mr. lundgren. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, i appreciate that. does anybody believe that the laws this we are talking about, particularly the espionage act, would not properly come into play with the alleged revelation of our participation if true in the stucksnet virus or the flame viru virus? >> i'll give the law professor answer. i think it depends on how that information was actually disclosed. so -- >> well, well, okay. you're going to the question -- are you suggesting that it's a question of overclassification? >> no, sir. i'm suggesting that there could be situations where information is disclosed because an official who has the authority to authorize such a disclosure provides that authority. i don't know whether or not we know that's true in this case. >> would it bother you to know that the detail that was described in "the new york times," if true, is a level of detail not presented to members of congress such as the chairman of the cyber-security subcommittee on homeland security, this happens to be me -- >> i wouldn't have guessed.

mr. lundgren's questions, too. it's important to recognize that the court's role is very important. this isn't like a traditional search warrant process in which the court is pressened with evidence about a particular target? some justification for wiretapping that target. this is a system in which the fisa court has wide programs and the only question that the fisa court asks is whether the program as a whole has a significant purpose gathering foreign intelligence information and whether the targets are overseas and again, targets overseas very commonly speak to people inside of the united states and it's those communications that we're worried about here. >> you said the significant purpose, it's aing aive in kant purpose in response to the question i asked a former attorney general and it's just a significant purpose and not the primary purpose, what could the primary purpose do? we have some of these joint task forces where we may have an intelligence official sitting up there and others were restrained by criminal warrant standards where they need probable cause that the forei

mr. lundgren werepodu hsunae poer command subpoena everyone in the situation room, right, before a grand jury? >> congressman, i have to go back to what steve said. it depends on the circumstances bethne n of, you know, who would dds h hou mefwere theeak came from. in terms of the report relating to thepecial counsel, don't quote me on this but they wouldn't be encumbered by the same regulations. so they might be able to go ahead andspea e rr. we tarngb si ote rsaed concerns as well, and i wouldn't be surprised if the special counsel does try to exhaust other avenues of investigation before immediately -- >> that leads to my final question which is this why would porter be entitledt anym otonthete atrorsmewh worked on the white house staff who may have overheard it? why are we affording -- because it's not statutory, and the common law is weak as water -- why ae you giving more protection to a reporter than thersbaee siatioroomf ben part of but that penetrations over time -- it's a concern with not showing the free press. it's a recognition that they serve a very important function in so