FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY: I do.

GRASSLEY: Thank you very much.

As the old saying goes, for somebody as famous as you, you don't need any introduction. So I'm just going just introduce you as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But to once again thank you for being here today and we look forward to your testimony and answers to our questions. You may begin.

AD

AD

COMEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, members of the committee. Thank you for having this annual oversight hearing about the FBI. I know that sounds little bit like someone saying I'm looking forward to going to the dentist, but I really do mean it.

I think oversight of the FBI, of all parts of government, especially the one I'm lucky enough to lead, is essential. I think it was John Adams who wrote to Thomas Jefferson that power always thinks it has a great soul. The way you guard against that is having people ask hard questions, ask good questions and demand straightforward answers, and I promise you I will do my absolute best to give you that answer today.

I also appreciate the conversation I know we're going to have today and over the next few months about reauthorizing section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. This is a tool that is essential to the safety of this country. I did not say the same thing about the collection of telephone dialing information by the NSA. I think that's a useful tool.

AD

AD

702 is an essential tool and if it goes away we will be less safe as a country and I mean that and would be happy to talk more about that. Thank you for engaging on that so we can tell the American people why this matters so much and why we can't let it go away. As you know, the magic of the FBI that you oversee is its people. And we talk, as we should, a lot about our counterterrorism work, about our counterintelligence work, and I'm sure we'll talk about that today.

But I thought I would just give you some idea of the work that's being done by those people all over the country, all over the world, every day, every night, all the time. And I pulled three cases that happened that were finished in the last month just to illustrate it.

The first was something I know that you followed closely, the plague of threats against Jewish community centers that this country experienced in the first few months of this year. Children frightened, old people frightened, terrifying threats of bombs at Jewish institutions, especially the Jewish community centers.

AD

AD

The entire FBI surged in response to that threat, working across all programs, all divisions, our technical wizards using our vital international presence. And using our partnerships, especially with the Israeli national police. We made that case and the Israelis locked up the person behind those threats and stopped that terrifying plague against the Jewish community centers.

Second case I wanted to mention is, all of you know what a botnet is. These are the zombie armies of computers that have been taken over by criminals lashed together in order to do tremendous harm to innocent people. Last month, the FBI working with our partners with the Spanish national police took down a botnet called the Kelihos botnet and locked up the Russian hacker behind that botnet, who made a mistake that Russian criminals sometimes make of leaving Russia and visiting the beautiful city of Barcelona. And he's now in jail in Spain and the good people's computers who had been lashed to that zombie army have now been freed from it and are no longer part of a huge criminal enterprise.

And the last one I'll mention is, this past week for the first time since Congress passed a statute making it a crime in the United States to engage in female genital mutilation to mutilate little girls, it's been a felony in the United States since 1996, we made the first case last week against doctors in Michigan for doing this terrifying thing to young girls all across the country. With our partners in the Department of Homeland Security, we brought a case against two doctors who were doing this to children. This is among the most important work we do, protecting kids especially, and it was done by great work that you don't hear about a lot all across the country by the FBI. It is the honor of my life.

AD

AD

I know you look at me like I'm crazy for saying this about this job. I love this work. I love this job. And I love it because of the mission and the people I get to work with, some of whose work I just illustrated by pulling those three cases from last month, but it goes on all the time, all around the country, and we're safer for it. I love representing these people and speaking on their behalf, and I look forward to your questions today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: And thank you for your opening statement. I'm going to start out probably with a couple subjects you wish I didn't bring up, and then a third one that I think everybody needs to hear your opinion on on a policy issue. It is frustrating when the FBI refuses to answer this committee's questions, but leaks relevant information to the media. In other words, they don't talk to us, but somebody talks to the media.

AD

AD

Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

COMEY: Never.

GRASSLEY: Question two, relatively related, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

COMEY: No.

GRASSLEY: Has any classified information relating to President Trump or his association — associates been declassified and shared with the media?

COMEY: Not to my knowledge.

GRASSLEY: You testified before the House Intelligence Committee that a lot of classified matters have ended up in the media recently. Without getting into any particular article — I want to emphasize that, without getting into any particular article — is there an investigation of any leaks of classified information relating to Mr. Trump or his associates?

AD

AD

COMEY: I don't want to — I don't want to answer that question, senator, for reasons I think you know. There have been a variety of leaks — well, leaks are always a problem, but especially in the last three to six months.

And where there is a leak of classified information, the FBI — if it's our information — makes a referral to the Department of Justice. Or if it's another agency's information, they do the same. And then DOJ authorizes the opening of an investigation. I don't want to confirm in an open setting whether there are any investigations open.

GRASSLEY: You — I want to challenge you on that because the government regularly acknowledges when it's investigating classified leaks. You did that in the Valerie Plame case. What's the difference here?

AD

COMEY: Well, the most important difference is I don't have authorization from the department to confirm any of the investigations they've authorized. And it may be that we can get that at some point, but I'm not going to do it sitting here in an open setting without having talked to them.

AD

GRASSLEY: And I can — you can expect me to follow up on that offer.

COMEY: Sure.

GRASSLEY: There are several senior FBI officials who would've had access to the classified information that was leaked, including yourself and the deputy director. So how can the Justice Department guarantee the integrity of the investigations without designating an agency, other than the FBI, to gather the facts and eliminate senior FBI officials as suspects?

AD

COMEY: Well, I'm not going to answer about any particular investigations but there are — I know of situations in the past where if you think the FBI or its leadership are suspects, you have another investigative agency support the investigation by federal prosecutors. It can be done. It has been done in the past.

GRASSLEY: Okay, moving on to another subject, the New York Times recently reported that the FBI had found a troubling email among the ones the Russians hacked from Democrat operatives. The email reportedly provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Secretary Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation “didn't go too far.”

AD

How, and when, did you first learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?

COMEY: That's not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr. Chairman, because it would call for a classified response. I have briefed leadership of the intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I can't talk about it here.

GRASSLEY: You can expect me to follow up with you on that point.

COMEY: Sure.

GRASSLEY: What steps did the FBI take to determine whether Attorney General Lynch had actually given assurances that the political fix was in no matter what? Did the FBI interview the person who wrote the email? If not, why not?

COMEY: I have to give you the same answer. I can't talk about that in an unclassified setting.

GRASSLEY: Okay, then you can expect me to follow up on that. I asked the FBI to provide this email to the committee before today's hearing. Why haven't you done so and will you provide it by the end of this week?

COMEY: Again, to react to that, I have to give a classified answer and I can't give it sitting here.

GRASSLEY: So that means you can give me the email?

COMEY: I'm not confirming there was an email, sir. I can't — the subject is classified and in an appropriate forum I'd be happy to brief you on it. But I can't do it in an open hearing.

GRASSLEY: I assume that the other members of the committee could have access to that briefing if they wanted? I want to talk about going dark. Director Comey, a few years ago, you testified before the committee about the going dark problem in the inability of law enforcement to access encrypted data despite the existence of a lawfully issued court order. You continue to raise this issue in your public speeches, most recently Boston College. My question, you mentioned it again in your testimony briefly — but can you provide the committee with a more detailed update on the status of the going dark problem and how it affected the FBI's ability to access encrypted data? Has there been any progress collaborating with the technology sector to overcome any problems?

At our hearing in 2015, you said you didn't think legislation was necessary at that time. Is that still your view?

COMEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The shadow created by the problem we call going dark continues to fall across more of our work. Take devices for example. The ubiquitous default full-disk encryption on devices is affecting now about half of our work.

First six months of this fiscal year, FBI examiners were presented with over 6,000 devices for which we have a lawful authority search warrant or court order to open and 46 percent of those cases we could not open those devices with any technique. That means half of the devices that we encounter in terrorism cases, in counterintelligence cases, in gang cases, in child pornography cases, cannot be opened with any technique. That is a big problem. And so the shadow continues to fall.

I'm determined to continue to make sure the American people and Congress know about it. I know this is important to the president and the new attorney general. I don't know yet how the new administration intends to approach it, but it's something we have to talk about. Because like you, I care a lot about privacy. I also care an awful lot about public safety. There continues to be a huge collision between those two things we care about.

So I look forward to continuing in that conversation, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: You didn't respond to the part about do you still have the view that legislation is not needed.

COMEY: I don't know the answer yet. As I think I said — I hope I said last time we talked about this, it may require a legislative solution at some point. The Obama administration was not in a position where they were seeking legislation. I don't know yet how President Trump intends to approach this. I know he spoke about it during the campaign. I know he cares about it, but it's premature for me to say.

GRASSLEY: Senator Feinstein.

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CALIF.): Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Director, I have one question regarding my opening comment and I view it as a most important question and I hope you will answer it. Why was it necessary to announce 11 days before a presidential election that you were opening an investigation on a new computer without any knowledge of what was in that computer?

Why didn't you just do the investigation as you would normally with no public announcement?

COMEY: A great question, senator. Thank you. October 27, the investigative team that had finished the investigation in July focused on Secretary Clinton's emails asked to meet with me.

So I met with them that morning, late morning, in my conference room. And they laid out for me what they could see from the metadata on this fella Anthony Weiner's laptop that had been seized in an unrelated case. What they could see from the metadata was that there were thousands of Secretary Clinton's emails on that device, including what they thought might be the missing emails from her first three months as secretary of state.

We never found any emails from her first three months. She was using a Verizon BlackBerry then and that's obviously very important, because if there was evidence that she was acting with bad intent, that's where it would be in the first three months.

FEINSTEIN: But they weren't there.

COMEY: Look, can I just finish my answer, senator?

FEINSTEIN: Yes.

COMEY: And so they came in and said, we can see thousands of emails from the Clinton email domain, including many, many, many from the Verizon Clinton domain, BlackBerry domain. They said we think we got to get a search warrant to go get these, and the Department of Justice agreed we had to go get a search warrant.

So I agreed, I authorized them to seek a search warrant. And then I faced a choice. And I've lived my entire career by the tradition that if you can possibly avoid it, you avoid any action in the run-up to an election that might have an impact. Whether it's a dogcatcher election or president of the United States, but I sat there that morning and I could not see a door labeled no action here.

I could see two doors and they were both actions. One was labeled speak, the other was labeled conceal. Because here's how I thought about it, I'm not trying to talk you into this, but I want you to know my thinking. Having repeatedly told this Congress, we are done and there's nothing there, there's no case there, there's no case there, to restart in a hugely significant way, potentially finding the emails that would reflect on her intent from the beginning and not speak about it would require an active concealment, in my view.

And so I stared at speak and conceal. Speak would be really bad. There's an election in 11 days, Lordy, that would be really bad. Concealing in my view would be catastrophic, not just to the FBI, but well beyond. And honestly, as between really bad and catastrophic, I said to my team we got to walk into the world of really bad. I've got to tell Congress that we're restarting this, not in some frivolous way, in a hugely significant way.

And the team also told me, we cannot finish this work before the election. And then they worked night after night after night, and they found thousands of new emails, they found classified information on Anthony Weiner. Somehow, her emails are being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information, by her assistant, Huma Abedin. And so they found thousands of new emails and then called me the Saturday night before the election and said thanks to the wizardry of our technology, we've only had to personally read 6,000. We think we can finish tomorrow morning, Sunday.

And so I met with them and they said we found a lot of new stuff. We did not find anything that changes our view of her intent. So we're in the same place we were in July. It hasn't changed our view and I asked them lots of questions and I said okay, if that's where you are, then I also have to tell Congress that we're done. Look, this is terrible. It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election. But honestly, it wouldn't change the decision.

Everybody who disagrees with me has to come back to October 28 with me and stare at this and tell me what you would do. Would you speak or would you conceal? And I could be wrong, but we honestly made a decision between those two choices that even in hindsight -- and this has been one of the world's most painful experiences -- I would make the same decision.

I would not conceal that, on October 28, from the Congress. And I sent the letter to Congress, by the way, people forget this, I didn't make a public announcement. I sent a private letter to the chairs and the rankings of the oversight committees.

FEINSTEIN: Did you …

COMEY: I know it's a distinction without a difference in the world of leaks, but it is — it was very important that I tell them instead of concealing. And reasonable people can disagree but that's the reason I made that choice and it was a hard choice. I still believe in retrospect the right choice, as painful as this has been. And I'm sorry for the long answer.

FEINSTEIN: Well, let me respond. On the letter, it was just a matter of minutes before the world knew about it. Secondly, my understanding — and staff has just said to me — that you didn't get a search warrant before making the announcement.

COMEY: I think that's right. I think I authorized and the Department of Justice agreed we were going to seek a search warrant. I actually don't see it as a meaningful distinction.

FEINSTEIN: Well, it's very — it's very hard — it would've been — you took an enormous gamble. The gamble was that there was something there that would invalidate her candidacy and there wasn't. So one has to look at that action and say, did it affect the campaign? And I think most people who have looked at this say, yes, it did affect the campaign, why would he do it? And was there any conflict among your staff, people saying do it, people saying don't do it; as has been reported?

COMEY: No, there was a great debate. I have a fabulous staff at all levels and one of my junior lawyers said, should you consider that what you're about to do may help elect Donald Trump president? And I said, thank you for raising that, not for a moment because down that path lies the death of the FBI as an independent institution in America. I can't consider for a second whose political fortunes will be affected in what way.

We have to ask ourselves what is the right thing to do and then do that thing. I'm very proud of the way we debated it, and at the end of the day, everyone on my team agreed we have to tell Congress that we are restarting this in a hugely significant way.

FEINSTEIN: Well, there's a way to do that. I don't know whether it would work or not, but certainly in a classified way carrying out your tradition of not announcing investigations. And you know, I look at this, exactly the opposite way you do. Everybody knew it would influence the investigation before, that there was a very large percentage of chance that it would. And yet, that percentage of chance was taken and there was no information and the election was lost.

So it seems to me that before your department does something like this, you really ought to — because Senator Leahy began to talk about other — other investigations. And I think this theory does not hold up when you look at other investigations, but let me go on to 702 because you began your comment saying how important it is. And yes, it is important. We've got a, I think, a problem and the issue that we're going to need to address is the FBI's practice of searching 702 data using U.S. person identifiers as query terms. And some have called this an unconstitutional back door search, while others say that such queries are essential to assuring that potential terrorists don't slip through the cracks as they did before. So could you give us your views on that, and how it might be handled to avoid the charge which may bring down 702?

COMEY: No, thank you, senator, it's a really important issue. The way 702 works is under that provision of the statute, the FISA court, federal judges, authorize us as U.S. agencies to collect the communications of non-U.S. people that we believe to be overseas, if they're using American infrastructure.

The criticism the FBI has gotten and the feedback we've gotten consistently since 9/11 is, you have to make sure you're in a position to connect the dots. You can't have stovepiped information. And so we've responded to that over the last 10 years, mostly to the great work of my predecessor Bob Mueller, and we have confederated databases so that if we collect information under 702, it doesn't sit in a separate stovepipe.

It sits in a single cloud-type environment, so that if I'm hoping an investigation in the United States in a terrorism matter, an intelligence matter or a criminal matter and I have a name of the suspect and there is a telephone number and their email addresses. I search the FBI's databases. That search necessarily will also touch the information that was collected under 702 so that we don't miss a dot, but nobody gets access to the information that sits in the 702 database unless they've been trained correctly.

If there is — let's imagine that terrorists overseas were talking about a suspect in the United States, or someone's email address in the United States was in touch with that terrorist, and that information sits in the 702 database, and we open the case in the United States and put in that name and that email address. It will touch that data and tell us his information in the 702 database that's relevant.

If the agent doing the query is properly trained on how to handle that, he or she will be able to see that information. If they're not properly trained, they'll be alerted that there is information, then have to go to the appropriate training and the appropriate oversight to be able to see it. But to do it otherwise is to risk us -- where it matters most, in the United States -- failing to connect dots.

So my view is the information that's in the 702 databases has been lawfully collected, carefully overseen and checked, and our use of it is also appropriate and carefully overseen and checked.

FEINSTEIN: So you are not masking the data — unmasking the data?

COMEY: I'm not sure what that means in this context. What we do is we combine information collected from any lawful source in a single FBI database so we don't miss a dot when we're conducting investigations in the United States. What we make sure of, though, is nobody gets to see FISA information of any kind unless they've had the appropriate training and have the appropriate oversight.

FEINSTEIN: My time is up. Thank you.

Senator Hatch?

SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH (R-UTAH): Thank you senator.

Director Comey, in January, I introduced S139, the rapid DNA act. It's bipartisan co-sponsors include Senators Feinstein, Cornyn, Coons, Flake, Klobuchar and me on this committee, and maybe more.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for putting this bill on the agenda for tomorrow's business meeting. This is the same bill that the Senate unanimously passed last year, and this technology allows developing a DNA profile and performing database comparisons in less than two hours. Following standards and procedures approved by the FBI. It would allow law enforcement to solve crimes and innocence advocates to exonerate the wrongfully accused.

Now Mr. Director, you came before this committee in December 2015, and I asked you then about this legislation, you said it would quote “help us change the world in a very very exciting way,” unquote. Is that still your view of the value of this legislation? And you believe the Congress should enact it on its own without getting tangled up in other criminal justice reform issues?

COMEY: I agree very much, Senator Hatch. The rapid DNA will materially advance the safety of the American people. So that if a police officer somewhere in the United States has in his or her custody someone who is a rapist, before letting them go on some lesser offense, they'll be able to quickly check the DNA database and get a hit. That will save lives. That will protect all kinds of people from pain and I think it's a great thing.

HATCH: Well, thank you. And your prepared statement touches on what the FBI is doing to protect children from predators. Personnel and youth serving organizations such as employees, coaches or volunteers, often work with unsupervised — or with youth unsupervised. That magnifies the need for a thorough evaluating and vetting at the time they join such organizations.

Along with Senators Franken and Klobuchar, I introduced the Child Protection Improvement Act, which gives youth serving organizations greater access to the nationwide FBI fingerprint background check system. Now, do you believe that providing organizations like the YMCA and the Girl Scouts of America greater access to FBI fingerprint background checks is an important step in keeping job predators and violent criminals away from our children?

COMEY: I do, senator. I don't know enough about the legislation to react, but I think the more information you can put in the hands of the people who are vetting, people who are going to be near children, the better. We have an exciting new feature of the FBI's fingerprint system called Rap Back, that once you check someone's identification, check them to see if they have no record. If they later develop one, you can be alerted to it if it happens thereafter, which I think makes a big difference.

HATCH: Well, thank you. You have spoken at length about the so- called going dark program, whereby strong encryption technology hinders the ability of law enforcement to excess communication in other personal — personal data on smartphones and similar devices. Your prepared testimony for today's hearing addresses this issue as well.

Now, I've expressed significant concern about proposals that would require device or software manufacturers to build a back door into their programming to allow law enforcement to access encrypted data in the course of investigations. Now I remain convinced that such back doors can be created without seriously compromising the — the security of encrypted devices.

Now, I believe this is an issue where law enforcement and stakeholders need to work together to find solutions rather than coming to Congress with one-size-fits-all legislative fixes. What are you doing to engage with stakeholders on this issue and what kind of progress are you making, if you can tell us?

COMEY: Thank you, senator. I think there's good news on that front. We've had very good, open and productive conversations with the private sector over the last 18 months about this issue, because everybody realized we care about the same things. We all love privacy. We all care about public safety. And none of — at least people that I hang around with, none of us want back doors. We don't want access to devices built-in in some way.

What we want to work with manufacturers on is to figure out how can we accommodate both interests in a sensible way? How can we optimize the privacy, security features of their devices and allow court orders to be complied with? We're having some good conversations. I don't know where they're going to end up, frankly. I could imagine a world that ends up with legislation saying, if you're going to make devices in the United States, you figure out how to comply with court orders, or maybe we don't go there. But we are having productive conversations, right now I think.

HATCH: Right, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act is up for reauthorization this year. We now have almost a decade of experience using the statute. So we have much more to go on than simply speculation or theory.

Now, the intelligence value of Section 702 is well-documented and it has never been intentionally misused or abused. Every federal court, including the FISA court that has addressed the issue, has concluded that Section 702 is lawful. Administrations of both parties have strongly supported it. Describe for us the targeting and minimization procedures that Section 702 requires and how each agency's procedures are subject to oversight within the executive branch.

COMEY: Thank you, senator. As I said in my opening, 702 is a critical tool to protect this country and the way it works is we are allowed to conduct surveillance — again, under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on non-U.S. persons who are outside the United States if they're using American infrastructure; an email system in the United States, a phone system in the United States.

So it doesn't involve U.S. persons and doesn't involve activity in the United States. And then each agency, as you said, has detailed procedures for how we will handle this information that are approved by the FISA court and so become court orders that — that govern us. But not only are we overseen by the FISA court, we're overseen by our inspectors general and by Congress checking on our work.

And you're exactly correct, there have been no abuses. Every court that has looked at this has said, this is appropriate under the Fourth Amendment, this is appropriate under the statute. It was an act passed by a Democratically controlled Congress for a Republican president, then renewed by a Republican-controlled Congress for a Democratic president, and upheld by every court that's looked at it.

And — and I'm telling you what the rest of the intelligence community has said: We need this to protect the country. This should be an easy conversation to have, but often people get confused about the details and mix it up with other things. So it's our job to make sure we explain it clearly.

HATCH: Well, thank you, my time is up.

Senator Leahy, I turn to you.

SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY (D-VT.): Thank you.

Welcome back, Director Comey, you had mentioned you liked these annual meetings. Of course, we didn't have an annual meeting last year. It's been, I think — last year is the first time in 15 years that the FBI did not testify before this committee. But there's been a lot that's happened the last year and half, as noted.

Senator Feinstein noted that Americans across the country have been confused and disappointed by your judgment in handling the investigation into Secretary Clinton's emails. On a number of occasions, you told us to comment directly and extensively on that investigation. You even released internal FBI memos and interview notes.

I may have missed this, but in my 42 years here I've never seen anything like that. But you said absolutely nothing regarding the investigation into the Trump campaign's connections to Russia's illegal efforts to help elect Donald Trump. Was it appropriate for you to comment on one investigation repeatedly and not say anything about the other?

COMEY: I think so. Can I explain, senator? Pardon me …

LEAHY: Briefly, I only have so much time.

COMEY: Okay, I'll be quick. The department — I think I treated both investigations consistently under the same principles. People forget we would not confirm the existence of the Hillary Clinton email investigation until three months after it began, even though it began with a public referral and the candidate herself talked about it.

In October of 2015, we confirmed it existed and then said not another word — not a peep about it until …

LEAHY: Until the most critical time …

COMEY: … we were finished.

LEAHY: … possibly, a couple weeks before the election. And I think there are other things involved in that election, I'll grant that. But there is no question that that had a great effect.

Historians can debate what kind of an effect it was. But you — you did do it. The — in October, the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's connection to Russia. You sent a letter informing the Senate and House (inaudible) reviewing additional emails. It could be relevant to this but both investigations are open but you've have still only commented on one.

COMEY: I commented as I explained earlier, on October 28 in a letter that I sent to the chair and rankings of the oversight committees, that we were taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation because I had testified under oath repeatedly that we were done, that we were finished there.

With respect to the Russian investigation, we treated it like we did with the Clinton investigation. We didn't say a word about it until months into it and then the only thing we've confirmed so far about this is the same thing with the Clinton investigation. That we are investigating. And I would expect, we're not going to say another peep about it until we're done. And I don't know what will be said when we're done, but that's the way we handled the Clinton investigation as well.

LEAHY: Let me ask you this. During your investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, a number of surrogates like Rudy Giuliani claimed to have a pipeline to the FBI. He boasted that, and I quote, numerous agents talk to him all the time. (Inaudible) regarding the investigation. He even said that he had — insinuated he had advanced warning about the emails described in your October letter. Former FBI agent Jim Kallstrom made similar claims.

Now, either they're lying, or there's a serious problem within the bureau. Anybody in the FBI during this 2016 campaign have contact with Rudy Giuliani about — about the Clinton investigation?

COMEY: I don't know yet. But if I find out that people were leaking information about our investigations, whether it's to reporters or to private parties, there will be severe consequences.

LEAHY: Did you know of anything from Jim Kallstrom?

COMEY: Same answer. I don't know yet.

LEAHY: Do you know any about — from other former agents?

COMEY: I don't know yet. But it's a matter that I'm very, very interested in.

LEAHY: But you are looking into it?

COMEY: Correct.

LEAHY: And once you've found that answer, will you provide it to us?

COMEY: I'll provide it to the committee in some form. I don't whether I would say publicly, but I'd find some way to let you know.

LEAHY: Okay. Now there are reports a number of the senior officials in the Trump campaign administration are connected to the Russian investigation. In fact the attorney general was forced to recuse himself.

Now many members of this committee have urged the deputy attorney general -- and he has that authority -- to appoint a special counsel to protect the independence of the investigation. I recall I was here in December 2003, shortly after you were confirmed as deputy attorney general, then-Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak. You immediately appointed special counsel. I believe you appointed Patrick Fitzgerald. What led you to that decision?

COMEY: In that particular investigation, my judgment was that it — that the appearance of fairness and independence required that it be removed from the political chain of command within the Department of Justice, because as you recall, it seems like a lifetime ago. But that also involved the conduct of people who were senior-level people in the White House, and my judgment was that even I, as an independent-minded person, was a political appointee and so I ought to give it to a career person like Pat Fitzgerald.

LEAHY: What about the situation now? We have a deputy attorney general, and I voted for his confirmation, but should he be not the one to be investigating campaign contacts, when his boss the attorney general was a central figure in that campaign?

COMEY: That's a judgment he'll have to make. He is — as I hoped I was as deputy attorney general, a very independent-minded, career-oriented person, but it'd be premature for me to comment on that.

LEAHY: The past week, President Trump again said the hacking on the DNC and other efforts who influenced the election could've been China, could've been a lot of different groups. Is that contrary to what the intelligence community has said?

COMEY: The intelligence community with high confidence concluded it was Russia. In many circumstances, it's hard to do attribution of a hack, but sometimes the intelligence is there. We have high confidence that the North Koreans hacked Sony, we have high confidence that the Russians did the hacking of the DNC and the other organizations.

LEAHY: I have a lot of other questions which I'll submit, but I — before it sounds totally negative, I want to praise the response of the FBI in South Burlington, Vermont. We had anonymous emails coming in, threatening serious action against students at a high school, escalating cyber threats, including detailed death threats, multiple lockdowns and all.

The FBI worked closely with the Champlain College's Leahy Center for Digital Investigation, which you visited a couple years ago. It was a textbook example of collaboration between state, local and federal authorities. And I want to thank all those, it turned out to be a very disturbed young man who was doing it. But you know when you turn on the TV and see what happens in different parts of the country, how worried we were in Vermont. I just want to thank your FBI agents for their help.

COMEY: Yes. Thank you for that, senator.

GRASSLEY: Senator Graham would be next, so we'll go to Senator Cornyn.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TEX.): Thank you.

Morning, Director Comey. I'm disappointed to see that former secretary of state Hillary Clinton was in the news yesterday, essentially blaming you and blaming everything other than herself for her loss on November the 8th. I find it ironic because you're not the one who made the decision to handle classified information on a private email server.

You're not the one who decided to have a private meeting with Secretary Clinton's husband in the middle of the Justice Department's ongoing investigation into Secretary Clinton's server. I use the word investigation here because according to a recent piece in the New York Times, you were forbidden from using the word investigation and were instead told to refer to the investigation, which it was, as a matter.

Of course, it was the former attorney general Loretta Lynch, who up until that meeting with President Clinton, was the person responsible for making the decision whether to convene a grand jury involving the allegations against Secretary Clinton. And it was former attorney general Loretta Lynch who apparently forbade you from using the word investigation. Indeed, if the New York Times story is true, a Democratic operative expressed confidence that the former attorney general would keep that investigation from going very far.

I think you were given an impossible choice to make and you did the best you could, in light of the situation that you were presented with. And it — it strikes me as somewhat sad for people here and elsewhere to condemn you for notifying Congress, shortly before the election, that you'd uncovered even more emails related to the investigation, including classified emails. Again, because Secretary Clinton had made the decision to use a private email server.

And I think it's important to remind folks that you were not the one who decided to do business this way, keep State Department emails on a computer of someone suspected of child pornography. Again, I believe you were placed in an incredibly difficult position. You may recall I was one of those who felt like given the nature of the investigation and the concerns that a special counsel should have been appointed to conduct the investigation — but of course Attorney General Lynch and the Obama administration opposed that effort.

So I just wanted to express to you my disappointment that this continued seeking of a reason — any reason other than the flawed campaign and the candidate herself — for Secretary Clinton losing the presidential election.

If I can turn to a couple of other substantive items here. You mentioned 702 of FISA and the reauthorization. And I believe you've referred to this as the crown jewels of the FBI and of counterterrorism investigations. Could you explain why this provides such a unique tool and why you regard it as literally the crown jewels of the — of the FBI?

COMEY: Thank you, senator. The — every time I talk about this publicly I wince a little bit because I don't want bad people around the world to focus on this too much. But really bad people around the world, because of the genius of American innovation, use our products and infrastructure for their emails, for their communications.

And what 702 allows us to do is quickly target terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, proliferators, spies, cyber hackers, non-Americans who are using our infrastructure to communicate; to target them quickly and collect information on them. And it is vital to all parts of the intelligence community because of its agility, its speed and its effectiveness.

And again, in an open setting, we can't explain what you already know from classified briefings about what a difference this makes. But again, because America is the mother of all this innovation, they use a lot of our equipment, a lot of our networks to communicate with each other. If we were ever required to establish the normal warrant process for these non-Americans who aren't in our country, just because the photons they're using to plan attacks cross our country's lands, we'd be tying ourselves in knots for reasons that make no sense at all, and the courts have said are unnecessary under the Fourth Amendment.

So this is a tool — we talked a lot last year about the telephony metadata database, I think that's a useful tool. It does not compare in importance to 702. We can't lose 702.

CORNYN: Well, I agree and it — it is a little bit difficult to talk about things that do involve classified matters in public. But I think the public needs to know that there are multiple oversight layers, including the FISA Court, congressional oversight, internal oversight within the FBI and intelligence community, that protects Americans from — under — their — their privacy rights while targeting terrorists and people who are trying to kill us.

I want to talk a minute about the electronic communication transactional records, something I have discussed before as well. The FBI can use national security letters, I believe, to get financial information and telephone numbers now in the conduct of a terrorist investigation. But because of a typo in the law, the FBI has not been allowed access to Internet metadata in national security cases, to the extent that — that is necessary.

Can you talk to us about the importance of that particular fix — the electronic communications transactional records fix or active ECTA (ph) fix?

COMEY: Yes, thank you so much, senator. This seems like a boring deal. This makes a big impact on our work and here's why; in our counterterrorism cases and our counterintelligence cases, we can issue all kinds of — of layers of approval in the FBI, a national security letter to find out the subscriber to a particular telephone number and to find out what numbers that telephone number was in contact with. Not the content of those communications, but just the connection.

Again, because of what I believe is a typo in the law, and if I'm wrong, Congress will tell me that they intended this, the companies that provide the same services but on the Internet resist and say we don't have the statutory authority to serve in an NSL necessary letter to find out the subscriber to a particular email handle or what addresses were in contact with what addresses.

Although we could do the same with telephone communications. I don't think Congress intended that distinction. But what it does to us is in our most important investigations, it requires us -- if we want to find out the subscriber to a particular email handle -- to go and get an order from a federal judge in Washington as part of the FISA court, an incredibly long and difficult process. And I'm worried about that slowing us down.

But I'm also worried about it becoming a disincentive for our investigators to do it at all because if you're working a case in San Antonio or in Seattle, you're moving very — very quickly. And if I have to go to get subscriber information, for heaven's sake, on an email address to a federal court in Washington, I'm probably going to try and find some other way around it. If that's what Congress wants, sure we'll follow law. I don't think that was ever intended. And so I would hope the Congress will fix what I believe is a typo.

CORNYN: Thank you Mr. Director. I have other questions for the record. Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Are going over to vote now. And I'd also like to have both Democrat and Republicans notifying me if they want a second round, so I can get an inventory of that.

Senator Klobuchar.

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN.: Thank you.

Welcome back Director Comey. As you are well aware Russia is actively working to undermine our democracy and hurt American businesses at the same time. Now more than ever Americans are looking to Congress for leadership and we must be a united front. And I've appreciated some of the members of this committee on the Republican side who have spoken out about this. We must be united as we seek information from the administration.

Last month during a hearing at the House Intelligence Committee, you confirmed that the FBI is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including any links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. I know that you cannot discuss that ongoing investigation, but just one question to clarify.

Will you commit to ensuring that the relevant congressional committees receive a full and timely briefing on that investigations findings?

COMEY: In general, I can Senator. I need Department of Justice approval to brief on particular people that we're investigating. We've briefed the Chairs and the Rankings, including of this committee on who we have cases open on and exactly what we're doing and how we're using various sources of information. I don't know whether the department will approve that for the entire intelligence committees, but I'll lean as far forward as I can.

KLOBUCHAR: And then because and -- Attorney General Sessions is recused from that and now Rod Rosenstein is approved, you go to him then to get that approval?

COMEY: Yes, I've already briefed him. I think his first day in office I briefed him on where we are, and so he would be the person to make that decision. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. In your testimony, you note that the Justice Department brought charges against Russian spies and criminal hackers in connection with the 2014 Yahoo cyber attack in February. An example of a cyber attack on our economy.

In December 2016, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security released a 13 page report providing technical details about how federal investigators linked Russia to the hacks against U.S. political organizations.

Does Russia use the same military and civilian tools they've used to hack our political organizations in order to do things like hack into U.S. companies, steal identities and so the credit card information of Americans on the black market. And how is the FBI working to fight against hackers supported by foreign governments like Russia?

COMEY: The answer is yes, both their government organizations, and then they have a relationship that's often difficult to define with criminals and that the Yahoo hack's actually an example of that. You had some of the Russia's greatest criminal hackers and intelligence agency hackers working together.

So the answer is yes. And what we're doing is trying to see if we can impose costs on that behavior in a lot of different ways, but including one I mentioned in my opening which is locking up people. If we can get them outside of Russia, Russia's not too great about cooperating with us when there are criminals inside their borders, but all of then like to travel. And so if they travel grabbing them and -- and locking and putting handcuffs on them to send a message that that's not a freebie.

KLOBUCHAR: In your testimony, you also discussed a threat that transnational organized crime poses to our safety and our security. Russia has vast criminal networks that the Kremlin uses to sew instability across the world. I heard these concerns firsthand when Senator Graham and McCain and I were in the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia.

There have been recent concerns that organized criminals, including Russians, are using the luxury real estate market to launder money. The Treasury Department has noted a significant rise in the use of shell companies in real estate transactions, because foreign buyers use them as a way to hide their identity and find a safe haven for their money in the U.S. In fact, nearly half of all homes in the U.S. worth at least $5 million are purchased using shell companies.

Does the anonymity associated with the use of shell companies to buy real estate hurt the FBI's ability to trace the flow of illicit money and fight organized crime? And do you support efforts by the Treasury Department to use its existing authority to require more transparency in these transactions?

COMEY: Yes and yes.

KLOBUCHAR: OK very good, because I think this is a huge problem. When you hear that over $5 million of homes, half of them purchased by shell companies, that is a major problem.

In March, this committee Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held its first hearing. I thank Senator Graham and Senator Whitehouse for that. I raised the issue of protecting our election infrastructure with former Bush Department of Justice Official Ken Wainstein. And he agreed that this is a very important issue.

As a ranking -- as the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I'm particularly concerned about ensuring our elections are safe from foreign interference. I recently led a group of 26 senators in calling for full account of the Election Assistance Commission's efforts to address Russian cyber security threats in the 2016 election. I'm also working on legislation in this area.

Can you discuss how the FBI has coordinated with the Election Assistance Commission, Department of Homeland Security, and state and local election officials to help protect the integrity of our election process?

COMEY: Thank you, Senator. In short, what we've done with DHS is share the tools, tactics and techniques we see hackers, especially from the 2016 election season, using to attack voter registration databases and -- and try and engage in other hacks. And we've pushed that out to all the states and to the Election Assistance Commission so they can harden their networks. That's one of the most important things we can do is equip them with the information to make their systems tighter.

KLOBUCHAR: Very good because as you know, we have different equipment all over this country. There is some advantage to that I think. I think it's good when we have paper ballot backups, of course but we have to be prepared for this and this certainly isn't about one political party or one candidate.

Last -- the last time you came before the committee in December, 2015, just one week after the San Bernardino attacks since then, as was noted by the chair. We've seen other attacks in our country. We had a -- a -- a tragedy in a shopping mall in Saint Cloud, Minnesota; 10 wounded at a shopping mall. Thankfully a brave off-duty cop was there. He was able to stop further damage from being done. And I would also like to thank you and the FBI for your investigation, having talked to the chief up there, Senator Franken and I were briefed by him, as well as Congressman Emmer, right after this attack.

The local police department is a midsize department and they had to do a lot with working with the community; they have a significant Somali community there, that's a big part of their community that they're proud to have there. So they're working with them, they're working with the community, they're helping; but the FBI really stood in and did the investigation.

And I guess I want to thank you for that and just -- and with one question, it's been reported that ISIS has encouraged lone wolf attacks like what we saw in Orlando, it's murkier the facts in Saint Cloud. What challenges do these type of attacks present for law enforcement and what is the FBI doing to prevent these kinds of tragedies?

COMEY: The -- thank you, senator. The central challenge is not just finding needles in a nationwide haystack but trying to figure out which pieces of hay might become a needle.

And that is which of the troubled young people -- or sometimes it's older people -- are consuming poisonous propaganda -- some ISIS, some Anwar al-Awlaki, some other sources -- and are moving towards thinking an act of violence like a stabbing at a shopping mall is some way to achieve meaning in their lives. And a huge part of it is building relationships with the communities you mentioned because those folks do not want anyone committing violence -- committing violence in the name of their faith.

And so they have the same incentives we do and making sure they see us that way and we see them that way is at the heart of our response because we're not going to see some troubled kid going sideways and thinking he should stab people anywhere near as easily as the people around that kid are going to see it. And so getting in a position where they feel comfortable telling us or telling local law enforcement is at the heart of our ability to find those needles, evaluate those pieces of hay and stop this.

KLOBUCHAR: Appreciate it, thank you.

GRASSLEY: Senator Graham.

GRAHAM: Thank you, Director Comey, could you pass on to your agents and all support personnel how much we appreciate their efforts to defend the country. We're going to set a record for questions asked and answered in six minutes and 54 seconds if I can.

Do you agree with me if sequestration goes back into affect next year it would be devastating to the FBI?

COMEY: Yes.

GRAHAM: And it's due to do so unless Congress changes it.

COMEY: That's -- I've been told that.

GRAHAM: OK, do you agree with me that ISIL loses the caliphate these people will go out throughout the world and become terrorist agents and the threat of terrorism to the homeland is going to get greater over time, not smaller.

COMEY: Yes, it will diminish in that -- that their power to put out there media to the troubled people in the country will decrease but the -- the hardened killers flowing out of the caliphate will be a big problem.

GRAHAM: So from a funding point of view, terrorism is not going to get better, it's probably going to get worse.

COMEY: I think that's fair to say.

GRAHAM: Did you ever talk to Sally Yates about her concerns about General Flynn being compromised?

COMEY: I did, I don't whether I can talk about it in this forum. But the answer is yes.

GRAHAM: That she had concerns about General Flynn and she expressed those concerns to you?

COMEY: Correct.

GRAHAM: We'll talk about that later. Do you stand by your house testimony of March 20 that there was no surveillance of the Trump campaign that you're aware of?

COMEY: Correct.

GRAHAM: You would know about it if they were, is that correct?

COMEY: I think so, yes.

GRAHAM: OK, Carter Page; was there a FISA warrant issued regarding Carter Page's activity with the Russians.

COMEY: I can't answer that here.

GRAHAM: Did you consider Carter page a agent of the campaign?

COMEY: Same answer, I can't answer that here.

GRAHAM: OK. Do you stand by your testimony that there is an active investigation counterintelligence investigation regarding Trump campaign individuals in the Russian government as to whether not to collaborate? You said that in March...

COMEY: To see if there was any coordination between the Russian effort and peoples...

GRAHAM: Is that still going on?

COMEY: Yes.

GRAHAM: OK. So nothing's changed. You stand by those two statements?

COMEY: Correct.

GRAHAM: But you won't tell me about Carter Page?

COMEY: Not here I won't.

GRAHAM: OK. The Chairman mentioned that fusion -- are you familiar with fusion?

COMEY: I know the name.

GRAHAM: OK. Are they part of the Russian intelligence apparatus? COMEY: I can't say.

GRAHAM: Do you agree with me that a fusion was involved in preparing the dossier against Donald Trump? That would be interfering in our election by the Russians?

COMEY: I don't want to say.

GRAHAM: OK. Do you agree with me that Anthony Weiner of 2016 should not have access to classified information?

COMEY: Yes. That's a fair statement.

GRAHAM: Would you agree with me that if that's not illegal, we've got really bad laws.

COMEY: Well, if he hadn't...

GRAHAM: Well he got it somehow.

COMEY: It would be illegal if he didn't have appropriate clearance...

GRAHAM: Well, do agree with me he didn't have appropriate clearance?

COMEY: He...

GRAHAM: If he did have appropriate clearance that'd be even worse.

COMEY: I don't believe at the we found that on his laptop that he had any kind of...

GRAHAM: I agree. So for him to get it should be a crime. Somebody should be prosecuted for letting Anthony Weiner have access to classified information. Does that make general sense?

COMEY: It could be a crime. It would depend up what the...

GRAHAM: Well, do you agree with me it should be. That anybody that allows Anthony Weiner to have classified information probably should be prosecuted? If our laws don't cover that, they probably should...

COMEY: There's not Anthony Weiner statute, but it is -- there's already...

GRAHAM: Well, maybe we need -- good one.

COMEY: There's already a statute.

GRAHAM: All right good.

COMEY: There's already a statute to cover it. GRAHAM: I just wonder how he didn't get classified information and it not be a crime by somebody. Unmasking, are you familiar with that?

COMEY: I'm familiar with that term.

GRAHAM: OK. Has the Bureau ever request unmasking of an American citizen caught up in incidental collection?

COMEY: Yes. In fact I did it this week in connection with an intelligence report.

GRAHAM: All right. Before I authorize -- reauthorize 702 and I'm a pretty hawkish guy. I want to know how unmasking works. Are you aware of any request by the White house? Anybody in the Obama administration to unmask American citizens that were caught up in incidental serveilances in 2015 or 2016?

COMEY: I'm not. I'm not aware of any request to the FBI.

GRAHAM: Would you know -- who would they make the request to?

COMEY: Well they could make it to anyone in the FBI who was...

GRAHAM: What about the NSA, wouldn't you make it to the NSA?

COMEY: Sure if was an NSA report.

GRAHAM: OK.

COMEY: I mean I've read in the media, and heard about NSA reports...

GRAHAM: When you ask for unmasking, who do you ask, do you go to the NSA to ask that somebody be unmasked?

COMEY: When I want -- for example -- I'll give you an example -- I got a report this week that said, U.S. company number one. It has been removed and I said I believe I need to know the name of that company, so I asked my intelligence briefer who works for the (PDB) staff, say I'd like to know that, and then she goes and asks the owner of the information...

GRAHAM: Which would be the NSA?

COMEY: Well, in this case, I think it was CIA information saying the Director...

GRAHAM: OK. Does the owner of the information record requests for unmasking?

COMEY: I believe the NSA does. I don't know about CSA (ph), NSA definitely does.

GRAHAM: But there should be a record, somewhere in our government, for a request to unmask, regardless of who made the request?

COMEY: I think that's right.

GRAHAM: Is it fair to say that very few people can make requests for unmasking? I mean it's -- I can't go and make that request as a Senator, can I?

COMEY: Sure it's a fairly group -- the consumers, which I am, of that small set.

GRAHAM: Is the National Security Council within that group that can make this request, or do you know?

COMEY: I don't know for sure, I think the National Security Advisor certainly can.

GRAHAM: OK. When it comes to Russia, is it fair to say that the government of Russia actively provides safe haven to cyber criminals?

COMEY: Yes.

GRAHAM: Is it fair to say that the Russian government still involved in American politics?

COMEY: Yes.

GRAHAM: Is it fair to say we need to stop them from doing this?

COMEY: Yes, fair to say.

GRAHAM: Do you agree with me the only way they're going to stop this for them to pay a price for interfering in our political process?

COMEY: I think that's a fair statement.

GRAHAM: Yes, OK. So what we're doing today that is not working. They're still doing it. They're doing it all the world, aren't they?

COMEY: Yes.

GRAHAM: So what kind of threat do you believe Russia presents to our Democratic process, given what you know about Russia's behavior of late?

COMEY: Well, certainly in my view, the greatest threat of any nation on earth, given their intention and their capability.

GRAHAM: Do you agree that they did not change the actual vote tally, but one day they might?

COMEY: I agree that -- I very much we found no indication of any change in vote tallies. There was efforts aimed at voter registration systems, but I suppose in theory, part of the United States, the -- the beauty of our system is it's a bit of a hairball. And all different kinds of systems and -- and you know...

GRAHAM: Have they done this in other countries where they actually tampered with the vote?

COMEY: My -- my understanding is they have attempted it in other countries.

GRAHAM: And there's no reason they won't attempted here if we don't stop them over time?

COMEY: I think that's fair.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse?

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, D-R.I.: Thank you, Chairman.

Welcome back, Director Comey. What is the policy of the Department and the Bureau regarding the release of derogatory investigative information about an uncharged subject?

COMEY: The general practices we don't talk about, completed investigations that didn't result in charges, as a general matter.

WHITEHOUSE: And what is the policy regarding a release of derogatory information about charged subjects beyond the derogatory investigative information disclosed either in the charging document or in further court proceedings?

COMEY: Well, I think you summarized it. The gist of the policy is you don't want to do anything outside the charging documents of the public record that might prejudice the trial proceeding.

WHITEHOUSE: And one of the reasons you do that is if you had a police chief say, we have investigated the contract between the mayor and the contractor and we've decided there were no misdeeds. But we found out that the mayor was sleeping with her driver, just wanted to let you know that.

That would be kind of a blow to the integrity the prosecutor function and would probably tend to diminish the support for the prosecutor function if were played by those rules, correct?

COMEY: I think that's fair, that's why the policy exists.

WHITEHOUSE: Yes. With respect to oversight questions, let's hypothesize that an investigation exists and the public knows about it, which could happen for a great number of legitimate reasons. What questions are appropriate for senators to ask about that investigation in their oversight capacity?

COMEY: They can ask anything they want...

WHITEHOUSE: But what -- what questions are appropriate for you to answer?

COMEY: Very few while a matter is pending and... WHITEHOUSE: While we know it's pending, is it appropriate for you to tell us whether it's adequately resourced and to ask questions about for instance, are there actually agents assigned to this or has this been put in somebody's bottom drawer?

COMEY: Sure, potentially, right...

WHITEHOUSE: And...

COMEY: ... how's it being supervised, who's working on it, that sort of thing.

WHITEHOUSE: And are there benchmarks in certain types of cases where departmental approvals are required or the involvement of certain department officials is required to see whether those steps have actually been taken?

COMEY: I'm not sure I'm following the question, I'm sorry.

WHITEHOUSE: Let's say you've got a hypothetically, a RICO investigation and it has to go through procedures within the department necessary to allow a RICO investigation proceed if none of those have ever been invoked or implicated that would send a signal that maybe not much effort has been dedicated to it.

Would that be a legitimate question to ask? Have these -- again, you'd have to know that it was a RICO investigation. But assuming that we knew that that was the case with those staging elements as an investigation moves forward and the internal department approvals be appropriate for us to ask about and you to answer about?

COMEY: Yes, that's a harder question. I'm not sure it would be appropriate to answer it because it would give away what we were looking at potentially.

WHITEHOUSE: Would it be appropriate to ask if -- whether any -- any witnesses have been interviewed or whether any documents have been obtained pursuant to the investigation?

COMEY: That's -- that's also a harder one. I'd be reluctant to answer questions like that because it's a slippery slope to giving away information about exactly what you're doing.

WHITEHOUSE: But if we're concerned that investigation gets put on the shelf and not taken seriously, the fact that no witnesses have been called and no documents have been sought would be pretty relevant and wouldn't reveal anything other than a lack of attention by the bureau, correct?

COMEY: It could, but we're very careful about revealing how we might use a grand jury, for example. And so, if we start answering...

WHITEHOUSE: Well, you've got 6E (ph), I understand that.

COMEY: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: This is a separate thing.

COMEY: Yes, so that's a harder call.

WHITEHOUSE: Well, we'll pursue it. What is the department's or the bureau's policy regarding witnesses who are cooperating in investigation who have some form of ongoing compliance problem?

Let's say they haven't paid their taxes for the last year. Is it the policy of the department or the bureau that they should get those cooperating witnesses to clean up their act so that their noncompliance does not become an issue later on in the case?

COMEY: Yes, I don't know whether it's a written -- I know I should know this. I can't remember sitting here whether there's a written policy. It's certainly a long standing...

WHITEHOUSE: Certainly practice isn't it?

COMEY: ... practice.

WHITEHOUSE: Long standing practice, exactly. When are tax returns useful in investigating a criminal offense?

COMEY: Well, they're useful in showing unreported income, motive -- If someone hides something that's -- should otherwise be a tax return indicates they might know it was criminal activity.

WHITEHOUSE: It's not uncommon to seek and use tax returns in a criminal investigation?

COMEY: Not uncommon, it's -- it's a very difficult process, as it should be. But especially in complex financial cases, it's a relatively common tool.

WHITEHOUSE: The hearing that Senator Graham and I held with respect to Russia's infiltration and influence in the last election raised the issue of Russia intervening with business leaders in a country, engaging them in bribery or other highly favorable business deals with a view to either recruiting them as somebody who has been bribed or being able to threaten them by disclosing the illicit relationship. They're perfectly happy to blow up their own cut out, but it also blows up the individual.

Have you seen any indication that those are Russian strategies in their election influence toolbox?

COMEY: In general?

WHITEHOUSE: In general.

COMEY: My -- my understanding is those are tools that the Russians have used over many decades.

WHITEHOUSE: And lastly, the European Union is moving towards requiring transparency of incorporations so that shell corporations are harder to create. That risks leaving the United States as the last big haven for shell corporations. Is it true that shell corporations are often used as a device for criminal money laundering?

COMEY: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: Is it true that shell corporations are often used as a device for the concealment of criminally garnered funds?

COMEY: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: And to avoid legitimate taxation?

COMEY: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: What do you think the hazards are for the United States with respect to election interference of continuing to maintain a system in which shell corporations -- that you never know who's really behind them are common place?

COMEY: I suppose one risk is it makes it easier for illicit money to make its way into a political environment.

WHITEHOUSE: And that's not a good thing.

COMEY: I don't think it is.

WHITEHOUSE: Yeah, me neither. OK. Thank you very much.

GRASSLEY: Senator Sasse.

SEN. BEN SASSE, R-NEB.: Thank you Chairman.

Director thank you for being here. Given the FBI's extensive responsibilities and expertise in cyber and counterintelligence investigations, how likely do you think it is that Senate IT systems have been targeted by foreign intelligence surfaces -- services?

COMEY: I would estimate it's a certainty.

SASSE: Inside the IC who -- who would talk about that problem and who at the Senate would they inform?

COMEY: Well, there have been -- I don't want to talk about particular matters, but it often is the FBI alerting a U.S. government institution or private sector. DHS might come across it, or -- or other parts of the intelligence community, especially NSA.

SASSE: When we talk about things like cyber investigations right now, so often on cable TV it becomes a shirts and skins exercise. So without asking you to comment about anything that's retrospective about 2016, do you think it's likely that in 2018 and beyond you're going to see more targeting of U.S. public discourse and elections?

COMEY: I do. I think one of the lessons that particularly the Russians may have drawn from this is that this works. And so as I said last -- a month or so ago I expect to see them back in 2018, especially 2020. SASSE: You regularly testify -- and correct me if I've -- if I've misheard you but I think you've regularly testified that you don't think the Bureau is short of resources. You don't come before us and make big increased appropriations requests. And yet those of us who are very concerned about cyber look at the U.S. government writ large and think were not at all prepared for the future.

Can you tell us what the FBI is doing to prepare for that 2018 and 2020 circumstance that you envision?

COMEY: Without giving to much detail, we have a -- enormous part of the FBI in our counter intelligence division and in our cyber division that focuses on just that threat and making sure that we do everything that we can to understand how the bad guys might come at us. And as I talked about earlier to equip the civilian agencies that are responsible for hardening our infrastructure with all the information we have about how they're going to come at us.

SASSE: And if you had international security domain increased resources, how would you spend another marginal dollar beyond what you expect to receive now?

COMEY: I probably have a tie between investing more in upgrading our systems to make sure we're keeping pace with the bar of excellence. And probably to hire additional cyber agents and analysts.

SASSE: And if you had your druthers, what kind of increased funding request would you make?

COMEY: I wouldn't make any sitting here.

SASSE: I'd like to talk a little bit about WikiLeaks. In January the FBI contributed to an IC assessment that concluded that WikiLeaks is a known outlet of foreign propaganda. Do you stand by that assessment?

COMEY: Yes.

SASSE: Do you believe that WikiLeaks has released sensitive and classified information?

COMEY: Yes.

SASSE: Do you believe any of WikiLeaks disclosures have endangered American lives and or put at risk American interests?

COMEY: I believe both have been the result of some of their releases.

SASSE: Can you help me understand why Julian Assange has not been charged with a crime?

COMEY: Well I don't want to comment on the particular case, because I don't want to confirm whether or not there are charges pending. He hasn't been apprehended because he's inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

SASSE: I sent a letter to the Attorney General a number of weeks ago, asking questions about the status of the investigation and it seems pretty clear though individuals were polite and kind and responsive to our request. It seemed that across the I.C., there wasn't much deliberation about WikiLeaks and about Julian Assange and this question, is the FBI participating in any interagency dialogue about whether or not Assange has committed crimes?

COMEY: I don't know where you got that impression, but WikiLeaks is a important focus of our attention.

SASSE: I intentionally left the almost half of my time for you to sort of wax broadly for a minute. There is room for reasonable people to disagree about at what point an allegedly journalistic organization crosses a line to become some sort of a tool of foreign intelligence. There are Americans, well-meaning, thoughtful people who think that WikiLeaks might just be a journalistic outfit. Can you explain why that is not your view?

COMEY: Yes and again, I want to be careful that I don't prejudice any future proceeding. It's an important question, because all of us care deeply about the First Amendment and the ability of a free press, to get information about our work and -- and publish it.

To my mind, it crosses a line when it moves from being about trying to educate a public and instead just becomes about intelligence porn, frankly. Just pushing out information about sources and methods without regard to interest, without regard to the First Amendment values that normally underlie press reporting. And simply becomes a conduit for the Russian intelligence services or some other adversary of the United States just to push out information to damage the United States. And I realize, reasonable people as you said, struggle to draw a line.

But surely, there's conduct that so far, to the side of that line that we can all agree there's nothing that even smells journalist about some of this conduct.

SASSE: So if you could map that continuum, there are clearly members of the I.C. that of at different points in the past, leaked classified information. That is an illegal act, correct?

COMEY: Correct.

SASSE: When American journalists court and solicit that information, have they violated any law by asking people in the I.C. to potentially leak -- to leak information that is potentially classified?

COMEY: That conduct is not treated by the U.S. government as criminal conduct. I've been asked in other contexts, isn't it true that the espionage statute has no carve out for journalists? That's true, but at least in my lifetime, the Department of Justice's view has been newsgathering and legitimate news reporting is not covered, is not going to be investigated or prosecuted as a criminal act. That's how it's thought of.

SASSE: So an investigative reporter, taking advantage of and celebrating the liberties that we have under the First Amendment at the Washington Post or the Omaha World-Herald or at the Lincoln Journal Star, at the New York Times, trying to talk to people in the I.C. and get the maximum amount of information that they possibly can out of them to inform the public.

It is not the burden of an American journalist to discern whether or not the member of the I.C. is leaking information that might be classified, the journalist can legitimately seek information? And it's not their job to police it. The member of U.S. I.C. that leaks classified information has broken a law?

COMEY: Right. The -- the clear legal obligation rests on those people who are in the government in possession of -- of intelligence, you know, classified information. It's not the journalist's burden.

SASSE: OK.

COMEY: Our focus is and should be on the leakers, not those that are obtaining it as part of legitimate newsgathering.

SASSE: So I want to hear this part one more time and I know that the chairman has indulged me, I'm -- I'm at and past time. But the American journalist who's seeking this information differs from Assange and WikiLeaks how?

COMEY: In that, there's at least a portion and people can argue that maybe this conduct WikiLeaks has engaged in, in the past that's closer to regular newsgathering. But in my view, a huge portion of WikiLeaks's activities has nothing to do with legitimate newsgathering, informing the public, commenting on important public controversies, but is simply about releasing classified information to damage the United States of America. And -- and -- and people sometimes get cynical about journalists.

American journalists do not do that. They will almost always call us before they publish classified information and say, is there anything about this that's going to put lives in danger, that's going to jeopardize government people, military people or -- or innocent civilians anywhere in the world.

And then work with us to try and accomplish their important First Amendment goals while safeguarding those interests. This activity I'm talking about, WikiLeaks, involves no such considerations whatsoever. It's what I said to intelligence porn, just push it out in order to damage.

SASSE: Thank you.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Senator.

Senator Franken.

SEN. AL FRANKEN, D-MINN.: Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Good to see you, Mr. Director. I'm going to kind of pick -- pick up where I think Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Whitehouse, was going. Are you familiar with the report called the Kremlin playbook?

COMEY: No.

FRANKEN: OK, this is a expert report that exhaustively documents Russia's past efforts to undermine European democracies. According to the report Russia is known to cultivate close ties with business and political leaders in target countries. This is stuff you acknowledged to Senator Whitehouse that you knew happened. The report explains that, quote, Russia has cultivated an opaque network of patronage across the region that it uses to influence and direct decision- making.

In other words, Russia has a strategy of creating the conditions that give rise to corruption, then exploiting that corruption to its own benefit. And the intelligent -- intelligence communities unclassified assessment of the Russia -- Russian campaign to influence the American election -- our nation's intelligence agencies write, quote, "Putin has had many positive experiences working with Western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia." That seems to jive with your understanding of what Russia has done.

COMEY: Correct.

FRANKEN: Now in that same assessment, the FBI, CIA and the NSA all concluded that Russia did in fact interfere in the 2016 election in order to, quote, help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton. And the agencies concluded that the Russians had a clear preference for President Trump.

What is your assessment of why the Russian government had a clear preference for President Trump?

COMEY: The intelligence communities' assessment had a couple of parts with respect to that. One is he wasn't Hillary Clinton, who Putin hated and wanted to harm in any possible way, and so he was her opponent, so necessarily they supported him.

And then also this second notion that the intelligence community assessed that Putin believed he would be more able to make deals, reach agreements with someone with a business background than with someone who'd grown up in more of a government environment.

FRANKEN: OK, well, I'm curious about just how closely Russia followed the Kremlin playbook when it meld (ph) in our democracy, specifically whether the Russians had a preference for President Trump because he had already been ensnared in their web of patronage -- web of patronage is a quote from the report. Is it possible that in the Russian's views -- view Trump's business interests would make him more amenable to cooperating with them, quote, more disposed to deal with Russia as the I.C. report says?

COMEY: That was not the basis for the I.C.'s assessment.

FRANKEN: OK, well, is it -- I just said is it possible?

COMEY: I see.

FRANKEN: You don't want to speculate.

COMEY: Yes, because possible questions are hard for me to answer.

FRANKEN: Yes. Well, in order for us to know for certain whether President Trump would be vulnerable to that type of exploitation, we would have to understand his financial situation. We'd have to know whether or not he has money tied up in Russia, or obligations to Russian entities, do you agree?

COMEY: That you would need to understand that to evaluate that question? I don't know.

FRANKEN: Well, it seems to me that there is reason to believe such connections exist. For example the President's son Donald Trump Junior told real estate developers in 2008 that quote, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets. He said quote, "we see a lot of money pouring in Russia." This is a report on the family business.

In 2013 President Trump held the Ms. Universe pageant in Moscow. And the pageant was financed by Russian billionaire who is close to Putin. And President Trump sold a Palm Beach mansion to a Russian oligarch for $95 million in 2008. That's $54 million more than he paid for it just four years prior. Those are three financial ties that we know of and they're big ones.

Director Comey, the Russians have a history of using financial investments to gain leverage over influential people and then later calling in favors. We know that. We know that the Russian's interfered in our election and they did it to benefit President Trump. The intelligence agencies confirmed that.

But what I want to know is why they favored President Trump. And it seems to me that in order to answer that question any investigation into whether the Trump campaign or Trump operation colluded with Russian operatives would require a full appreciation of the president's financial dealings.

Director Comey, would President Trump's tax returns be material to such an investigation?

COMEY: That's not something Senator that I'm going to answer.

FRANKEN: Does the invest -- does the investigation have access to President Trump's tax returns?

COMEY: I'm going to have to give you the same answer. Again I hope people don't over interpret my answers, but I just don't want to start talking about anything -- what we're looking at and how.

FRANKEN: Director Comey, we continue to learn about ties between Russia and former members of the President's campaign and current senior members of his administration.

Jeff Sessions; attorney general and former campaign advisor Carter Page, former campaign advisor Paul Manafort, I'm a former campaign manager Paul Manafort, and also his chief strategist, Rex Tillerson; secretary of State, Roger Stone; political mentor and former campaign advisor Michael Flynn; former national security advisor, Jared Kushner; White House senior advisor and son in law.

Now we don't even know if this list is exhaustive, but I think you might see where I'm going and these connections appear against a backdrop of proven Russian interference in the election and interference that the intelligence community has concluded was designed to favor President Trump. From a -- I know I'm hitting my time, but let me ask one question (inaudible)

FRANKEN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. From an investigative standpoint, is the sheer number of connections unusual or significant? What about each individual's proximity to the president, it is unusual for individuals in these important roles to have so many unexpected and often undisclosed ties to a foreign power.

COMEY: I'll have to give you the same answer, that's not something I can comment on.

FRANKEN: OK. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Senator Flake?

SEN. JEFF FLAKE, R-ARIZ.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Director Comey.

With regard to 702 reauthorization, last -- the -- in 2014, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board recommended that agencies develop mechanisms to limit the potential scope of incidental collection. Under your leadership, what has the bureau done to comply with these recommendations?

COMEY: What we've done is make sure that we have tightened up our training and our -- and making sure that nobody with unauthorized access gets to see the content of a 702 collection. That's probably a good way of summarizing it, there's a lot more beneath that but that's the gist of it. Just to make sure, we're still -- we're collected under -- under 702, just to make sure that nobody gets access to it, doesn't have a need to know and hasn't been trained on how to handle FISA information.

FLAKE: OK. Can you briefly describe the process for incidental collection or minimizing those who were involved?

COMEY: Yes. Incidental collection is the name given to, if you're targeting a terrorist, let's say who's in Yemen and he happens to be using an American e-mail provider to communicate.

So under 702, the U.S. intelligence community can collect that terrorist communications. He's outside the United States and he's not an American. If an American contacts that terrorist, sends him an e- mail at his, let's imagine its a Gmail account, his Gmail, that will be incidentally collected, that American who sent the e-mail to the terrorist is not the target.

But because he or she communicated with the terrorist, that is collected as part of that lawful collection. That's what incidental collection means. And if the FBI is doing that 702 collection, those communications from the terrorist and to the terrorist would sit in our database. If we open an investigation on that person who happened to be the communicant and we search our systems, we will hit on that 702 collection and the investigating agent will know holy cow, there's an American was in touch with that terrorist in Yemen.

If that agent has been trained and has access to the information, they'll be able to know it. That's how our systems are designed. FLAKE: Well, thank you. I should say the same review that was conducted in 2014 does point out the value of the program. I certainly think and I think most of us do here see the incredible value 702 and the need for reauthorization, there.

With regard to, just a different topic completely, polygraph testing. As you're aware, any applicant for a law enforcement position with the Federal Government is required to undergo a polygraph. It's worth noting that CPB experiences a significantly high -- higher failure rates of around 65 percent than -- than any other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI does pretty well with this.

Has the Bureau ever conducted any benchmarking with other federal agencies as to the process, where if you require a polygraph for -- for employment? It seems that -- I mean given FBI success with this instrument, that you could inform some of the other agencies who are having difficulties.

COMEY: I don't know whether we have, Senator, but I'll find out.

FLAKE: All right.

COMEY: I think we have with other members of the intelligence community, but I don't know whether we've talked to CBP about our program.

FLAKE: All right. It would be helpful with regard to CPB if you could look into that, we appreciate it. With regard to data breaches falling on what Senator Sasse was asking, given the amount of sensitive data held by the FBI, what are you doing to protect your own systems.

COMEY: A whole lot I don't want to talk about too much...

FLAKE: Understood.

COMEY: ... in an open forum, but it is a constant worry of all of us. Under -- since I've been director, we've stood up something called the Insider Threat Center, and I've put a senior executive -- FBI executive in charge of it because I want someone waking up every morning worrying about how might we lose data, who might be penetrating us, either our systems or as a human asset.

And so a ton of work has gone into protecting our systems, but the weakest link is always the people because you can have the greatest firewalls and the greatest intrusion detection system. But if your people are engaging in either negligent or intentional misconduct, all of that's defeated.

So we're spending a lot of time trying to make sure we have a rich picture of our people that is constant and doesn't depend upon five-year polygraph reinvestigations but that shows us flags of a troubled employee in real time. That's hard to do and build. Technically it is a matter of law and policy, but we're working very hard on it.

FLAKE: In your opinion, is Congress doing enough to protect itself and our systems from outside -- outside threats?

COMEY: I don't mean this is a wise guy answer, surely not because none of us can be doing enough, frankly. Again, it's not just about the -- the perimeter we build, it's about the security culture inside our organizations. And -- and look, I'm part of the FBI and I still don't think ours is good enough. I'm sure Congress's is not good enough.

FLAKE: Do you know the Freedom of Information Act allows access -- citizens have the right to get information from the federal government. Can you talk about how the bureau promptly and fully responds to FOIA requests at the same time you level -- or maintain some level of security over sensitive and classified data?

COMEY: We have an enormous FOIA operation as you might imagine. It's working, I think, 24 hours a day outside of Washington D.C. Great people who this is their life. They know the regulations, they know the security sensitivities, and work as hard as we can to comply with the FOIA deadlines. It is -- it's a huge pain but it's an essential part of being a public institution.

FLAKE: All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

GRASSLEY: Senator Coons.

SEN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL.: Thank you, Chairman Grassley, thank you, Director Comey, for your service and for your return in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I want to start by asking about a letter -- and Mr. Chairman, I'll submit this for the record, if I might. Senator Whitehouse and I in early of August last year sent a letter to our colleague, Senator Cruz, who then served as the Oversight Subcommittee chairman, expressing our grave concern about the potential for foreign interference in our upcoming presidential election.

We asked for an oversight hearing to consider whether existing federal criminal statutes and court jurisdiction were sufficient to address conduct related to foreign entities posing a threat to our election. We didn't have that hearing, but I'd like to ask you that same question now. Are existing federal criminal statutes sufficient to prosecute conduct related to foreign entities that seek to undermine our elections?

COMEY: I think so is my answer. But someone smarter than I may have spotted something where there's a gap. But my reaction is we have the statutory tools. It's a question of gathering the evidence and then applying it under those statutory tools.

COONS: Well, in response to questions from Senator Sasse and Senator Graham earlier, you stated that you fully expect Russia to continue to be engaged in efforts to influence our elections and you expect them to be back in 2018 and 2020. What more should we be doing both to defend our election infrastructure and our future elections against continuing Russian interference?

And what more are you doing -- is the agency doing to help our allies in countries like France and Germany that have upcoming elections where there's every reason to believe the Russians are actively interfering there as well?

COMEY: Thank you, Senator. I think two things we can do and that we are doing, both in the United States and with our allies is telling the people responsible for protecting the election infrastructure in the United States, everything we know about how the Russian's and others try to attack those systems, how they might come at it, what IP addresses they might use, what phishing techniques they might use and then we've shared the same thing with our allies that one.

Two, to equip the American people and our allies to understand that this going on because a big part of what the Russians did was pushing out false information, echoing it with these troll farms that they use and I think one of the most important things we can do is tell the American voter this is going on.

You should be skeptical, you should ask questions, you should understand the nature of the news that you're getting and we've delivered that same message to our European colleagues, and an interesting thing is happening, the marketplace of ideas is responding to this.

Because it's not a role for government, people are out there using the power of social media to push back against this kind of thing in France, in the Netherlands, in Germany and I hope it will happen here in the United States, where ordinary citizens will see this bogus stuff going on and push back -- kind of have good troll armies pushing back the other way. So the market place of information is better educated frankly.

COONS: Well, it's an optimistic vision and I appreciate it. And I also appreciate the work the FBI continues to do to push back and to strengthen our defenses. But I think there's more to do. You certainly, as you've testified before made a great deal of news just before our own election. And I'm struck that you chose to make public statements about one investigation and not another.

The investigation we now know that was ongoing into the Trump campaign and the investigation ongoing into Secretary Clinton. I'm concerned about what the future practice will be. How has the approach taken with regard to the Clinton investigation been memorialized and have you modified in any way, FBI or department procedures regarding disclosure of information concerning investigations particularly close to an election?

COONS: We have not. And the reason for that is, everything that we did -- that I did, was in my view consistent with existing Department of Justice policy. That is we don't confirm the existence of investigations except in unusual circumstances.

We don't talk about closed -- we don't talk about investigations that don't result in criminal charges unless there is a compelling public interest. And so those principles should still govern. We also whenever humanly possible avoid any action that might have an impact on an election. I still believe that to be true and an incredibly important guiding principle. It's one that I labored under here.

Frankly as I said earlier, I didn't think I had a choice, because I could only have two actions. Before me I couldn't find a door labeled no action. So those principles still exist,they're incredibly important. The current investigation with respect to Russia, we've confirmed it.

The Department of Justice has authorized me to confirm that it exists. We're not going to say another word about it until we're done. Then I hope in league with the Department of Justice, we'll figure out if it doesn't result in charges, what if anything will we say about it and we'll be guided by the same principles.

COONS: Well, Director, I do think there was a third door available to you in late year just before the election and that was to confirm the existence of an ongoing investigation about the Trump campaign, which I think was of compelling interest and was an unusual circumstance, an activity by a known adversary to interfere in our election.

Had there been public notice that there was renewed investigation into both campaigns, I think the impact would have been different, would you agree?

COONS: No. I thought a lot about this and my judgment was a counter -- we have to separate two things. I thought it was very important to call out what the Russians were trying to do with our election. And I offered in August myself to be a voice for that in a public piece calling it out. The Obama administration didn't take advantage of that August. They did it in October, but I thought that was very important to call out.

That's a separate question from -- do you confirm the existence of a classified investigation that has just started to try and figure out are there any connections between that Russian activity and U.S. persons that started in late July and remember, the Hillary Clinton investigation, we didn't confirm it existed until three months after it started and started publicly.

So I thought the consistent principle would be, we don't confirm the existence of certainly any investigation that involves a U.S. person but a classified investigation in its early stages, we don't know what we have, what is there. And so I -- my judgment was consistent with the principles I've always operated under, that was the right thing to do. Separately, I thought it was very important to callout and tell the American people the Russians are trying to mess with your elections.

COONS: Well, I hope that in the future that attempt to draw attention to Russian interference or an election, which you've testified you expect to continue, will be effective. Let me ask one last question, if I might. There's a lot of ways that the FBI helps state and local law enforcement. One I've been grateful for was the Violence Reduction Network through which the FBI provided much needed assistance to Wilmington Police Department, this is my hometown, where we've had a dramatic spike in violence.

I'd be interested in hearing how you imagine or how you intend that the FBI will continue to assist local law enforcement in combating unprecedented spikes in violent crime in a few of our communities, such as Wilmington, where they've happened?

COMEY: Yes, we're trying to thank you for that, Senator. The VRN, the Violence Reduction Networker, was piloted in Wilmington and -- and a small number of other places and we believe it works, where the FBI brings to a fight that's primarily a state local fight our technology, our intelligence expertise at figuring out how to connect dots and which of the bad guys we should focus on. And then our enforcement, our agents and their ability to make cases.

And so we're trying to do what we've done in Wilmington, in cities around the country, those cities that are seeing spikes in violence. And -- and the depressing fact is, about half of America's biggest cities saw another rise in violence the first quarter of this year. And so we're trying to lean forward and do what we've done in Wilmington in those places, as well.

COONS: Well, we appreciate your efforts to support local law enforcement. Thank you, Director.

GRASSLEY: Senator Kennedy?

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA.: Morning, Mr. Director, I guess afternoon, now. I'll assume for second that I'm not a United States senator and that I don't have a security clearance to look at classified information. If someone sends m