Information. With admiral rogers, i think we will get another individuals version, but at some point these facts have to come out. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator rush . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and thank you, senator coats excuse me, director coats and admiral rogers for your testimony and with all due respect to my colleague from virginia, i think you have cleared up substantially your direct testimony that you have never been pressured by anyone including the president of the United States to do something illegal, immoral or anything else. Thank you for that. Lets go back to section 702 which is what this hearing was supposed to be all about. Its becoming obvious that those of us that work in the Intelligence Community that were in a different position than europe is. Europe is their risks are obviously very high and theyre suffering these attacks on a very regular basis and becoming more regular. So lets talk about our collection efforts versus the european collection efforts particularly as it relates to section 702. Obviously, we hear in the media frequently about spats between us and the europeans regarding intelligence matters, but we all know that there is a robust communication and cooperation between our european friends and ourselves. So i want to talk about it in i want to talk about 702 in that respect. Why dont we start, director coats, with you, and ill throw it up for anybody else that wants to comment on this. How important is 702, the continuation of section 702 and its related parts to doing what we have been as far as helping the europeans and the europeans helping us and doing the things that were doing here in america to see that we dont have the kind of situations that have been recently happening in europe. Director coats, ill start with you. Having just returned a few weeks ago from major capitals in europe and discussing this very issue with my counterparts, the intelligence communities of these various countries, they voluntarily, before i could even ask the question, expressed extreme gratitude for the ability for the information we have been able to share with them relative to threats. Numerous threats have been avoided on the collection that we have received through 702 authorities and our notification of them on these impending threats and they have been deterred or intercepted. Unfortunately, what has happened just recently, particularly in england shows that regardless of how good we are, there are bad actors out there that have bypassed the more concentrated large attack efforts and take it either through inspiration or direction from isis or other terrorist groups have chosen to take violent action against citizens of those countries. The purpose of the trip was to ensure them that they would continue to work and share together their collection activities, capabilities in many cases are good, but in some cases lack the ability that we have and so this ability to share information with them that helps keep their people safe also is highly valued by them, but i dont think we should take for granted that just because europe has been the recent target of these attacks that the United States is safe from that. We know through intelligence that theres plotting going on and we know that theres lone wolf issues and individuals that are taking instructions from isis through social media or that for whatever reason oare copycatting whats happening. That threat exists here also and let me lastly say that the nations ive talked to, many of which have been extremely concerned about violating privacy rights, have initiated new procedures and legislation and mandates relative to getting intelligence agencies better collection because they think they need it to protect their citizens. Thank you very much. And just a few seconds that ive got left, mr. Rosenstein, could you could you tell me, please, we get a lot of pushback from the privacy people and weve now heard testimony that theres been no intentional violation, could you tell the American People whats in store who these guys catch intentionally misusing 702 since youre the highest Ranking Member of the department of justice here. Yes, senator. I can assure you, senator, within the department of justice we treat with great seriousness, any violations regarding class and if someone had violated section 702 in violation of a criminal law we would investigate that case and if prosecution were justified we the prosecute it. Director member ca we comply with the constitution and the laws and the procedures and were devoted to make sure that if there are willful violations people are held accountable for them. This is your commitment and the department of justices commitment to the American People . Thats correct. Senator feinstein . Thanks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments on section 702. Its a program that i support. Its a program that i believe has worked well. Its a big program. Its an important one. It is a content Collection Program involving both internet and phone communications so it can raise concerns about privacy and Civil Liberties. In the year 2016 there were 106,469 authorized targets out of 3 billion internet users. Thats the ratio. The question of unmasking has been raised. Its my understanding that 1,939 u. S. Person identities were unmasked in 2016 based on collection that occurred under section 702. So my question is going to be the following and ill ask it all together and hopefully youll answer it. I would like a description of the certification process and the search of an amicus. I would like your response to the fact that the question, the program sun sets after five years about raising that sunset versus no sunset because of the privacy concerns. Its my belief there should be a sunset and the use of an amicus which is currently used as part of the certification process and whether that should be continued and formalized. So, admiral, the programs under your i could. The doj will be smarter on the amicus. Would you take that piece and ill im not sure i am smart on the amicus piece, senator. I can tell you this with regard to the question of unmasking this is primarily a question not by the department, and the determination is made by the intelligence agencies if there is a situation where a foreign person has been communicating about an american person, and a decision is made whether or not the identity of the american person is necessary in order for that intelligence to be properly used. I think whats important for people to recognize, senator, is thats an internal issue and that unmasking is done within the cloak of confidentiality within the community. If someones identity is disclosed because its relevant for intelligence purposes because thats the goal of this collection is to understand mr. Rosenstein, let me just tell you. I just listened to somebody who should have known better, talking about unmasking in a political sense thats done politically, and that, of course, is not the case. And so what im looking for is the definition of how this is done and under what circumstances. Right. I think, senator, because thats really a decision made by the ic, the Intelligence Community and not by the department, it would be appropriate for them to respond to that. I can do that. With respect to unmasking, the following criterias apply. First, for the National Security agency we define in writing who has the authority to unmask a u. S. Person identity. That is 20 individuals in 12 different positions. I am one of the 20 in one of those 12 positions of the director. Secondly, we outline in writing what that criteria that will be applied to a request to unmask in a report and again, part of our process under 702 to protect the identity of u. S. Persons as part of our minimization procedures. When we think we need to reference a u. S. Person in the report, we will not use a name or an identity, we say u. S. Person one, u. S. Person two, u. S. Person three. That is promulgated. Some recipients of the report say im trying to understand what i am reading, could you help me understand who is person one and who is person two, et cetera. We apply two criteria to their request. Number one, you must make the request in writing number two, the request must be made on the duty, and not that youre just curious. It has to tangibly tie to your job and finally, i said two, but there is a third criterion and that is the basis of the request must be that you need this ide notity to understand the intelligence youre reading. We apply those three criterion. We do it in writing and one of those 20 individuals then agrees or disagrees. If we unmask, we go back to that entity who requested it, not every individual who received the report, but that one entity who asked for us, we then provide them the u. S. Identity and we also remind them the classification of this report and the sensitivity of that identity remains in place by revealing this u. S. Person to you, we are doing it to help you understand the intelligence, not not so that you can use that knowledge indiscriminately. It must remain approach yetly protected. Senator, if i can just add something to that, given the nature of this issue and its a legitimate question that youve asked, i talked with my colleagues at nsa and cia and fbi and so forth and suggesting that we might ask our Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection agencies to take a look at this, to see if admiral rogers laid out the procedures. Are these the right procedures . Would they be doing Something Different . Would they have recommendations that better protected people from misuse of this . And theyve all agreed to do that so its a legitimate issue to follow up on. Ive talked to the agency heads about doing so and theyre willing to do it . If i could, i have an internal review that ive directed given the attention and the focus, lets step back and lets reassess this and ask ourselves is there anything that suggests we need to do Something Different in the process. Good. Thank you. With your permission, i would like to more thoroughly answer the question the senator asked. An amicus was used in 2015 and that decision was made by the court which has the Statutory Authority if the court believes its appropriate in a particular point to appoint an amicus and my understanding is that was done in 2015. Thank you. Well, would you feel it would be helpful to make it a part of the regular certification process . My understanding, senator, is that the statute permits the court to do it if the court believes its appropriate. I believe the court has the authority and i would leave it up to the judges to decide whether its appropriate to do so. Senator rubio . Thank you all for being here. I understand the need for the president to have conversations that are protected including in a classified setting and i also understand the ability for this community to function that its doing is in the National Security interest of the United States and also the importance of its independence and that its not an extension of politics no matter which administration is at play and in the absence of either one of those two things impacts everything we do including this debate that were having here today and the challenge that we have now is that while the folks here with us this morning are constrained in what they can say, there are people that apparently work for you that are not and are constantly speaking to the media about things and saying things and it puts the congress in a very difficult position because the issue of oversight on both your independence and on your credibility falls on us, and i actually think if what is being said to the media is untrue, then it is unfair to the president of the United States, and if it is true, then it is something the American People need to know in order to conduct our job. And so my questions are geared to director coats and admiral rogers. Youve testified that you have never felt pressured or threatened by the president or by anyone to influence any Ongoing Investigation by the fbi. Are you prepared that you have never been deasked by the president or the white house to influence an Ongoing Investigation . Senator, i just hate to keep repeating this, but im going to do it. I have come before the committee to tell you what i know and what i dont know. What im not willing to share is what i think is confidential information that ought to be protected in an open hearing. So im not prepared to answer your question today. Director coats, i will say with the incredible respect that i have for you, i am not asking for classified information i am asking whether or not you have been asked by anyone to influence an Ongoing Investigation. I understand. I am not going to go down that road in a public forum, and i also was asked the question if the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him to ask his questions, i said i would be willing to do that. I likewise, stand by my previous comment. In the interest of time let me ask both of you, has anyone asked you now or in the past before this administration to issue a statement that you knew to be false . For me, i stand by my previous statement. Ive never been directed to do anything in the course of my threeplus used not directed. Asked. That i believed to be inappropriate nor pressured to do so. Have you asked to Say Something that isnt true . I stand by my previous question, sir. Director coats . I do likewise. Is anyone aware of anyone in the white house to seek advice on how to influence any investigation . My answer is absolutely no, senator. No one has anything to add to that . I dont understand the question. Are you aware of efforts by anyone in the white house or the executive branch looking for advice from other members of the Intelligence Community about how to potentially influence an investigation . Are you talking about me . No. No. Okay. Who wants to answer . Im sorry. Im not sure i understand the question, but if youre asking whether we im aware of requests to other people in the Intelligence Community, i am not. Seeking advice on how to potentially influence someone. You are not aware of anyone saying or reporting that to you . No, sir. Has anyone ever come forward and said i just got a call from someone at the white house asking me what is the best way to influence someone on an investigation . Ive never received anything. I have no direct knowledge of a call. That was made in one of the press reports im sorry. Who does . Im confused, sorry. I want to make sure were clear on the question. The answer is no as i understand it and im not referring to the particular media report that youre referring to. Im running out of the time, but i want to ask this because this is important. Did the nsa repeatedly and extensively violate the rules that were put in place in 2011 to minimize the risk of collection of upstream information . Have we had compliance incidents . Yes. Have we reported every one of those to the court . Yes. Have we reported those to our congressional oversight in congress . Yes. Have we reported those to the department of justice and the director of National Intelligence . Yes. Did under the obama administration, was there a significant uptick in efforts and incidents of unmasking from 2012 to 2016 . I dont know that. Who would know that . We have the data and i wouldnt know that off the top of my head on i year by year basis. I just dont know off the top of my head. Senator . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Ive noted the conversations youve had with my colleagues with respect to the content of conversations that you may have had with the president. My question is a little different. Did any of you four write memos, take notes or otherwise record yours or anyone elses interactions with the president related to the russia investigation . I dont take any notes. Lets just get the four of you on the record. Senator, i rarely take notes and ive taken a few today, but i am not going to answer questions regarding the russia investigation. Not on whether you wrote a memo. Im not going to answer any questions about the my time will be short. Whether you wrote memo, notes or anything. Im not going to comment on conversations i had or notes taken or not taken relevant to the russia investigation. Likewise, i take the same position. Director coats, on march 23rd, you testified to the Arms Services committee that you are not aware of the president or white house personnel contacting anyone in the Intelligence Community with a request to drop the investigation into general flynn. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that you had been asked by the president to intervene with director comey to back off of the fbis focus on general flynn. Which one of those is accurate . Senator, i am i will say once again, i am not going to get into any discussion on that in an open hearing. Both of them cant be accurate, mr. Director. Mr. Director, as recently as april you promised americans that you would provide what you called a relevant metric for the number of lawabiding americans who were swept up in the fisa 702 searches. This morning you went back on that promise and you said that even putting together a sampling, a statistical element would jeopardize National Security. I think that is a very, very damaging position to stake out. We will battle it out in the course of this because there are a lot of americans who share our view that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. You rejected that this morning. You went back on a pledge, and i think it is damaging to the public. Now let me senator, could i answer the question . Mr. Director, my time is short, and i want to ask you about one other well, i would like to answer your question. Briefly. What i pledged to you in my confirmation hearing is that i would make every effort to try to find out why we were not able to come to a specific number of collection on u. S. Persons. I told you i would consult with admiral rogers. I told you i would go to the