Fellow americans in their privacy being protected while providing our intelligence agencies with the authorities they need to acquire foreign intelligence that is so important to our National Security. The bill passed by the house last month would make some significant changes to the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that we believe will help us meet these two objectives. Among other provisions, the bill would prohibit bulk collection of information under section 215, the National Security letter statutes, and the pen register trap and trace provisions of fisa. It replaces the bulk telephony Metadata Collection Program with a new framework that preserves the capabilities we need without the Government Holding the bulk metadata. To be clear, the president called for this transition not because the program was illegal or was being abused but rather to give the public greater confidence that their privacy is being appropriately protected while maintaining the tools that our intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies need. The bill would also provide Greater Transparency to the public concerning some of our intelligence collection activities and authorize the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to appoint independent amicus in appropriate cases so that alternative views may be heard. Id like to spend just a few minutes describing some of the key provisions. As i have mentioned, hr 3361 establishes a new mechanism under section 215 that permits the government to access telephony metadata without having to collect it in bulk. It includes all the Key Attributes that were identified by the president in march for a new program, including in particular a requirement that absent an emergency situation, the government would obtain the records only pursuant to individual orders from the fisa Court Approved with the use of specific selection terms for such queries and only if a judge agrees that the government has established reasonable articulable suspicion that the term is associated with a foreign terrorist group. As i said before, and its worth repeating, the bills prohibition of bulk collection extends to all bulk collection of record pursuant to section 215 Going Forward as well as under the National Security letter statutes and the pen register trap and trace provisions of fisa. Under each of these authorities, the government would be required to use a specific selection term as a basis for production of records. The bill defines specific selection term as and as the chairman quoted, a discrete term such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device as used by the government to limit the scope of the information or tangible things that are sought. This definition clearly prevents bulk collection under these authorities. Including the collection of the sort that has been conducted with respect to the telephone and internet metadata. While i have heard people say it would allow the government to seek all of the phone records, for example, of a particular zip code, that is not the case. That would be the type of indiscriminate bulk collection that this bill is designed to end. At the same time the bill does preserve the governments ability to collect information in ways necessary to identify and disrupt the threats we face. For example, if the fbi learns that an unknown suspect intends to build an improvised explosive device using ball bearings and fertilizer, this bill would enable the fbi to obtain sales records for those items from particular stores in the relevant area that sell those items. Or if the fbi comes aware that an unidentified terrorist suspect spent several nights at a particular hotel, this bill would allow the fbi to request the hotels guest records for those particular nights. As the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence noted in its report on hr 3361, and i quote, bulk collection means indiscriminate acquisition. It does not mean the acquisition of a large number of communication records or other tangible things, close quote. The bills definition of specific selection term recognizes that distinction. In addition, the other provisions of hr 3361 would create unprecedented transparency and further enhance oversight. The bill, first of all, builds on what the government has already committed to make public regarding the use of National Security authorities. In addition to codifying the director of National Intelligences commitment to release annual figures, the bill essentially codifies the department of justices january framework for reporting by providers but adds additional options for reporting broken down by authority. Also, the bill would require a declassification review of any fisa court opinions, orders, or decisions that include a significant construction or interpretation of fisa, and it would direct the government to make such opinions and orders publicly available to the greatest extent practicable. Third, the legislation would skret a significa create a significant new measure to ensure the fisa court and the court of review receive independent Third Party Input in consideration of novel or significant matters. Beyond the existing statutory authorities for providers to challenge orders they receive pursuant to fisa, the legislation would provide a mechanism for these courts to appoint an amicus cur rye to assist the court in the consideration of any application for an order or review that prevents novel or significant interpretations of the law unless the court issues a written finding that such appointment is not appropriate. In sum, we support the usa freedom act as an effective means of addressing some of the concernins that have been raise boo the impact of our collection intelligence activities on privacy while preserving the authorities we need for National Security. We urge the committee to give the house bill serious consideration as soon as possible consistent with this committees important role. Madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present our views. Stephanie osullivan will now make an Opening Statement and then we will all be happy to answer your questions. Thanks very much, mr. Cole. Mrs. Osullivan. Chairman feinstein, vice chairman chambliss, and distinguished members of the committee, we are pleased to appear before you to express the administrations strong support for the usa freedom act, hr 3361, as recently passed by the house of representatives. The Deputy Attorney general has provided an indepth review of the usa freedom act as passed by the house last month, but i wanted to touch on a few key points in my remarks. Over the past year the nation has been engaged in a robust discussion about how the Intelligence Community uses its authorities to collect critical foreign intelligence in a manner that protects Civil Liberties and privacy. We take great care to ensure the protection of individual privacy and Civil Liberties in the conduct and intelligence activities. Nevertheless, we have continued to examine ways to increase the confidence of our fellow citizens that their privacy is being protected while at the same time providing the Intelligence Community with the authorities it needs to fulfill its mission and responsibilities. To that end, we have increased our transparency efforts and the director of National Intelligence has declassified and released thousands of pages of documents about intelligence Collection Programs including Court Decisions and a variety of other documents. We are continuing to do so. These documents demonstrate the commitment of all three branches of the government to ensuring that these programs operate within the law and apply vigorous protections for personal privacy. It is important to emphasize that although the information released by the director of National Intelligence was properly classified originally, the dni declassified it because the Public Interest in declassification outweighed the National Security concerns that originally prompted classification. In addition to declassifying documents, weve already taken significant steps to allow the public to understand how we use the authorities in fisa, now and Going Forward. For example, we are currently working to finalize a transparency report that will outline on an annual basis the total number of orders issued under various fisa authorities and an estimate of the total number of targets affected by those orders. Moreover, we recognize that its important for companies to be able to reassure their customers about the limited number of people targeted by orders requiring the companies to provide information to the government. And so we support the provisions of the house bill that allow the companies to report information about National Security legal demands and Law Enforcement legal demands that they receive each year. We believe this increased transparency provides the public with relevant information about the use of these legal authorities while at the same time protecting important collection capabilities. Making adjustments to our intelligence activities and as appropriate our authorities is also part of this effort. For several years the government has sought and the fisa court has issued orders under section 215 of the patriot act allowing the bulk collection of metadata about telephone calls. The president has ordered a transition that will end this bulk collection in a manner that maintains the tools intelligence agencies need for National Security. We are committed to following this mandate. The Intelligence Community believes that the new framework in the usa freedom act preserves the capabilities the Intelligence Community needs without the Government Holding this metadata in bulk. The usa freedom act would prohibit all bulk collection of records pursuant to section 215, the pen register trap and trace provision of fisa, and National Security statutes Going Forward. Let me repeat that. The Intelligence Community understands and will adhere to the bills prohibitions on all bulk collection under these authorities. Moreover, the usa freedom act makes other important changes by further ensuring that individuals privacy is appropriately protected without sacrificing operational effectiveness. To that end, we support the usa freedom act as an effective means of addressing the concerns that have been raised by the impact of our activities while preserving the authorities we need for National Security. We urge the committee to give the house bill serious consideration as expeditiously as possible consistent with this committees deliberations, and we are ready to work with the senate to clarify language in the bill as necessary. In closing, we appreciate the committees leadership and particularly your support over the past year in considering issues related to our intelligence collection activities and privacy and civil liberty issues. We also appreciate your support. For the men and women working throughout the Intelligence Community to include the nsa who remain dedicated to keeping our nation safe and protecting our privacy and who have upheld their oath by conducting themselves in accordance with our nations laws. We look forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much, mrs. Osullivan, and we will now proceed to questions. I have two, and the question i have is this, would you support a modified definition that changes whats called specific selection term and instead call it a specific identifier and defines it more specifically by adding that its meant to be a discrete term used by the government to narrowly taper the scope of information . Madam chairman, i think that we think the definition thats in the bill works, but as mrs. Osullivan said, were more than happy to work with the committee. If you feel there is better language, were more than happy to work with the committee to try and put out language that really accomplishes what i think we all understand needs to be done. Were trying to end bulk collection, but were trying to allow enough flexibility to get in times the volumes of records that may be important to do these investigations but still keeping them focused. So were happy with the language thats there and were happy to work with you on additional language if all im asking is that you take a look at it. More than happy to do so. Thank you, thank you. And fcc rule section 42. 6 at 47 cfr requires companies that, quote, offer or bill tolled Telephone Service to retain billing information and telephone toll calls for at least 18 months. Here is the question. Does this rule require Telephone Companies to retain the information that the government needs for a sufficient period of time . As you know, in this bill before us, there is no time for retention of records. Ill refer to mr. Leddette or mr. Juliano but we believe this provides a sufficient time for us. There is a provision that allows us to order Technical Assistance from the companies to make sure that the records are in the kind of form and format that will be useful to us. Mr. Leddette. Madam chairman, we believe the 18 month retention period would be sufficient. If the companies were to change their practices, wed advise the committee. Youre saying youre confident that the companies will retain the call records for 18 months . We actually cant say that, maam. They will retain the records for as long as their business requirements dictate they retain the records and they could change their Business Models and change the need for that. We will advise the committee if and as that happens and affects our ability to conduct our intelligence mission. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Vice chairman. Thanks, madam chair. Mr. Cole, in your opinion is nsa section 215 bulk telephone and Metadata Collection Program conduct conducted within our laws . Yes, it is. Do you agree with me that nsas bulk telephone and metadata Collection System has been one of the most heavily overseen programs in the Intelligence Community . Yes, mr. Vice chairman, i do. Mr. Juliano, this bill would extend the sunsets for both lone wolf and roving out to december 31, 2017. It seems to me that these two provisions are pretty noncontroversial at this point. The only reason we kept extending these sunsets was because of the concerns about the 215 bulk data Collection Program which this bill is going to eliminate. Have there been any abuses of the roving or lone wolf provisions to your knowledge . No, sir, there hasnt. Would you be in favor of making the provisions permanent . Yes, sir. Mr. Cole, do you agree with that . I think that would be appropriate, senator, yes. Mr. Ledgett . Yes, sir. Miss osullivan . Yes, sir. Mr. Ledgett, the nsa has been subjected to a lot of unwarranted abuse since snowdens treasonous disclosures. I want to publicly thank you and all the patriotic americans who serve our nation by quietly performing nsas vital mission. In your opinion, is this country safer or less safe after those damaging disclosures . Mr. Vice chairman, first, thank you for the words of support to the nsa workforce. We appreciate that. In my opinion, the country is less safe because of the disclosure of the methods that we use to conduct our authorized foreign intelligence mission. It doesnt appear to be there doesnt appear to be any requirements in the bill for the Service Providers to retain call detail records for any set period of time, as you just discussed with the chairman. Mr. Ledgett, if Service Providers decide to scale back their Data Retention period, how would that impact nsas mission . Mr. Vice chairman, that would make it make the information less useful for providing intelligence on the external threat with a u. S. Nexus, and so we would come back and inform the committee if that became the case. Mr. Giuliani, how would the Service Providers be effected if they decided to cut back the Retention Periods . I think it would affect the richness of the data and the usefulness. Would it make other investigative techniques less effective . Im not sure it would make them less effective but if the data is less rich and theres less data to use, it would impact the value of the data. Now, im in favor of providing a statutory basis for the fisa court to use their inherent Judicial Authority to appoint amy cuss cure ray when the courts determine it would be appropriate, and in our bill we made a provision for that. Section 401 requires the court to appoint an amicus to assist the court in situations involving, and i quote, novel or significant interpretations of the law unless the court issues a writt