If you miss it during the day the hearing will be at 8 00 p. M. On cspan2 and later that night on cspan. Right now we take you over to the Senate Intelligence committee that is mark warner, the ranking democrat, vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, they are hearing today from n. S. A. Director mike rogers, Deputy Attorney general rob rosen stein, and f. B. I. And dan coats, director of national ntelligence. Senator westerner Everyone Wants to interfere or down play or halt the Ongoing Investigation not only the Justice Department taking on but this committee as taking on. I hope as we move forward on this youll realize the importance that the American Public deserves to get the answers to these questions. Thank you. Senator, i would like to respond to that if i could. Director coats first of all, i told you, i committed to the committee that i would be available to testify before the committee. I dont think this is the appropriate venue to do this. Given that this is an open hearing, a lot of confidential information. Relative to intelligence or other matters. I just dont feel its appropriate for me to do that in this situation. Then secondly, when i was asked yesterday to respond to a piece told was going to be written and printed in the Washington Post this morning, my response to that was in my time of told was service, which interacting with the president of the United States, or anybody in his administration, i have never been pressured. I never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way, with shaping intelligence d the political way, or in relationship senator warner all ill say is there is a chance here to lay to rest some of these pressure points. If the president is asking you to intervene or down play, you may not have felt pressure, but if east even asking you, to me that is a very relevant piece of information. I think we will get another individuals version but at some point these facts have to come out. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator coats excuse me director coats and admiral rogers for your testimony. 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. Thank you for that. Lets go to section 702 which is what this hearing is supposed to be about. Senator risch those of us that works in the Intelligence Community that were in a different position than europe is. Pe is there are risks their risks are obviously very high and becoming more regular so lets talk about our collection efforts versus the european collection efforts and particularly as it relates to section 702. D 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 702 in that respect. Why dont we start, director coats, with you and then ill throw it up for anybody else that wants to comment on this. How important is 702, the continuation of the of section 702 and its related parts to doing what we have been doing as far as helping the europeans and the europeans helping us and doing the things that were doing here in america to see that we dont have the kind of situation that have been recently happening in europe . Director coats, start with you . Director coats having just render from major capitals in europe and discussing this very issue with my counterparts throughout 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 basis of collection that we have received through 702 authorities. And our notification of them of these impending threats and they have 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 more hat bypassed the concentrated large attack efforts and taking it either through inspiration or direction from isis or other terrorist groups have chosen to take violent action against the citizens of those countries. The purpose of the trip was to ensure them that we would continue to work and share together their collection activities, capabilities in many cases are good but in some cases lack the ability that we have. And so this ability to share information with them that helps keep their people safe also is highly valued by them. But i dont think we should take for granted that just because europe has been the recent target of these attacks that the United States is safe from that. We know through intelligence theres plotting going on, and we know theres lone wolf issues and individuals that are taking instructions from isis through social media or that for whatever reason are copy catting what is happening. D so that threat exists here also. Let me lastly say 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 the intelligence agencies better collection because they think they need it to protect their citizens. Senator risch thank you very much. And just a few seconds i have left, mr. Rosenstein, could you tell me, please we get a lot of pushback from the privacy people, and weve now heard testimony there has been no intention of violation over it. Can you tell the American People whats in store for someone who these guys catch intentionally misusing 702, since youre the highest Ranking Member of the department of justice here . Mr. Rosenstein within the department of justice we treat with great seriousness any allegations of violations of classified information. So if there were a credible allegation and someone had willfully violated section 702 in a way that was in violation of a criminal law, we would investigate that case and if prosecution were justified we would prosecute it. Director mccabe shares that thought. We need to make sure they are used appropriately and responsibly, we comply with the constitutions and procedures and we will devote whatever resources there are if there are willful violations people will be held accountable. Senator risch and thats your commitment and the department of justices commitment to the American People . Mr. Rosenstein correct. Senator feinstein thank you, mr. Chairman. Just a couple comments on section 702. Its a program that i support. Its a program that i believe works well. Its an important one. Its 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 three 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 he certification process and the use of an amicus. Id like your response to the fact that the question the program sunsets after five years about raising that sunset versus no sunset because of the privacy concerns. Its my belief there should be a sunset, and the use of an amicus which is currently used as part of the certification process and whether that should be continued and formalized. So admiral, its programs under your office. Admiral rogers will you take that piece. Mr. Rosenstein i am not sure i am smart on the amicus brief. With regard to the question of masking, this is primarily a question not for the department. The determination is made by the intelligence agencies. If there is a situation where a oreign 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, thats an internal issue. If that masking is done internally within the cloak of confidentiality within the Intelligence Community, thats a different issue from leaks. In other words, if someones identity is disclosed internally because its relevant for intelligence purposes because thats the goal of this collection is to understand senator feinstein mr. Rosenstein, i listened to somebody that should have known better unmasking in a political sense that its done politically and that of course is not the case. What im looking for is the definition of how this is done and under what circumstances. Mr. Rosenstein and i think, senator, because thats really a decision made by the i. C. Not by the department, it will be appropriate for them to respond to that. Admiral rogers so with respect to unmasking, the following criteria is applied. First, for the National Security agency, we define in writing who has the authority to unmask a u. S. Person identity. Thats 20 individuals in 12 different positions. I am one of the 20 in one of those 12 positions, the director. Secondly, we outline in writing what the criteria that will be applied to a request to unmask. In a report and, again, part of our process under 02 to protect the identity of u. S. Persons as part of our minimumization procedures, when we think when we need a reference of u. S. Person in the report, we will not use a name. We will not use an identity. We say u. S. Person 1, u. S. Person 2, u. S. Person 3. That report is promulgated. Sometimes they will come back and say i am trying to understand what i am reading, can you make me understand who is person 1 and 2 and 3 . Number one, you must make the equest in writing. It must be from your official duties. It has to tangably tie to your job and then finally i said there is a third criteria and that is the basis of the request must be that you need this identity to understand the intelligence youre reading. We applied these three criteria. We do it in writing and one of the 20 individuals agrees or disagrees. If we unmask we go back to that entity who requested it, not every individual who received the but that one enity who asked for us, we then provide 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 you can use that knowledge indiscriminantly. It must remain appropriately protected. Senator feinstein thank you. Senator, if i could add to that. Given the nature of this issue and its a legitimate question you asked, i talked with my olleagues at n. S. A. , c. I. A. , f. B. I. And so forth, suggesting we might ask our Civil Liberties and Privacy Protection agencies to take a look at this. Director coats to see if admiral rogers laid out the procedures. Are these the right procedures . Would they have recommend ailingses that better protected preem from misuse of this . And theyve all agreed to do that. So i think its a legitimate issue to follow up on. I talked to the agency heads about doing so. And i have an internal and i have an internal review i directed. Given all the attention, given the focus, lets step back, lets reassess and ask ourselves is there anything that suggests we need to do Something Different in the process. Senator feinstein thank you. Mr. Rosenstein id like to more thoroughly answer the first question an amicus was used in 2015. That decision was made by the court. Its the fisa court which has the Statutory Authority if the court believes its appropriate in a particular case to appoint an amicus. My understanding is it was done in 2015. Thank you. Senator feinstein well, would you feel it would be helpful to make it a part of the regular certification process . Mr. Rosenstein my understanding, senator, if the court believes its appropriate so i believe the court has that authority and id leave it to the judges to decide when its appropriate to exercise that. Burr burr senator rubio. Senator burr senator rubio. Senator rubio i understand the need the president can talk to those particularly in a classified setting and i understand the ability of this community to function depends both on its credibility, the work that its doing is in the National Security interest of the United States and also the importance of its independence, that its not an extension of politics no matter which administration is at play. In the absence of either one of those two things impacts everything we do, including this debate were having here today. And the challenge that we have now is that while the folks here with us this morning are constrained in what they can say, there are people who work for you that are not and are constantly speaking to the media about things and saying things and it puts the congress in 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 what is being said to the media is untrue then its unfair to the president of the United States. And if it is, then if its true then its something the American People deserve to know and we as an Oversight Committee need to know in order to conduct our job. And so my questions are geared to director coats and admiral rogers. You have testified you have never felt pressured or threatened by the president or by anyone to influence any Ongoing Investigation by the f. B. I. Are you prepared to say you have never felt you have never been asked by the president or the white house to influence an Ongoing Investigation . Director coats senator, i just hate to keep repeating it but i am going to do it. I am willing to come before the committee and tell you what i know and what i dont know. What i am not willing to do is to share what i think is confidential information that ought to be protected in an open hearing. So i am not prepared to answer your question today. Senator rubio director coats, with the incredible respect i have for you, i am not asking about classified information. I am asking whether or not you have ever been asked by anyone to influence an Ongoing Investigation . Director coats i understand. But i am just not going to go down that road in a public forum. 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. Admiral rogers i likewise stand by my previous comment. Senator rubio in the interest of time, let me ask you, has anyone asked you now in the past this administration or any administration to issue a statement that you knew to be false . Admiral rogers for me i stand by my previous statement. I have never been directed in the course of my threeplus years not rubio not asked did but asked . Admiral rogers ry stand by my previous statement. Director coats i like wirse. Enator rubio has anyone sought advice to influence any investigation . Mr. Rosenstein my answer is bsolutely no, senator. One do you no know of anyone in the white house or the executive branch looking for advice from the Intelligence Community about how to influence an investigation . No. No. Senator rubio who wants to answer . Sorry. Director mccabe if you are asking whether i am aware of requests to other people in the Intelligence Community, i am not. Senator rubio seeking advice how you can potentially influence someone, you are not aware of someone reporting that to you . Director mccabe no, sir. Senator rubio has anyone said i just got a call from someone from the white house asking me what is the best way to influence someone on an investigation . I have never received anything. No direct call. Senator rubio its an allegation in one of the press reports. Sorry, who does . Mr. Rosenstein confusing, senator. The answer is, no, as i understand it, but i am not sure i am familiar with the particular media report you are referring to. Senator rubio i am running out of time. I do want to ask this because its important. Did the n. S. A. Routinely and extensively and repeatedly violate the rules that were put in place in 2011 to minimize the risk of collection of upstream information . Admiral rogers had we had compliance incidents, yes. Have we reported those to the courts, yes. Have we reported those to the congress, yes. Have we reported those to the department of justice and the director of national intelligence, yes. Senator rubio under the obama administration, was there a significant uptick in efforts of incidents of unmasking from 2012 to 2016 . Admiral rogers i dont know. I have to take that for the record. We have the data but i dont know that off the top of my head unmasking on a yearbyyear basis in the last five years. I dont know off the top of my head. Senator burr senator wyden. Wyden thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I noted the conversations you had with my colleagues with the respect to the content of conversations you may have had with the president. My question is a little bit 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 . Dont take any notes. [laughter] senator wyden lets get the four of you on the record. Mr. Rosenstein senator, i rarely take notes. I have taken a few today but i am not going to answer questions concerning the russia investigation. I think its important for you to understand. Senator wyden not on whether you wrote a memo. Mr. Rosenstein i will not answer any question about senator wyden whether you wrote any notes or memos. Director mccabe i wont comment on any n