mr. rooney. >> that was not personal, they had to go. >> oh, see y'all. the others in the football league for making this vote in our favor. i thank brian sandoval and congratulate him and the legislature of nevada who overwhelmingly supported this process and bringing the raiders to las vegas, and, finally, i'd like to thank sheldon edelson whose vision and directions made it possible and probably never would have happened without him. my father used to say that the greatness of the raiders is in its future. the opportunity to build a world class stadium in the entertainment capital of the world is one opportunity that will give us the ability to achieve that greatness. i have mixed feelings, obviously. i love oakland. i love the fans in oakland. i know there's going to be disappointment and maybe some anger. i just hope that as we play in oakland, we understand it's not the players, not the coaches that made this decision, but it was me that made it. if they have anybody to talk to about it, it should be me, and i will, in the coming days, try to explai

mr. rooney and mr. gowdy you discussed minimization procedures under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. those procedures are supposed to protect the privacy rights of u.s. citizens. specifically, it's geared toward the communications of those who may be inadvertently or incidentally collected as a result of intelligence community's lawful collection of communication of others. mr. rogers, is the intelligence community required to cease collection of the interception of communications if the result of the collection or interception includes the communications of an incoming u.s. administration official, president-elect or the president-elect's transition team? >> it depends under what authority we were -- as i said early on, there's a series of questions we go through. is there criminal associated activity, does the conversation deal about threats to u.s. persons, breaking of the law. there's no provision. >> are you, under any circumstances, required to cease collection if the collection results

mr. rooney and mr. gowdy, you discuss the minimization procedures under the foreign intelligence surveillance act and those minimization procedures are supposed to protect the privacy rights of u.s. citizens. specifically it's geared towards the communications of those who may be inadd verptly or incidentally collected as a result of the intelligence community's lawful collection of communications of others. mr. rogers, is the intelligence community required to cease collection or the intercept of communications if the result of the collection or interception includes the communications of an incoming u.s. administration official, the president-elect, or the president-elect's transition team. >> it depends under what authority, as i said early on. there's a series of questions we go through. is this criminal associated activity? does it deal about threats of u.s. persons? breaking of the law. there's no simple yes or no. there's a series of -- >> is there any provision that requires you to cease collect

mr. rooney. >> it wasn't personal. they have to get back. see y'all, and my other 31 partners in the national football league for making this vote in our fair. i would also like to thank governor brian sandoval and congratulate him as well as the legislature of nevada who overwhelmingly supported this process and are bringing the raiders to las vegas, and -- and finally i would like to thank developedon adelson whose vision and directions made it possible and probably never would have happened without him. my father used to say that the greatness of the raiders is in its future, and the opportunity to build a world class stadium in the entertainment capital of the world is one will give us the ability to achieve that greatness. i have mixed feelings obviously. i love observing lampd i love t -- i love oakland. i love the fans in oakland and i know there will be some disappointment and i hope as we play in the future it was the players, it wasn't the coaches, that made the decision, but it was me that made it and if they have anybody to talk

mr. rooney and gowdy you discussed the minimization procedures under the foreign intelligence surveillance act and those minimization procedures are supposed to protect the privacy rights of u.s. citizens. specifically it's geared toward the communications of those who may be inadvertently or incidentally collected as a result of the intelligence community's lawful collection of communications of others. mr. rogers, is the intelligence community required to cease collection or the interception of communications if the result of the collection or interception includes the communications of an incoming u.s. administration official, the president-elect, or the president-elect's transition team? >> it depended under what authority as i said early on a series of questions we go through, is there criminal associated activity, does the conversation deal with threats to u.s. persons, breaking of the law, so there's no simple yes or no. there's a series of processes. >> is there any provision of minimization that requires to you cease collection? that is my question. are you under any circumstances

mr. rooney for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like to direct my questions first and foremost to admiral rodgers to convey my thanks to the many men and women for their dedication at the nsa for keeping our country safe as well as i want to talk about the recent media stories that may have led to confusion in the public about what the nsa is it andot legally collecting the safeguards the nsa has put in place to protect personal data. i would like to clarify the chairman of the subcommittee on the nsa. i recently got to meet your deputy admiral last week out of the nsa. we spoke to some of these things. will we can talk about here , i think it is important for the people in the room and listening outside understand. is through the nsa would need a court order based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance on a u.s. person inside the united states? >> yes sir. >> just to be clear, the section of the fisa that is expiring later this year, 702, which we will be talking about a little bit, cannot be used to target u.s. pe

mr. rooney. >> thanks. i would like to convey my thanks to the many men and women of the nsa for the dedication to keeping our country safe. i want to talk about the recent media stories that may have led to confusion in the public about what the nsa is and is not legally collecting -- the afeguards the nsa has put in place to protect personal ata. i would like to clarify is the chairman of the subcommittee on the nsa, i recently got to meet your deputy admiral last week ut at the nsa. we visited and spoke of some of these things, and what we can talk about today publicly, if you can go into -- if you can't, you can't -- but i think this is important for the people in the room and listening outside understand. is it true that the nsa would need a court order based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance on a u.s. person inside the united states? adm. rogers: yes, sir. rep. rooney: just to be clear, the section of fisa expiring later this year, the 702, cannot be used to target u.s. persons in t

mr. rooney and mr.gowdy, you discussed minimization procedures under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. those minimization procedures are supposed to protect privacy rights of u.s. citizens. specifically it is geared towards communications of those who may be inadvertently or incidentally collected as a result of the intelligence community's lawful collection of communications of others. mr. rogers, is the intelligence community required to cease collection or the interception of communications if the result of the collection or interception includes includes the communication of incoming administration official, president-elect, or president-elect's transition team? >> depends on under what authority. there is series of questions we go through. is there criminal associated activity? does the conversation deal about threats to u.s. persons, breaking of the law, so there is no simple yes or no. >> mr. rogers is there any provision or minute maization requires you to cease collection. that is my q

mr. rooney who chairs our nsa cyber committee for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.t my questions first and foremost to admiral rogers to convey my thanks to the many men and women for their dedication at the nsa for keeping our country safe as well as i want to talk about the recent media stories that may have led to confusion in the public about what the nsa is and is not legally collecting and the safeguards the nsa has put into place to protect personal data. so i'd like to clarify as the chairman of the subcommittee on the nsa recently got to meet your deputy, admiral, last week out at the nsa. we visited and spoke some of these things. what we can talk about here today publicly if you could go into, if you can't, you can't, but i think this is important for the people in the room and listening outside understand, is it true that the nsa would need a court order based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance on a u.s. person inside the united states? >> yes, sir. >> just to be clear the section of the fisa that is expiring later this year, that's 702

mr. rooney for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.first and foremost to admiral rodgers to convey my thanks to the many men and women for their dedication at the nsa for keeping our country safe as well as i want to talk about the recent media stories that may have led to conclusion in the public about what the nsa is and is not legally collecting in the safe guards the nsa has put in place to protect personal data. so i'd like to clarify as the chairman of the subcommittee on the nsa i met your deputy admiral and we visited and spoke and what we can talk about here today publicly, if you can, if you can't, you can't but i think it's important for the people in the room and listening outside understand. is it true the nsa would need a court order based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance on a u.s. person inside the united states. >> yes, sir. >> and to be clear the section of the fisa that is expiring later this year the 702 which we'll be talking about a little bit cannot be used to target u.s. persons or persons in

mr. rooney and mr. gowdy, you discussed the minimization procedures under the foreign intelligence surveillance act and those minimization procedures are supposed to protect the privacy rights of u.s. citizens. specifically it is geared toward the communications of those who may be inadvertently or incidentally collected as a result of the intelligence community's lawful collection of communications of others. mr. rogers, is the intelligence community required to cease collection or the interception of communications if the result of the collection or interception includes the communications of an incoming u.s. administration official, president-elect, or the president-elect's transition team? >> it depends under what authority, as i said early on, there is a series of questions we go through, criminal associated activity, does the conversation deal about threats to u.s. persons, breaking of the law, so there is no simple yes or no. there is a series of -- >> is there any provision of minimization that

mr. rooney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to direct my questions first and foremost to admiral rogers to convey my thanks to the many men and women for their dedication at the nsa, for keeping our country safe. as well as i want to talk about the recent media stories that may have led to confusion in the public about what the nsa is and is not legally collecting and the safeguards the nsa put into place to protect personal data. so i'd like to clarify as the chairman of the subcommittee on the nsa i got to meet your deputy admiral last week, out at the nsa and we visited and spoke some of these things. what we can talk about here today publicly if you could go into, if you can't you can't. i think that this is important for the people in the room and listening outside understand. is it true that the nsa would need a court order -- >> we're going to dip in and out of these questions the next several minutes. we've learned some things. >> a headline coming out the fbi director confirming publicly there is in fact an in

mr. rooney, who chairs our nsa cyber committee for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman.uestions first and foremost to admiral rogers to convey my thanks to the many men and women for their dedication at the nsa for keeping our country safe as well as i want to talk about the recent media stories that may have led to confusion in the public what the nsa is and is not legally collecting and the safeguards the nsa has put into place to protect personal data. so i'd like to clarify as the chairman of the subcommittee on the nsa, i got recently got to meet your deputy, admiral last week out at the nsa and we visited and spoke of some of these things. what we can talk about here today publicly, if you can go into, if you can't you can't but i think this is important for the people in the room and listening outside to understand. is it true the nsa would need a court order based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance on a u.s. person inside of the united states? >> yes, sir. >> and just to be clear, the section of the fisa that is expiring later this year, that 70