I would like to get your reaction. Thank you center. Centaur. I can tell you that we have had far more than another administrative agency. They push back hard. They make sure that they are the guardians of the law and the constitution. Having an adversary and there is worth having a discussion about. It is being discussed in the senate and house. It is one of those areas that i think is part of the debate that i think we should be having about how to do this. There are issues that we will have to work through. Ference is in classifications. Who will be there and their role be. Things of that nature. These the type of discussions we need to have. As you pointed out, it is not the usual course. In the criminal law context, we have many search warrants and title iii surveillance warrants the common that are not part that are not done in an adversarial way. This is part of what we would like to be doing and would like to see this has some utility. Do you have any to add . My background is informational. I have an obligation to ensure these things are done in a way that is consistent with the constitution. We welcome any any and all hard questions. We enjoy the process. We think that we should be held accountable to these questions. We could do we need to support the whole of the constitution. Not just the defense of the National Security, but the defense of civil the point i would like to make, from the perspective of the Intelligence Community is, this is unusual process. Thecourt is involved in conduct of foreign intelligence. Nationt know any other in the world that has the degree of overseeing that this nation has already. Able make a mistake and analogy when they hear the term court and of this as an avid serial receding. The question is, what is the best way to ensure that our intelligence programs are conducted in compliance with the law . If it would help to have an avid serial process builtin, that would be worth doing. We should not make this a criminal trial. It is a different process. My background is that is informational. Operational. I will defer to the lead attorney. Thank you. I hope that we have something that can collect data on u. S. Citizens and you are not saying that the courts should not be involved. Thank you very much. Im not saying that at all. Tothank you very much and our witnesses. As a former prosecutor, i have believed that our laws must strike the right balance between protecting our Civil Liberties and our National Security. I think that most americans will say that they did not expect the sweeping nature of these surveillance programs. For that reason, i think this opportunity to reexamine these programs to make sure that they are more transparent without sacrificing the benefits they make to National Security is very important. I just got this course order that is hot off the presses. Metadata,hat the which i assume is the collected data that we have been hearing about on domestic phone calls, not the phone conversation itself. Then we going to a second category when you are investigating parts of that metadata. That is based on this order. This is category three. This is when you get a court order to investigate a person. Is that a fair way to look at this. Looking at this. Looking at this. The only thing we are involved in surveilling are smaller groups that we have reasonable suspicion for. We are not surveilling everything that is in the database. You have to go to the specific requirements. Bethere would have to reasonable suspicion that there is a terrorist. Reasonable suspicion that it is relevant to an investigation of certain terrorist organizations. Is there a percent of that data that you look at when you are getting to the big meta data and go down to the next category. What percentage of the data is the next category. It is hard to quantify. Ive heard anything from 0. 0001 . It is a very tiny fraction of the metadata. We are down to the part where you are looking in. That is even smaller. We have to have probable cause to believe that those people are falling within the requirement of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Is there no way of limiting the program that would not have adverse effects on our ability to monitor National Security threats . This is what were looking at right now. As chairman feinstein noted, she has made some recommendations and we are in the process of looking through that to see if there are other ways of going about doing this where we still preserve the effectiveness of the operation and limit whatever intrusions come from that. I know one idea that general out xander suggested is the idea Telecommunication Companies holding the records, rather than the nsa. As long as the government could get access. Do you want to testify about that . Is that a viable alternative . There are multiple implementations that could work. With that the score that against what weve seen at the top. We need to have the ability to, if you ask a question of the database where you have reasonable suspicion about a plot against the homeland, you want to check to see if there is a connection to the homeland. You need the brass within the database. When you get a response, you have found it in any particular location in the world. The breadth is important. So long as you do this in a timely way. Need to disrupt and from an operation that is in progress. There might be situations where you have time to take more time. We will have to think through whether or not our providers to meet that standard. Finally, to the question that senator feinstein asked, our experience has shown that our intelligence, writ large, has a tailoff after five years. When you take a hard look at that and determine how long these things are necessary and be on that, how long these are valid this is been classified. Is there an effort underway to declassify some of the legal rationale were trying to get get as much as we can out of the nationals in purity concerns of those releases. Our goal is to have as much information as we can. Methank you very much, let ask this. Thank you all very much. Bestwith regard to mr. Joyces comments about dealing with the thing that you could interdict and stop. The collection of data under this program played a role in the culmination of that case. Youamentally you are a are a Deputy Attorney general under janet reno for six years you are the member of criminal justice. Used ids issues using that as you have studied this issue. Has this violated because it using it anyway by defying u. S. And the constitution . Thank you for the promotion, i never served as judy attorney general. Attorney general. I had a couple positions. I have a hard time keeping all the Deputy Assistant straight. I just want to raise a certain point. We can all agree he is highly qualified. I think the answer is under the controlling case law that the collection of this kind of telephone metadata from the Telephone Companies is not violating anyones Constitutional Rights. When as a federal was autor, when i federal prosecutor you are a federal posterior. ,this complex case resulted in a subpoena to phone companies. Is that correct . I would say vast majority required phone records. When you did that, you would get a lot of details about the call, but not the contents of the call. You can get the subscriber information. Once the phone and things of that nature. Who owns the phone and billing addresswe do not get that under this program. This haystack of information is only numbers. It does not have the name of the person connected to that number. Is that correct . Isif we find a thing that important, we had to do other investigations to find out who belongs to those numbers. Talkedirman and others about, when the patriot act was passed, we went into great detail about this issue. I would say that balancing the Constitutional Rights of danger versus Constitutional Rights is not the right way to phrase this. I believe that everything in the patriot act at we passed was consistent in principle with the things that have been done by Law Enforcement for years and decades, in terms of the ability to issue subpoena and obtain the records. There are a few new applications of its two new technologies. Essentially, the principles were maintained. Would you agree . Lex yes. I think that we have struck the balance properly. There is always room for discussion and getting peoples inputs. Sometimes, we revisit these things and make sure that we get a balance right. I agree with that. This haystack of phone numbers, there is no ability to listen to any of these conversations that occurred, is there . No. We do not capture these conversations. There is no ability and no possibility of listening to conversations. Lawyer, intelligence you had the ability to tap a terrorist phone call in yemen. That person calls into the United States on a lawful wiretap, do you listen to the call . Is that right . A wiretap listens to the conversation that the bad guy has with whoever they call. That is correct. Under pfizer, the Court Requires us to have minimization procedures to make sure that we do not disseminate the communications of americans unless they are evidence of a crime or valid foreign intelligence. A if you want to tap terrorist in the United States, you have to have a warrant with probable cause, do you not . That is correct. If you identify a person by surveilling a foreign terrorist, you still have to have information sufficient to get a title iii warrant to listen to that persons phone calls. They could be a title iii warrant or an individual warrant. Either way, there is a relevant probable cause standard that has to be met. Has know this committee worked hard on this. We have tried to make sure that every provision in the act was consistent with our constitution and legal heritage. We will listen to the concerns that are being raised. If we have made a mistake, i am going to change it. Im inclined to think that all of these things are consistent with the constitution. Weone of the reasons that are having this hearing is that there are going to be proposals for changing the law. I want to make sure we have as much information as possible. Thank you mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the witnesses for their service to the country. I want to be clear at the outset, these programs protect our country and save lives. I think there is a critical problem at the center of this debate. That is the lack of transparency around these programs. The government has to give proper weight to keeping america safe from terrorists and protecting americans privacy. Almost everything about these programs is secret. The company is involved under strict gag orders in the American Public has no way of knowing whether or not we are gain a balance right. We are getting bad balance right. That is bad for privacy and bad for democracy. Tomorrow, im introducing a bill to fix this. It will force government to disclose how Many Americans have had to information collected under the key authorities of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. It will force the government to disclose how Many Americans have had the information reviewed by federal agents. My bill would allow private companies to disclose aggregate figures about the number of pfizer orders that they are receiving and the number of their users that these orders have affected. Two weeks ago, a Broad Coalition of 63 Internet Companies and bipartisan Civil Liberties groups sent a letter to the president asking for reforms that my bill would make law. Im proud to say that i am introducing my bill with the support of chairman blakey leahy. Senator feinstein and i might have some overlap in our purchase. In our approaches andi will be happy to work with her. I like to focus my questions on transparency. In the weeks after mr. Snowdens leaks, the office of the director of National Intelligence decide to declassify the fact that in 2012, 300 queries were run on the database of records under section 215 of the patriot act. Can you tell me why this fact was declassified . To be cleared, what was declassified was the fact that there were fewer than 300 telephone numbers approved for queries. There can be more than one query, based on the same telephone number. For example, over time, you can check. And see whether there has been additional communication. That was declassified was the one under reasonable and articulable suspicion. Why did you decide to declassify the fact . The are looking at all information surrounding these programs. What has already been revealed. Fundamentally, these programs were declassified to begin with because revealing our capabilities would give our adversaries and edge in how to avoid these abilities. Once these programs became public, we listed at all the details around these programs. We are making assessment to each one of them to make sure that it is in the Public Interest to release that fact that has been declassified. Which has previously been classified. I think that i do not want the public to take our word. I think theres a balance here. Transparency is part of that balance. I do not want a situation where the government is transparent only when it is convenient for the government. I think about an hour ago, there is a revision to section 215. For weeks, they knew this hearing was coming. They release his before the hearing began. Again, it is a step forward, but you get the feeling that it is ad hoc transparency. That does not engender trust. I cannot agree with you more. We have in the an obligation to look at the bad and the good and declassify what can be declassified without danger. We had a discussion within the executive branch about whether or not we should release these documents is morning or not. Is generally not a good idea to release things on the morning of the hearing. He came to the conclusion that when we had made the determination that the documents should be declassified, there is no justification to hold them up. Did you just are about that decision yesterday . Your known about this a long time. You might have thought about this weeks ago. Instead of, the day of. We have been processing thes as quickly as we can. Theyre things that remain classified. Interagency process. To reach consensus on what can be released. My time is up. I think that we should create a strong permanent set of public reporting requirements that will empower the public to recent own conclusions about the merits of these programs. That is with the bill i am working on will accomplish. I love to work with senator feinstein. I would love it if you would work with me to make sure that we get the reporting requirements right as we move forward with the bill. Would you do that . Absolutely. I would be glad to do that. I want to comment all for the witnesses here for their candor and on one at single out mr. Inglis. I have been advised that you have always been clear and straightforward. Classifiedis in sessions. Opener, that is in sessions. I appreciate that. Im sorry i was not here to hear your testimony. I know you have all noted in your written testimonies that there are checks within the fisa system. Do you believe that there are insufficient checks to outweigh the concerns that some have about the appointment of an independent counsel . If you have touched on this in earlier questions, i apologize. You mention this with regard to independent counsel. In the second panel, mr. Baker raise concerns with the independent counsel. Can you give me your thoughts about whether or not it is needed . This is a topic being discussed within the administration and congress as one avenue that might be available. Traditionally, when you issue search warrants and wiretaps, you do not have an absurd a process that takes place. An adversary process that takes place. Theres not someone on the other side. There is a legal tradition that the way we have been doing it is one that we have done in other context. We have a court involved. That is unusual, as it was pointed out. Iculously within a foreign particularly within a foreign intelligence context. To have the courtsthis is something that we are involved at all. Open to having discussions about. What the utility and the role would be. How would work. The devil could be in the details. All of these things are worth discussing. To figure out how to make this the best program it can be. If there was an independent counsel involved, would there be problems of timeliness . Would you have staff cleared to review Sensitive Information if others wanted to address that . Little bit. Thecore pushes back court pushes back itself. We make sure that we satisfy all the requirements under the law and constitution. And theres someone on the other side, i would would imagine they do the same thing on the same schedule. There is a letter that the chief judge of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court has written to the chairman. It is available on the internet and outlines, in some detail, the procedures that the court has followed. It indicates the care that the fisa court has followed. About the process that we have in the selection of these judges. And may lead to more republican judges being appointed then democrats. Do you sense or see any difference with with is that an issue that people should be concerned about . From my experience, i have not seen any decisions that are being guided by politics. Thatis certainly a topic we would be to the sound discretion of congress. Other thoughts . Any problem with the process of selection of judges . It is hard to tell how another judge would have rendered the decision. You only have the one judge rendering the decision. Thank you. Thank you. Im a liberal arts lawyer. I took some courses but it has been a long time ago. Ill ask the panelists to help me do some math. In 2012, there were 300 questions that resulted in a search of records. We are told that there are three hops. In other words,if i was the subject matter of the search and i called senator feinstein, they would evacuate all the records of my telephone calls. The records ofll my telephone callsand all of the telephone c