Initial proposals, and we sunsetted this. It has to be renewed every three years. I think this is important. I think people thought it would be used for the purpose raj is explaining. Business records, phone Company Records exactly how it would be implemented, i trusted people to implement it fairly, because those in congress who were on the relevant committees played certainly i did a major role in overseeing what was happening. I left the Intelligence Community at the end of 2006, but headed the Homeland Committee for another four years. Did i oversee every single bit of it . No. Do i think that maybe now that there is a much more public debate, congress should narrow some of these provisions . Yes. Congress did narrow some of these provisions. There was the library provision. A human going to the library and taking out a book who could see that . There are often internets at libraries. In case anybody missed it, a lot of the way Communication Works between bad guys and bad guys is through the internet. Those sites, maybe, ought to be subject to the provisions of section 215. Once it was narrowed to clarify that grandma was exempted, congress did that, in response to public outcry. People have known about this program. It was revealed in the New York Times in 2005. George bush partially declassified it. I learned, for the first time, to my extreme dismay, that in the first 3. 5 years of this program, the president had used his article to authority to run the program, rather than the provisions of law, fica, which congress enacted in 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 in response to the abuses of the Nixon Administration and the recommendation of the church commission. It set up a careful system of a fisa court, an Intelligence Committee on the hill was set up then to monitor these applications. It worked very well, in my view, through 2001. Congress after that pulled it back. I believe strongly that may the amount of metadata is excessive. I am sure my buddy thinks this. That ought to be debated. Maybe the program should be narrowed. There has been robust oversight over the years. I want to be clear on this. Who can accesses data and for what purposes . I think this was in a letter that went to the hill yesterday. Papers were sent to congress in 2009. I cannot speak to any individual member of congress that is currently now with the knowledge of the program. In terms of access, access is strictly controlled. In order to create the data, one has to have reasonable suspicion that there is a tie to a specific terrorist group that is identified in the court order. Just a terrorist group. If there is a Foreign Espionage group and i think my target is about to leave United States, i need to check out this phone number to see if he is in communication with a co conspirator, are you going given that information . It is illegal. How does he get to the information . Ask again . [laughter] we are friends, but not that close. How would you get that information . Let me back up from the specifics for a minute and quickly get to that. In any investigation, the fbi and the Intelligence Community are working seamlessly in a way that did not happen before 9 11. When jay was the general counsel, there were weeks when we had many occasions where we had to talk. We work closely with the military with various command forces. There are conversations occurring across the Law Enforcement communities in ways which are helpful in terms of permissible information sharing and dotconnecting. To your specific question, if there was an operational terrorist within the United States, i would hope that we would already have their number. Not a terrorist, i said a spy. There certainly have been examples where there were individuals in this country. We prosecuted a couple in my office. One was an unregistered agent of the i. S. I. Those individuals came to our attention and investigations and sued. We were able to obtain the information. Im asking a specific question about how you get records and phone numbers, ongoing investigations that have realtime consequences. Could be a drug cartel that is importing guns on the street and were used in five murders in the last several months. You need this information right away and you want to know who is making phone calls. How do you get the information . You can get it, cant you . Sure. By a subpoena, an informant, any number of ways. Criminal investigations, our ability to identify where an alleged that guy lives or their phone number or their email address, our ability to find it is not all that difficult. You can get it pretty quickly. If you needed for an ongoing investigation, somebodys about to leave the country, you need that phone number in order to get a search warrant, you can get that pretty quickly, dont you . It would depend on the case. What is being described, your example, i think, contemplates a known individual who has been under the scrutiny of the Law Enforcement or other agencies. At the micro level, it is not a difficult thing in our investigation. I guess the question is, since he can get the information he needs pretty quickly, for a lot of serious investigations that have operational components, why cant we use the same method for the terrorism investigation that you are collecting this for . I think the bigger question is why cant the data stay with the providers . This is what happens. Using a hypothetical example, i think, would be helpful. After the 9 11 attacks, we realize that one of the operatives had been living in the u. S. For some time. We learned he had been receiving calls from a known al qaeda safe house in yemen. I think that is a good example. We know the yemeni number, that is a bad number with reasonable suspicion and ties to a terrorist organization. If we want to do figure out where that number may be connected, the contents of that communication would need to go to multiple providers to ask them to search what number that number had been in contact with. They would have to do a search against their records. They will bring the data back, put it together in short order. The third point i would make is to date there is no legal obligation for any of these companies to hold onto the data. They do it for their own commercial purposes. Tomorrow we could turn around and any of these companies could decide that they do not want to hold onto these records. We could be facing a situation where we would not have the data readily available. These are the things i would have to think through. We would have to think through if we went to an alternate model. What i was getting at is that you have been saying. There ought to be specific targeted requests. They said that would create all sorts of problems. Does he have a point . No. I should say that i was last year debating alberto gonzalez, and now i am debating friends who serve in the obama administration. So much has changed and so much has not changed. The program, whether it is legitimate or not, the answer is illegitimate and illegal in our mind. Lets break it down. The 215 standard, it is important to read the words of the law. It defies the knowledge or understanding of the word relevant when you are collecting every single phone call, metadata, we will get into that. How is that limited to relevance when you say we have all the phone numbers that are made to and from american citizens. It had me think that the training and relevance metadata. They say, metadata is not content. Metadata can give a lot of content. It tells how often i call my mother. Who i call on the government. Whose private cell phones i happen to have. Who i do not call at the office because we cannot want a log of my phone call, but i have a private cell phone. We want keep that somewhat between us. When compiled in complete information can give you a very full picture of what my day is the fourthk amendment does cover the protection of my metadata. Lets also talk about section 702. Phone calls from overseas and foreigners that do not have the same kind of standard under 215. I have called them. I have direct phone numbers. David hicks. The man who was killed by the American Government by drones, including his 16yearold son. I have the phone number of his father in yemen. I have the phone numbers for how his wife and brotherinlaw in iraq we represented him in the 9 11 commission. We have contact with his wife and his brotherinlaw and the man who was held and tortured. These are all individuals who i have their phone numbers. Theyre all cases i have been involved with. I call them, they call me. As an american citizen, i have a right and an expectation that my communication for which im doing my work to defend their right are not to be intercepted under any program. If you were to tell me that my communication had not been caught up in the Surveillance Program and that none of these programs phone numbers i made are not part of your database, i wouldnt believe you because i actually think these are the types of people you are targeting. I have a legitimate right to interact with these individuals. I have a right and expectation of privacy. Why cant anthony communicate with his clients without you collecting the records . I would say anthony absolutely can communicate with his clients. He has a right to do that. His clients have a right to do that. I disagree with anthony saying program is even legal. Illegal. In the opinion of all three branches of government, the program is not illegal. The peoples representatives in congress, the court, the pfizer court, and the executive branch all believe this program is illegal. This is important to put in perspective to things. The fact that a phone call is made to some number that is known to the Telephone Company and lots of other people, there is no expectation in the fact of the call and the duration of that call it self. Clearly, there is an expectation of privacy for which you need a warrant. The reality is that the Surveillance Program is probably the most regulated National Security program we have. The two programs that have been declassified are regulated by the executive branch. Congressional oversight has been aware how the executive branch has interpreted section 215 and the Judicial Branch because they have approved it. That aspect of the Judicial Branch has been designated by congress to hear these applications has approved of the manner in which this program is being implemented. There is the equilibrium. If our National Political leadership decides they want to change the equilibrium, that is their prerogative and responsibility. I want to move the discussion along. I have two more quick questions for raj on this subject. Number one, the verizon order that was disclosed that kicked off this whole controversy is due to expire tomorrow. Is the nsa seeking a renewal . I have nothing to say today about that. Will you have something to say tomorrow . I will. Will it be modified . [laughter] i cannot say anymore at the moment. Can i Say Something in defense of anthony . I want him to continue to love me. I think there should be an expectation of protection, of lawyer and client communications. That has always been the tradition. It is generally respected. There was a 1979 Supreme Court case referenced this morning. There is no constitutionally protected expectation that phone numbers called will not be disclosed. That is the basis on which we should begin to talk about this. But coming back to congress, congress can narrow whatever is the standard to go before the fisa court to get an individualized warrant. Thats what the Fourth Amendment requires. Re was a decision im sure it will be revisited. It would have required that of the court that the case deal with specific facts creating a reasonable suspicion that a person is of a foreign power before the records could be seized and monitored. That is a tighter standard. I think congress will be looking at, in some near lifetime, tightening the standard. I think we need a National Debate about this. We are having one right now. The 1979 case i was referencing this morning and just now, 1979, how many years has it been . Right . It was a primitive register. It would track only numbers being dialed. Now it is vastly different than what we saw in 1979. Lets let the Supreme Court decide if it is relevant. That is the purpose of the lawsuit. I know you love jane, but you have to forgive me. The fisa court, come on. 12 judges. 11 of them republicans. Right . There is no one representing the privacy of the people. It is only the government who is represented in the pfizer court. 35 years, three opinions published. Is there any form of surveillance the nsa can conduct that you would approve of . Sure. Absolutely. It has to be focused on the subject of the surveillance. Probable cause. Who would approve it . Doesnt have to be in secret . A revamp of the pfizer court, totally fine. Even the chief justice says we need an adversarial process. There is no adversarial process. Who is the adversary when the government goes in and says, we have a phone number being called by an al qaeda operative, we need to see who that person is right away. Who is the adversary who goes before the court to argue . You can appoint an ombudsman whose job it is to preserve and present the privacy of the individual. Last question for now on this subject. We can debate whether privacy rights, metadata are covered or not. The public expects officials will tell them the truth. When James Clapper was asked, if you can give me a yes or no answer to the question, and does the nsa collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans and he answered, no, sir did anybody from the nsa come into your office and say, we have a problem here . A director has just misled the congress and the public about what we are doing. Let me make a couple points. The first one is the fact he is the director of national intelligence. I think and it is available in the public record, a letter was sent explaining what happened in that moment. What i would say, and i dont know, but i would say when a long time honorable servants make a mistake, sometimes it is a mistake. However, the premise of your question is true. The public expects honest answers. I would just add, i have the highest regard for jim clapper. I wish we could roll back the videotape and his answer had been, i cannot answer that question in a public setting. If we moved into a classified setting, i will answered completely. Lets move on. There are other subjects. You have been very involved in leak investigations. This Justice Department has brought more leak prosecutions than any other in American History and the record shows very little to show for it at this moment. You have one success. Last week, when the Justice Department issued his new guidelines for the press and how it will handle investigations and saying that a few of the tactics and techniques that justice has used, the secret subpoena of the phone records, the use of a search warrant to get private emails from a reporter under the pretext that he was in violation of the espionage act will not be used anymore. In the last paragraph, they say cases involving the unauthorized disclosure of information are inherently difficult to investigate and prosecute. They require careful use of individuals and proof that may result in further harmful disclosures. It sounds like a recognition that much of what this Justice Department has been doing, including your office, has been misplaced. Not surprisingly, i didnt quite read it that way, but i am happy to answer those questions. Let me step back for just a second. It is true my office has been involved in several leak investigations and prosecutions. The context for that from those of you from the west coast who do not have to travel east of to the ations capital, the part of that my district covers is home to the largest footprint of the u. S. Government in the country. We are home to the pentagon, the cia, the Intelligence Community, we have the Worlds Largest naval base. We have hundreds of Government Installations scattered throughout our district. We have thousands of acres of federal land that partially means we have a bit of a National Security bullseye on our back. It also means that when there are issues involving the unauthorized disclosure of National Defense and information which i will talk about in a second, is a much Broader Group of classified information that my district is just sort of the obvious place to bring the investigation. Just a bit of context. That is why we are frequently involved in these cases. Number two, i think context in terms of numbers is helpful. The numbers are not as large as some of the numbers thrown out in terms of the collection system. In the average year, the Justice Department brings between the 50,000 and 75,000 investigations. In the last five years, the Justice Department has conservatively opened 250,000 to 300,000 investigations. Against that backdrop, there have been a half dozen or so investigations into allegations of the unauthorized disclosure of the National Defense information. I think it is helpful beyond this small but important aspect of enforcing the law. Just a last data point before getting to my specific question. Much has been written and talked about about the overclassification since 9 11. I think there is really no daylight bet