On the foreign intelligence act or fisa. The Senate Judiciary committee is and just a clarification senator ranks member is diane fi finestien. This should start in just a moment. Todays public hearing will be followed bay classified briefing tomorrow afternoon. This Committee Last held an oversight hearing on section 702 in may of 2016. Since then the drum beat of terror attacks against the United States and other countries particularly our allies has continued. A month after our hearing a terrorist attacked an orlando nightclub killing 50 and wounding 53. That same month a terrorist detonated pipe bombs in new jersey and new york injuring about 30. Last month Great Britain suffered its worst terror attack in over a decaddecade. It is at a concert in manchester. Many of the dead and wounded, as you know, were children and very young people. These attacks underscore that the first responsibility of government is to ensure that those who protect us every day have the tool to keep us safe. When i said government i should have said of the United States government under our constitution. These tools must adapt to the technological landscape and evolving security threats that we face. At the same time of course the rights and liberties enshrined in the constitution are fixed. Section 702 of fisa amendments act which provides the government, the authority to collect the Electronic Communications of foreigners located outside of the United States with the compelled assistance of American Companies sits at the intersection of these responsibilities. Under section 702 its against law to target anyone in the United States or any american citizen where ever that citizen is on this globe. The statute also prohibits reverse targeting. That term means targeting somebody outside the United States for the purpose of targeting somebody inside. Under the statute the fisa court must approve targeting minimumization procedures to ensure that only appropriate individuals are subject to this surveillance. These procedures also limit the handling and use of any communications so collected. An implementation is overseen by all three branches of the government including the appropriate inspectors general. After much debate and after much discussion this law was passed by congress and signed by president bush in 2008. The Obama Administration requested it be authorized and congress did just that in 2012. President Trumps Administration is making the same request. From all accounts section 702 has proven highly valuable in helping protect the United States. The privacy and Civil LibertiesOversight Board found that section 702 has helped the United States learn more about the membership, the leadership structure, priorities, tactics and plans of International Terrorist organizations and has enabled the discovery of previously unknown terrorist operatives as well as locations and movements of suspects already known to the government. End of the quote from that Oversight Board. The board concluded that section 02 has lead to the discovery of previously unknown terrorist plots directed against the United States and Foreign Countries enabling the disruption of these plots. Moreover the board, the fisa court and other federal courts have found the implementation of section 702 lawful and consistent with the Fourth Amendment. In addition the board proposed a number of recommendations in its report to help improve the privacy and the civil liberty protections of section 702 program. According to the boards most recent assessment report all of its recommendations have been implemented in full or in part or the relative agency has taken significant steps towards adopting these recommendations. In 2016 a Heritage Foundation report concluded that 702 is a quote critical and inslalable tool for american intelligence professionals and officials so vie sal to americas nailal zhaurt congress should reauthorize section 702 in its current form. But as is always the case with policy issues here in the congress, particularly wean the freedom of the American People we do have questions and concerns that persist for some about sections 702s effect on the Civil Liberties. Some of these concerns relate to communications incidentally collected when it turns out that a targeted foreigner is in contact with somebody inside the United States or with an american. Of course theres often no way to know who a surveillance target may be in contact with beforehand. Thats in part why they are under surveillance in the first place. These are situations where the program can be highly valuable by letting our government know if a foreign terrorist plot might reach our shores. Still, the unknown scope of this election is concerning to many. We ought to understand that. Some are also concerned with the way in which is t fbi permitted to search already collected 702 material. However it was precisely this kind of information sharing that was by the 9 11 commission that con vi convened after the ft. Hood attack. Law enforcement needs to be able to protect the American People. Although these allegations havent been directed for 702 specifically they are highly troubling. Leaks of classified information that damage our National Security seem to continue unabated. I understand that no internal or external review to date has found any evidence of intentional abuse of section 702 for any reason what so ever. Nonetheless, it is important that congress made sure that it hasnt sb hasnt been so abused and its equally important that we secure that the Justice Department has all of the tools it needs to prosecute leaksover classified information. So taking all of these things into consideration is one of the reasons and the main purpose for having this but National Security has to be at the top of the list. And so we welcome or witnesses and look forward to their testimony today and dont forget the classified briefing tomorrow. Thanks very much. I too welcome our witnesses. I know they are rather grim faced. I hope there will be a smile or two forthcoming. I want to say thank you for holding this hearing. Let me begin by saying i fully support reauthorization of the fisa amendments act including section 702. Earlier this month the Intelligence Committee of which i am a long time member along with senator cornen held a hearing on section 702 of fisa. This will likely neen intelligence will be passing a bill very shortly. In fact senator cotton and a number of other republican senators on the Intelligence Committee have offered a bill which would permanently authorize the fisa amendments act including section 702 without the five year sunset. I would note however that senator cottons bill was refer today this committee and theres a reason and that is because this committee has is jurisdiction over both fisa and 702, particularly given the impact on Americans Communications and privacy. So i think its important that our committee get to work quickly on reauthorization of 702 which as we know is a very Critical Program in the collection of valid intelligence. Let me state at the outset that i believe any reauthorization should include a sunset provision and without it it will not have my sport. Congress has an Important Role to play in these measures. Society changes. The world changes, technology and communications change. A sunset allows us to review and revise such as may be necessary due to Technology Changes as well as other changes that happen at such a rapid pace. Currently the government is required to obtain approval from the fisa court every year before continuing its content election under 702. Congress should have this same ability to review and evaluate this program on a periodic basis. A sunset provision allows us to do just that. As a matter of fact its five years now. I would urge that it with six years because that takes it outside of an election year. Let me restate that i fully support the 702 program. I believe its a vital Counter Terrorism tool. The Intelligence Committee under both democratic and republican administrations has consistently stated that the program produces critical foreign information to protect the nation against International Terror and other threats. The privacy and Civil Liberties oversite board that has conducted an extensive review and down clooded that the information the program collects has been valuable and effective in protecting the nations security and producing useful foreign intelligence. The section 702 program also includes a number of safeguards to ensure the protection of privacy and Civil Liberties. Under current law, for example, section 702 authorizes the targeted collection of the content of internet and phone communications only and i underline that of foreigners who are located outside of the United States and only underlined for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information. Moreover although there have been some compliance incidents over the years there has never been a finding of intentional abuse of 702 authorities, never. In fact the privacy and Civil Liberties oversite board found and i quote no trace of any such illegitimate activity associated with the program or any intent to circumvent legal limits. In addition the program is subject to extensive oversite by the foreign intelligence sur value answer court, the fisa court, the relevant inspectors general and dedicated internal ov oversight personnel at the odni. The other reform we might take a look at is requiring the fisa court to appoint an outside couns council each time the government seeks Court Approval of the annual certification that happens every year to continue the section 702 program. This was actually done on the last certification. I think its helpful in reassuring people that there is an independent individual in the Court Reviewing these matters. Mr. Chairman, i want to thank you for calling this hearing particularly since we have the jurisdiction to play this role. I hope we can get our act together and take a look at the bill that is here that senator cotton has introduced and that we can move it but with a sunset clause. So i want to thank the witnesses for being here today and thank you, mr. Chairman. In regard to your question on process, you and i have not talked about that process yet, but our staffs at the highest level have been talking about this and well wait until they report to us. I su assume they are not goi to change our right. And then well ask questions. Well have fiveminute rounds of questions. Bradley brooker serves has acting general consul and official for the office of the director of National Intelligence and previously worked as an attorney at an national law firm. Mr. Brooker is a graduate of Arizona State university and American University and Washington College of law. St stuart evans serves as Deputy Attorney at the United States department of justice. He previously served in a number of career positions within the department of justices National Security division as both chief and deputy chief as Counter Terrorism unit. He obtained his law degree from columbia university. Carl ghattas serves as the Deputy Assistant director of the National Security branch at the fbi. He leads the operations and intelligence efforts in National Security matters, ranging from terrorism to espionage to weapons of mass destruction. In 2014 he was appointed special agent in charge of the Washington Field offices Counter Terrorism program and most recently served as assistant director count terrorism division. He earned a bachelor of arts degree from Duke University and a juris doctorate from washington university. Paul morris is the deputy general consul for operations at nsa. He oversees the agencys practice groups for legislation, intelligence law and Information Assurance and Cyber Security. Mr. Moss r he received his under graduate degree from university of maryland and his law degree from George Washington university. If you have longer statements, theyll be put in the record. When the red light comes on, try to summarize as best you can to try to finish shortly thereafter. Charm grassly, Ranking Member feinstein, members of the committee, we all want to thank you for holding this hearing and having us here today. As you know, intelligence collection under section 702 has produced and continues to produce significant intelligences that vital to protection the nation about threats whether they be Counter Terrorism, weapons proliferation or cyber threats. Permanent reauthorization of the fisa act without further amendment is the Intelligence Communitys top priority this year. I want to begin by giving a recently declassified example of the impact of section 702. Before rising to become the second in command in isis, was a leading focus of nsas Counter Terrorism efforts. Nsa spent over two years looking for him. This search was ultimately successful primarily because of section 702. Indeed, based almost exclusively on intelligence activities under section 702 nsa collected a significant body of foreign intelligence about the activities of i maam and his associates. U. S. Forces returne fire killing haji iman and his other associates at that location. This is just one example. Although many of the successes enabled by section 702 are highly classified and wed like to discuss them tomorrow in more detail at the classified session, the purpose of the authority is to give the i. C. And the u. S. Government the upper hand in trying to avert attacks against our citizens and our allies before they transpire. 702 provides strong protections for the privacy and Civil Liberties of our citizens. I do want to briefly highlight two things. First, section 702 has several important legal restrictions that protect the constitutional and privacy rights of our citizens. Second, the program is subject to rigorous and frequent oversight by all three branches of government. I want to stress what both the chair and Ranking Member stressed earlier. We are particularly proud of our oversight records. Both have shown extremely low error rates and we have not once found an intentional violation of the law. There have been mistakes. As a recent example of the oversight process at work, nsa identified a compliance incident involving queries of u. S. Persons in the section two acquired upstream collection. It was identified, it was reported. The interagency worked together to find a solution and we have moved forward. Before i conclude, i do want to speak about one issue that i know has been subject of much public decision. There has been a push from both congress and the Advocacy Community for nsa to attempt to count the number of United States persons whose communications are incidentally acquired under section 702. Nsa has made significant efforts to devise accounting strategy that would be accurate and that would respond to the question asked. Unfortunately we were unable to develop an accurate, meaningful and Cost Effective methodology. Nsa would be required to conduct Additional Research to determine if individuals are u. S. Persons. First, we would be asked trained nsa analysts to conduct intense identify Verification Research on potential u. S. Persons who are not a target of investigation. From a privacy and Civil Liberties perspective, we find this unpalatable. The dni has made clear he cannot justify such a diversion of critical resources, particularly at a time when we face serious threats. Even if we decided the intrusions were justified and even if we had unlimited staff to tackle this problem, we still do not believe its possible to come up with an accurate meas