Transcripts For CSPAN2 House Judiciary Committee Hearing On The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance... 20240714

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this mornings hearing, oversight of the federal Intelligence Surveillance act. Ill now recognize myself for an opening statement. The Judiciary Committee is holding todays hearing to carry out one of its most important tasks. To ensure that the tools used boby our government to keep us safe are consistent are our values and the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. This committee has long exercised its responsibility to shape the Legal Framework unto which intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies investigate threats and collect evidence of crimes. Although we do not conduct daytoday oversight of intelligence agencies, it falls to us in hearings like this to conduct a broad review of how our government exercises its legal authorities and whether that conduct accords with our values as americans. The outset, i want to acknowledge two things. First, the men and women in our nations Law Enforcement and intelligence communities including our Witnesses Today work tirelessly to keep us safe from attacks and other threats by hostile adversaries. Those efforts include working rigorously to comply with our laws. Second, there are countless americans in the privacy and Civil Liberties communities who are dedicated to keeping us safe from other kinds of threats. Threats to privacy, freedom of speech, and due process that take hold when the government surveillance authorities extend too far. Those who criticize and question the laws well be discussing today are part of this nations proud and robust tradition of holding our government to account. Questioning the governments reasons for its actions and safeguarding the freedoms guaranteed to us by the constitution. It is in that spirit that i hope to have a serious and substantive discussion today about the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, fisa, and the provisions that are set to expire at the end of this year. In response to substantial concerns that the Intelligence Community had exceeded its authority under fisa, congress in 2015 enacted the usa freedom act which contains several important reforms. Notably, we put an end to the nsas program unto which it collected the phone records of millions of lawabiding americans using a highly strained interpretation of a provision in the 2001 usa patriot act. We reformed that provision known as section 215 to prohibit bulk collection of phone records and other types of records. Instead, to collect certain kinds of phone records, we required the nsa to apply to the fisa court for an order based on individualized facts and on a specific selection term. We also created an important mechanism to ensure the fisa court hears both sides of the legal arguments in cases presenting novel and important issues. And we enacted several measures to enhance transparency in the fisa court and in other types of reporting. At the end of this hearing, section 215 and t2 other fisa authorities known as the roving wiretap provision and the lone wolf provision are set to expire unless they are reauthorized by congress. Because these three provisions give the government powerful and controversial intelligence authorities, congress attached them to sunsetting provisions when they were first enacted and reauthorized them for limited periods of time ever since. These periodic reauthorizations provide this committee and other committees an important opportunity to review how these laws are used and to conduct the kind of oversight that we are doing here today. Last month, however, former director of National Intelligence daniel coats sent a let tore the leadership of this committee and other committees in the house and senate asking that we reauthorize all three provisions permanently. At the same time, former director coats letter acknowledged the nsa has dismantled the Records Program as theyve been conducting under section 215 as amended by the usa freedom act. Simply put the nsa dismantled the program because it was a serious failure. Nsa used it to collect hundreds of millions of phone records. In 2018, it discovered that it had no authority to collect some of the records it was receiving. Worse, it had no way of separating out which records were wrongly acquired from the ones that were collected lawfully. So it started deleting them all. This has all been publicly reported by the Intelligence Community. To be clear, it is not a bad thing that the nsa identified a problem, told us about it and tried to fix it. It is also fine that decided the program was not worth running. As former director coats put it, the decision to end the program was made after balancing its, quote, relative intelligence value, unquote, which was evidently minimal against, quote, compliance and data integrity concerns, closed quote. The nsa decided that the cost outweighed the benefits and it pulled the plug. That kind of candor should be appla applauded. Its baffling to me the administration announced they shuttered the program then in the very same breath asked congress to extend it permanently. The administration offered almost no reason for this striking position except the vague suggestion that we night need the program some time in the future as Technology Changes and as our adversaries capabilities evolve and adapt. When congress enacted the usa freedom act, we made a goodfaith effort to give the Intelligence Community the capability that it said it needed to collect records. That experiment has run its course. The administration really wants to keep this provision on the books, its going to have to justify it with more than a vague promise that it might come in handy one day in the future somehow. I look forward to discussing the other authorities set to sunset including aspects of section 215 and fisas roving wiretap and lone wolf provisions. I also look forward to discussing as well important reforms we enacted in the usa freedom act and whether any of those reforms should be strengthened. As i noted earlier, this committee has an important and longrunning responsibility to have these candid and rigorous discussions as we consider how best to ensure our laws are in line with our values. I thank todays witnesses for being here today. And for their service to our nation. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, for his opening statement. Last week, we once again commemorated the lives of all the innocent victims lost on 9 11. The brave First Responders and dedicated recovery workers, the 9 11 anniversary reminds us each year of the shock, sadness and anger we all felt that morning. Our unity and strength following the attacks were palpable and encouraging also. Nothing the terrorists inflicted could defeat our nation as a worldwide beacon of freedom and liberty. As part of our resolve, the tools remain available work tirelessly to protect our country and secure the freedoms we cherish. Sempl of the tools are set to expire december the 15th. Its our duty to reauthorize these authorities otherwise the authorities revert back to our National Security posture before 9 11. I dont think anyone wants that. Im actually kind of glad were actually having this hearing. Expires on december 15th, we would have been working on this a long time. I guess weve been busy on other things. The act was originally passed to protect americans from surveillance abuses. Our National Security apparatus surveillance regime offers access to critical foreign intelligence that we need, but we must ensure that theres a balance in both protecting our security and our Civil Liberties. Fisa was created to do that. In 2016 during and after the president ial election, this balance appears to have broken down. While democrats accuse republicans of simply trying to divert attention for political purposes, its now clear that for those at the pinnacle of our National Security community lost on the objectivity that theyre required by law to exercise. And that is coming out now as we see a fisa report coming out soon. A necessary component for Americans Trust in the Intelligence Community is the perception of fairness particularly when implementing surveillance against americans. Like many americans, i wait the Inspector General who rihorowit report. Its a fact that multiple individuals at the top of the fbi have been fired, terminated, referred for or reported to be under criminal investigation, although that seems to have escaped the notice of the majority on this committee. Oversight and deterrence is clearly needed when the toplevel officials in our intelligence and Law Enforcement community are officially criticized and potentially even indicted for divulging sensitive and information and lying. That said, today we face the reauthorization of authorities passed in 2015 as part of the usa freedom act focused on battling terrorism. Three provisions. Sections 215, Business Records, lone wolf, and roving wiretaps. Must be reauthorized. Its admittedly difficult to separate our concerns on fisa abuse from reauthorization facing us but we need to protect valuable tools in combatting violent extremist and their evil goals. Two of the authorities are fairly straightforward. The lone wolf and roving wiretap provisions. The lone wolf provision, prev t prevents terrorists scheme s se harm us. We know this has been a trajectory of terrorist attack with a perpetrator or not, quote, members of these particular terrorist organizations but are inspired by their miedieval ideologies. The roving wiretap provision allows the Intelligence Community to follow terrorists and spies who attempt to thwart and evade surveillance by dumping and switching phones. If we can do this for drug dealers, we should be able to do it for suspected terrorists. Regarding section 215, i look forward to hearing more from the fbi on their use of this authority. The ability to obtain Business Records, particularly in terrorist and foreign intelligence investigations, but also suspected spies, is not something Whose Authority we can afford to let expire, however, section 215 is used for collecting call data records has been significant and technical problems in its implementation. Wed like to hear from the nsa on their thoughts and continuing validity for 215 for collecting cdrs. Id like to thank each of the agencies here this morning. I wish more would have been able to come this morning. I wish we could do this. In the spirit of 9 11 and countless other senseless terrorist attacks illustrate the need for our nation to always be on guard. The authorities are set to expire in december. Weve gotten to it now, thankfully, despite the apparent misuse and abuse of other fisa authorities are not the ones we should be removing from our counterterrorism tool belt. I look forward to the witnesses testimony. I yield back. Thank the gentleman. Ill introduce todays witnesses. Brad wiegmann is the Deputy Assistant attorney general at the department of justice National Security division. Previously he served in legal positions at the department of defense and state and at the National Security council. He also served as a law clerk for judge patrick higgenbatham on the United States court of appeals. He received his b. A. From Duke University and jd from harvard law school. Michael orlando is the Deputy Assistant director at the federal bureau of investigations counterterrorism division. He entered duty as a special agent in the Pittsburgh Field Office in 2003 and since worked on counterintelligence matters at the honolulu, baltimore, and Washington Field offices. Previously, mr. Orlando worked as the assistant section chief of east asia counterintelligence investigations. Prior to working for the fbi, mr. Orlando served in the u. S. Army. He received his b. A. From the State University of new york college at cortland and received a masters in leadership from georgetown universitys mcdina school of business. Susan morgan has worked in nsa o operations for 18 years. We welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and we thank them for participating in todays hearing. Now, in you would please rise ill begin by swearing you in. Raise your right hand. Unless youre a lefty. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony youre about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and beliefs, so help you god . Thank you. Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and please be seated. Please note that each of your written statements will be e entered into the record in its entirely. Accordingly, i ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay within that time, theres a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired. Mr. Wiegmann, you may begin. Chairman nadler, Ranking Member collins, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about four important provisions of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act or fisa. These are authorities that will expire at the end of this year unless reauthorized by congress. The administration strongly supports permanent reauthorization of these provisions. Three of the authorities, the roving wiretap, Business Records, and lone wolf provisions, have been part of fisa for well over a decade. Theyve been renewed by congress multiple times. Most recently in the usa freedom act of 2015. Before that, these same authorities were reauthorized multiple times between 2005 and 2011 and each renewal gained bipartisan support. Today, i will give you a brief overview of these three legal authorities then turn it over to my colleague from fdi to address how theyve been use in practice and their value to National Security. Then my colleague from nsa will address the fourth authorityd i practice and their value to National Security. Then my colleague from nsa will address the fourth authority, call detail records, or cdr authority. Nsa can engage in collection ofof telephony metadata. Continue surveilling a fisacourt approved target, the target is taking affirmative steps to thwart the surveillance. These are individuals who rapidly and repeatedly change Communication Service providers in order to evade government monitoring. The roving provision allows us to continue surveillance without having to go back to the fisa court for a new order each time the target switches its phone. The government has used this authority in a relatively small number of cases each year. The case s tend to involve highy trained foreign Intelligence Officers operating within the United States or other important investigative targets including terrorism targets. The wiretap act has for decades contained a similar roving provision for ordinary criminal investigations of, say, drug dealers or organized crime figures. Second, the Business Records authority, this allows the government to apply to the fisa court for an order to collect records, papers, and other tangible things that are relevant to a National Security investigation. It allows the government to obtain many of the same types of records that it can obtain through a grand jury subpoena in an ordinary criminal case. For example, it can be used to obtain drivers license records, hotel records, car rental records, shipping records, and the like. In most cases these are rosheco the government can obtain in ordinary criminal or civil investigation without any court order. A fisa Business Records order is typically sought because National Security interests p s preclude the use of the less secure criminal authorities or because there may be no criminal investigation under way in the intelligence context. This authority has been used several dozen times a year on average over the last several years. Now the Business Records provision is also the mechanism for the targeted collection of cdrs from u. S. Telecommunications service providers. As my colleague from nsa will discuss in a few minutes, this provision provides a way for the government, first, again, to a fisa court order, to identify telephone contacts of suspected terrorists who may be within the United States. Finally, the lone wolf provision. This enables the government to surveil a foreign person whos engaged in International Terrorism but who lacks traditional connections to a terrorist group. It also applies to foreign persons engaged in international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Although the government has not used the lone wolf authority to date, it fills an important potential gap in collection capabilities where isolated actors are concerned. It allows for the surveillance of foreign terrorist who might be inspired by a Foreign Terrorist Group but whos not technically an agent of that group. So, for example, it would allow for surveillance of a foreign person whos selfradicalized through viewing propaganda of a Foreign Terrorist Organization like isis or al qaeda on the internet or known International Terrorist who severs his connection with a Foreign Terrorist Group. Use requires approval from the fisa court under standards prescribed in law. Each also requires strict rules governing how the government must handle any information that is obtained concerning u. S. Persons. Each also is subject to extensive executive Branch Oversight as well as congressional reporting requirements and oversight. And as ive said, each has been renewed by congress multiple times in the past. With that, ill stop and turn it over to my colleagues. Good morning. Good morning, chairman nadler, Ranking Member good morning. Collins, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about important provisions of the usa freedom act that will expire later this year unless reauthorized by congress. These provisions have been integral to the fbis success in many National Security investigations. While i will likely not be able to get into specific examples of our use of these provisions in an open setting, ill do my best to provide you with thorough hypotheticaluse situations. Ive seen a necessity of these provisions throughout my time as both a counterintelligence agent and counterterrorism agent. Im looking forward to answering your questions today. National security threats have evolved significantly in the last 20 years. On the proliferation of mobile smartphones, to the expanded use of endtoend encryption, new technology has allowed actors to work increasingly in the shadows. Today we have nearly universal access to the internet and anyone with a cell phone can view and become radicalized by extremist content. Our subjects are no longer forced to travel to other countries to communicate with other extremists who threaten the security of the United States. Instead, they can do this from their home. Because of this, were also witnessing a shift toward individuals acting alone with multiple ideologies and without clear ties to any one foreign adversary. Our window for identification and disruption is getting smaller. Our subjects are quickly moving from radicalization to mobilization. As these threats have evolved, congress has helped us ensure we are prepared with the appropriate tools to continue to protect the u. S. And its interests. Im here today to talk about the expiring provisions which the fbi uses with fisa Court Approval and oversight. As my colleague from the department of justice explained, we use the Business Records provision to obtain records for other tangible things for use in a National Security investigation. We often describe the Business Records provision as a Building Block authority. That means we use it during the early stages of an investigation to build our case against National Security threats. It is important to note the responses to the Business Records order do not contain content but if we see that the suspect is communicating with a known bomb maker in another country, for example, that is incredibly important information. As in this case, the information we get from Business Record orders often help us establish the legal threshold we need to reach to get an order from the fisa court for more advanced investigative techniques such as a wiretap. For example, once we receive the Business Record returns that the suspected terrorist is communicating with a known bomb maker, we would have relevant information to help establish probable cause for a wiretap. Similarly, if we receive Business Record returns showing that the suspect, the terrorist, is buying bombmaking materials like night jetrogenbased ferti and ball bearings, that can help us establish probable cause. The roving detail is also an important provision that counteracts efforts by various National Security threats including terrorist and Intelligence Officers to avoid courtauthorized surveillance. These individuals often employ tactics such as using multiple burner phones or regularly creating new email accounts. Without this roving authority, we would struggle to keep awareness of our targets as they purposely take action to thwart surveillance. We use this authority regularly in our National Security investigations as a tool to avoid mising critical intelligence that would be lost if our ability to initiate surveillance was delayed. Its worth noting the fbi only seeks roving authority when requirements of the statute are met. That means we must provide information to show the targets actions can have the effect of thwarting surveillance. The last authority the fbi request you reauthorize is the lone wolf provision. While it has not been used since authorization, we believe it is an important it is important to have available. Homegrown violent extremists are among the fbis top threats to the homeland. These individuals are by definition not in direct collaboration with Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Homegrown violent extremists are often selfradicalized online through terrorist propaganda and are motivated to attack with no direction from individuals associated with a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The lone wolf provision is narrowly tailored to only allow use against nonu. S. Persons, gives the fbi an additional tool without impacting the rights of any u. S. Person. These are critically important in our fight to keep the American Public safe. The fbi urges congress to reauthorize these authorities because they will continue to play an Important Role in the fbis National Security investigations as our adversaries continue to advance. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Im happy to answer any questions related to these authorities. Thank you very much. Ms. Morgan. Good morning, chairman, Ranking Member, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the National Security agencys call detail Records Program. The authority for the call detail records, or cdr program, is among the important provisions of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act that will expire at the end of this year unless reauthorized by congress. Congress added this authority to the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act four years ago in the usa freedom act as one of several significant reforms designed to enhance privacy and Civil Liberties. It replaced nsas bulk telephony Metadata Collection Program with a new Legal Authority whereby the bulk metadata would remain with the teleCommunication Service providers. As this committees 2015 report described, the cdr authority provides a, quote, narrowly tailored mechanism for the targeted collection of telephone metadata for possible connections between foreign powers or agents of foreign powers, and others as part of an authorized investigation to protect against International Terrorism, end quote. Critically, the provision authorizes the collection of certain metadata associated with telephone calls such as the originating or terminating telephone number and date and time of the call but does not authorize collecting the content ofny communicati nany communica address, Financial Information of the subscriber or customer or locational information. As this committee is aware, the nsa recently discontinued the cdr program and deleted the records acquired under the cdr authority. After balancing the programs intelligence value, associated costs and compliance and data integrity concerns. Nsas decision to suspend the cdr program does not mean that congress should allow the cdr authority to expire. Rather, that decision shows that the executive branch is a responsible steward of the Authority Congress affords it. As Technology Changes, our adversaries tradecraft and communications habits continue to evolve and adapt. In light of this dynamic environment, nsa support reauthorization of the cdr provision so that the government will retain this potentially valuable tool should it prove useful in the future. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much for your testimony. Well now proceed under the fiveminute rule with questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Ms. Morgan, i want to ask you about the call detail Records Program. In 2014 prior to the passage of the usa freedom act, the privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board reviewed the efficacy of the nsas use of section 215 to collect, quote, detailed records. The board concluded rather starkly, and i quote, we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone Records Program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. The board continued, even in those instances where telephone records collected under section 215 offered Additional Information about the contacts of a known terrorism suspect, nearly all cases, benefits provided have been minimal. Generally limited to corroborating information that was obtained independently by the fbi, closed quote. In short, the board found this very complicated program to be of very little use to the Intelligence Community. Ms. Morgan, is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of the boards conclusions in 2014 . Sir, thank you for your question. So i just want to start out by saying that i think a metric in terms of determining the value of a particular Intelligence Program, the number of attacks it prevented is but one metric or the number of attacks its, you know, contributed to identifying is but one metric that you could consider but certainly not the only metric. Ive been in i came into the agency in the summer of 2001 as an Intelligence Analyst and i could tell you that as an Intelligence Analyst, youre typically dealing with pieces of information and youre trying to pull them together in different ways to create a picture to understand what your target or adversary might be doing in response to a valid foreign intelligence requirement. So when we looked at the cdr program as it existed up until we suspended it, we did look and evaluate the foreign intelligence value that the program did provide. Certainly provide value. But, however, you have to weigh that in the context of Everything Else that were doing and you have to weigh that against not only the data Integrity Compliance concerns that we face, but you also have to weigh that against the resources and the costs that were expending as we want to be a good steward of the taxpayers dollars and resources. So i would say that its very difficult to, you know, its not ever a blackandwhite answer when youre trying to analyze the value of a particular activity. Theres a lot of factors that go into that. And i could get a piece of information today that 10, 11, steps down the line later might actually prove to be really valuable. The cdr program was reconstituted under the usa freedom act after its passage in 2015. Now, please help me update the boards findings. Sitting here today, can the nsa cite any instance involving a threat to the United States in which the cdr program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorist investigation . Sir, as i alluded to earlier, the measure of value isnt necessarily yes, sir. I heard that. You dont have to repeat it. My time is limited. The answer is no or yes . So in an open setting, im really leery it get into specific examples that the value of the program did i ask you a specific question . Yes, sir. Can the nsa cite any instance involving a threat to the u. S. In which the cdr program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorist investigation . Sir, respectfully, id say thats a complicated question, to effectively answer it, i need to go into classified information. Is the nsa aware of any instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of an unknown terrorist plot or disruption of a terrorist attack . Same answer . Again, sir, but i would like to, if i may, i would like to say that i dont think a metric of a program in terms of its value should be really necessarily focused on whether or not it prevented or stopped a terrorist attack. After the program was reconstituted under the act, lts nsa realized it had two problems on its hands. First, it was pulling in phone records it should not have received and, second, it had no way of untangling the good data from the bad. Is that a Fair Assessment of the problem . Yes, sir. June 28th of last year, the nsa decided to purchase an entire database, nearly three years of call detail records. Is that correct . Yes, sir. And in the press release announcing the destruction of those records, the nsa stated that it contacted the appropriate congressional committees of its intent to do so. Do you happen to know if the nsa contacted the house Judiciary Committee in advance of that press release . Sir, i apologize, id have to take that back. I dont have those specifics. On august 16th, 2019, the nsa decommissioned the cdr program all together. According to former director coats, the Intelligence Community weighed the cost against the benefits, saw the benefits are minimal and decided to discontinue the program. Is that correct . Yes, sir. Okay. To sum up, cdr program had its origins in an extralegal bushera spying program. From the moment it was brought under fisa, from the moment it was brought under fisa in 2006, to the moment it was disconti e discontinued in 2019, it did not once make a material difference to a single counterterrorism investigation. At least that you can tell us about. One last question, ms. Morgan, why why is the Trump Administration asked us to reorganize im sorry, in light of this record, why has the administration asked us to reauthorize this program . Sir, as an intelligence professional, ill tell you that i want to have every tool available in my toolbox. I am not able to, although i wish i could, predict what the future situations going to hold. And should i confront a situation where this tool would be valuable to protect interNational Security, protect us against terrorist activities, i would like the tools to remain available. Okay. Let me just say that its a very good effort, i think the administration will have to do a little better than that and to say that we have a, perhaps, useless program but, you know, we want to reauthorize it because maybe someday it will do some good. Have to give us some more basis to believe that, in fact, that it has a future utility. My time is expired. The gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins. Take as much time as you need there, mr. Chairman. You did yesterday. One of the things i want to point out, ms. Morgan, is normally we have had the classified briefing after this. We dont have that today. So i understand your questions here. I dont know why we didnt, but we were choosing not to do that today. Weve done this in the past and it would have been good to have. I think youve probably been able to answer questions in classified briefings much i do appreciate the chairman actually acknowledging me for my five minutes today. I appreciate that. What the session ms. Morgan, what session identifying information collected under the call detail Record Programs, if we terminate that and allow the program to expire, a terrorist decides to communicate over an encrypted app, is the ability to collect sessionidentifying information lost with respect to encrypted communications . Sir, i apologize, but in o n opening hearing i cant get into capabilities thats the reason it would have been nice to have had a classified hearing after this as well which we could have gotten into this. And, sir, im absolutely willing to make my, you know, arrange for a time thats convenient for you and the rest of the committee to talk about thats fine. Weve had all year and were here now and, you know, i guess we just have to deal with it, so thats fine. Mr. Wiegmann, does the criminal brady requirement imposed on prosecutors to divulge exculpatory evidence favorable to the defendant also apply to when practicing before a fisa court . In other words, even though the proceedings are ex parte, is there any requirement from the department to inform the court of evidence, the fisa surveillance, act to mitigate a probable cause that the person san agent of a foreign power . I believe we do provide the full picture in terms of what the information is available when were youre saying regular title 1 fisa, sectiofor example, we provide the full picture. That would encollide its not brady as a principle. Thats in a criminal case, not in a fisa i understand. We disclose to the court the information that would suggest a person is an agent and any information that suggests the contrary. I believe thats our practice. So if you didnt disclose exculpatory information, you chose to keep it as beginning to be more, this is a very real concern because that is lying to the court, correct . Id really youd have to know the facts of the particular case. If you had exculpatory information, as you just said, provide a full picture to the court, if you dont provide a full picture, would that not be a problem . I think the effort is to provide a full not my question. Not the effort. If it happened. Is that a problem . Is that something that you would not say should happen . In general, i think we would want to provide all the information all the relevant information to the court, absolutely, sir. So in general, you say its okay, but in cases where you dont want to disclose it, you say its okay. No, sir, no, sir. Maybe i misspoke in saying in general. I do believe we should disclose all relevant information to the court in applying for fisa if not, thats abuse for the Court Process . I dont know if i would use those exact terms what could ywould you call i . Something we work hard to do at doj to provide if it did not happen, any court, even this court as well, if it did not happen, its a failure, correct . Its something we dont want to happen. A failure. The elephant in the room fbi and doj on the president ial campaign volunteer, have you conducted a review of the carter page to determine whether ne each and every fact was verified by underlying evidence, and has anyone been sir, i really cant comment on that in any way. Among other reasons, i dont know anything about that particular case. So i cant comment on it today. Not saying my previous my question just prior to this also hints at this very issue as well. This is an issue that is now not a secret court issue, this is not some this has actually been put into the realm of the public and the media. If youre not using the information completely. Im not sure what your question is. I understand youre not going to answer it either way. The problem is, though, i think the chairman and i both do afree on some things and this is one of the areas we agree that there is a problem at the fisa court. We have just not talked about it this year because its not the political narrative were talking about. But there is a problem here that needs to be addressed that there has to be all and complete evidence brought to the fisa court, not just in general as you said, i appreciate your concern of misspeaking, but the issue here is that we got to make sure that this is a process in which is open for everybody because theres not a person listening to this hearing today, whether apolitical or very political, this is not something we need to have the probability at the highest level of our intelligence communities and doj to have a political agenda or leave out stuff when they go to a court in which there is ex parte proceedings and not anybody available to correct that or to correct the record and then to actually have it leaked later in a sense in which no accountability has taken place so far. I think this is the issue. I will go back, hopefully, at some point well get a classified briefing but my times expired. I yield. Let me just say that the minority staff worked with the majority staff in setting up this hearing and the minority staff has been working with the majority staff in setting up a classified briefing which will be scheduled. Can, mr. Chairman i appreciate that. At the same time, its always been scheduled together where we could have all our stuff together and witnesses here. I was pointing out a simple fact. I appreciate the chairman feeling he had a need to discuss the bipartisanship which was so evident on this but so lacking yesterday. Well, ill also comment that im not aware of any terrible problem with the fisa court, specifically not with the carter page application. Because weve not talked about it until today. Id move on. Yeah. Gentlelady from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You know, being in this room reminds me of after 9 11 and we actually came in on the weekend and we sat around the table that youre the witness table, mr. Sensenbrenner was chair of the committee and it was a Bipartisan Group trying to figure out what are we going to put together . I participated in that and we came up with a bill. We didnt know how it would work at the time, but we knew we needed to do some things and we did. As a Bipartisan Group. Its entirely appropriate that we review what we did so long ago to make sure that its working as we had hoped. Its obviously an important balance. I mean, we need to keep our country safe. Everyone agrees with that. But we also have strong incentive to make sure that the rights of americans are fully protected and respected. I know that all of you would agree with that. One of the questions that, you know, i have on these proceedings is how the Court Rulings having to do with privacy are integrated, if at all, into your proceedings. For example, the recent Supreme Court decision in carpenter really challenged and overturned the predigital age notions of the kinds of information that americans have a 4th amendment right to privacy in. Prior to carpenter, Law Enforcement considered cell site g geolocation record to be a business stored under the communications act. Didnt require a probable cause warrant. Carpenter, you need a probable cause warrant. Has that been translated into the same kind of record s that 215 would allow . Do you need probable cause to get geolocation records as we do in the criminal matter . Who can answer that . I can take that. So youre absolutely right, the carpenter decision, an important decision in the context of a criminal case held that you needed a warrant in order to obtain historic cell site Location Information. So thats not the same as gps. Correct. Information concerning a cell tower and so forth. So they specifically in that Supreme Court case distinguished the National Security context and said the ruling was only applicable i understand that. Weve given some thought to the issue of, okay, how does the carpenter case apply, in lets say, the Business Records context, to really go into the detail, unfortunately, as to how we are applying it in that context, id have to get into classified information. But im happy to do that and provide that information to you as to what our policy is with respect to Business Records and how carpenter applies to it. So im again, im happy to do that for you. So, if i can just probe, what youre saying is youre looking at it, its not the belief of the department that carpenter actually applies to what youre doing but that youre considering the 4th amendment implications for what, how you are proceeding. Would that be accurate . I think its a fair summary to say its not controlling but certainly something that were giving serious have given serious thought to in terms of how we apply it to our National Security authorities even though its not controlling. You know, one of the things that i have had concern about is the collection of content under various provisions of our fisa efforts and i do think its important to note that if you get enough nfrgs, even informav its not called content, it provides tremendous insight into the details, privacy rights of americans. Can you, ms. Morgan, talk about the how much content that you obtain through this program . Thank you for the question, maam. So i just want to emphasize that under nsas program, the call detail Records Program, we dont receive any content at all. We receive things like telephone number a called telephone number b at this date in time for this duration. Were not receiving any content and not receiving any locational information, either. Let me ask in terms maybe you cant answer this in a public session, but in terms of text messages, pictures, emails, and the like, what is the universe of what you are collecting . So, maam, again, under the cdr program, under the usa freedom act, were not collecting any content. Im happy in a closed session to give you more insight into under 215, none of that would be collected . Ill speak to nsa cdr provision, were not collecting any content. Its a little bit trickier in the context of the traditional uses of 215 because when you call something content, like, so is a drivers license record content or not . Certainly substantive information. Its a thirdparty Business Record. Yes. It has the information about the individual or that a terrorist or suspected terrorist stayed at a particular hotel on a particular night. Thats the type of information that we so on your Business Records, you would get autoll of that. We would get that. Its not communications i understand. We cant get substance of phone calls or anything like that. My time has expired. Hopefully we will when we originally crafted these origins we all craft Civil Liberties and we will craft things together. The gentle lady yields back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding the oversight hearing to get a better understanding of fisa provisions and procedures some of this expire on the 15th. For nearly a year sense the start of this congress the majority has had this committee and the public has issued subpoena after subpoena Holding Hearing after hearing and passing resolution after resolution regarding an investigation thats long been completed by special Council Robert mueller. Yesterday Corey Lewandowski appear bfrd our committee for several hours and again answered questions and hes testified before congress and the result remains the same. The president neither conspired nor colluded with the russians to impact or influence the 2016 president ial election. The russians did try to interfere. They set up the facebook accounts, et cetera, but that was under the Obama Administrations watch, not trumps. So if there was insufficient effort to protect america from the russians it was obamas fault, not trumps. Today, the American People might finally get some insight on how the original fisa application that then fbi director jim comey and other senior fbi officials have obtained at the behest of the Democratic Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, how all of that began. Mr. Orlando, can you please tell us under what circumstances the fbi might seek a fisa warrant to investigate an american citizen . A fisa on an american person we first need a case opened on that individual where that person poses a threat to National Security where hes had tied to a foreign powergen rally as an agent of a foreign power or tied to a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In order to initiate such a counterintelligence investigation, senior fbi officials must obtain a fisa warrant to collect information related to the allegations, is that correct . If youre seeking a fisa warrant there is an internal process and it elevates to the department of justice and to go to the court. Would it be proper for fbi agents to obtain fisa warrants to investigate Senior Trump Campaign advisers simply because they hated donald trump. That would not be appropriate and for us to open a case and the person poses a threat to National Security. Would it be proper for fbi agents based upon hyperpartisan memos that were written by individuals linked to the opponents campaign, in this case, the Clinton Campaign. We would have to show that youre an agent of a foreign power. Thank you. As far as you are aware, do the fbi and other intelligence officials verify the truthfulness of the allegations in the steele dossier about thencandidate donald trump . Sir, this is outside my purview. Even though the information was never verified and most of it has proven to be false, the Intel Community relied on it to get a fisa application to spy on the Trump Campaign. Is that basically what happened . Again, sir. That is outside my purview. Mr. Orlando, what information should an agent use to open a counterintelligence investigation . Really a wide variety of information that we can use. There just simply needs to be some sort of allegation that has specific and articulatable facts to open an investigation. When an agent does that, there is a supervisor that reviews that. In sensitive matters it elevates the approval. Thank you. Ive got a lot more questions, but it appears to me that faulty information was used to investigate the Trump Campaign officials bipartisan agents, and i just think its strange that just a few weeks ago Inspector General horowitz issued a scathing report regarding the mishandling of Sensitive Information by james comey, but it appears that nothing will happen relative to mr. Comey. He wont be brought before this committee to answer for the allegations in his report and mr. Horowitz wont have an opportunity to further taef to what is happening at the fbi to open an investigation. The American People deserve to learn the truth. The truth about how it was that the Democratic National committee and the Clinton Campaign were able to peddle a fake dossier to obtain a fisa warrant and turn it into an unnecessary, expensive, time consuming investigation to undermine an american presidency. The American People deserve better. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, can i actually ask a question . I know the gentlemans time has expired. The gentlemans time has expired. Can i ask the chair a question just on something the gentleman just mentioned . Is it a parliamentary inquiry . Its a question for the chairman of the committee. So, mr. Chairman, the Ranking Members and the chairmen of the Oversight Committee has received a letter from mr. Horowitz last week indicating that he has now turned the fisa report over to mr. Barr and the Justice Department. Have you had any contact with mr. Horowitz about when he might be in front of this committee to answer questions about the very subject we are learning about today . We will review any such letter. The gentle lady from texas. Good morning to the witnesses and thank you very much. Let me just ask a general question first, having been here on the day of being here in the congress on 9 11 2001, just commemorating the horror of that day just about a week ago. Is the fisa process an important process for National Security, in your opinion . Yes, maam. Mr. Orlando . Yes, maam. It is a critical tool for us to disrupt threats to the United States. Miss morgan . Yes, maam. Let me start with mr. Wagman on the fisa opinions. The usa freedom act directed all significant or novel foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Opinions possibly available to the greatest extent practical. It is clear from the statementses during floor debate that this was to include opinions written before the passage. Nonetheless, only a handful of opinions from the court released the passage of the bill had been published and how does the odni or the doj determine what are significant or novel enough to be published . So in terms of how we define whats significant and novel, there are plenty of opinions that will be applying ordinary legal opinions to the facts and deciding whether a particular individual will have probable cause and theres nothing particularly novel about that exercise and its fact intensive and not much would be released anyway and if we were to release the opinion because it would be application of the facts and not open to the public. That is the type of case where we would not consider it significant or novel, but if it was instead some interpretation of the act or something involved in amicus, or something about how the law applies more broadly, we would consider that to be significant and novel and those are the opinions that we provide in this committee and we have an obligation under the freedom act for declassification. Do you know how many opinions have remained completely secret because of the definitions youre using . There are certainly opinions that we would not consider significant and novel and those would not have been declassified. Thats right. And would there be a way to securing that in a way that theyre not significant and novel for the information of the American People or members of congress . Im sorry . Would there be a way of releasing those not significant or novel if for the American People or members of congress . So if they are neither significant or novel i think the judgment of the congress are those that would not provide to the committees and would have no obligation to review and there would be limited public interests and opinions. We could answer that in a classified setting. If there was something that the committee wanted to see, we could have a discussion about providing that to the committee. In addition, the government should discuss office of legal opinion relative to the governments interpreting of section 215 of the usa freedom act, is that correct . The government has done what . The office of legal opinions relative to the governments interpreting of section 215 of the usa freedom act. Is that important . Whether they should be disclosed . Yes. Again, all opinions, some of them are made public and others are not. It really depends on the facts of the case as to whether its privileged advice or whether its something they feel they can be made public and some are made public and others are not. Miss morgan, the nsa received large numbers of cdrs it should ha not have and in response nsa deleted every single record in 2015 and the Agency Claims it failed to provide the evidence of any change. As a result, nsa announced it would purge every single record it had collected since 2015 and in 2019 the New York Times published a major story requiring them to stop using this entirely. Has the nsa actually stopped the program . This time, if you can answer both of those and finally, to mr. Orlando, if you can know where we are with respect to foreign operatives, e plain the value of fiegsa in your work, but also the necessity of some form of that with respect to domestic terrorism. Miss morgan . Thank you, maam. Ill start with your second question. The cdr program has been has been stopped. Last month all of the equipment was decommissioned. We are not leveraging the cdr authority and have currently no plans to leverage it. In terms of the technical irregularities that we experienced, we got some information and it was still all meta data. I wanted to be very clear. It was still phone number a or phone number b and some of that information was inaccurate. As such, we determined that the best cows urse of action was to delete the records we received from the telecommunications providers. Mr. A orlando. The time of the gentle lady has expired. The witness may answer the question. You want to understand how fisa can be used on terrorism subjects . Whether you need a recharacterization, lets put it that way. We can only use fisa. So if the subject is not tied to an agent of foreign power we cant use it on a domestic terrorism subject. Understand that. You need some kind of similar, comparable situation . I couldnt comment on fbi policy. We have other tools on criminal matters like title 3 for wire surveillance that we can use. Oftentimes in domestic terrorism cases we look for the active violence already a violation of federal law and something about social or hate. Thank you. The time of the gentle lady has expired. The gentleman from texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here and thank you for your work trying to keep america safe. Did the doj, fbi or nsa during the Obama Administration consider the Russian Ambassador to be a terrorist or an agent of a terrorist organization . I couldnt comment on that. I dont know. I cant comment on anything outside the scope of miss morgan . Sir, i dont have that information. Wow wow thats amazing because it puts us in the position having heard that Jeff Sessions was being surveilled when he met as a senator with an ambassador. There are reports that weve had the israeli ambassador under surveillance, people that he met with. I dont know any of these things first hand. Its just what i read in here, but it gives me great concern because in my freshman term, when we debated section 206, 215, when we debated the fisa court and then seeing the massive abuses through the fisa court, we kept being assured, no, no, no. Especially in the fisa court, things like 215. Were not abusing anybody and i heard it here at this hearing that 215 allows surveillance of foreigners that are not normally associated with the terrorist organization. I just wondered if that included nations of israel or other folks like that and your silence speaks volumes, but looking at this provision to get access to foreign records or International Terrorism investigations, i still am concerned as i was originally with some of the language because it allows the pursuit, and this is normally going to be in front of a fisa court, apparently, that you can go after foreign intelligence information not concerning a u. S. Person, but we know that is not true because u. S. Persons are caught up masked and in the Obama Administration unmasked for no good reason, but then also or to protect against International Terrorism, and thats a term of war, or clandestine terrorism activities. What does that mean . Clandestine terrorism activities . Thats if my name kind of stands behind the curtains and watches whats going on in my yard . Is that certainly clandestine, gathering intelligence . I mean, how broadly can this go, and i was never really assured by the part of the law that said that these things will be done under the guideline approved by the attorney general. We may have the acting attorney general indicted here soon. Id rather have those done under the law instead of some guidelines we have nothing to do with, but let me also mention with regard to fisa. I understand you have abandoned the gathering of meta data, but as long as theres a fisa court, there could be another application and an affidavit that violates the Fourth Amendments requirement of probable cause and supported by it particularly describing things to be seized and when i looked at what was disclosed of the order regarding a verizon, and apparently everybody got one and everybody complied except quest, and i understand the head of quest may be in jail, but this just says give us everything youve got on an ongoing daily basis, with oncall details. There was no probable cause of anything. There was no particularity. Even though we abandoned fisa, and we dont have proper civil rights in the United States you can go right back and we can get back into a constitutional discussion on meta data, pin registers and that kind of thing, but still as long as we dont have reforms in the fisa court or do away with it and go back to the old way of protecting National Security then were going to have these kind of things come up and well find out about them later and then the program can be abandoned, but it sounds like were just going to keep reauthorizing. So i have significant concerns. Also, i am amazed here you get an order that allows it says meta data between u. S. And abroad and wholly within the United States including local telephone calls, but nothing to do with all of those in Foreign Countries and the application must have said were not with anything where the people arent protected with the u. S. Constitution and were only after the stuff thats protected by the Fourth Amendment of the constitution and that all causes me concern. I am delighted to hear my friend from california saying she wanted to work with both sides and i dont want you to be back here squirming because of abuses that are in the system and i do hope we Work Together to have reforms. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. In the gentleman from tennessee. Thank you, mr. Chair. I appreciate what all of you do for your agencies what the department of justice does, and what the fbi does protects our country and its sad that theyve been attacked on a regular basis over the last two years and people have had to question the men and women who are doing such outstanding work for us on our behalf, and i think that most americans appreciate what youre doing and i certainly do. Im concerned about First Amendment rights and i just want some assurances, mr. Wegman, if you can help me with this. The law makes clear when the government seeks Business Records involving american citizens, the investigation and questions cannot be conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment. How does the Department Look at this and the Justice Department, is there any review conducted internally to make sure that first nonamend am factors are objectionable. Thank you for the question. Thats a core provision and general provisions of fisa that we cannot engage in investigative activity solely on the basis of First Amendmentprotected activity. Ill give you an idea of what that means. Its a First Amendment right to say i support terrorism or al qaeda or isis. I like beer. If you want to say those things and you want to think those thing, thats your right. So we could not we could not get a fisa warrant or use a Business Records application when solely on that type of speech. However, if theyre saying those things and also in touch with people in isis or syria or people in al qaeda and afghanistan and theyre having communications, we can still consider the fact that theyve made these other statements because that gives us context to evaluate whether this person is an agent of a foreign power. You can see how speech which is First Amendment protected can be combined with other conduct can paint an entire picture that you come up with a picture that someone is an agent or a target. Does that answer your question . Sufficiently. Thank you. Thank you. A lot of people have issues or concerns about minority communities being targeted. Have you or any of your colleagues analyzed whether section 215 has disproportionately been used on specific minority groups, muslims in particular, hispanics in border communities and how are you assessing that and what are you doing to mack suke suree is not a disproportionate impact. Ill let mike also address this. We cannot address it under fisa solely on race, religion, gender, et cetera. Its the same kind of provision. Say we had an indication that someone of german nationality was coming to the United States to engage in a terrorist attack and that may be a bit of information that we consider together with other pieces of information to consider whether someone was properly targetable, if that explains it. Thank you, sir, can you commit that one of your groups that you would do a disproportionate impact audit . I can certainly take that back. I can take that back to the fbi, as well and to echo some of his comment, we cant open a case on anyone based on First Amendmentprotected activity. We look at the activities on the individual and thats how we make decisions about opening cases and the probable cause to move against fisa. Can you tell us, when twicea was first passed after 9 11, and there were changes. It was enacted in 1978. The changes were pretty strong, and there wassen accurate about the patriot act. A lot of people reacted adversely to it. Can you assure me or my liberal friends who had those concerns that there were quite a few amendments that took care of those concerns that arose. There were a number of amendments over the years and theres been a lot of eversight over the years and congressional oversight and the court and the executive branch, from my perspective, we have a robust system to make sure theyre used properly. Thank you, and let me close, it appears that some on the other side have a problem with a lot of the things that have gone on in Law Enforcement. I read all of those fisa applications and the carter page days and saw nothing wrong with any of them. I think all of the information was given to the court concerning the fact that the dossier that was there was not the russian government. It was a british official, so it wasnt russia and it was started by the republicans and regardless of that, was there a small factor and there was a lot of information to protect our country from russian interference and i thank the Justice Department and the fbi for their work and the security folk. Too much has been put on you and the biggest threat to you is a president who doesnt tell the truth and has access to information and the ability to counteract the good work that youre doing. Keep doing the good work. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from texas is recognized. As a former attorney and it still is my opinion that fisa is an important tool in the fight against International Terrorism, it is estimated that 25 of our actionable on Foreign Terrorists come from fisa terrorists like section 702 which isnt up for reauthorization and my point is that the reauthorization of certain fisa authorities should be noncontroversial and should be bipartisan. The problem is that many of us as has been pointed out including those of us with access to classified information have seen what appear to be egregious abuses and misuses of fisa authorities and corresponding misrepresentations before the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court itself, specifically as it pertains to Obama Administration, doj and fbi officials in securing the fisa order on at least one u. S. Citizen back in october of 2016 named carter page. Many of us do believe that the obama Justice Department verified an unverifiable dossier that was funded by the Democratic Party to secure an order allowing for the surveillance of that former Trump Campaign associate, mr. Page and many of us believed that there was exculpatory evidence that was not provided to the fisa court, at least not provided to the court during the pendancy of the fisa order itself. Earlier, the chairman said that he didnt see evidence of fisa abuse as it pertains to carter page. You heard mr. Cohen say the same thing. Democrats have generally expressed that opinion. The former fbi director, former director comey says the idea of fisa abuse is nonsense as it pertains to carter page. I, and many of my colleagues disagree with that. Ill just leave it at, the Inspector General has written a report and well see whos right and whos wrong and im worried that the Inspector General will find that folks on pie side of the aisle were right and they were not followed and well allow recommendations to do pa. I want to start off a the bit by asking. Do any special rules exist to surveil or spy upon a Political Campaign or one of its associates . Anyone . As i stated earlier, we have particular facts and i cant comment outside of anything outside of the freedom act today. Anyone . Special rules for surveilling a Political Campaign . Im not familiar, to be honest with you, sir. I cant say one way or the other. Lets use the existing framework that we know of. When the government is presenting a case with respect to u. S. Person like carter page, the fbi is required to verify to the foreign Intelligence Surveillance quarter that that is verified, correct . We have a file that contains supporting documents to back up the facts. Does the department of justice, are they required to disclose to the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court any exculpatory evidence . Is there, in criminal cases we have whats called the brady requirement to disclose exculpatory information. Is that something bradylike apply before the fisa court . Its not brady because thats a principle and criminal law in that context, but yes, my understanding, at least i can get back to you on this question. The answer is yes, we do try to provide the full picture when applying to a court when requiring a fisa warrant and that is indicating that the person that there is probable cause and information that would suggest to the contrary. Okay. So, in the case of carter page, if all the court heard was the government seeking a warrant and no counter arguments questioning the motivations of the steel dossier and the veracity of the dossier itself or about the credibility of the dossiers author, mr. Christopher steele, what safeguards are there in the fisa process currently to make sure that those obligations are met and what as a practical matter would prevent the appointment of an attorney ad litem to represent the interest of a target of a fisa application provided you could meet the security clearance requirements maybe by taking someone from the Justice Departments civil rights division. So, if i answer your question, i guess your question is the gentlemans time has expired. The witness may answer the question. Your question is whether we have Something Like an amicus to represent the targets of the fisa applications . Is that your question . To be able to probe the arguments that the government is making to take the extraordinary measure of surveilling the u. S. Citizen. I guess one thing i would say is you have to remember that fisa is in the National Security world with the title 3 wiretap which is the same type of thing and we dont have any amicus or participation in that context and i dont know why it would be necessary or appropriate to have an additional lawyer in this context. We do have exparty proceedings in the ordinary course when were doing wiretaps of a drug dealer or organized crime figure, et cetera. Im not sure i would see a need to have an amicus whether its a spy or a terrorist. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from georgia from georgia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im ashamed that at an oversight hearing you all have to be subjected to political, fake news that is being trafficked in by members of the Republican Caucus on this committee. Several days before President Trump was inaugurated he compared intelligence officials such as yourselves as nazis and then the day after he was inaugurated he paid a visit to cia headquarters out in langley, virginia, and he stood in front of the Hallowed Ground of the Memorial Wall where the names of cia operative, men and women, american citizens have given or commemorated, those are people who have given their lives and we dont know how many and thats what the wall commemorates on its Hallowed Ground out there and instead of while he was there speaking about the sacrifice of those brave men and women who have given their lives to protect us, the president talked about his crowd size at the inauguration and he bragged about winning the election and since then, he has continued to do everything he can to destabilize Public Opinion about our intelligence professionals and the work that they do and youve had to work through that. And so i appreciate you coming here today. I appreciate you continuing to do your work without political bent of mind, but strictly and singlemindedly for the protection of the American People, and i thank you for that. This hearing is about oversight and should not be about politics and as a member of the legislative branch, im sorry. I want to apologize to all of you all, all of you professionals who are here today for having to sit through this tirade that comes from the other side. Miss morgan, you mentioned that the cdr program has been suspended and nsa is tasked with the execution of the cdr program, correct . Nsa operated the cdr program. And has the cdr program or that authority under the program been used in any way, the meta Data Collected under the program, has it been accessed for any purpose since the program was suspended . Sir, we threated the Records Associated that we got from the telecommunication providers, so those records no longer are there to be accessed. All right. Thank you. And while that was being collected was that information shared with Immigration Enforcement authorities . Sir, the information that we collected under the cdr provision was accessible to analysts who are trained in how to handle that particular data and the rules associated with that data. Those analysts would look at the data and if they had foreign intelligence insights to share based on that they would report it through authorized channels to authorized personnel. That would have been officials also involved in Immigration Enforcement . Sir, im not certain about that. They would report it to an authorized to individuals who are authorized to receive that foreign intelligence information. Thank you. Mr. Orlando, the call detail records provision says that these records cannot include cell sites or gps information, but other parts of the law governing other types of Business Records dont have that express prohibition. So what i want to know is does the government collect geoLocation Information under section 215 . Im going to defer that question to my colleague auto the doj. He is better suited for those questions. Sir . I think i mentioned earlier there can be Fourth Amendment issues in that area and to answer that question i prefer to answer that in a classified session. Thank you. With that, i would yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from arizona . Thank you, mr. Chairman. So i know this has been discussed this morning to some extent, so i want to approach this maybe from a slightly different angle, but in light of carpenter, do you believe you have the authority under 215 to obtain cell site Location Information from providers . I prefer to get into that. Im happy to give you that information, congressman, i would just like to do that in a classified briefing. Okay. Then, so and this may give me elicit the same response, has doj interpreted guidance in section 215 in light of carpenter . No. No guidance . Nsa . Not to my knowledge. Okay. Has doj ever notified a criminal defendant that his information was obtained through a 215 order . No. Its not required by law. Theres no provision for that. And then why are the number of accounts so substantial given the number of targets in in 2018 they collected information and the unique accounts and they had only 60 surveillance targets. Sir, just to clarify, i assume youre referring to the numbers for the nsacdr . Yes. Okay, sir. So i think two things are important when you think about those numbers. One is putting those numbers into context. So every day in the United States there are billions was telephone calls made a day which can generate multiple records and we had 500 million over the course of a year. The other thing i would want to highlight is that when we get data, when we were getting data under the program thats now suspended, we were authorized to get historical date that that the telecommunication providers held in addition to ongoing data for the period of the court order. Additionally, i would like to highlight that under the cdr program which again, we are no longer using and we are authorized to get up to two hops so that as you would imagine will expand your numbers exponentially. Does nsa the authority to restart the program . Sir, we believe the authority exists. Okay. Do you have authority thats replicated under any authorization or any other authority . In other words, is there some other Legal Authority that you think that allows you to get the same information . We dont have another Legal Authority that would allow us to reinstate the existing the program as it existed. Im not following that. So if so let me get this back. If i understand the answer to the first question, you believe you have the authority to restart the program. Youio dont need new authority to restart . Yes, sir. If you dont restart the program is there another Legal Authority you can use to garner the same information . There is no other Legal Authority whereby we could establish the program that we recently shut down. Okay. Very good. Thank you. So a fisa order on a u. S. Citizen carter page was divulged to the Washington Post and i think you answered this earlier, has anyone held to account for this illegal disclosure . There has been no review . You dont know whether it has or not. I cant comment on that in any way. I dont know the answer. So i want to make sure you understand something, mr. Orlando, and i thought you said and i jotted it down. Im not going to quote it because im sure i messed it up and im just asking for clarification. I thought you might have said something to the effect that you use fisa authority to cultivate, obtaining probable cause. Is that a fair characterization or did you say anything like that at all . No. We used some of the Business Records and other authorities to develop probable cause to support fisa. So youre using Business Record authority . Okay. So we have indicated that you dont know if it was determined to determine whether each alleged fact was substantiated. Can it serve as evidence to verify the accuracy of a fisa application . If i understood your question correctly, you are asking if a news article is appropriate to be used if the information in there was pulled for the woods file. So the answer is yes . Yes, but there is often a lot of other facts that are put into the file that pulls out the totality of the probable cause. And with that my time has expired. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from rhode island. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to our witnesses for your testimony and for your service to our country. I think we are all trying to balance the very important Constitutional Values that are the bedrock of our democracy with of course, your important responsibility is to keep the American People safe and fisa tries to stake that balance. I would like to focus my question on the role of the adversarial process and mr. Wegman, ill begin with you. In the usa freedom act there is a requirement that the fisa court appoint the other side of the case as presenting novel or significant interpretations of law. The end report on the fisa Court Activities in 2018 issued by the administration that an amicus was appointed on nine ok kigzs last night, was it right . I dont know that number, but it lounds like no amicus will work next year. On three occasions, it was considering pointing an amicus because it should raise moffel, and they modified them in a way where they would not appoint an antic us. Can you best explain what happened in those three incidents . I dont know if those particular three incident, but i can tell you that there iss process that you would see thats unusual where we would provide read copies to the court in advance. So this is essentially a draft application and there is a give and take sometimes between the judges and their assistant, their staff and our attorneys and in light of the exchanges that occurred that process, sometimes applications are withdrawn altogether. Other times they can be modified in ways that the case is less significant or novel. Can you share in writing what the particular circumstances were of those three and there was also, i believe, in 2018 something similar happened. Im wondering if you can give more context of what the actual circumstances were . I can take that back and see if we can get that information. The law requires those who file amicus curea, with applications and other supporting materials. Have any been denied access to information that were relative to their duties . Not that i know of. Have they been denied to pete with other individuals to prepare their cases . Not that im aware of. The fies court have the ability to appeal the fisa court of review . Youre asking a good we oop on i would have have to look back and im not sure if it would get done in an args peel session, and they can participate in appeals and i would have to tell you how it works and there is a mechanism for appeal. It is my understanding that only a handful of opinions from the court have been published. How does the nsa or the doj determine which opinions are significant or novel enough to be published . As i mentioned earlier its an evaluation and its a case by case evaluation and there are many, and the vast bulk of the fisa matters are routine and youre applying the law to the facts and determining whether theres probable cause to target a particular individual and those would be routine and there is a much smaller number that raises an issue if a particular amount of data can be collected and new issues and were evaluating that on a case by case basis. What i am interested to know is how many opinions fit the definition of significant or novel, but are not published . We have to provide all of those to the committee under the freedom act and all of those must be provided and we also have to undertake, i believe, a declassification review to determine whether we can redact or release any of the opinions and thats in the law since 2015 that we have to do that noop and all of those declassification reviews are private . Yes, and have a havent been done yet, and we would be under review. Has the department of justice notified all criminal defendants based on evidence derived from the use of evidence 215. You are required to do it with prosecutions from evidence from 702, but id like to know if you can do it with respect to 215 and whether you would commit to such verification and finally, would there be a problem if congress were to amend 215 to require notice to a criminal defendant the same way we would under section 702. We dont provide notice, and other provision title one, title 3, 702, congress has built in a mechanism, whereby we would give notice if were using information in a case against an aggrieved person. There is currently none for section 215. The reason for that is 215 essentially like a grand jury subpoena. Its authority to allow us to collect thirdparty Business Records of which there is no Fourth Amendment protected interest and we have notice of suppression mechanism which is your ability to challenge privacy interest. Thats generally not done in the law with other context with regard to thirdparty Business Records and there is no information derive rived from a, and modeled under criminal authorities. Thank you. I yield back. The gentleman from louisiana. Thank you mr. Chairman and thanks to each of you for being here in the service of your country. Just a few questions for you regarding the constitutional implications from all of this. Does the Fourth Amendments protection against reasonable search and seizure under section 215 of the patriot act . No. So a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in thirdparty Business Records, then, is that right . Yes. Is it tru that a 215 order provides greater Privacy Protection with an administrative subpoena that can be used to obtain the same records in a criminal investigation with regard to a Court Approval. Thats correct. Most subpoenas can be made by a u. S. Attorney and we would not have to do in a criminal case. So its more protection, not less. Got it. If the Fourth Amendment applies to foreign country, do other american protections under the bill of right apply . Like, for example, the Second Amendment and the due process clause. Im not sure if i understand your question. Well strike that. Let me give you some foundation for it. In a domestic title 3 wiretap an individual who is not under suspicion may be monitored because they received a phone call from someone who is a title 3 wiretap. Traditionally those are subjected to minimization procedures and is it different under fisa . Yes, it operates under title 3 and the criminal context and by that i mean they are turning on and off the wiretap during the conversation whether they are collecting information thats relevant to their investigation or not. In fisa, its done after the fact. So if you receive the foreign target and youre in communication with the u. S. Person and then the minimization process and there are procedures in place to try to minimize the collection of retention and the information and that is done post hoc when thinking about the information that you have and youre disseminating it within the Intelligence Community and thats the big difference between title 3 and fisa in that regard. You know, in the process, the on off procedure that you describe, theres obviously an inevitable amount of subjectivity that goes into that and thats the kind of thing that makes people nervous and you have to have at the end of the day some trust that those that have auth aority. And just to be clear thats in an ordinary, criminal wiretap and thats what theyre doing every day and have done for many years. Is legally obtained information eligible for use in other intelligence activities . So can evidence obtained through the intelligence collection be used under criminal prosecution under what circumstance . Yes, it can be assuming that they get approval from the attorney general to use it. We get the approval from the Intelligence Community and it can be used in a criminal case. Im going to yield back, mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from california, mr. Lu. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you all for your public service. I am going to correct some misstatements by my republican colleagues with related to the investigation and the carter page warrants. Here are the facts. The fbis investigation included in part the carter page fisa warrants. That entire investigation helped lead to the mueller special counsel investigation. The special counsel muellers investigation resulted in 34 individuals being indicted for which eight have been convicted or pled guilty of violating american criminal laws. Volume 1 of the Mueller Report showed that ru showed that russians engaged in a sweep and systematic, and they welcomed it and gave internal polling data to russians and then they planned their Campaign Strategy around the russian attack. We should be thanking the fbi, not trashing them for getting this information out to the American People. Those are the facts. Now i have to say about the Record Program and my first question is unlike the facea warrants and so on, none of this goes through a warrant process, correct . Sir, if i might just explain how the program worked . Sure. So this is an example, and the nsa analyst, they have a phone number and they have a suspicion that the phone number is used by the foreign power engagement in terrorism. We work at the nsa with our doj and fbi colleagues to draft an application to the fisa court or the attorney general in an emergency situation. Fisa Court Reviews that information we present to see if weve met the standard, reasonable suspicion. If the fisa court proves that application, then the telecommunication providers are compelled to provide us with the meta data associated with that phone number. So there is a court a Court Process. But before that but before the purge, you had all these records collected without a warrant, correct . Sir, before the purge the records that we did collect were a result of going through that fisa process. However, some of the records that we received had sir, had technical irregularities that resulted in the purge. So you had hundreds of thousands of records that went through the fisa process . The fisa Court Approves a specific collection term. They come from the telecommunication providers. One term can result in a lot of records. Yes, sir, because as you likely know we are able to get historical Records Associated with that phone number and prospective records as long as the order is in place and we are also authorized to get what we call two hops out from that original phone number. Can you explain what that means to the American People . Absolutely, sir. So if the Court Approves a say my phone number is associated with International Terrorism and an agent of foreign power, it goes through the Court Process and they approved, im authorized to get metadata records of other phone numbers that have been in contact with my phone number. For example, if im in contact with mr. Orlando, im authorized to get that. I am also authorized to get numbers associated with mr. Orlando. If mr. Orlando was in contact with mr. Wegman and we call that two hops and i am able to get that retrospectively as well as the Ongoing Court order. Part of that would include drivers license information . So again, to be clear, thats traditional use of 215. What was just being described is the cdr program, so the cdr program has nothing to do with the program. There say separate and the Business Records allows you to get things like drivers license records and thats more targeted and based on the relevance of those particular records in a particular investigation. Would that also include images like the picture on the drivers license, as well . Im not certain we can go back. You let us know . I dont actually know. So thank you for your answers. My personal view is that this cdr program also known as metadata program, to me, it does violate the privacy. The government could tell, for example, just from metadata whether a person called a Suicide Prevention hot line or Alcoholics Anonymous or a sex chat line or a bankruptcy lawyer or a divorce lawyer. So to me thats just too much information for the government to have in addition with the two hop, i think it captures too many people. So without a greater showing of why this system is efficient or resulting in a actual concrete government, i am unlikely to support it with the authorization. With that, i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from north dakota. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have never worked with the nsa because i was a lawyer in north dakota, and ive worked with doj and i appreciate all i could and what ive found is the very best agents and the very best lawyers are very cognizant of where the line is and what they can do and what they cant do and the best and most aggressive ones particularly in this area will push the envelope in order to do something because thats your job. I dont discount that. I think that is actually appropriate. I think thats why its our job and the courts job to set where that wall is so you can you can keep running into brick walls and keep bdoing what youe doing to keep our country safe. I do want to go back to something mr. Ratcliffe was talking about. We were doing the content between the gathering and this type of information in criminal cases and one of the things that was stated was that this happens a lot in criminal cases and exparte wiretaps and one of the things we have is eventually i get it all as a defense attorney in a straightforward criminal case. I get it all. I get to go to brady. I get to go to carpenter and i get to go to all those things and thats what i think we miss sometimes in this in how we deal with it. I know the difference between carpenter and essential, Realtime Tracking of your actual location verses Business Record exception and this is a perfect example of where i get to that. Do you know how many fisaderived or how many criminal prosecutions have come out of fisa warrants . I dont understand if you mean come out of the facea warrants . How many cases have we used fisa information in a criminal case including title 1 fisa or title 3 fisa . There have been many of those cases since the late 1970s when fisa was first adopted. Its not a massive number, but i couldnt i wouldnt have an exact count of how many there have been, but there have been over the years many different cases. And i would just, outside of everything,ive never wanted a half hour longer in my life to ask questions, and how do you transition the intelligence gathering . Weve talked about brady and its not the same and i understand all of those thing, but when you get into a criminal case we always have a saying, right . Hard cases make bad law and theres back and forth going on with the carter page case and all of that, but the problem, i think, with all of this is we only hear about the hard cases. We dont hear about a lot of other things. So im all over the place because i have so many cases i want to ask. How does the woods review work . I think ill let mike answer that. If i can go back to your original question and answer that. An espionage cases is a good example. Oftentimes we use fisa to bring that case and we bring it to criminal conclusion and as we build that case and the information thats relevant to that case gets to be classified to turn over to the defendant. So i have a question. Have you ever found existing criminal activity unrelated to what you were dealing with thats been turned over to Law Enforcement . I dont recall. There is talking to a drug dealer would be how i would just that specific fact pattern. I dont have any specific background on that. He might have some on that. I would have to get back to you to see how often that comes up. Thats where the conflict comes in for people who are not naive and understand how to keep our country safe, but actually do care about how the due process clause and Civil Liberties apply once we end up in those situations. I mean, just to be clear again, if we are using the fisa in a criminal case we have an obligation to give notice to the criminal defendant. They have then the ability to challenge the use of that fisa information in court. There is a process thats set up in the statute and thats been done many times in these cases. Typically, terrorism cases and espionage cases and the like. In regards to the woods process, an agent starts drafting an application. Once its complete he sits down with the supervisor and in every case he has to show the supervisor where he got the information from and all of that goes into a book for review. For several people and mr. Sweeney and mr. Ratcliffe were talking about. The amicus attorneys get all relevant, legal information. Ami relevant legal information. And i think some of us, im not sure if we carefully of the top class of clearance that we exist in the world, but what would be the problem with having someone as an amicus lawyer out here on the onset . This is something that was considered back in 2015. And they say this remains the judgment say that it would really slow down and bog down the process if you amicus participating in every type application and the title iii context having an adversary proceeding in every application would make the process untenable. And i think the oversight part that i will be looking at is i dont want all of the relevant information to be taken i wanted to have all the information and be able to review it and deal with this. I dont think potentially it would have to be adversarial in the hearing i just wanted to be able to deal with it because the consequences for withholding information on those types of issues really only come to bear if someone finds it out which is typically very challenging when there is only one part of this process being presented. So i think there is potential ways to do this that does not slow down that also holds people accountable for making sure it is being done correctly. And with that i yelled back. Thank you mister chairman and thank you all for being here. I think you have heard bipartisan paces that we all have concerns about how mass surveillance is used in the United States particularly after the patriot act we tried to address some of those things but i think there are still issues that do remain on the table as we look at reauthorizations. So i wanted to go to the cdrs and just so thats the American People understand i think while the program has been suspended my understanding is that the administration is asked for that continue to be part of the reauthorization is that correct . Yes maam. To so people understand how much information is being collected, according to the office of the director of National Intelligence 2019, to disco transparency report, the nsa collected records based on 11 targets in calendar year calendar year 2018 is that correct . I do not have that report in front of me. It is page 28 of the report. According to that same report with just 11 targets, the nsa collected 434,000 434,238 500 im sorry for and 44,238,543 call records. Does that sound accurate . I know it was recorded in the report that the sound accurate to me. I think the American People need to understand that when one record is collected, one target is collected that that means that you are collecting an enormous amount of call records with just that one target. It is a shocking amount of records and i dont think the vast majority of the American People understand that. So now going to section 215 as part of the broader surveillance authorized by section 215, can the nsa obtain peoples medical records . Maam if i can just clarify . So the components that we use that we are talking about today is really the division from an nsa. Perspective. So i would defer to my colleagues to see the traditional use certificates. Okay. We will move you to broader to 15 if you want to address that. I am not aware of it being used to get medical records. But it could be . The way the provision is written could be used to obtain medical records . It could be used to obtain drivers license . I would say the circumstances that i can think of as to that would be terribly limited. Theres nothing that prevents us from doing that youre just saying that hasnt been used before. But it could be. I think we would have to look at the division of the policy. How about tax returns . Do you collect tax returns from hundreds of millions of americans . You have to show in each case with a statement of fact that these individual records are relevant to an authorized invocation investigation for counterterrorism purposes for the u. S. Person. So that is going to limit it dramatically. Youre also going to have to use specific selection terms. And you cant do the collection of 2015 at this stage. So there is no possibility of collecting hundreds of millions of records. Tax records i know are a different amount. You could potentially collected perhaps not the scale that i mentioned. Right. So the law specifically mentions tax records and says in the case of an application for an order requiring the book so records of firearm sales and tax return records or medical records they are contemplated in the statute. And that application has to go to a high level review so the director the fbi and the Deputy Director and the dp 80 and the executive assistant director. So it does contemplate the possibility of getting medical records or tax records but recognizing the sensitivity particular of those types of records that are elevated for this particular view. And i am personally not aware of whether not this is been done in the connection of the medical or tax or counter tellers them issue. I think it is unlikely but it is possible. You might be supportive of exploiting those types of records . You never know if those records meet the standard. And if they are relevant in an authorized counterterrorism effort. I am deeply concerned about the kinds of information that we collect and miss morgan you mentioned earlier that the chairmans questions were not the right standard for assessment and not a program that was effective but at some point perhaps i do have another question to get through so i assume my time has been expired but at some point perhaps you could provide us with what metrics are reasonable because i think the problem that we are dealing with is we are trying to strike the right balance of maintaining security of force but we have to respect the bedrock values of privacy in silver Civil Liberties. We see what happened with this cbr and we can see what happened with these challenges. Thank you mister chairman. Thank you so much mister chairman. And thank you offer what you do every day to help to keep us safe. If we could just go back a bit to follow up on my colleagues question about the information and what it is that would have to be relevant. Could you talk a little bit about the checks and balances of the fisa Court Application system . Those that would maybe relieve some of the concerns . To begin with first we have to open the case which has to have supervisor approval. And as you move forward to do the Business Record and they go up here goes back to the supervisor review to the headquarters that have a number of lawyers to look at the application make sure we have the right relevancy to the Security Administration that moves over to the department of justice for another series before it goes back over to the courts. So there are a number of individuals and supervisors are looking at these applications. Euros that have a statement of facts. You cant just say its relevant. You have to have the facts showing that is relevant to the investigation. Usf to be able to show that its not based on personal activity and present all of that to the fisa court and they all have to agree. So there is an elaborate process here that ends up with a judicial approval. Thank you. Moving on to the wiretaps when we condone the wiretaps it doesnt always necessarily identify the person that being targeted. The law requires you to say the identity is known or a description of the specific target. In a general or hypothetical level can you describe why you may not know the identity of the their target and instead provide a description of the target . In most cases do you know . It gives us the ability if theyre using trade crafted to elude us. So we have multiple facilities but we still have to go back to the court within 10 days to address what we have done. The only circumstance i can think of hypothetically is that if there is a pending threat that we dont have the name but we do have a number of identifiers on who that individual is. And we can possibly present a case to the court that we think it is this type of person that meets all of the identifiers that might meet that circumstance. I think the cyber context is one in which you can imagine there would be a lot of information to identify an individual but maybe not the end of that persons name. I can give you more information about that but i think that is what you are referring to cyber context would be what we were talking about in the up applicable range. Can you briefly describe why you feel this did division is so needed and why National Security threats were terrorists have been detected or prevented as a result of this. And can you give us a hypothetical if needed. A counterterrorism is a hypothetical situation. We have the threat of the ongoing violent extremist radicalizing and mobilizing very quickly. We have to disrupt them faster than we had to disrupt them in the past 20 years. They are involving with the tradecraft and instances here with the changed cell phones and emails pretty quickly. That helps us keep pace with them if we didnt have that authority we would have to repeatedly go back to the court and seek Emergency Authority to get the order thereafter which would cause a delay. And the counterintelligence side we have those Intelligent Services that highly intelligent Trained Service officers trained to evade fbi surveillance were able to come into the country changed cell phones and emails and went to vehicles. This gives us the capability to present with them. The lone wolf precision has never been used can you give us a reason or concern like what you just suppressed here . On how it could be used to help decrease domestic terrorism . I dont believe it applies to domestic terrorism. But i will say for the statute these are individuals that are here in the United States. That is where they would have to be a nonus person with a global jihadist personality not taking any direction from a terrorist organization. Today weve been able to direct those by finding other ways of getting them here and making some sort of connection. With this evolution i do for cs possibly using that statute with the way that threat is evolving and people using mixed ideologies. Thank you mister chairman. Thank you mister chairman. I would like to add my voice to the chorus of callings here that have expressed appreciation for your work and protecting your country and citizens. But also i wanted to add my own concerns about Civil Liberties and privacy. We are not a police state. Our security greatly relies on the trust of the population and the governmental institutions. In my district, weve probably speaking 100 different languages. I think about my district is being the new ellis island. Weve had people from all over the Island Living in my district. Trust in the police state is paramount neighbors arrested a man who was in the act of raped a woman. He was convicted of more than 20 counts of rape. And we think there may have been more. They never presented themselves due to fear of the authorities and many of them were undocumented. I wanted to follow up on some of the congressmans questions which was the impact of sections 215 on minority communities. Specifically the information that you gathered whether or not it is shared with Immigration Enforcement authorities. There would have to be some crime related to them before we could journey information. So let me help you clarify for me, it is not shared with immigration authorities unless it is relevant to some specific crime or National Interest or specific criminal act of terrorism or otherwise. Is that what im hearing . It would have to be done on a specific case by case situation. So specifically wiretap is when you suspect someone on one end or the other. The u. S. Has the question of immigration standards and that is not automatically turned over to Immigration Enforcement authorities . It would have to be relevant. For instance if we said theres a terrorist threat that is coming to the border we would turn it over to partners in cbt to assist us. And that terrorist threats is not one that is defined as merely immigration status or here to do serious violent acts . That would be the definition of an International Terrorism taste case. As a stated before we use the cdr program specifically to focus on the International Terrorism issues. We find information related to International Terrorism and reported it out to authorize us to get that information. In those procedures the authorities specify the rules from when we can disseminate information and the general standard is a test before an intelligence information necessary to understand information or evidence of a crime. And that crime would not be meeting immigration status in this country. The question as to whether or not someone illegally entered would it be a crime . If you had evidence of its bearing as a crime it is possible. If the actual information was evidence of the crime. Can you give me more information on what circumstances that that may be possible or not . Again my question is the information shared with immigration authorities. On the fact that may be someone here at immigration status is not correct so to speak. I can get back to you on that. And i can envision a situation. You have a very powerful tool at your disposal. Information. Wiretapping. You can very easily turn that around and say that we are going to use that for immigration purposes. I hope you dont get that. That would not be correct. We only use these to counter the intelligent sources and foreign terrorism sources and International Terrorist issues. I would like something in writing on the specifics. We do want to get something clear here. The last 20 seconds i would also like to note what tools it is that you need to fight domestic terrorism . You mentioned that the lone wolf provision has not been applied. Maybe it only applies to international and not domestic. I want to know what tools you need to keep our population safe in the u. S. From emerging domestic terrorism threats. With that mister chair i yield. The chairman yields. The gentle lady from texas now. Thank you mister chairman and for holding this room for hearing. I too want to start by thanking all of you for the good work that you do and what you do in the respective agencies. As well as all of those people that work in the agency. And being out here in the field where the real work happens. At least with the doj and that fbi and a number of occasions in that capacity as a judge and all your. And with the nsa. I just want to make sure that you know that there are many of us out there who do support you and do so without shame. However when we look at the whole picture i know that it is all about the Balance System and the National Security issue is a threat and emergence in the privacy of individuals versus some of the other things that we have got to balance. And i just want to start with you miss morgan, to clarify for the audience and those watching at home perhaps, we get a letter from your agency that says the nsa has suspended the call Records Program and has deleted the call details record. This decision was made after balancing the programs relative intelligence value such as cost and compliance. If we have suspended it and you keep saying you need the tool in your toolbox, obviously if in my toolbox available can hammer i throw it out. I mean why is it that you suspended it and they would think that eumenes still need it . As a professional he said emphatically that you thought you needed it. So i wanted to be sure as to why we may need it . Thank you for your question. As we stated in this letter, we do make the decision to suspend the program after we balanced the Intelligence Program that did exist here. You said there was only two matrixes here. Im sorry . You said there was a lot of matrixes in this decision but only two that the chairman mentioned. What other matrix do you all consider . When we evaluate the different programs that we have we talked about it too. What others do you look at . In terms of making decisions its on valued is that what you mean . And why we should reinstate the program. Okay. So what i would say is that as i sit here as an intelligence professional and i started my career in 2001 as an Intelligence Analyst i can tell you that you never know what you are going to confront in the future. You told us all that. I would like specific matrix on whether or not you reauthorized this after it was already suspended. Can you help me understand what you mean by matrix . Im using your own words. Metrics. All cafe said matrix. Okay. Im so i apologize for that. It has been a rough week for me. Already. Its been a long day. Okay metrics. So what i would say is a couple things. One you dont always necessarily have metrics. Because the intelligence profession is not always something that can be statistically measured and he cannot necessarily measure the information or the lead information that i have over here and ultimately alternately weeks months and years from now it has a different picture that provides you a clear critical insight from an intelligence perspective. So its not always that youre going to have a data point like this amount of this particular thing happened happen. Not always can have a number. In some instances its going to be intelligence professionals and discussions with her colleagues to say hey weve reported this information from this program. Has it been of value to how has it been of value to you. And in the to take that information and make the decision based on different factors that you consider. That youre not necessarily going to have this program is one that i rate of five and this one a rate of three and heres all my data. What you definitely want to keep it in case you might want to use it. And im not sure that i agree with that. Some good have to cut you off because i quickly went to ask a question from the fbi folks. A number of companies offered you those genetic testing services. To test for Genealogical Research and detection of inherent conditions. Is any of that also subject to this activity . This might be one we had to refer to the book again. I am not familiar of any time we passed that information. Again, the authority is just like the grand jury team you can request any type of tangible thing or record provided you have established that it is relevant to the authorized investigation. Or specific facts that show it. It seems unlikely that that will be the case. But its not ruled out. I dont know what the fact pattern maybe but it may be relevant to the investigation. What about the videos from the video camera we can go see this Video Surveillance to the front door of your video . That most certainly could be relevant but i am sure you can easily envision areas where that might be relevant. If i can add Business Records to this . Reza toward the Building Blocks here in the open case we identify the subjects telephone numbers, email addresses and more. We go to the court for Business Records to identify the transaction records and not the content to see who is talking to. Or to see if he can build identifications to identify that network. And we use that with the probable cause to move to court authorized surveillance. Thank you so much. This does conclude todays hearing. We thank all of our witnesses for dissipating. Without objection we are submitting additional written questions for the record. Without objection the hearing is adjourned