imposes a warrant requirement in between that step which is not present in the present process. We can discuss that at greater length. Mr. Mccabe, im puzzled by your refusal to answer a question of dr. Comey. Whats your basis to refuse to answer that question . I cant sit here and tell you whether or not those conversations that youre referring to why not . Do you not remember them . I dont know whether a conversations along the lines that youve described fall within the purview of what the special counsel is now investigating. Is there some prohibition in the law that im not familiar with that you cant discuss an item that youve been asked directly a question. It would not be appropriate for me to discuss issues that are potentially within the purview of the special counsels investigation. And thats the basis of your refusal to answer this question. Yes, sir and that and knowing of course that director comey will be sitting its your position that the special counsels entitled to ask you question about this but not an Oversight Committee of the United States congress . It is my position that i have to be particularly careful about not stepping into the special counsels lane as they have now been authorized i dont understand why the special counsels lane takes precedence over the lane of the congress . Can you explain that distinction . Why does special counsel get deference and not this committee . Is there some legal basis for that distinction . I would be happy to take that matter back to discuss it more fully with my general counsel and the department on the record i would like a legal justification for your refusal to answer equity today because i think its a straightforward question. Its not involving discussions with the president , its involving discussions with mr. Comey. Dr. Coats and admiral rodgers, i think you testified that you did discuss todays testimony with someone in the white house . I said i asked did the white house intend to invoke executive privileges associated with any interactions between myself and pt president of the United States. And what was the answer to that question . To be honest i didnt get a definitive answer and both myself and the d i are answering. Why are you not answering these questions . Is there an invocation of executive privilege . Not that im aware of because i feel its inappropriate. What you feel isnt relevant, admiral . What you feel isnt the answer . The question is why are you not answering the question, is an invocation of executive privilege . If there is lets know about it. If there isnt lets answer the question. Ive stand by the comments ive made. Im not interested in repeating myself, sir. And i dont mean that in a coninterrogation way. Well i do mean it in a coninterrogation way. When you were confirmed before the Armed Services committee you took an oath. Do you solemn swear to give the kmeel the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth you answered yes to that. Its not appropriate in an open forum to discuss those aclassified conversations. What is classified about whether or not you should intervene in the fbi investigation. I stand by my previous comments. Mr. Coats, same series of questions. Whats the basis for your refusal to answer these questions today . The basis is what i previously explained. I do not believe it is appropriate for me to whats the basis . Im not satisfied with i do not believe its appropriate or i do not feel i should answer. You swore that oath to tell us the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth and today you are refusing to do so. What is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this committee . Im not sure i have a legal basis, but im more than willing to sit before this committee during its investigative process in a closed session and answer your question. Well be having a closed session in a few hours, do you commit to me that youll answer these questions in a direct and incumbent way . That closed session youll have in a few hours goes over the technicalities and doesnt involve us. When you are before this committee in a closed session, you will answer these questions directly and without hesitation . I plan to do that, but i do have i do have to work through the Legal Counsel at the white house relative to whether or not theyll exercise executive admiral rodgers, will you answer these questions . Likewise respond as the dni has. I do have to acknowledge because of the sensitive nature and executive privy need to be talking to the General Council in the white house. I hope we come to a position where we can have this dialogue. Both of you testified you had never been pressured under three years. I would argue that you have waived executive privilege by in effect testifying as to something that didnt happen and i believe you opened the door to these questions and it is my belief that you are inappropriately refusing to answer these questions today. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i turn to senator lankford, let me say that the vice chairman and i have had conversations with acting attorney general rosenstein when special counsel was named and as i had shared with the members of this Committee Prior to that, that as we carried out an investigation, there would come a point in time either with the investigation that was currently ongoing at the fbi or if there was a special counsel what the special counsel where there would be avenues that this committee could not explore and it was my hope that already the vice chair and i wouldve had that conversation with the special counsel. We have not. Weve made the request. We intend to have it and i think that both of us anticipated that we would reach this point at some point in the investigation. We are there where there are some things that will fall into the special counsel and or an ak active investigation. Let me just say, at this point, weve not had that conversation with mr. Mueller. Weve not been waived off on any subject and the way im hearing all of you gentlemen is that mr. Mueller has not waived you off from answering any of these questions, is that correct . Ive had no conversations with mr. Mueller. Ive been out of the country for the last nine days. Have any of you because if youve not had questions waived off with mr. Mueller, i think frankly and i understand your commitment to the administration, but senator king, senator heinrich and my questions deserve answers and at some point the American Public deserves full answers. Im going to ask mr. Rosenstein to address that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im sensitive to your desire to keep our answers brief and my full answer which will very lengthy. But my brief answer from my perspective with the department of justice, and mccabe also, our default position is when theres a Justice Department investigation we do justice dep investigation, we do not discuss it publicly. Thats our default rule. Is that the rule for the president of the United States, as well . I dont know what because that is what the questions are being asked about, reports that nobody has laid to rest here that the president of the United States has intervened directly in an ongoing fbi investigation and weve gotten no answer from any of you, and, frankly, weve at least heard from director coats and admiral rogers theyve not been asked to recuse an answer because of director mueller, and i dont understand why we cant get that answer. Im not answering for director rogers or director coats, im answering for myself with the department of justice. Senator langford . Mr. Mccabe, can i ask you do you feel confident at this point the fbis fully cooperating with special counsel with any requests and communication and setting up between the coordination between the auflss for documents, work products, insight, anything that special counsel as they are trying to get organized and get prepared for the investigation as they are taking on, is everyone in the fbi fully cooperating . Absolutely. We are supporting them with personnel and resources any way they request. Thank you. Admiral rogers, this spring nsa decided to stop doing about queries. That was a long conversation thats happened there, its now come out in the public about that conversation, that it was identified as a problem. The court agreed with that and that has been stopped. What i need to ask you is, who first identified that as a problem . The National Security agency did. So how did you report that, reported that to who, how did that conversation go . So, in 2016 i had directed our office of compliance lets do a fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702 okay. We completed that effort. My memory is i was briefed on Something Like october the 20th. That led me to believe the technical solution that we put in place is not working with the reliability thats necessary here. Then from memory had went to the department of justice and on to the fisa court at the end of october. I think it was Something Like the 26th of october and we informed the court we have a compliance issue here and were concerned theres an underlying issue with the technical solution weve put in place. We told the court we were going to need some period of time to work our way through that. The Court Granted us that time. In return, the court also said we will allow you to continue 702 under the 16 authorizations, but we will not, will not authorize 17 until you show us you have addressed this. We then went through an internal process, interacted with the department of justice, as well as the court, and by march we had come to a solution that the fisa court was comfortable with. The court then authorized us to execute that solution and also then granted us authority for the 17 702 effort. So you reported initially to the court this is an issue or the court initially came to you and said we have an issue . I went to the court and said we have an issue. And the court said we agree . Check. Went through process of review and the court is now signed off on the other 16. That is correct. How does this harm your collection capabilities . So, i acknowledge that in doing this we were going to lose some intelligence value, but my concern was i just felt it was important we needed to be able to show that we are fully compliant with the law and the technical solution we had put in place, i just didnt think was generating the level of reliability, and as a result of that, i said we need to make the change. I will say this, in the fisas Court Opinion also says the same thing. Also told the court at the time, if we can work that technical solution in a way that generates greater reliability, i would potentially come back to the department of justice and the court to recommend that we reinstitute it. In fact, the court acknowledged that in their certification. When you say greater reliability, tell me what you mean by that. Because it was generating errors. Our office of incompliance highlighted the specific number of cases in 2016 and i thought to myself clearly its not working as we think it is. We were doing queries unknowingly to the operator in a handful of situations against u. S. Persons, and that is not in accordance with the intent of the law. Yeah, clearly its not only the intent, its we protect u. S. Persons from foreign directed. So what im hearing from you is, the accountability system worked. Yes, sir. That the issue rose up, were collecting, we do have information on u. S. Persons, we dont want to get that information immediately the process started going through to be able to stop it. The court then put the final stop on it. It was corrected and then thats now cleared. Yes, sir. In fact, were purging the data, as well. I dont know if we stop doing it, but were purging the data we had collected under the previous authorization. The issue on 702, most oklahomans that i interact with dont know the term 702, but if i asked them, should we collect information on terrorist organizations and terrorists overseas who are planning to carry out attacks on us and our allies, they dont hesitate. They say, absolutely we should do that. Now, they dont want collection on themselves and their mom, but they absolutely want us to be able to target terrorists. And so the issue that i think we talk about when we talk about 702 on this dais is a normal conversation back home that if we miss something internationally, everyone says i thought we were doing this. Why arent we . So i fully appreciate the Civil Liberties conversation and the privacy questions. Those are things im also passionate about and its very interesting for me to be able to hear from you that youre passionate about and nsa is passionate about to make sure were not collecting on americans. So i appreciate that, and in this case when it comes out in the public media this has occurred, it actually shows the system itself worked. When there was a query going on that was collecting on americans, it was stopped immediately, datas purged, but were still continuing to target on threats internationally, and i do appreciate that. I appreciate and yield back the time. Senator manchin . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank all four of you for your service, and you all are held at the highest, i think, the highest regards by your colleagues and your peers, and i think that speaks volumes of the character of all four of you, and i appreciate that very much. We have a committee here, which im so proud to be servicing on, im brand new, this is my first time at this, and i dont think theres a person up here that doesnt want to find out the facts and the truth and be able to go back home and explain to the democrat and republican colleagues, no matter what political persuasion, that we have gotten the facts. We got it from our intel, which we truly appreciate and respect the quality of job you do. This is our findings. Were having a hard time getting there, as you can tell. I have respect where youre all coming from. And i hope you could understand that sooner or later were going to have to. There has to be one element of this government that the public can look at and say this is not politically motivated. This is not a witch hunt. No ones trying to harm anybody. We just want to do the business of our government and our country and do the best that we can for that and make sure they have the confidence in the people theyve put at the head and have elected. Thats what were trying to get to. Todays been very difficult. By my sitting here listening to some of the answers and ability to answer some of the questions. If the Intelligence Committee and the senate cannot get answers we know in an open setting like this, are these answers that were asking the questions, will they be given into a classified intel setting that we would have . Could you answer affirmatively than what youve given us an open session . I think, director coats, you said you would be able to answer differently . I think ive made that very clear. Admiral rogers . Likewise, i certainly hope so. Mr. Rosenstein, would you . Senator, speaking for mr. Mccabe and myself, we have been involved in managing the criminal investigation, and so i would ask that as chairman burr suggested, its appropriate for director mueller, since we turned over control of the investigation for him to make determination about what we can and cant speak about, so i would encourage you to use mr. Mueller as your point person. Lets just say the questions asked to mr. Mccabe werent anything on the investigation side. Could you answer differently in a classified setting, sir . I would reiterate the comments. At this point with the special counsel involved, it would be appropriate for the committee to have an understanding with the special counsels office as to where those questions would go, but i would also point out that as we have historically when we are investigating sensitive matters in which Operational Security is of utmost importance, members of the Intelligence Community typically come and brief the leadership, congressional leadership, on sensitive investigative matters. We have done so, i have done so, director comey has done so prior to the appointment of the special counsel, and some of the questions that you have asked this morning were addressed in those closed, very restricted, very small settings. Let me say this, if it would be the desire of the chairman and vice chairman if we could, since we have a classified hearing scheduled for 2 00 this afternoon, would you all make yourself available since it doesnt linger on . Theres been a lot of questions, a lot of anticipation, a lot of build up, anxiety, if you will. I think you could really help an awful lot of us clear the day up, if you will. Iffic address the senators question, this afternoon is set with technical people to walk us through 702. Rest assured that we will take the first available opportunity to have people back in closed session to address those questions that they can address and hopefully prior to that the vice chair and i would have an opportunity to meet with director mueller to determine whether that fits within the scope of his current investigation and we will do that. We have director coats and admiral rogers willing to say they would answer differently. Thats the reason i was bringing that up. I would hope that would maybe be considered. Let me ask a question, does the president support section 702 reauthorization of the fisa and expanded authority . Absolutely. Everyone . Full support. Full support there. Did the president ask, or was he given any specific intelligence or info concerning the russian active measures in the 2016 president ial election . Was he briefed on that . Did he ask for that briefing, or is it automatic briefing that you give . Admiral rogers . All that took place before i was yes, he was briefed on the results of the Intelligence Community assessment. I was part of that in january, prior to his assuming his duties. He and i have discussed, as well, the specifics of that assessment subsequent to him after he had become the president and assumed the duties. Let me just say, just in finishing up, i just would hope that you all with your expertise and all of your knowledge would help us put closure to this sooner or later. We need your help. We need your assistance. We really do. And this is a committee that i think will take the facts as you give them to us and decipher that and come up with some appropriate action and a final report, which, i think, is what the public is looking for. We cant do that without your assistance. Thank you. Senator, i fully understand that statement, and as the chairman mentioned the procedures hes going to put in place relative to when we hold that hearing and the relationship it is to the official investigation thats going on by director mueller, well dictate when and how we do that. I think we need you sooner than later. Thank you. Senator cotton. Thank you, gentlemen. I want to talk about the import of section 702 to our National Security. Admiral rogers, ill direct most of these questions to you as the subject Matter Expert on the panel for signal intelligence on foreign threats, though i might turn to some of our lawyers for legal questions. Does section 702, admiral rogers, allow you to collect information on u. S. Citizens . As intentionally targeted . Yes. No. Does it allow you to target foreigners to do whats called reverse targeting of u. S. Citizens . No, it does not. Does it allow you to collect information of foreigners who are on u. S. Soil . No. 702 is outside the United States. So you can collect information on an isis terrorist in syria and he comes to the United States and you can no longer collect information on his cell phone or email address . Were a foreign intelligence administration, but yes, sir, we dont do internal domestic collection broadly. Mr. Rosenstein, do foreigners have Constitutional Rights . When they are in the United States, senator, different rules apply, and thats why i think its important for people to understand that section 702 applies only in circumstances where its a Foreign National outside the United States. If they are inside the United States, we would need to rely on other provisions of fisa to do that collection. So, yes, we can do it, but we need to apply different rules, and mr. Mccabe, as the director indicated, is responsible for that. Mr. Mccabe, what happens when an isis terrorist comes from syria to the United States and admiral rogers can no longer use section 702 to monitor his Electronic Communications . Admiral rogers folks notify mine and we Work Together to pursue coverage under different elements of the fisa statute. Im sure you work as hard as you can to make sure thats absolutely seemless, but seems to me section 702 is limited to foreigners on foreign soil without targeting u. S. Persons anywhere goes the extra mile to protect the Constitutional Rights of american citizens and even the supposed Constitutional Rights of foreigners when they come on u. S. Soil. Thats one reason why i support the permanent extension of section 702 and i introduced legislation to that effect yesterday with the support of all seven republicans on this committee. Tom bossert, adviser to the president writes in todays New York Times the Trump Administration supports this bill without condition. Admiral rogers, is that your position . Could you repeat it again . I apologize. Supports this bill without condition. Yes. On a scale of one to ten, how enthusiastic would you be if this bill passed . You can go over ten. I would be ecstatic if we were in a position to create insights. Youd dial it up to 11 . Yes, sir. Mr. Coats . My level is about 100. Mr. Rosenstein . Senator, im not familiar with the rating system. I do think its very important. Director mccabe . Im at 11. Director coats, you had an exchange earlier with senator wyden about the efforts to estimate and declassify the number of persons who might be subject to incidental collection under section 702. This is when you have a lawful 702 order but someone does, in fact, communicate with an american citizen. Its my understanding it would be virtually impossible to do so in a way that wouldnt further infringe on the rights of american citizens. Is that correct . Well, thats yes, and thats one of the central reasons why i came to the conclusion, but the main reason i came to the conclusion is it is not conceivably possible. We could go through the procedures, we could shift hundreds of people to go over and breach the rights of hundreds, if not thousands of american citizens to determine whether or not they are american citizens or not. But we still, having done that, could not get to an accurate number, the number that senator wyden was trying to get us to. My pledge to him is i would go out there, try to fully understand why it was we couldnt get that. It will be detailed discussions on that on the closed session with the staff and the technicians from both nsa and from senate staff here and others, relative to all of the efforts that have been made to try to answer the question. And as i said in my statement, even if we were to take people off their regular jobs and say get on this issue, even if we could put other measures in place, we still would not be able to come up. Its hard to explain how difficult this is or why this is the case, but that is what is going to be discussed in the closed session, because all this is classified information this afternoon. I assume the staff of members, all the members here, will be there, but my pledge was to do the best i could to try to get to some answer, and the result was we couldnt get to an answer, number one. And number two, trying to get to an answer would totally disrupt the efforts of the agency. Now, you know, you might be able to make the case lets hire 1,000 more people and get to the answer. If you knew you would get to the answer. Admiral rogers has told me, i hope he doesnt mind me saying this, that if someone out there knows how to get to it, hes welcome to having them come out and tell nsa how to do it. But everybody says you can get to the number, its easy, theres all kinds of agencies out there that can do it. I think he might welcome the advice if they wanted to do that. It really raises the question of why there has to be an exact number. If were going to hire 1,000 new people, i assume them focus on Intelligence Services than invading the rights of citizens. Time expired. In response to the question from senator manchin, you appear felt free to discuss what you talked to the president about in january about russian active measures. Can you share with this committee how youre determining which conversations you can share and which you dont feel free to share . Maam, the fact that we briefed the president previously, both went up to new york and previously as a matter of Public Record. So its it a matter of Public Record, you feel free to discuss those conversations . If its not classified. You can keep trying to senator, can i get to respond, maam . No, no. Are you saying that if it is classified you will not discuss it, and then my followup question obviously would be, do you believe that discussion of russian active measures is not the subject of classified information . I stand by my previous comments. Thank you. Mr. Rosenstein, when you appointed a special counsel on may 17th, you stated, based upon the unique circumstances, the Public Interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command. The order you issued, along with that statement, provides that 28 sfrs, 160410 are applicable, otherwise known as the special counsel recommendations. Is that correct . Yes, senator. The special counsel should not be subject to the daytoday supervision of any official of the department, however, the regulations permit you as acting attorney general for this matter to override director muellers investigative and prosecutorial decisions under specified circumstances, is that correct . Yes, senator. It also provides you may fire or remove director mueller under specified circumstances, is that correct . Yes. You indicated in your statement that you chose a person who exercises a degree of independence, not full independence from the normal chain of command. So my question is this, in december of 2003, thenattorney general John Ashcroft recused himself. The acting attorney general at the time was jim comey. He appointed a special counsel, patrick fitzgerald, to take over the matter. In a letter dated december 30th of 2003 mr. Comey wrote the following to mr. Fitzgerald, independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the department. In a subsequent letter dated february 6th, 2004, mr. Comey wrote to clarify the earlier letter stating that his delegation of authority to mr. Fitzgerald was planary. My confer ral on you should not be misunderstood to suggest your position and authorities are defined or limited by 28 cfr part 600. Those are the special counsel regulations we discussed. So, would you agree, mr. Rosenstein, to provide a letter to director mueller similarly, providing that director mueller has the authority as special counsel, quote, independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the department and ensure that director mueller has the authority thats not defined or limited by the special counsel regulations . Senator, im very sensitive about time, and id like to have a very lengthy conversation and explain that to you. Can you give me a yes or no answer . Its not a short answer. It is. Either you are willing to do that or not, as we have precedent in that regard. Chairman, they should be allowed to answer the question. Its a long question you pose, senator, and i fully appreciate the import of your question, and ill get to the answer. My quibble with you is, Pat Fitzgerald is a very principled, very independent person. I have a lot of respect for him. Pat fitzgerald could have been fired by the president because he was the United States attorney. Robert mueller cannot, because hes protected by those special counsel regulations, so although its theoretically true there are circumstances where he could be removed by the acting attorney general, which for this case at this time is me, your assurance of his independence is Robert Muellers integrity and andy mccabes integrity and my integrity, and those regulations sir, if i may, the greater assurance is not that you and i believe in director muellers integrity, which i have no question about mr. Muellers integrity. It is that you would put in writing an indication based on your authority as the acting attorney general that he has full independence in regards to the investigations that are before him. Are you willing or are you not willing to give him the authority to be fully independent of your ability statutorily and legally to fire him . Yes or no, sir. He has the full independence as authorized by those regulations are you willing to do would the senators suspend. The chair is going to exercise the right to allow the witnesses to answer the question and the committee is on notice to provide the witnesses the courtesy, which has not been extended all the way across. Extend the courtesy for questions to get answered. Mr. Chairman, respectfully mr. Rosenstein i would point out this witness has joked, as we all have, his ability to filibuster. Mr. Rosenstein, would you like to thoroughly answer the question . Thank you, im not joking. The truth is, i have a lot of experience with these issues, and i could speak to you for a very long time about it, and im sympathetic, i appreciate the fiveminute limit. Thats not my limit, but the answer is, this originated as you may know with the independent counsel statute and i worked in the department during the independent counsel when independent counsel were appointed by authorization of the senate, they were appointed by federal judges, and they had essentially the authority of the attorney general. That statute sun setted and the majority of members of this body concluded that was appropriate because they did not want independent counsels who were 100 independent of the department of justice. That was a determination made by the legislature. Now, i know the folks at the department who drafted this regulation and drafted it to deal with this type of circumstance and the idea was there would be some circumstances where, because of unusual events, it was appropriate to appoint somebody outside the department, not somebody like Pat Fitzgerald, who is a u. S. Attorney that could be fired, but somebody from outside the department who could be trusted to conduct this investigation independently and given an appropriate degree of independence. Sn now, under the regulation he has, i believe, adequate authority to conduct this investigation and your ultimate check, senator, number one, the integrity of the people involved in the investigation, but number two, the fact if he were overruled or fired, we would be required under the regulation to report to the congress and so i believe thats an appropriate check. And so i realize that theoretically anybody could be fired, and so theres a potential for undermining investigation. I am confident, senator, director mueller, mr. Mccabe and i and anybody else who may fill those positions in the future will protect the integrity of that investigation. Thats my commitment to you and thats the guarantee that you and the American People have. So is that a no . Senator corning . Well, seems to be one thing we all agree on at least so far based on the questions and the comments, and that is the 702 is an important tool for the Intelligence Community, and one that needs to be preserved, and i agree with senator cotton, it should be extended without a sunset provision as currently written. So, its good to have one thing we agree on. But i want to ask director coats and perhaps admiral rogers if you want to comment on this, as well. As i understand the framework of 702, it is to intentionally not target american citizens. It is to intentionally target foreign persons and to not collect information from american citizens except by way of incidental collection. And i think youve described, admiral rogers, the extensive procedures that the law requires and that nsa practices have in place to minimize the access of anybody in the Intelligence Community to that u. S. Person and, indeed, youve talked about purging incidental collection that was made in the course of the 702 investigation. So, it strikes me, director coats, the question that senator wyden has asked you and has come up several times to intentionally target american citizens in order to generate a number is just the opposite of what the structure of 702 provides, because the whole idea is to not collect, not to be able to gather information about american citizens except in the course, incidental course of collecting information against a foreign intelligence target. Is that a fair statement . Thats fair in my mind, and it was a central piece of the information of fact that caused me to come to the conclusion that this would this would do just exactly what you said. Youre breaching someones privacy to determine whether or not they are an american person. Generate a list for congress. It potentially could, yes, to generate a list for congress. That wasnt the only basis on which we made the decision, but that was an essential basis. Thank you. I want to ask a little bit more about the minimalization procedures and the importance of those and a little bit about unmasking u. S. Persons names that admiral rogers and others, director coats, youve talked about. Youve explained the process and the elaborate procedures that are in place to make sure that this is not done accident tally or casually. And i think thats very important to reassure the American People that in the collection of foreign intelligence, we are extraordinarily protective, so to me the minimalization procedures are very important, the internal policies of the nsa when it comes to collecting foreign intelligence. That happens to incident tally impact american citizens is absolutely critical to this balance between security and individual privacy. Perhaps this is a question for mr. Rosenstein, though, and maybe director mccabe. If someone is to use the unmasking process for a political purpose, is that potentially a crime . Yes, senator. And director mccabe, perhaps, or Deputy Attorney general rosenstein, for somebody to leak the name of an american citizen this is unmasked in the course of incidental collection, to leak that classified information, is that also potentially a crime . Yes, i think thats the most significant point, senator. I think its important for people to understand unmasking is done in a course of ordinary legitimate intelligence gathering to understand the intelligence significance of the communication. Leaking is a completely different matter. Leaking is a crime, disclosing information to somebody without a legitimate purpose, need to know that information, that will be prosecuted in appropriate circumstances, and there have been cases where weve been able to determine theres a willful violence of federal law, a disclosure not authorized, and prosecutions have been brought and will be brought. And mr. Rosenstein, not to pick on you or director mccabe, but i think theres some confusion when we talk about generically about Russian Investigations. Weve described the role of the special counsel, which i think youve discussed in great detail, but thats primarily to investigate potential criminal acts and counterintelligence activities. Is it not . The answer to that is, yes. The idea of the Russian Investigation, that has much broader significance, i know to many of you, than the piece that director mccabe and i are referring to and the piece that director mueller is investigating. Thats enormously helpful, at least to me, because when people speak generically of the Russian Investigation, i think they are also including things like our responsibility as the Intelligence Committee to do oversight of the intelligence and of the potential Counter Measures we might undertake to deal with the active measures campaign of the russian government, which were clearly documented in the Intelligence Community assessment. But by my count there are multiple committees of the United States senate, including the Judiciary Committee on which i serve, which has different jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities. Its our job to do the investigation and write legislation. Were not the fbi. Were not the special counsel. Were not the department of justice, and im afraid in the conversation that weve been having here people have been conflating all of those and those are very distinct and importantly distinct functions. Thank you. Senator reed. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Director mccabe, on may 11th you testified, director comey enjoyed broad sport in the fbi and still does to this day and you hold him in the absolute highest regard is that still the case . It is, sir. Director mccabe, im trying to understand the rationale for your unwillingness to comment upon your conversations with director comey. First, you have had, i would presume, correct me if im wrong, conversations with mr. Mueller. Youve had those conversations. Yes, sir. Youre fully familiar with the scope of the investigation. Since youve dealt with not only mr. Mueller, but also i am, sir, but i think its important to note that mr. Mueller and his team are currently in the process of determining what that scope is. And much in the way that senator cornyn just referred to, the fbi maintains a much broader responsibility to continue investigating issues relative to potential russian intelligence activity and threats posed to us from our russian adversaries. So determining exactly where those lanes in the road are, where does director muellers scope overlap into our preexisting and longrunning russian responsibilities is somewhat of a challenge at the moment, and that is why im trying to be particularly respectful of his efforts and not take steps that may compromise his investigation. But getting back to your rationale for not commenting on the investigation between you and mr. Comey, theres it seems to me that what you say is either that is part of a criminal investigation or likely to become part of a criminal investigation, the conversation between the president of the United States and mr. Comey, and, therefore, you cannot properly comment on that. Is that accurate . Thats accurate, sir. What about the conversations between director coats and admiral rogers with the president of the United States . Is that likely to become or is part of a ongoing criminal investigation . I couldnt comment on that, sir. Im not im not familiar with that, and it wouldnt be for the same reasons its not appropriate for me to comment on director comeys conversations, i certainly wouldnt comment on those that im further away from. Mr. Rosenstein, are you aware of the possibility of an investigation into conversations that director coats and admiral rogers have had with the president . My familiarity is what i read in the newspaper this morning and what we heard here today. Director coats, have you had any contact with special prosecutor or any i have not. Have you been advised by any of your counsels, private or public, that at least this conversation that you have with the president could be subject to a criminal investigation . I have not. Admiral rogers . Same question. To the last question, no, i have not. Let me just return again to the points that, i think, senator king made very well, which is this unwillingness to comment on the conversation with the president but to characterize it in a way that you didnt feel pressured, yet refusing to answer very specific and nonintelligencerelated issue, i dont see how it wouldnt pack on the classification and our status, whether or not you specifically asked by the president to do anything. Do you still maintain that you cant comment whether youre asked or not . Nothing has changed since my initial response. I stand by my previous answer. I just must say, the impression that i have is that if you could say that, you would say that. Thank you. I have no further questions. Senator mccain. Well, gentlemen, youre here at an interesting time. Its funny how sometimes events run together. This mornings Washington Post, top intelligence official told associates trump asked him if he could intervene on comey with fbi russia probe. It goes into some detail. Im sure youve read the article. And its more than disturbing, obviously, if its true that the president of the United States was trying to get the director of National Intelligence and others to abandon an investigation into russian involvement, its pretty serious. I also understand the position that youre in, because it is classified information, yet here it is on this mornings Washington Post in some detail. Im sure youve read it. So, i guess if i understand you right, director coats, is that in a closed session you are more than ready to discuss this situation. Is that correct . I would hope wed have the opportunity to do that. Well, i hope we can provide you with that opportunity. You know, its just shows what kind of an orwellian existence we live in. As detailed, as you know from reading the story, when you met, what you discussed, et cetera, et cetera, and yet here in a public hearing before the American People we cant talk about what was described in detail in this mornings Washington Post. Do you want to comment on that . Dan . Are you asking me . To comment on the integrity of the Washington Post reporting. I guess ive been around its pretty detailed. I guess ive been around town long enough to say, not take everything at face value thats printed in the post. I served on the committee here and often saw that information that we had been discussed had been reported, but that wasnt always accurate. But i think this is the response that i gave to the post was that i did not want to publicly share what i thought were private conversations with the president of the United States. Most of them, almost all of them, intelligencerelated and classified. I didnt think it was appropriate to do so in an open for the post to report what it reported or do that in an open session. Well, its an unfortunate situation that youre sitting there because its classified information and this mornings Washington Post describes in some detail, not just outline, but times and dates and subjects that are being discussed. And im certainly not blaming you, but it certainly is an interesting town in which we exist. Just because its published in the Washington Post doesnt mean its now unclassified. But unfortunately, whether its classified or not, its now out to the world, which is, obviously, not your fault, but describes dates and times and who met with who, and so well, do you want to tell us anymore about the russian involvement in our election that we dont already know from reading the Washington Post . I dont think thats a position im in. I do know there are Ongoing Investigations. I do know that we continue to provide all the relevant intelligence we have to enable those investigations to be carried out with integrity and with knowledge. Well, it must be a bit frustrating to you in protecting what is clearly sensitive information, then to read all about it in the Washington Post. You have my sympathy, and i expressed that at your confirmation hearing, doubting your sanity. Admiral, you got anything to say about it . No, sir, other than, boy, some days i sure wish i was on the bridge of that destroyer again. I can understand that. I feel the same way. Mr. Rosenstein . Senator, i cant speak for anybody else, but i am proud to be here, proud to be here with director mccabe, and im sure he feels the same way. I do. Whatever that might mean. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thanks, senator mccain. The chair is going to recognize senator wyden for one question on 702 thank you very much, mr. Chairman, i appreciate the courtesy. This one, director coats, id like a yes or no answer on. Can the government use. Fisa act section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic . Not to my knowledge. It would be against the law. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator warner . Again, i want to thank all the witnesses, but i come out of this hearing with more questions than when i went in. Gentlemen, you are both willing to somehow characterize your conversations with the president. You didnt feel pressure, but you wouldnt share the content. In the case of admiral rogers, we will have independent third party that will at least provide some level of contemporaneous description of that conversation, and, obviously, why there was concerns enough to commit that to writing. Im pretty frustrated that there is this deference to a special prosecutor, even though the special prosecutor has not talked to you. Im concerned with the Deputy Attorney general also deference to the special prosecutor, but there doesnt seem to be in this committee, and the chairman and i have committed to making sure that we appropriately deconflict. What we dont seem to have is the same commitment to find out whether the president of the United States tried to intervene directly with leaders of our Intelligence Community and asked them to back off or downplay. Youve testified to your feelings response candidly, your feelings response is important, but the content of his communication with you is absolutely critical. I guess i would just say, the president s not above the law. If the president intervenes in a conversation and intervenes in an investigation like that, would that not be subject of some concern, mr. Rosenstein . Senator, if anybody obstructs a federal investigation, it would be a subject of concern. I dont care who they are, and i can commit to you, if youre looking for commitment from mr. Mccabe and me, if theres any credible allegation that anybody seeks to obstruct a federal investigation, it will be investigated appropriately, whether by me, the special counsel, thats our responsibility and well see to it. Well, i thank the chairman weve been working on this in a bipartisan way and we will ultimately have to get to the content of the conversations. Thank you. Director coats, i know you have to go. Give me 90 more seconds, if i could. This question probably to you, admiral rogers. Have our partners globally used 702 intelligence to stop a terrorist attack . Yes, sir, and if we were to lose a 702 authority, i would fully expect leaders from some of our closest allies to put out one loud scream. And in most cases didnt they take credit for our intelligence . They dont publicly talk about where they come from, but we acknowledge nsa is a primary provider of insights. I want to get on the record. This is a global asset. Yes. That the war on terror has is 702. Mr. Chairman, if i could just take the time you were trying to protect from my next appointment to just say, i just want to repeat, following my interaction with my contemporaries in a number of european countries, they are deeply, deeply grateful to us for the information derived from 702 has saved what they said literally hundreds of lives. Well, certainly the committee is privy in those instances and were grateful for that. I want to thank you for your testimony, but before we adjourn, i would ask each of you to take a message back to the administration. Youre in positions whereby youre required to keep this committee fully and currently informed of intelligence activities. In cases where the sensitivity of those activities would not be appropriate for the full committee or open session, theres a mechanism that you may use to brief the appropriate parties. Its sometimes often referred to as the gang of eight notification briefing, and i think without exception everybody at the table has utilized that tool before. Congressional oversight of the intelligence activities of our government is necessary and it must be robust. Thus, the provisions of this unique briefing mechanism, given the availability of that sensitive briefing avenue at no time should you be in a position where you come to Congress Without an answer. It may be in a different format, but the requirements of our oversight duties and your agencies demand it. With that, again, i thank you for being here. This hearings adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] washington journal is next with your phone calls, followed by live coverage of the you head counts of the u. S. House as they vote to repeal and replace the dodd frank regulation act. Senator miketo leigh of utah and congresswoman Brenda Lawrence of michigan. Good morning everyone, and welcome to the washington journal on this earth day, june 8. Thursday, june 8. All eyes on capitol hill this morning, folks are already lining up. You have the media, staff, the general public all interested in what is happening inside the 216 part this morning. That is where the former director of the fbi will sit down and take their questions about his interactions with President Trump. We are also expecting that the president could be watching as well this morning and reacting in real
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.