Transcripts For CSPAN2 House Judiciary Committee Hearing On

I know were in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your ideas matter. For more information go to our website studentcam. Org. Next, the House Judiciary Committee holds an oversight hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Survey surveillance act of fisa. Congress has until the end of the year to renew pfizer provisionpfizerprovisions. They testify and how provisions are being used [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the committee of the judiciary will come to order and without objection declare recess at the committee of anytime. We welcome everyone to this morning. An oversight of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. The Judiciary Committee is holding todays hearing to carry out one of the most important tasks. To ensure that the tools used by our government to keep us safe are consistent with their values and with the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. This committee is long exercises its responsibility to shape the Legal Framework in which Law Enforcement agencies investigate threats and collect evidence of crimes. Although we do not conduct daytoday oversight of intelligence agencies, hearings like this to conduct a broad review of our government exercises the legal authorities and whether that conduct goes with our values of us americans. I want to acknowledge two things, first, the men and women on her Law Enforcement and intelligence communities including witnesses today, work tirelessly to keep us safe from attacks and other threats by adversaries. Those efforts include working rigorously to comply with our laws. Second, there are countless americans inn the privacy and civil Liberty Communities who are dedicated to keeping a safer mother because of threats, threats of privacy, freedom of speech and due process. That take hold ins the governmet Surveillance Authority that extend too far. Those criticizing question will be discussing today are part of the nations probably and robust tradition of holding our government to account. The freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. It is in that spirit that i hope to have a serious discussion today about the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act of fisa. In the provision set to expire at the end of this year. In response to substantial concerns of the Intelligence Community anden exceed the authority of pfizer, congress 2015 enacted the usa freedom act which contains several important reforms. Notably, to put an end to the program under which it collected the phone records of millions of lawabiding americans. Using a highly strained interpretation of a provision in a 2001 usa patriot act. We reform the provision on section 215 to prohibit collection of phone records and hoher types of records. Instead to collect certain types of phone records we require the nsa to apply to the fisa court for an order base and individualized facts and specific terms. We also created an important mechanism to ensure the fisa court is both sides of legal arguments in cases presenting novel important issues. And we enacted several measures to enhance transparency of the pfizer court and other types of reporting. At the end of this year, section 215 and two other authorities a wiretap revision in the lone wolf trop provision are set to e unless reauthorized by congress. Because these three provisions give the government powerful and controversial intelligence authorities, congress attach them to provisions where they were first enacted in reauthorized ever since. These periodically authorizations provide this committee and other committees and important opportunity to view how the laws are used in tm conduct the oversight that we are doing here today. Last month however, National Intelligence directors of the letter to the leadership of the committee and other committees of the house of the senate asking that we reauthorized all three provisions permanently. At the same time, director acknowledge that the nsa has dismantled the Records Program that has been conducting under section 215 as amended by the u. S. Freedom act. Simple but, they dismantle the program because it was a serious failure. Nsa used it to collect hundreds of millions of phone records. But in 2018, it discovered it had no authority to collect some of the records it was receiving. Worse, had no way of separating out which records were required from the ones that were collected r lawfully. So it started deleting them all. This is all been publicly reported by the Intelligence Community. To be clear, it is not about thing that the nsa identified a problem, told us and tried to fix it. It is also find that they decided the program was not worth running. As former director put it, the decision to in the program was relative intelligence value which was evidently minimum in his quote and data integrity concerns. The nsa decided that the benefits of the plug. That kind of candor should be applauded. It is baffling to me that the ministration announced that the program in the very same breath as congress to extend it permanently. The administration has no reason for the striking provision. We might need the program sometime in o the future as Technology Changes and as adversaries capabilities evolve andth adapt. When congress enacted the u. S. Freedom act, we made a goodfaith act for two give Intelligence Community it needed toat collect records. That experiment has ran its course, thehe ministration realy wants to keep this provision on the books and will have to justify it with more than a vague promise that it might come in handy one day in the future somehow. I look forward to discussing the othere authorities including aspects of section 215, the pfizers wiretap loan will provisions. I also look forward to discussing as well, the important reforms that we enacted in the usa freedom act and whether any of those reforms should be stranger. This committee has an important and longrunning responsibility to have these candid and rigorous discussions as we consider how best to ensure that our laws are in line with their values. I think todays witnesses for being here today and for their service to our nation. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from georgia mr. Collins or his opening statement. Last week we once again had the lives of the innocent victims of 9 11, the brave first responders, the 9 11 anniversary remind us of the shock, sadness and anger that we all felt that morning. Our strength following the attacks were encouraging also. Nothing could defeat our nation as a worldwide become a freedom and liberty. As part of our resolve the tools remain available to the men and women of our National Security and Intelligence Community who work tirelessly to protect our country and secure the freedom that weof cherish. These tools are set to expire on december the 15th, its our duty to reauthorize these authorities otherwise the authority revert back to our National Security posture before 9 11. I dont think anyone wants out. I am kind of glad were having this hearing. It expires on december 15, we couldve been working on this a long time. I guess we been busy with other things, at least for having the hearing today. The Intelligence Surveillance act was passed to protect americans from surveillance abusive, the National Security apparatus offers access to a local foreign intelligence that we need and must ensure there is a balance for protecting our security and civil liberty. In 2016 during and after the president ial election it appears to birkenau. B democrats recused republicans of trying to revert it and its now clear that those at the pinnacle of a national secured community lost objectivity required by law to exercise. That is coming out now as receipt of pfizer report coming out. A necessary component for mercks trust in the Intelligence Community particularly when implementing surveillance against americans. By many americans, the report on pfizer abuse from the president ial election. However, its a fact that most individuals at the top of the fbi have been fired, terminated or referred or reported to be under communal investigation although that has escaped the notice of the majority on the committee. Oversight deterrence is needed when the toplevel officials are criticized and potentially even indicted for divulging Sensitive Information and lying. That said we face the authorization of authority passed in 2015 as part of the usa freedom act with terrorism. 215 Business Records and wiring taps. It is a medley difficult to separate our concerns on pfizer abuse and reauthorization facing us but we need to protect valuable tools and goals. Two of the authorities were straightforward. The lone wolf and wiring tap provision. The loan will prevent surveillance of terrorists seeking to harm us even if no proof of the terrorist being directly to al qaeda. This is been a trajectory of terrorist attack with the perpetrator attack. The wiretap provision allows the committee with liza two of aid surveillance by dumping and switching phones. If we can do this for drug dealers we could do it for suspected a terrorist. Regarding section 215, i look forward to hearing more from the authority,use of the the ability to obtain Business Records and foreign intelligence investigation and suspect pfizer that is not something the affording we can afford to let expire and however, to 215 has records that if significant in technicalg problems. Ill be glad to hear from nsa on the thoughts and the continuing of 215 for collecting cdrs. I want to thank each of the agencies that are here this morning, i wish mark were able to come but in the spirit of 911 and the countless other senseless terrorist attack illustrate the need to always be on guard. I look forward to the witnesses testimony in annualnt back. I will now introduce todays witnesses. S. Brad wickman is a Deputy Assistant attorney general at the department of justice. The national spiri security divn he served a legal position as a department of defense of state and the National Security council. He also served as a law clerk for judge patrick on the United States court of appeals for the fifth circuit. He received his d. A. From Duke University and his jd from harvard law school. Michael orlando is a Deputy Assistant director count of terrorism division. He has a duty as a special agent of the Pittsburgh Field Office in 2003 and since has worked on matters in t honolulu, baltimore and Washington Field offices. Previously he worked as the assistant Counter Intelligence investigation. Prior to working for the fbi, he served in the u. S. Army. He received his d. A. From the State University of new york and a masters in leadership from Georgetown University of business. Susan morgan has worked as nsa operations for 18 years. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and thank them for participating in todays hearing. If you would please rise i will swear yougu in. Raise your right hand, you swear and affirm the perjury that the testimony you are about to give his true and correct to the best of your knowledge if so hope you got. Let the record show that the witness answered the affirmative, thank you and please be seated. Please note, that each of the written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. According to an asset you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay within the time there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony when the light turns red is signals your five minutes have expired. You may begin. Chairman nadler, Ranking Member and members of the committee, thank you for let me testify today for the surveillance act or fisa. These are authorities that will expire at the end ofvi this year unless authorized by congress. The ministration supports permanent reauthorization of these provisions. Three of the authorities, have been part of fisa for over a decade. Its been renewed by congress multiple times, most recently in the usa freedom act of 2015. Before that the famous authorities were reauthorize between 2005 2011 and each renewal gained bipartisan support. Today i will give you a brief overview of the three legal authorities and turned over to my colleagues in the fbi to address how they were usedt in practice i and the values of National Security. Then my colleagues from nsa will address the fourth authority. The call detail records with cdr authority under which nsa can engage targeted collection data in counterterrorism investigations. First the wiretap authority, this enables the government to continue surveilling fisa Court Approved National Security target when the target is taking affirmative steps for surveillance. These are individuals who repeatedly change Communication Service providers in order to evade, remit monitoring. The provision allows us to continue surveillance without having to go back to the fisa court for andie order each timee target switches his phone. The government has uses authority in a small number of cases each year. The cases tend to involve highly trained foreign Intelligence Officers operating within the United States or other important investigating targets including terrorism targets. The wiretap actig s has a similr robing provision for ordinary criminal investigations like eaug dealers or organized crimes figures. Second the Business Records authority, this allows the government to apply to the fisa court in order to collect records, papers and other tangible things that are relevant to National Security investigation. It allows the government to contain records that it contains two grand jury subpoena and ordinary criminales case. For example can be used to obtain drivers license records, hotel records, car rental records, shipping records and the like. In most cases, these are records a government can attainds an ordinary civil investigation without any court order. Cfisa business is all because National Security interest accrued criminal authorities or because there may be no criminal Investigation Underway in the intelligence context. This authority has been used several dozen times a year on average over the last several years. The Business Record provision is a mechanism for the targeting collection of cdrs from service providers. As my colleague from nsa will discuss in a few minutes, this theision provides a way for government to a fisa court order to identify telephone contacts of the suspected terrorist within the United States. N, finally, the lone wolf provision. It enables the government to survey a foreign person whose engage in International Terrorism who lacks connections to terrorist group. It also plays a foreign persons engage in international of mass distraction. Although the government has not loan wealth o wolf authority. And allows who might be inspired by Foreign Terrorist Group but not an agent of record. So for example, it would allow for surveillance of a foreign person with self radicalized review propaganda of a foreign terrorist organ to get a scene like isis on the internet or who severs who any of these three authorities requires approval under standards prescribed in law. Each also requires strict rules and how they mustea handle any. Its extensive executive Branch Oversight as well as congressional reporting of oversight. As i said, each is been renewed by congress multiple times in theor past. Without alternate over to my colleagues. Good morning thank you for the opportunity to testify today for the freedom act that will expire later to your unless reauthorized by congress. These provisions have been interval to the fbi success in many National Security investigations. I will likely not be able to get into specific examples of the use of provisions and an open setting, ill do my best to provide thorough hypothetical situations. Ive seen these provisions throughout my time as a counterintelligence agent in counterterrorism agent. I look forward to answering your questions today. National security threats have evolved significantly in the last 20 years from the proliferation of smart phones to the expanded use of encryption, new technology has allowed them to work in the shadows. Today we have nearly universal access to the internet and anyone with a cell phone can view and become ratified with extremist content. Our subjects are no longer forced to travel to other countries to communicate with other extremist to threaten the security of the House Judiciary Committee<\/a> holds an oversight hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Survey<\/a> surveillance act of fisa. Congress has until the end of the year to renew pfizer provisionpfizerprovisions. They testify and how provisions are being used [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the committee of the judiciary will come to order and without objection declare recess at the committee of anytime. We welcome everyone to this morning. An oversight of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. The Judiciary Committee<\/a> is holding todays hearing to carry out one of the most important tasks. To ensure that the tools used by our government to keep us safe are consistent with their values and with the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. This committee is long exercises its responsibility to shape the Legal Framework<\/a> in which Law Enforcement<\/a> agencies investigate threats and collect evidence of crimes. Although we do not conduct daytoday oversight of intelligence agencies, hearings like this to conduct a broad review of our government exercises the legal authorities and whether that conduct goes with our values of us americans. I want to acknowledge two things, first, the men and women on her Law Enforcement<\/a> and intelligence communities including witnesses today, work tirelessly to keep us safe from attacks and other threats by adversaries. Those efforts include working rigorously to comply with our laws. Second, there are countless americans inn the privacy and civil Liberty Communities<\/a> who are dedicated to keeping a safer mother because of threats, threats of privacy, freedom of speech and due process. That take hold ins the governmet Surveillance Authority<\/a> that extend too far. Those criticizing question will be discussing today are part of the nations probably and robust tradition of holding our government to account. The freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. It is in that spirit that i hope to have a serious discussion today about the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act of fisa. In the provision set to expire at the end of this year. In response to substantial concerns of the Intelligence Community<\/a> anden exceed the authority of pfizer, congress 2015 enacted the usa freedom act which contains several important reforms. Notably, to put an end to the program under which it collected the phone records of millions of lawabiding americans. Using a highly strained interpretation of a provision in a 2001 usa patriot act. We reform the provision on section 215 to prohibit collection of phone records and hoher types of records. Instead to collect certain types of phone records we require the nsa to apply to the fisa court for an order base and individualized facts and specific terms. We also created an important mechanism to ensure the fisa court is both sides of legal arguments in cases presenting novel important issues. And we enacted several measures to enhance transparency of the pfizer court and other types of reporting. At the end of this year, section 215 and two other authorities a wiretap revision in the lone wolf trop provision are set to e unless reauthorized by congress. Because these three provisions give the government powerful and controversial intelligence authorities, congress attach them to provisions where they were first enacted in reauthorized ever since. These periodically authorizations provide this committee and other committees and important opportunity to view how the laws are used in tm conduct the oversight that we are doing here today. Last month however, National Intelligence<\/a> directors of the letter to the leadership of the committee and other committees of the house of the senate asking that we reauthorized all three provisions permanently. At the same time, director acknowledge that the nsa has dismantled the Records Program<\/a> that has been conducting under section 215 as amended by the u. S. Freedom act. Simple but, they dismantle the program because it was a serious failure. Nsa used it to collect hundreds of millions of phone records. But in 2018, it discovered it had no authority to collect some of the records it was receiving. Worse, had no way of separating out which records were required from the ones that were collected r lawfully. So it started deleting them all. This is all been publicly reported by the Intelligence Community<\/a>. To be clear, it is not about thing that the nsa identified a problem, told us and tried to fix it. It is also find that they decided the program was not worth running. As former director put it, the decision to in the program was relative intelligence value which was evidently minimum in his quote and data integrity concerns. The nsa decided that the benefits of the plug. That kind of candor should be applauded. It is baffling to me that the ministration announced that the program in the very same breath as congress to extend it permanently. The administration has no reason for the striking provision. We might need the program sometime in o the future as Technology Changes<\/a> and as adversaries capabilities evolve andth adapt. When congress enacted the u. S. Freedom act, we made a goodfaith act for two give Intelligence Community<\/a> it needed toat collect records. That experiment has ran its course, thehe ministration realy wants to keep this provision on the books and will have to justify it with more than a vague promise that it might come in handy one day in the future somehow. I look forward to discussing the othere authorities including aspects of section 215, the pfizers wiretap loan will provisions. I also look forward to discussing as well, the important reforms that we enacted in the usa freedom act and whether any of those reforms should be stranger. This committee has an important and longrunning responsibility to have these candid and rigorous discussions as we consider how best to ensure that our laws are in line with their values. I think todays witnesses for being here today and for their service to our nation. I now recognize the Ranking Member<\/a> of the Judiciary Committee<\/a>, the gentleman from georgia mr. Collins or his opening statement. Last week we once again had the lives of the innocent victims of 9 11, the brave first responders, the 9 11 anniversary remind us of the shock, sadness and anger that we all felt that morning. Our strength following the attacks were encouraging also. Nothing could defeat our nation as a worldwide become a freedom and liberty. As part of our resolve the tools remain available to the men and women of our National Security<\/a> and Intelligence Community<\/a> who work tirelessly to protect our country and secure the freedom that weof cherish. These tools are set to expire on december the 15th, its our duty to reauthorize these authorities otherwise the authority revert back to our National Security<\/a> posture before 9 11. I dont think anyone wants out. I am kind of glad were having this hearing. It expires on december 15, we couldve been working on this a long time. I guess we been busy with other things, at least for having the hearing today. The Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act was passed to protect americans from surveillance abusive, the National Security<\/a> apparatus offers access to a local foreign intelligence that we need and must ensure there is a balance for protecting our security and civil liberty. In 2016 during and after the president ial election it appears to birkenau. B democrats recused republicans of trying to revert it and its now clear that those at the pinnacle of a national secured community lost objectivity required by law to exercise. That is coming out now as receipt of pfizer report coming out. A necessary component for mercks trust in the Intelligence Community<\/a> particularly when implementing surveillance against americans. By many americans, the report on pfizer abuse from the president ial election. However, its a fact that most individuals at the top of the fbi have been fired, terminated or referred or reported to be under communal investigation although that has escaped the notice of the majority on the committee. Oversight deterrence is needed when the toplevel officials are criticized and potentially even indicted for divulging Sensitive Information<\/a> and lying. That said we face the authorization of authority passed in 2015 as part of the usa freedom act with terrorism. 215 Business Records<\/a> and wiring taps. It is a medley difficult to separate our concerns on pfizer abuse and reauthorization facing us but we need to protect valuable tools and goals. Two of the authorities were straightforward. The lone wolf and wiring tap provision. The loan will prevent surveillance of terrorists seeking to harm us even if no proof of the terrorist being directly to al qaeda. This is been a trajectory of terrorist attack with the perpetrator attack. The wiretap provision allows the committee with liza two of aid surveillance by dumping and switching phones. If we can do this for drug dealers we could do it for suspected a terrorist. Regarding section 215, i look forward to hearing more from the authority,use of the the ability to obtain Business Records<\/a> and foreign intelligence investigation and suspect pfizer that is not something the affording we can afford to let expire and however, to 215 has records that if significant in technicalg problems. Ill be glad to hear from nsa on the thoughts and the continuing of 215 for collecting cdrs. I want to thank each of the agencies that are here this morning, i wish mark were able to come but in the spirit of 911 and the countless other senseless terrorist attack illustrate the need to always be on guard. I look forward to the witnesses testimony in annualnt back. I will now introduce todays witnesses. S. Brad wickman is a Deputy Assistant<\/a> attorney general at the department of justice. The national spiri security divn he served a legal position as a department of defense of state and the National Security<\/a> council. He also served as a law clerk for judge patrick on the United States<\/a> court of appeals for the fifth circuit. He received his d. A. From Duke University<\/a> and his jd from harvard law school. Michael orlando is a Deputy Assistant<\/a> director count of terrorism division. He has a duty as a special agent of the Pittsburgh Field Office<\/a> in 2003 and since has worked on matters in t honolulu, baltimore and Washington Field<\/a> offices. Previously he worked as the assistant Counter Intelligence<\/a> investigation. Prior to working for the fbi, he served in the u. S. Army. He received his d. A. From the State University<\/a> of new york and a masters in leadership from Georgetown University<\/a> of business. Susan morgan has worked as nsa operations for 18 years. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and thank them for participating in todays hearing. If you would please rise i will swear yougu in. Raise your right hand, you swear and affirm the perjury that the testimony you are about to give his true and correct to the best of your knowledge if so hope you got. Let the record show that the witness answered the affirmative, thank you and please be seated. Please note, that each of the written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. According to an asset you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay within the time there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony when the light turns red is signals your five minutes have expired. You may begin. Chairman nadler, Ranking Member<\/a> and members of the committee, thank you for let me testify today for the surveillance act or fisa. These are authorities that will expire at the end ofvi this year unless authorized by congress. The ministration supports permanent reauthorization of these provisions. Three of the authorities, have been part of fisa for over a decade. Its been renewed by congress multiple times, most recently in the usa freedom act of 2015. Before that the famous authorities were reauthorize between 2005 2011 and each renewal gained bipartisan support. Today i will give you a brief overview of the three legal authorities and turned over to my colleagues in the fbi to address how they were usedt in practice i and the values of National Security<\/a>. Then my colleagues from nsa will address the fourth authority. The call detail records with cdr authority under which nsa can engage targeted collection data in counterterrorism investigations. First the wiretap authority, this enables the government to continue surveilling fisa Court Approved<\/a> National Security<\/a> target when the target is taking affirmative steps for surveillance. These are individuals who repeatedly change Communication Service<\/a> providers in order to evade, remit monitoring. The provision allows us to continue surveillance without having to go back to the fisa court for andie order each timee target switches his phone. The government has uses authority in a small number of cases each year. The cases tend to involve highly trained foreign Intelligence Officers<\/a> operating within the United States<\/a> or other important investigating targets including terrorism targets. The wiretap actig s has a similr robing provision for ordinary criminal investigations like eaug dealers or organized crimes figures. Second the Business Records<\/a> authority, this allows the government to apply to the fisa court in order to collect records, papers and other tangible things that are relevant to National Security<\/a> investigation. It allows the government to contain records that it contains two grand jury subpoena and ordinary criminales case. For example can be used to obtain drivers license records, hotel records, car rental records, shipping records and the like. In most cases, these are records a government can attainds an ordinary civil investigation without any court order. Cfisa business is all because National Security<\/a> interest accrued criminal authorities or because there may be no criminal Investigation Underway<\/a> in the intelligence context. This authority has been used several dozen times a year on average over the last several years. The Business Record<\/a> provision is a mechanism for the targeting collection of cdrs from service providers. As my colleague from nsa will discuss in a few minutes, this theision provides a way for government to a fisa court order to identify telephone contacts of the suspected terrorist within the United States<\/a>. N, finally, the lone wolf provision. It enables the government to survey a foreign person whose engage in International Terrorism<\/a> who lacks connections to terrorist group. It also plays a foreign persons engage in international of mass distraction. Although the government has not loan wealth o wolf authority. And allows who might be inspired by Foreign Terrorist Group<\/a> but not an agent of record. So for example, it would allow for surveillance of a foreign person with self radicalized review propaganda of a foreign terrorist organ to get a scene like isis on the internet or who severs who any of these three authorities requires approval under standards prescribed in law. Each also requires strict rules and how they mustea handle any. Its extensive executive Branch Oversight<\/a> as well as congressional reporting of oversight. As i said, each is been renewed by congress multiple times in theor past. Without alternate over to my colleagues. Good morning thank you for the opportunity to testify today for the freedom act that will expire later to your unless reauthorized by congress. These provisions have been interval to the fbi success in many National Security<\/a> investigations. I will likely not be able to get into specific examples of the use of provisions and an open setting, ill do my best to provide thorough hypothetical situations. Ive seen these provisions throughout my time as a counterintelligence agent in counterterrorism agent. I look forward to answering your questions today. National security threats have evolved significantly in the last 20 years from the proliferation of smart phones to the expanded use of encryption, new technology has allowed them to work in the shadows. Today we have nearly universal access to the internet and anyone with a cell phone can view and become ratified with extremist content. Our subjects are no longer forced to travel to other countries to communicate with other extremist to threaten the security of the United States<\/a>, they can do this from the home. Because of this we are also Whitney Whitney<\/a> seen a shift of them acting alone. Without clear ties any foreign adversary. The wood different edification is gettingan smaller. Our subjects are quickly moving from radicalization to mobilization. As these thoughts evolve, congress has helped secure we are prepared for the appropriate tools to protect theth u. S. In s interest. Im here today to talk about the expiring provisions that the pfizer Court Approval<\/a> and oversight. As my colleague from the department of justice to explain, we use the Business Records<\/a> provision to obtain records for other tangible things for use in a National Security<\/a> investigation. We describe the Business Record<\/a> provision as a Building Block<\/a> authority. We use it during the early stages of ann investigation to build our case against National Security<\/a> threats. Its important to note the responses to the Business Records<\/a> ordered do not contain content. If we see the suspect isor communicating with a bomb maker in another country for example, that is incredibly important information. As in this case, the information from Business Record<\/a> orders help us establish thehi legal threshold to get an order from the pfizer court for more advanced techniques like a wiretap. For example, want to receive these returns, the suspected terrorist that is commuting with a bomb maker, we have information to establish probable cause for fwiretap. Similarly if we received Business Record<\/a> return showing that the suspect of terrorist is buying materials like nitrogen and large amounts of ball bearings, that information can help us establish probable cause. The authority detailed in the usa freedom act is also has envisioned by various national they create new email account. We would struggle to keep awareness of our targets as they purposely take action toward surveillance. The use of authority regulate in the National Security<\/a> investigation and a tool to avoid missing critical intelligence that would be launched if our ability to initiate surveillance was delayed. Its worth noting that the fbi only seeks robing authority when the requirements are met. We must provide information to show that the target actions can have the effect ofts surveillan. The last one is the lone wolf provision. It is not been used since authorization we believe its important to have available. Extremist are among the fbi top threats to the homeland. These are by definition, not in direct collaboration with foreign terroristvi collaborati. Their self radicalized online through terrorist propaganda and motivated to attack with no direction from individuals associated with the foreign terrorist organization. The lone wolf provision tailors to allow you to nonu. S. Persons which gives fbi and additional tool without impacting the rights of any person. These authorities are critical in critical important to keep the American Public<\/a> safe. The fbi urges congress to reauthorize these authorities because they will continue to play an Important Role<\/a> in the fbi National Security<\/a> investigation as adversaries continue to advance. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you im happy to answer any questions related to the authorities. Thank you very much. Ms. Morgan. Good morning, distinguished ai bers of the committee. They stand for the opportunity to testify today about the National Security<\/a> agencies, all details Records Program<\/a>. The authority or the whole detail record ora cdr program is among the important provision of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act that will expire at the end of this year unless reauthorized by congress. Congress added this authority to the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> act four years ago in the usa freedom act as one of several significant reforms designed to enhance privacy and Civil Liberties<\/a>. It replaced andnd they say to collection programs with the new legalp authority whereby the buk data would remain with the Communications Service<\/a> provider. As this committee, 2015 report describes, the cdr authority provides a narrowly tailored mechanism of metadata possible connections between foreign towepowers and others as part on authorized investigation to protect against International Terrorism<\/a>. Critically it authorizes the collection of certain metadata associated with telephone calls such as the originating or terminating telephone number and date and time of the call but does not authorize selecting the content of any communication, the name, address or any Financial Information<\/a> on the subscriber. As this committee i aware, the nsa recently discontinued the cdr program and deleted the records acquired under the cdr authority. After balancing, the programs intelligence value associated clause in compliance and data integrity concern. The decision to suspend the cdr program does not mean that congress should allow the cdr esthority to expire. Rather, that shows that the executive branch as a responsible steward of the Authority Congress<\/a> supports it. As Technology Changes<\/a>, our adversaries communication continue to evolve and adapt. In light of this dynamic environment, nsa supports reauthorization of the c cdr provision so that the government will retain potentially valuable tool should it prove useful in the future. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, i look forward to your questions. Thank you very much for your testimony. We will now proceed under the fiveminute role with questions i will begin by recognizing myself. Ms. Morgan i want to ask about the Records Program<\/a>. In 2014 prior to the passage of the usa freedom act, the privacn of civil liberty Oversight Board<\/a> reviewed the advantage use of 215 to collect detailed records. The board concluded starkly, we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States<\/a> in which the telephone records made ain concrete different in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. Moreover were aware of no instance in which a program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the destruction of a terrorist attack. The work continued. Even in those instances with telephone records committe colld under 215 or Additional Information<\/a> about the context of a loan terrorism suspect in nearly all cases benefits provided have been minimal. Generally limited to cooperating information obtained independently by the fbi. The board found a couple can program to be veryly little useo the community. Is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of the bore conclusion in 2014 . Sir, thank you for your question. I just want to start out by saying, i think a metric in terms of the intelligence program, it is one metric or the number of attacks to contribute to identifying one metric they could consider but certainly not the only metric. I came into the agency in thean summer of 2001 as an intelligence analyst. I can tell you as an intelligence analyst, your typically dealing with pieces of information and trying to pull them together in different ways to create a picture to understand what your target or adversary might be doing in response to a requirement. So when we looked at the cdr program as it existed up until we suspended it, we did look and evaluate the foreign value that the program can provide. It certainly provided value. Ambut however, you have to weigh that in the context of Everything Else<\/a> that we are doing and have to weigh that against not only the data integrity complaints concerns that we see but you also have to weigh that against the resources and the cost that we are spending as we want to be a good steward of the taxpayer dollars in resources. So i would say it is very difficult, its never a black and white answer when you try to analyze the value of particular activity, theres a lot of facts that go into that, i could get a piece of information today that can and might prove to be very valuable. The cdr program was reconstituted under the usa freedom act in 2015. Now please help me update thedo boards findings. Sitting here today, can the nsa cite any instances involving a threat to the United States<\/a> in which the cdr program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation . Sir as i alluded to earlier, the metro of value is not necessarily i heard that you dont have to repeat it. The answer is no or yes. In an open setting im really leery to get into specific examples of the value of the program. I asked you a specific question. Can nsa cite any instances involving threats to the u. S. In which the cdr program made a concrete difference in the counterterrorism investigation . Sir, respectively i did say that the couple can question to effectively answer. I need to go you did not say anywhere of insistence where the discovery of a previous plot the destruction of a terrorist attack. Can you answer customer. Again, iry would like to sayi dont think a metric of a program on this value should be focused on whether or not prevented or stopped a terrorist attack. After the program was reconstituted under the freedom act, they realized two problems. First the phone records should not of been received and no way of untangling the good data from the bad. Is that unfair senses of the problem . Yes, sir. Then assay decided to purchase entire database in nearly threeatai yearsse of detd record is that correct . Yes, sir. The destruction of the records, the inosine stated they contacted the appropriate Congressional Committee<\/a> to do so so you know if can contacted t . On august 2016th 2019, then assay decommissioned the cdr program altogether. According to former director the Intelligence Committee<\/a> weight across the benefits and sell the benefits or medical decided to discontinue the program is that correct . Yes, sir. To sum up, the cdr program and origins have an extra Legal Program<\/a> from the moment is brought under fisa in 2006 to the moment it was discontinued in 2019, it did not want make a material difference to a single counterterrorism investigation. Release that you could tell us about. One last question, why is the Trump Administration<\/a> asked us to reorganize in light of the record why is he ministration asked us to reauthorize the program . Htth sir, as an intelligence professional, ill tell you i want to have every tool available in my toolbox. I am not able to although i wish it could predict what the future situation willt hold. And should i confront the situation where this tool will be valuable to protect interNational Security<\/a> against terrorist activities, i would like to remain available. Let me say, very good effort but i think the ministration will have to do a little better than that to say that we have a useless program but we want to reauthorize it because maybe someday it will do some good and give more basis to believe in fact that it has a future utility. My time is expired, the gentleman from georgia ms. Collins. Thank you. One of the things i want to point out, normally we have had the secure classified repeat after this. We dont have that today so i understand your question, i dont know why we didnt but were refusing to do that today. We have done this in the past and it wouldve been good to have. I think he wouldve been able to answer questions bod better. I do appreciate that the chairman acknowledged me for my five minutes. I appreciate that. What session identifying information collected on the call detailed Records Program<\/a>, if we terminate that and allow the program to expire, his ability to collect identifying information of law with respect to encrypted communication . Sir i apologize, and an open hearing i cannot get into capabilities. That the reason would been nice to have a classified hearing after this as well which we couldve gotten into this. I am absolutely willing to make and arrange for a time convenient to talk about thats fine, weve had all year and were here now we just have to deal with it. Does the criminal impose on prosecutors to oval in scope with very evidence favored to the defendant also applied before practicing with the fisa court in other words is there any requirement for the department to inform the court of evidence favorable to the target of the fisa for surveillance that connect with the probable cause of the foreign power . I believe we do provide the full picture in terms of what the information is available and for example, we provide the full picture and thatt would include, is not really grady, its a a criminal case not in a fisa application but we do disclose in ordinary course to the court, the information that the person is an agent and any information of the contrary. If you did not disclose it, you chose toso keep it as to beginning to be more of a concern because of lying to the court correct . You have to know the facts on a particular case. If you had the information as you just said provide a full picture toof the court, if you o not provide a full picture without not be a problem . I think the effort is to provide a full picture and not to conceal. If you happen, is not a problem . Is something that you would not say should happen . In general wed want to provide all the relevant information absolutely. Hein general he states okay, but in certain cases where you dont want to disclose you states okay. No, sir i misspoke, i do believe we should disclose all relevant information. If that is not thats abuse of the court process. I dont know find use those exact terms its something that we work hard with d. O. J. To provide all information relevant to the court. If it did not happen to any court, if it did not happen thats a failure correct . Is something we do not want to happen. Failure. Thee surveillance by the fbi in due date of the president ial campaign, have you conducteded a review of the fisa to determine if each and every fact was verified by an underlying evidence . Has anyone been held accountable for a lawful disclosure to the media . I cannot comment on that in any way. Among other reasons i dont know about that case so i cannot,. Do not think my review of my question prior to this houses issue as well. Its an issue that is not a secret court issue and not something thats been put into the realm of the public. Every not using the information completely. Im not sure what your question is. I understand you not answering it either way. The problem, the chairman and i both do agree and this is one of the areas we agree, there is a problem with pfizer, we have not talked about it this year because is not the political narrative. There is a problem that needs to be addressed and all incomplete evidence brought to the court not just in general, i appreciate your concern and misspeaking but the issue is we have to make sure this is the process for everybody because its on a personal listening that is very political. This is not something that we need to have the probability at the highest level of community to have a political agenda or the bus stop when they go to court in which there is proceedings and not anybody available to correct that are correct the record and have it leaked later in a sense of no accountability taken place. This is an issue and i will go back hopefullyinc at some pointt a briefing. I yield back. Let me just say, the minority staff work with the majority staff in setting up this hearing in the minority staff has been working with the majority staff in setting up a classified briefing which will be scheduled. I appreciate that but also the certain time it is been scheduled together where we can have all of her stuff together and the witnesses here. I was pointing out a simpleecss fact. It is so evident on this but lacking yesterday. Will also, im not aware of any terrible problem with the fisa court and specifically not with application. Because we have not talked about it untille today. Gentlelady from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Being in this room reminds me of nfter 9 11 and we actually came in on the weekend and we sat around the table at the witness table and it was a Bipartisan Group<\/a> trying to figure out what are we going to put together, im up to speed in that and we came up with a bill, we did not know how it will work at the time but we knew we needed to do some things and we did. As a Bipartisan Group<\/a>. Its entirely appropriate that we review what we did so long ago to make sure it is working hoped, it is obviously an important balance and we need to keep our country safe, everyone agrees with thatn but e also have strong incentive to make sure that the rights of americans are fully protected in respect to. I know that all of you would agree with that. One of the questions that t i he on thesees proceedings is how te Court Rulings<\/a> having to do with privacy are integrated, if at all into yourr proceedings. For example, the recent supremev Court Decision<\/a> in carpenter really challenged and overturned the predigital age notion of the kinds of information that americans have a Fourth Amendment<\/a> right to privacy in. Carpenter, Law Enforcement<\/a>, considered location data to be a Business Record<\/a>. And stored under the communication act in did not require a probable cause warrant in the carpenter, you need a probable cause work. Has been translated into the same kind of record that 215 would allow, you need probable cause to get to location records . As we do in the criminal matter. Who can answer that . You are absolutely right, the decision is in a porn decision in a criminal case that you needed a warrant in order to obtain historic location information. Thats not the same as gps but information concerning a cell tower and so forth. Based specifically in that case, the security context and said it was only operable goal i understand the. Weve given thought to the issue of how it applies and looks a Business Records<\/a> context, to really go into the detail and unfortunately as to how we are applying it in the context and thats classified information but im happy to do that provide information as to what our policy is to Business Records<\/a> and how it applies to it. S that. m happy to doth if i can just probe what youre saying, you are looking at it and its not the believe of the apartment that carpenter applies to what you are doing but you are considering the Fourth Amendment<\/a> implication for how you will proceed. Is that accurate . Thats a fair summary, something we are giving serious thought to into how we apply to the National Security<\/a> Authority Even<\/a> though its not controlling. One of the things i had concern about is a collection of content under various provisions of our fisa efforts, i do think its important to note if you get enough information even if its not all content provides tremendous insight into the details of privacy rights o americans, can you talk about how much content that you obtained through this program . Thank you for the question. I just want to emphasize, under nsa program, the whole detailed worker program, we do not receive any content at all. We received things like telephone number a, or telephone number be, at this date and time for this duration. We are not receiving any content in any locational information. On in terms may be cannot answer this in a public session, in terms of text messages, pictures, emails and the like, what is the universe of your collecting . Under the cdr program we are not collecting any content, im happy in a closed session to give you my insight under 250 none of that would be caught . All speak to the cdr provision we are not collecting any content. Is a little bit trickier in the context of traditional uses of 250 because whether you call something content, is a drivers license record content or not, its a thirdparty Business Record<\/a> and it has information about the individual or that a terrorist stated a particular hotel overnight. Thats right we would get that information. It is not communication content. We cannot get the substance of telephone calls or anything like that. My time has expired, i think you and hopefully as we will across these measures, we all care about Civil Liberties<\/a> and we will craft together amendments to it. I yield back. The gentleman fromm ohio. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this hearing so we can get a better understanding of pfizer provisions and procedures. Some of which expire on decembe. For nearly a year since the start of this congress, the majority has had this committee and the American Public<\/a> indoor the issuance of subpoena after subpoena Holding Hearing<\/a> after hearing and passing resolution after resolution regarding an investigation that has been completed by special counsel robert mueller. Yesterday coryry lewandowski r d appeared before our committee to answer questions pray he early testified before congress a number of times. The result remains the same. The president neither conspired nor colluded with russians. To impact or influence the 2016 president ial election. The russians did try to interfere, they set up facebook accounts, et cetera but that was under the obama ministration, not trumps, so if there was insufficient effort to protect america from the russians, it was obamas fault, not trumps. Today thet American People<\/a> might finally get some insight on how the original fisa application that then fbi director jim comey and other senior officials obtained at the Democratic Committee<\/a> and the Hillary Clinton<\/a> campaign, how that began, could you please tell us under what circumstanceshi the i might seek a fisa warrant to investigate to american citizens . They can seek a fisa warrant and we would first need a case open on the individual where we would have facts of the person opposed to National Security<\/a> which he has to have a tie to a foreign power and generally has an agent of a foreign power or tied to a form terrorist organization. In order to initiate an investigation, senior fbi officials must apply or obtain a fisa warrant to collect information related to theto allegations. You are seeking a fisa warrant, theres an internal process of how we do that and elevates to the department of justice over to the court. Would be proper for fbi agents to attempt to obtain fisa warrant to investigate senior trumps campaigns advisors simply because they hated donald trump . That would not be appropriate as i stated earlier for us to open a case they need to beyey facts to pose a threat to National Security<\/a>. Would be proper to opera intelligence investigation based upon hyper partisan memos that were written by individuals linked to the opponents campaign in this case the Clinton Campaign<\/a>. We would have to show your negative and the foreign power. As far as you are aware, the fbi and other intelligence officials verify the truthfulness of the allegations in the steel dossier about then candidate donald trump . This is also my purview. Even though the information was never verified and most is proven to be false, the Intel Community<\/a> relied on it to identify application to spy on the term campaign. Is that what happened . That is outside my purview. Tell me what sort of information shouldnt agent used to open the enCounter Intelligence<\/a> investigation . A wide variety of information that we can use, there needs to allegation that has specific facts and believes theres a National Security<\/a>pl investigation. When an agent is that theres a supervisor that reviews and approves the opening. And elevates the approval. Thank you. I have a lot more questions but it appears to me, the faulty information is used to investigate the Trump Campaign<\/a> officials bipartisan pages and i think its strange just a few weeks ago Inspector General<\/a> horowitz issued a seating report regarding the mishandling of Sensitive Information<\/a> by james comey. But it appears nothingsc will happen relative to mr. Comey, he will not be brought before the committee to answer for the allegations in his report and mr. Horowitz will not hold an opportunity to testify what was happening at the fbi when senior officials decided to open the investigation. That is a shame. Because the American People<\/a> deserve to learn the truth. The truth about how it was that the Democratic National<\/a> committee and thehe Clinton Campaign<\/a> were able to pedal a fake dossier to obtain a fisa warrant and turn it into an unnecessary expensive timeconsuming investigation in order to undermine an american presidency. The American People<\/a> deserve better. Cannot actually ask a a question another gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman time has expired,d,. On something he does mention. The question for the chairman of the committee. Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member<\/a>s and the chairman of the oversight and Judiciary Committee<\/a>s received a letter from mr. Horowitz indicating he has now turned to find the report over to mr. Barton thehe Justice Department<\/a>. Have you had any contact with mr. Horowitz of when he might be in front of the committee to answer questions about the very subject we are learning about today . We will review any suchea letter. The gentleman from texas. Good morning to the witnesses and thank you very much. Let me just ask, a general question first, having been here on the day of being here in the congress on 9 11 2001, this commemorating the horror of the dayss, just about a week ago, ia fisa process an important process for National Security<\/a> in your opinion . Yes, maam. Mr. Orlando . Yes, maam, its a cortical tool for us for threats for the United States<\/a>. Ms. Morgan. Yes, maam. Let me start the with mr. Weidman on the fisa opinio opinions, do you think freedom act directed the government to make significant or novel Foreign Intelligence Court<\/a> opinions available to the greatest extent practical its clear from the written statements from members of the debate that this was to include opinions written before the passage of the usa freedom, nonetheless only a handful of opinions were released to pass the bill and publish prehow does the d. O. J. Determine which opinions are significant or novel enough to be published . In terms of how we decide what is significant and novel, i think about theres plenty opinions that will be applied ordinary legal principles to the facts. The satori case deciding if a predictable individual had probable cause. Theres nothing particularly novel about the exercise. It is very fact intensive and not much being released anyway in the if we were really able to release anyway it would be facts that are classified and not much benefit to the public. Thats a case where we would not significant or novel. It was a new interpretation of the act and certainly anything that involved amicus, and how the law applies more broadly, we would consider that to be significant in novel and we provide to the committee and have an obligation under the freedom act to review for declassification. You know how many opinions have remade completely secret because of the definitions you are using . There is certainly opinions we would not consider significant in novel and that would not have been declassified. Will there be a way of securing that for the information of the American People<\/a> and members of congress . Will there be a way of releasing those even though not significant on novel for the American People<\/a> and members of congress . If they are not significant or novel, the judgment of the congress was those of the ones we will not provide to the committee and have no obligation to review. There would be limited Public Interest<\/a> in those opinions. We could access them ifnd necessary. I imagine if there was a particular opinion that the committee wanted to see we can have a discussion about providing that. In addition they should disclose Office Relevant<\/a> to the government interpreting section 215 the freedom act. T the Government Office<\/a> of Legal Counsel<\/a> opinions relevant to the government interpreting two and five of the usa freedom act. Is that important . Whether they should be disclose . Yes. Others are not in it depends on the facts of the case andet e policy as to whether its privilege device. Or whether something they can feel they can make public. Some are made public and some are not. Miss morgan, they nasa 2018 they receive large numbers of cdr that shouldd not have in these irregularities began 2015 in response in a deleted every single record they collected from 2015 and Going Forward<\/a> to fail to provide evidence of any change as a result they announced they would purge everything will record that it had collected since 2015 and 2019 they have a major story reporting the nsa stopped usinge the authority. What exactly were the technical illegal rarities and has nsa stopped the cdr program. Has the nsa actually stopped the program . This time, if you can answer both of those and finally, to mr. Orlando, if you can know where we are with respect to foreign operatives, e plain the value of fiegsa in your work, but also the necessity of some form of that with respect to domestic terrorism. Miss morgan . Thank you, maam. Ill start with your second question. The cdr program has been has been stopped. Last month all of the equipment was decommissioned. We are not leveraging the cdr authority and have currently no plans to leverage it. In terms of the technical irregularities that we experienced, we got stl things at this date in time for this duration but some of that inaccurate and as suchas such, we determine best course of action was to delete the records that we received from the community providers. The gentle lady is expired ecand the witness may answer the question. Whether you need an expansion order a characterization. I understand thata. And was saying you need is somee similar comparable. I cant comment on the policy that we have other titles for the surveillance that we could use. Often times the cases we lookhe for the ac acts of violence alry a violation of federal law and tsome ideology. The time of the gentle lady is expired. Thank you mr. Chairman for being here thank you for your work to keep america safe. Does the doj or nsa during the Obama Administration<\/a> consider the Russian Ambassador<\/a> to be a terrorist or and agent . I cant comment on that, on anything outside the scope sorry, i dont have that information. Thats amazing as i that puts us in the position of having heard Jeff Sessions<\/a> was being surveilled when he made as aus senator with an ambassador of the reports that we have ha hade israeli ambassador under, people that he messed with. I dont know any of these things firsthand. Its what i read here, but it gives me great concern to cause in my freshmant term, when we debated section 206, 215, when we debated the fisa court and then recently saw the massive abuses through the fisa court, we kept being assured no, no, especially in the fisa court tthings like 215, we are not abusing anybody. And i already heard this hearing that you allow the surveillance of the foreigners that are not usually associated with the organization. I wondered if that included nations of israel and other folkshe like that. Your silence speaks volumes. Looking at this provision to get access to certain Business Records<\/a> for the foreign intelligence or International Terrorism<\/a> investigations, i am still concerned as i was originally with some of the language, because it allows the pursuit and thi this isnt only going to be in front of the fisa court apparentlyly you can go after foreign intelligence information not concerning a u. S. Person, but we know thats not true because u. S. Persons are constantly caught up and then as we saw in the Obama Administration<\/a> unmatched for no good reason. But then also to protect against International Terrorism<\/a>. Okay, that is subject to the term. Or clandestine intelligence at these. I asked years ago, what does that mean, clandestine activities . Like if my neighbor stands behind the curtains and watches what goes on in my yard, is that certainly clandestine gathering intelligence. I mean, how broadly can this go, and i was never really assured by the part of the law but said these things will be done under the guidelines of the attorney general. We may have the acting attorney general indicted here soon. I would rather have those done under the law instead of some guidelines we have nothing to do with. But, let me also mention with regards to fisa i understand youve abandoned the gathering of the date of that as long as there is a court, there can be another application and affidavit that violates the Fourth Amendment<\/a> requirements of the f probable cause and suppord by things to be seized and when i looked at what was disclosed that the order regarding the variety in, everybody got one. This has gives us everything youve got on a ongoing basis. There was no probable cause of anything. There was no particular area. So, even though we may have abandoned those programs as log as there is a fisa court and we dont have proper safeguards in the United States<\/a>, then you could go back and we could get into a constitutional discussion on the data and that kind of thing, but still as long as we dont have reforms in the court or do away with it and go back to the old rate of protecting g National Security<\/a>, then we are going to have these kind of things, then we will find out bout the late leader and the pm can be abandoned. But it sounds like we are going to keep reauthorizing. So, i have significant concern and also, i am amazed here you give an order that allows access sto data between u. S. And abroad and wholly within the United States<\/a> but nothing to do with all of those in Foreign Countries<\/a>. The application must have said we are not after anything when people are not protected by the constitution, we are only after the stuff that is protected by the Fourth Amendment<\/a> of the tconstitution. They dont have to be back here squirming because of the abuses that have occurred in the system and i really do hope we will Work Together<\/a> to have some reform. I will yield back. The gentleman from tennessee. Thank you mr. Chair. I appreciate the work all of you are doing at your agencies with the department of justice, but the fbi does, our Intelligence Groups<\/a> come and protects our country. On a regular basis over the last two years, people have had to question the men and women doing such outstanding work for us on ovour behalf and most americans appreciate what you are doing and i certainly do. When the government seeks Business Records<\/a> for investigations involving american citizens or permanent residents on the investigation questions cannot be conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment. How does the department of justice, the Justice Department<\/a> and is there any kind of review conducted without these factors supporting the investigations are not just pretextual . That is a core provision we cannot engage in the activity solely on the basis of the protective activities. T if you want to say those things, thats your right. We cannot use the Business Records<\/a> application solely on the basis of that typebu of speech. We have more than that if the person is saying those things and also in touch with people or in touch with people in al qaeda in afghanistan. Speech in and of itself that might be protected can be combined to other speech or conduct. People have issues and concerns about the communities they targeted. Its been used on specific groups, muslims in particular hispanics, the communities. The activity solely on someones face and on a religion or gend, national origin, etc. It is the same provisions. In a terrorist attack that may be a bit of information we consider together with other pieces of information to the whether someone was properly targetable. Thank you. Can you commit one of your groups that you will do a disproportionate impact audit for us . I can certainly take that . Back. We can open a case on the activities, race, ethnicity or religious groups. We look at the activities and thats how we make decisions about opening cases and the probable cause to move towards the cut. Can you tell us when it was first passed right after 9 11, am i correct it was enacted in 1978. Theyve had those concerns but thereve been quite a few amendments to take care of the concerns of originally arose. With respect to the number of the years over theres been a lot of oversight over the years, but the congressional oversight, the court and executive branch from my perspective we have a very robust system to ensure that they are used properly. Just let me close. It appears that some on the sother side have a lot of thins that have gone on in law meenforcement. I have read all of those applications on the case and saw nothing wrong with any of them. I think all the information was given to the court concerning the fact that its started by the republicans is a lot of information to protect from russian interference and i think the Justice Department<\/a> and fbi for the word and security. For the ability to counteract the work that youre doing the gentleman yields back. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. As a former u. S. Attorney that was and still is my opinion that fisa is an important tool in the financing of International Terrorism<\/a>. It is estimated that 25 of our actual intelligence on foreign terrorism comes from the authorities like sections of them 02. My point is that properly used authorization of the authorities should be noncontroversial and bipartisan. The problem is that many of us as it has been pointed out about classified information they have seen what appearsn. To be egregious abuses and misuses of the authorities and corresponding misrepresentations before the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a> court itself. Specifically as it pertains to be Obama Administration<\/a> and fbi officials in securing the border on at least one citizen. Many of us do believe that the department verified and unverifiable dossier funded by the Democratic Party<\/a> to secure an order allowing for the surveillance of the former associate of mr. Page many of us also believe that the Justice Department<\/a> had exculpatory evidence on the issue of probable cause that wasnt provided to the court at least not provided a good thing for dependency of the order itself. Earlier this morning the chairman said that he didnt see any evidence that pertained to car per page. You justst heard mr. Cohen say e same thing. Democrats generally havent expressed that opinion. The former fbi director, former director said the idea of the abuse is nonsense. On a and many of my colleagues disagree. The Inspector General<\/a> has returned the report and we will see who is right and who is wrong. Im afraid that a the instant or general is going to find folks on my side of the aisle are right that the procedures were abused and that they were not followed and will offer recommendations but we will see. I want to use my time to focus a little bit on the process and let me start by asking do we to special rules exist when such editing application to the survey or to spite upon a Political Campaign<\/a> on one of its associates, anyone . As i stated earlier its based on certain facts and i cant comment outside of that freedom scope. Anyone, special rules for the campaign . I cant say one way or the other. When the government is presenting a case with respect to the u. S. Person mike carter page, they are required to verify to the foreign uIntelligence Surveillance<\/a> that the evidence is verified, correct . In the application we have a file that contains the documents to support the facts. Does the department of justice, are they required to disclose to the foreign Intelligence Surveillance<\/a>e court any exculpatory evidence, is there any in criminal cases we have what is called a greedy requirement to disclose exculpatory information. Does that apply before the fisa court . It isnt brady because that is the principle in the criminal law. We do try to provide the full picture so that is theres probable cause as a foreign power and information would suggest to the contrary. In the case of carter page, if all the court heard is no counter arguments presenting questioning, no crossexamination about the veracity itself, or about credibility of the author mr. Christopher steel, what safeguards are there in the process currently to make sure those obligations are met, and as a practical matter what would prevent the appointment of an attorney to represent the interest of a target of a fisa application provided that you could meet the security clearance requirements may be by taking someone from the Justice Department<\/a> Civil Rights Division<\/a> . The witness may answer the question. Its whether we can have Something Like<\/a> an amicus to represent the targets of the applications. With the argument is to take extraordinary measure on the surveillance of the u. S. Citizen. One thing i would say we have to remember that its in the National Security<\/a> world the same thing you are familiar with as a wiretap which is the same type of thing and we dont have any amicus or other participation in that context are not sure why it would be necessary or appropriate in this context we do have the Party Proceedings<\/a> in the ordinary course when we were doing wiretaps of drug dealer or organized crime figures etc. Im not sure if i se that i seed for an amicus when it is too inspired a terrorist. The time of the gentl gentles expired. The gentleman from georgia. I am ashamed of an oversightt hearing you all have to be subjected to the political fake news that is being trafficked by members of the Republican Caucus<\/a> on the committee. When he was inaugurated, he compared intelligence officials such as yourselves us nazis. Then today after he was inaugurated, he paid a visit to the cia headquarters in langley virginia. And he stood in front of the hollowed ground of the Memorial Wall<\/a> where the names of cia operatives, men and women, american citizens have given owork on unabated people whove given their lives the untold numbers. We dont know how many, but thats without wall commemorat commemorates. When he was speaking about the sacrifice of the brave men and women who have given their lives to protect us, the president talked about his crowd size at the inauguration and he bragged about winning the election. Since then, he has continued to do everything he can to destabilize the Public Opinion<\/a> about our intelligence professionals and the work that you do. And you have had to work through that. So i appreciate you doing this today and appreciate you are continuing to do your work. This hearing is about oversight and should not be about politics. As a member of the legislative branch, im sorry. I want to apologize to all of you here today for having to sit through this tirade that comes from the other side. Ms. Morgan, you mentioned that the program has been suspended. The nsa is tasked with the execution of the program, correct . Has the program or that authority under the program then used in any way or the Data Collected<\/a> under the program, has it been accessed for any purpose since the program was suspended x. We deleted the Record Associated<\/a> that we got from thet automation providers of the records are no longer there to be accessed. Thank you. While it was being collected, was that information subject to being shared with Immigration Enforcement<\/a> authorities . Sir the information that we collected under the provisionce was accessible to analysts who are trained in how to handle that particular data and the rules associated with it. Analysts would look at the data and if they had the foreign intelligence to share based on that, they would report it in the authorized channels. That would have been officials also involved in Immigration Enforcement<\/a>. Im not certain about that. They would report it to the individuals that were authorized to receive that information. Mr. Orlando, the detailed records provision says that these records cannot include sale sites or gps information but other parts of the law governing other types of Business Records<\/a> dont have that expressed prohibition so what i wanter to know is does the government collect geolocation information under section 215 . I would be further to21 my colleague here. There can be Fourth Amendment<\/a> issues in that area and i think i wouldve preferred to answer that in a classified session. Thank you. With that, i will yield back. The gentleman from arizona. I know this has been discussed this morning to some extent, so i want to approach this may be from a slightly different angle. Do you believe you have thebu authority to obtain the information from providers . I would prefer to get into that. This may elicit the same response, but has the nsa issued any guidance in light of carbon per . No. No guidance. Not to my knowledge. Okay. Doj over notified the case was obtained through a section 215 order . There is no provision for that. Y. Is a number impacting the number of targets fax to things that are important when you talk about those numbers one is putting those numbers into the context. So every day in the United States<\/a> is billions of telephone calls which can generate multiple records. We had about 500 million over the course of the year. The other thing i would want to highlighth is that when we get data and weon were getting data under the program we were authorized to get Historical Data<\/a> in the telecommunication providers and ingr addition to ongoing data for the period of the court order additionally i would like to highlight under the program we are authorized so that as you would imagine that would expand the number exponentially. Friendly we already believe that exists. Do you have the authority is replicated under the authorization or any other authority . In other words, is there some other Legal Authority<\/a> that you think allows you to get the same information . We dont have another Legal Authority<\/a> that would allow us to reinstate the program as it existed. I am not following that. So, you believe if i understand the answer to first question, you believe you have the authority to start the program coming to dont need new authority to restart. Yes sir. Is there othert authority you can use to garner the same information . There isst no other Legal Authority<\/a> whereby we could establish the program that we recently shut down. Okay very good. Thank you. So it was divulged to the washington post, and i think you answered. Has anyone been held to account yr this disclosure box theres been no review you dont know whether there has are not . I cant comment on that anyway. I dont know the answer. So, i thought you said and i jotted it down im not goingg to quote it im just asking for clarification i thought you might have said somethingno to the effect you ue fisa authority to cultivate for obtaining probable cause. Is that a fair characterization . The we use the Business Records<\/a> and other of the parties to develop. Youve indicated canvas server serve as underlining evidence for the accuracy of the fisa application packs if im understanding your question correctly, the news article to be used to set affirmation was pulled from the article you would have to be included. So, the answeria is yes. Yes. But there are also other factors pretty totality of the probable cause. And with that, my time is expired. Thank you, members of the panel. The gentleman from rhode island. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and for your service to the country. I think they are all trying to balance the very important Constitutional Values<\/a> that are the bedrock ofof our democracy d of course t your important responsibility to keep americans safe and the attempts to strike that balance. I would like to focus my questions on the role of an adversarial process in that particular. I will begin with you. Seeking reform in the act is a requirement of the court and the amicus to argue the other side of the case as presenting novel interpretations of the law. The Court Activities<\/a> were 2018 issued by the Administrative Office<\/a> of the courts to state that the amicus was appointed on nine occasions last year; is that right . I dont know the exact number but it sounds like it is in the right ballpark. And in the states that no amicus were appointed at all that here but also something kind of odd says on three occasions by the courts told the government that it was considering appointing an amicus because the proposed application raised novel or significant questions but then the government either withdrew the applications or modified them in a a way that convinced the court not to appoint the amicus understanding this is an unclassified setting. Can you explain what happened in those incidents as . I dont know in those incidences but i can tell you there is a process where it is a little bit unusual you wouldnt see in the matter that we provide brief copies to the court in advance and so this is essentially a draft the petition and theres a give and take between the judges and their assistants and staff and our attorneys. In light of those exchanges that occur in the process, sometimes applications are withdrawn altogether. Other times they can be modified in ways that again might mean the cases with significant or novel. Can you share in writing with the particular circumstances were of those three and also in 2018 something similar happened and i wonder if you can give more context of the circumstances. I can take that back and see if we can get that information. It also requires the government to give those to file amicus briefings all material deemed relevant to their duties such as the legal precedent applications were others supporting material. As far as any denied access to information they felt was relevant to their case . Have they ever been denied the ability to consult with other individuals for assistance in preparing their cases . Not that im aware of. Have they made a decision in the ability to appeal or otherwise notify the fisa court review . You are asking a good question. Id have to look back. There is an appellate mechanism. I am not sure if the amicus has standing to bring the appeal or whether it is done in a different fashion, but i can get you is present in the mechanism and so i just have to get you into that issue as they can participate when the appeal is brought. It is a slightly different mechanism than that. A handful have been published. It is a casebycase evaluation and there are many matters that are routine of playing the wall to the facts to determine if theres probable cause to the target of a particular individual into those would be routine and theres a smaller significantraises issues in the type of data that can be collected or new issues. They arthere are significant orl that are not published. We also have to undertake a declassification review to determine whether we can retract and release any of those significant opinions so that is in the wall since 2015 we have to do that. There may be some that are ongoing but hasnt been done yet. But they are under review. Has the department notified all criminal defendants are being prosecuted basewerebeing n evidence derived from the use of section 215, and whether i would like to know whether you do and if not why not and whether you will commit to such notification and finally, there are would there be a problem if congress were to command the section to require the notice to the criminal defendant in the same way that we do under section 02. We dont provide notice to criminal defendants for the use of information. Others have built in a mechanism whereby we would give notice if we intend to use information that is obtained to derive their authority and against the person. So, there is no such provision in the law for section 215. The reason for that again is that 215 is like a grand jury subpoena to collect thirdparty Business Records<\/a> and generally we associate the mechanisms with the ability to challenge the privacy interest and to challenge information to the subpoena that is the model incorporated. The gentleman from louisiana. Thank you mr. Chairman and each of you for being here in your service to the country. Questions regarding this the amendment protection apply to the Business Records<\/a> . Is it true that the order provides greater protection in the grand jury or administrative subpoena which can be used to obtain here we have to go through the court and make a specific showing which we wouldnt have to do any criminal case comes with more protection, not less. If it applies to the Foreign Countries<\/a> do others apply like for example theig second amendment, or what about the due process clause . Im not sure if i understand the question. Let me give you some foundation for it. In a domestic title iii wiretap an individual that isnt under suspicion may be monitored becausedo they received a phone call from someone that is the target. Traditionally it was a subject to minimization procedures. Its the same true for the collection of content underh fisa . Operates different under title iii under the criminal context of his realtime and by that i mean they are turning on and off during the conversation depending on whether they are collecting information relevant to their investigation or not. It is done after the d fact so f you receive that information, then the minimization process is minimize the collection and retention etc. And that is done when you are thinking about the information that you had and disseminating it and the community that is the stage of the contexts that is the difference between title iii. And that process thats kind of thing that makes people nervous at the end a of the day you have to have some trust and those that haves that authority switch it to the right times so that is an impossible thing to speak of. That is in an ordinary criminal wiretap that is what they are doing every day and have done for many years. Can evidence obtained through the collection be used in a criminal prosecution under what circumstance . Yes it can be. We get the approval of the Intelligence Community<\/a>. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california. Le thank you mr. Chair. Thank you for your public service. Im going to start by simply correcting some misstatements. Of which eight have been convicted or pled guilty of violating american criminal law. They show that they engage in a sweeping systematic attack, they welcomed it and planned around butit attack. We should be thanking the fbi, not trashing them if those are the facts. I have a lot to say about the record program. My first question is none of this goes through a warrant process, is that perfect . Ifs i might explain how the program works, this is an example they have a reasonable suspicion we work with our doj and colleagues to draft an application to the fisa court or attorney general situation. N the court refused that information that we present than that of communication providers are compelled tohe provide us te data associated with that number. Before that, you had all these records collected without a warrant. The record that we did collect was the result of going through that process. However some of the records that we received a technical air regulator to technical irregularities. It approved the specific term. The Records Associated<\/a> come from the telecommunication providers. So one term could result in a lot of records. As you likely know we are eable to get historical Records Associated<\/a> with that into perspective records and they are also authorized if the Court Approves<\/a> power i the power in tk process, they have approved and im authorized to get the data back or im authorized to get that and im also authorized to get thein phone numbers that wee in contact with mr. Orlandos phone number so if he was in contact with the authorized earlier we stated that would include the drivers license information so again to be clear that is the traditional use of 215. What aboutd also include pictures . I dont actually know. This Program Three<\/a> does violate privacy and that the government could tell for example whether a person called the hotline will call this anonymous or a bankruptcy lawyer so to me that so too much information in addition. So without a greater showing us why the system is efficient as a result of the actual concrete. The gentleman from north dakota. Ive never worked with the nsa because i was a lawyer in north dakota but ive worked with fbi a lot in my private career and i appreciate everything that you all do and what i have w always found is te greatest agents are cognizant of where the line is and what they can do and what they cant do and the best and most aggressive eyes im assuming in this area will push the envelope in order to do something because that is your job. I dont discount that and i think that is actually appropriate and it is our job and the courts job to set where it is because you can keep running into brick walls to keep the country safe, but i do want to go back to the something mr. Radcliffe was talking about and we were doing th context between this type of information in criminal cases and one of the things that was stated i think one of the fundamental differences that we have is eventually i gave it all as the defense is hurting in the criminal case i get to go to brady and carpenter and all of those things and that is what i think we miss sometimes and this and how we deal with it. The tracking of the actual versus the Business Record<\/a> this is a perfect example oftr wheree get to that. But do you know how many have been used, how many criminal prosecutions have come out of these . How many cases have we used in the criminal case including title i and title iii when it was first adopted. I dont have an exact count how many but over the years for many different cases. How do you transition intelligence gathering, we talked about greedy and its not the same but when you get into a criminal case, we always have the same and the back and forth about the carter page case its how we hear about the hard cases. We dont hear about a lot of other things. Im all over the place because i want tomany questions i ask. How does the review were . Is a good example is often times we use this to build that case andnd then we bring that to the criminal conclusion and as we build that case we make a sue that the information thats there that weng have to turn ovr what is relative to the case to get the classified to be turned over to the defendant. Have you ever found existing criminal activity unrelated to what you were dealing with thatt has been turned over to Law Enforcement<\/a>al . Talking to a drug dealer, that specific factor. I dont have a specific background on that. I will have to get back to you. Thats where i think the conflict comes in that they actually really do care about how theor due process clause and the Civil Liberties<\/a> apply. If wee are using that any criminal casein acriminal case,n obligation to give notice and they have the ability to challenge that information in court. There n is a process set up in e statute and its been done many times. Typically terrorism cases, espionage cases and the like. In regards to the process, the application once it is complete they reviewed together every fact he has to be able to show the supervisor where he got that information from. All of the material goes into a book further review. This goes back to what several people were talking about. We said that the amicus attorneys get all relevant legal information. Some of us i dont care if they have the top classified clearance that we exist in the world, but what would be the problemr with having somebody in the amicus onset of . Our judgment at the time remains our judgment today that we were really slow down and bogged down the process in the courts. If you have an amicus participating in a free application where as an adversary proceeding if we have that in the context with ordinary wiretaps having the proceeding in a free application that makes the process unattainable. I dontee necessarily see the oversight part of this i would be looking at, i dont want all relevant information, i want them to have it all and be able to reveal it. I dont think it would potentially have to be adversarial in the hearing i would just want them to deal with that because the d consequences are those type of issues only come to bear if somebody finds out which is typically challenging when theres only one parthereis onls being presented. I think theres potential ways to do this but doesnt slow it down and also holds people accountable to make sure that its being done correctly. The gentleman yields back and the gentle lady from washing them. Thank you mr. Chairman and all of you for being here. I you heard on a bipartisan basis we all have concerns about how the used in the United States<\/a> and particularly after the patriot act we tried to address some of those things but there are issues that remain on the table as they look at the reauthorization. I wanted to go to the cpr and just so the American People<\/a> can understand this, i think that while the program has been suspended, my understanding is the administration asked for that to continue to be part of the authorization is that correct . Just so people understand how much information is being collected according to the office of the director of National Intelligence<\/a> 29 teams to this goal transparency report, the nsa collected the call records basedo on 11 targs in 2018 is that correct . I dont have the report in front of me. Itits page 28 of the report. 434,238,500 excuse me. 434,238,543 call records. I know you dont have the report in front of you but its quoted in the report. That sounds accurate. That means with just the one target it is a shocking amount of records. What we are talking about today is the position from the nsa perspective. I would defer to my colleague to speak to the if you want to address that. I am not aware of them having been used to get. Medical rec records. That it could be. But it could be. The way that provision is written, could it be used to maintain criminal records, driverss licenses . I would say that circumstances i can think of is why that would be very limited. There is nothing currently thatay prevents us from getting that you are just saying that it hasnt been used before, but it could be. What about the returns. You collect taxor returns frm hundreds of millions of americans . You have to show in each case these individual records are relevant to the authorized investigation of counterterrorism or counterintelligence purposes for a u. S. Person, so i will be limited dramatically. You also have the specific selection term. They put that in so you cant do collections under 2015 at this stage, so there is no possibility of collecting hundreds of millions of health records. You can potentially collect it but not with the scales i mentioned. It specifically mentions tax records and says in the case of an application for the order its a book sale records,y firearm sales or medical records, some medical records are also contemplated in the statute, then the application has to go to thee highlevel review said the director of the fbi and the assistant directors at answer the question it does contemplate the getting medical records were tax records but recognizing the sensitivity particularly of those records elevated for the senior review and i personally am not aware of thete connection to the ninvestigation it is unlikely that it is possible. You may be supportive of excluding those kind of records. I dont know that we like to exclude because if they meet the standard and they are relevant i am hearing you but im deeply concerned about the type of information that we c collec. You mentioned earlier the trans questions were not the right standard to assess whether the program was effective and at some point perhaps i have another question to get through andam i see my time is expired, but maybe at some point you could provide us with whath metrics are reasonable because the problem we are dealing with is we are trying to strike the right balance of maintaining security of course, but we have to respect the bedrock Civil Liberties<\/a> protections and when we authorized this and we see what happened, i think that is just an indication of the challenges we face. Ri thank you mr. Chairman. I will yield back. The gentle lady from florida. Thank you mr. Chairman and for what you do every day to help keep us safe. If we can go back a little bit to follow up on my colleagues questions about whatever the information is, that it would have toh be relevant. Could you talk a little bit about the checks and balances of the application system that would maybe receive some of the concern. To begin with we have to open had to opena case that has to he supervisor approval. It goes back to a supervisory reveal where there are a number of lawyers that have the application to make sure we have the right relevancy to the National Security<\/a> investigation aninvestigationsand moves over t of justice for those that look at it beforerehe it goes over. Sorry number of individuals. I you also have to have a statement of facts. You have to have the factual showing that its relevant to the investigation and then also show that its not based on the protected activity. It is with a judicial approval. Moving on to the roving wiretaps when the government wants to conduct surveillance under fisa, it doesnt always necessarily have to identify the person being targeted. It requires you to save the identity if it is known or the description of a specific target. And a general or hypothetical al level, can you describe why you might not know the identity of the particular target and instead provide a description of the target . And most cases, it gives us the ability so that we get secondary orders to go to multiple facilities that we still have to go back to the court within ten days to describe what we have done. The only circumstance hypothetically that i can think of is that there is awe pending threat we dont have the name that weou have the number of identifiers and if it can possibly present a case to the courts that we think meets all of the identifiers circumstance. Ab i can talk about both hypothetical situations. On the counterterrorism side those homegrown extremist and we have to disrupt them from the past 20 years. They are involving their tradecraft where they change their cell phones and profiles very quickly and repeatedly to go back to the court to seek Emergency Authority<\/a> and thereafter to cause delay on the counterintelligence side for Intelligent Services<\/a> have highly trained officers trained to evade fbi se who are able to come into the country to change c fails and emails that gives us the capability to keep pace with them. I find that surprising but would you be concerned for what you just expressed can you give me someas examples of how it could be used to decrease domestic terrorism . I dont think it applies to domestic terrorism but these are individuals here in the United States<\/a> to have a global jihadistat ideology not taking direction and to make those connections with the evolution and possibly coming through the way they use those ideologies. I yield back. The gentleman from california. Thank you mister chairman i my voice to those who have expressed appreciation for your work protecting country and citizens but also wanted to add my concerns about Civil Liberties<\/a>. We are not a police state our security to a great extent relies on the trust of the populationon of the governmental institutions. In my district we probably speak 100 languages. I think about my district as the new ellis island to the United States<\/a> people all over the world literally living in my district and trust to give you an example neighbors arrested a rapist in the act of raping a woman and was convicted of 20 rapes can we think there were more but then they never presented themselvesof because of the fear of the authorities and many were undocumented. I want to follow up of the impact section 215 on minority communities the information that you gather is that shared with Immigration Enforcement<\/a> authorities . There would have to be before we share any information. It is not shared with immigration authorities unless it isey relevant to a specific crime from National Interest<\/a> of specific criminal acts of terrorism or otherwise quick. A specific casebycase. Or wiretap you suspect somebody that is automatically turned over to Immigration Enforcement<\/a>. For instance if we have a terrorist threat we would turn it over to our partners. And thatl terrorist threat is not merely defined as immigrationer authority in here to do serious violent acts. That would be the International Terrorism<\/a> case. Yes sir. And and specifically for threats of International Terrorism<\/a>. With those procedures that specify the rules for when you can disseminate information in the general standard has to be foreign intelligence information necessary to understand that. And that is not immigration status in this country . Thats a good question if they illegally entered if that is a crime that evidence on that maybe it is possible if there is fbi evidence on that crime spirit could you give me more information under what circumstances that could be possible . My question is your information shared with immigration authorities on the fact of the immigration status is not correct so to speak. I can envision a situation you have a very powerful tool at your disposal of information and wiretapping you could easily turn that around to say we will use this for immigration purposes. That would not be correct we only use these authorities to counter foreign Terrorism Unit<\/a> organizations. I would like something in writing from each of you on that specific i dont want to treatise but something clear. With the last 20 seconds i would also like to know what tools you need to fight domestic terroris terrorism. You mentioned the lone wolf provision has not been applied. Maybe it only applies to international and not domestic but what tools they need to keep the population safe in us from emerging domestic terrorismm threats and with that i yield. The gentle lady from texas. Thank you mister chairman and for holding this hearing. Thank you for all the work that you do in the field and i haveg with the doj and those capacity never with nsa so i want to make sure that you know there is many of us that do so without shame. But however when we look at the whole picture its all about balance with National Security<\/a> or the threats with the privacy of individuals versus some of the things we have got to balance. So to clarify at the audience that says nsa has suspended the program of the cost to complain it was suspended he keeps saying you need the tool in your toolbox obviously if i have a broken hammer i throw it out why do you think that you need that. Emphatically as a professional i want to be clear. Thank you for your question i really do appreciate it as stated in the letter we made the decision to suspend the program. You talked about a lot of matrix but is only what the chairman mentioned. Look at the panoply. What others do you look at quick. In terms of making decisions on value and why we should reinstate the program and authorize that. So what i would say as i sit here as an intelligence professional and as an analys analyst, i can tell you that you never know what you will confront in thehe future. You told us all that i want to specific matrix that you look at to determine whether or not to be preauthorized after your 40 been suspended. Can you help me understand what you mean by matrix . You mean metrics. I am so sorry. I apologize. Metrics. You will not always have metrics because that intelligence profession is not specificallywa measure the lead information that i have over here ultimately years from now from that foreign intelligence perspective. So it wont have data point. You will not always have a number but in some instances intelligence professionals for colleagues to say we have reported this information now has a been a value to you . They will take that information to make a decision that you will not necessarily have will this program a rate of five or a rate of three. Im not sure that i agree with that i have to cut you off because i quickly have to ask a question a number of companiess offer services to test for reacher Dash Research<\/a> is any of that subject to that activity . This may where you have to refer back to the book. Just like the grand jury subpoena you can ask any type of tangible thing or record provided it isju relevant to have specific facts that show that. Its not ruled out ruled out but could it be that fact pattern . I dont know. What about if you go to the door there is a video camera there is surveillance. Certainly that could be relevant in the investigation and there are scenarios that could be relevant in theca investigationi. I could add on if we identify a subject telephone numbers we will go to the court for a Business Record<\/a> to identify the transactional record to build a connection to the terrorist organization to identify thehe network and then to look at probable cause. I yield back. This concludes todays hearing. Without objection all legislative days to have questions for the witnesses it without objection the hearing is adjourned. It without objection the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] i wish washington in congress and work on infrastructure. Every other generation of american leaders have funded subways or airports or roads or bridges that we are failing to do our part this is a first generation of elected leaders to leave our infrastructure in the worst condition we got it. We should demand our leaders in dc and best in infrastructure and make sure we protect another generation of americans and put people to work at the same time. Thats a great thing about investing in infrastructure in this country. One of the biggest issues through Economic Education<\/a> is the use of credit score to on their automotive insurance rates and employment your automotive insurance has to do more with your credit score than your voting record youre not asking for a loan but a place to lay your head if you are call it shouldnt with zero credit the credit score will be quite low not because of your job prospect or your history how much money you are bringing in to pay the rent your credit score is everything and that puts everyone out. What i would like to see in washington dc is the importance of bipartisanship. We as americans have more in common than we probably have disagreements so i went to cs to talk across the aisle and where we dont disagree to find Common Ground<\/a> and to really move the nation forward is to Work Together<\/a>","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801001.us.archive.org\/33\/items\/CSPAN2_20190924_020400_House_Judiciary_Committee_Hearing_on_the_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance...\/CSPAN2_20190924_020400_House_Judiciary_Committee_Hearing_on_the_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance....thumbs\/CSPAN2_20190924_020400_House_Judiciary_Committee_Hearing_on_the_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance..._000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}