prospective of diverse law clerks, i saw something because of my life experience that someone else didn't see. >> tune in sunday night at 8 eastern, on c-span. >> the house intelligence committee worked on legislation to reauthorize parts of fees-- fisa foreign intelligence act. this committee meeting is an hour and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. the permanent committee on intelligence is pleased to be out in the public for a rather appearance. to our guests in the audience, welcome. we appreciate you being here. proper decorum must be

maintained at all times and we're here and in open session. this markup will address only unclassified matters pursuant to committee rule 6-c and clause 2 subsection h4. the chairman mri conclude any on adopted member for recorded votes or yea's and nays, authorized to declare a recess at anytime. item hr-4478 fisa amendment's reauthorization act of 2017 and the clerk will designate the bill. >> hr-4478, to improve foreign ip -- intelligence collection, and foreign intelligence to extend title 7 of such act and for other purposes. >> consent the bill be considered as read and open for

amendment at any point. without objection, so ordered. today our committee will consider the fisa amendment's reauthorization act of 2017, a bill that would reform and renew surveillance authorities including 702 of the fisa act. in preparing the bill, the house intelligence committee held an in depth discussion with the house judiciary committee and adopted numerous ideas based on their efforts and the bill produced by the senate intelligence committee. i'd like to thank both committees for hard work and consideration they put into this issue. without congressional action section 702 authorities will expire at the end of the year. the loss of these authorities would be a dangerous blow to the counterterrorism efforts of the intelligence community, decisive congressional action is needed to help american citizens and troops safe from terror attacks at home and abroad. section 702 allows for the targeting of foreigners located in foreign nations, an effective program that helped

to thwart attacks such as the subway bombing plot and led to the critical information hamid ahmad, killed by u.s. forces in 2016. testimony to this committee from throughout the intelligence community as well as declarations from the bipartisan private and civil liberties oversight board and watch dog indicate beyond any doubt the program's effectiveness in locating and tracking foreign terrorists. although 702 is subject to numerous layers of oversight from all three branches of government, the it should be subject to regular adjustments as necessary to ensure america's privacy and civil liberties are fully protected. while analyzing the program's current operation this committee identified several areas that should be updated. after careful consideration the best way to strengthsen privacy protections without hindering

the effectiveness the committee devised several reforms to section 702 and other surveillance authorities included in this bill. these include briefly, requiring specifiesa section 702 query procedures separate from procedures that must be reviewed by the surveillance court every year. adding an optional warrant requirement for the fbi to view query returns and codifying on use the fisa section 702 in criminal prosecutions against americans. mandating procedures to unmasking of americans in intelligence community reporting temporarily codifying an end to the fisa section 702 about collection until the government develops new procedures and briefs the intelligence and judiciary committees. improving transparency, on the procedures and additionally

reporting to congress how the intelligence community is using other fisa authorities. the bill will renew this for four years and strikes a careful balance between security and privacy that should give the american people confidence that the intelligence community is, woulding hard to-- working hard to keep them save and respectfully protecting their privacy and i'd like to thank the committee, and a former member of the committees for co-sponsoring the bill as well as the chairman on committee of armed services and extend thanks to chairman kay granger defense appropriation committee and ken calvert all three members who serve as nonvoting members of the community, for co-sponsoring the bill. thank the ranking member of the committee. mr. schiff for his work

incorporated into the bill and the warrant for the fbi to view section 702 query returns. at this point, i want to yield to-- the remainder of my time to mr. rooney. >> thank you, as the chairman mentioned this reauthorizes fisa 702, which is a critical intelligence gathering program targeting foreigners overseas. this was care. i crafted based on our committee's extensiveout reach the last two years. we provided sessions on the hill and nsa and reached out to member to member level to discussion the authorities and protections related to section 702, that are currently in place. hr-4478 adds a security provision to 705 and adds a new foreign power to fight the

coughing international malicious cyber actors at that threaten our national security. this bill also makes key privacy reforms, including restrictions on the use of fisa section 702 against u.s. people in criminal prosecutions. codification of unmasking procedures, enhancements to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, and various new congressional reporting requirements. these privacy protections strengthen congressional oversight of the ic, as well as transparency of fisa, section 702 without any operational impact to the program. this is an ideal outcome given the effectiveness of fisa's section 702 in u.s. counter terrorism efforts. most important, this bill reauthorizes fisa section 702 for four years, which ensures the critical use of this protecting the nam security. as a chairman of the

subcommittee i'm keenly aware of the responsibility that we have to keep the american people, to have the american people to ensure the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep america safe. i can vouch for the importance of this bill and i hope you will support it. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. rooney, i'll now yield to ranking member schiff for any opening comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to take this opportunity to address my colleagues in the hope that we can change this hearing from the path that it's on at the moment, which is to a party line vote on this proposal and see if we can still produce an almost completely bipartisan work product. what we have suggested when we engaged in the early discussions over the bill was a way of resolving the most difficult issue around 702, and that is how should we deal with queries of the data base

created by 702. 702, as we all know, is a program that's important. ap targets foreigners on foreign soil. and there are times we target foreigners on foreign soil where information, because of foreigners talking about an american or talking to an american is captured in the data base. so the question is, under what circumstances should law enforcement be able to query that data base that may contain some information about americans? should there always be a warrant requirement or a warrant requirement under certain circumstances? and how do we make sure this data base doesn't become a vehicle for fishing expeditions. what we have proposed and arrived at i think is a sensible conclusion that built on what the judiciary committee put together, but did so in a way that was more operationally

viable. we would allow queries of the data base, but in cases of criminal matters not involving national security or serious violent crimes, we would require there be a warrant or the evidence could not be used in court. that, i think, is a workable construct for the intelligence community. it also addresses the privacy concerns at that we not have a growing data base with information about americans used for fish for evidence of a tax crime or a fraud. that language is now in the bill. as well as other privacy protections we a added and we have broad agreement on that. we do not have broad is the unmasking language in the bill. as members are aware from the time we've spent on the issue,

we've uncovered not a scintilla of evidence that there was improper masking in the 702 program. so the unmasking program does not exist to the 702 program that we have been able to see. for that reason, this language is not only unnecessary, but in our view is simple an effort to politicize the 702 bill and to further a political narrative. for that reason we can't support it, i'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot and offered language-- we could have offered language in this bill to make a point on collusion if we wanted to. and you would have said that's politicizing the bill, we're not going to include your language on collusion. we haven't sought to do that, this is too important a program. what we've asked you to do is not to do the same. let's not mix-up the unmasking

stuff which has nothing to do with this program and defeat what is otherwise a very bipartisan work product. because i can tell you what the result will be if we go forward the way we're now. we'd have to go forward, we will have a part line vote on this bill, it will go nowhere, the judiciary bill will go nowhere either and we have have completely abdicated to the senate and the senate will cobble together what they will and to attach to a must-pass by the end of the year and i would not like to see this abdicate in this way and urge that we come to an agreement. we offer to compromise on the unmasking legislation, language which we don't think belongs here at all, but we would offer a compromise, but i would urge that we consider this and to go forward with one or two part line votes.

i'll yield back. >> other members wish to be heard? mr. conaway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find my good friend's arguments to be less than persuasive. weather there's evidence of wrongdoing or not, american's identities should be protected. and what we're doing with unmasking is to make sure it happens. we've seen in the record we've been collecting so far, there appears to be perhaps reckless or certain an inordinate number of unmaskings of american identity and with that good proof, without establishing why, the analysts or whoever was asked for the unmask to happen, and to hear argument that we should be less concerned about the privacy of americans than what this attempts to do is pretty shocking, quite frankly. this does not hamper the

ability of the intelligence committee to use this tool. it simply protects american's identities who should be protected and there ought to be a high bar in order to unmask someone's identity that has not gone through the privacy protections of the fourth amendment we are afforded across everything else. this tool is too important to not put in place, but by the same token, it's powerful and its power can be used inappropriately. whether that's the case or not we need these to understand who you can unmask over a period of time and make sure that future transitional administrations either coming in or leaving, particularly leaving administration, doesn't misuse this, and just because we don't have, as you say, the scintilla, which i think is a stretch of evidence, nevertheless, this is important

protections for the american about you believe to say, okay, we'll entrust the agencies with this tool, but we also want to make sure that americans are treated fairly and their confidentiality is protected. in all this is the case if an american is involved in some wrongdoing, there's ways to get that identity unknown to the people who should low it. if it's the local pizza man called to deliver pizza. his or her identity should never be masked and that it's confident if that's the case. i'm really concerned with a lot of logic that my colleague put forth as to why it should not be in here. it should be in here and we'll gain the broad support of the american public in using this cool. >> require that whoever is unmasked that's tracked. require that congress have immediate oversight and all of this thing that does is not

hindered in any way and i don't think is a politicalization of anything, but just good governance and a protection of american privacy. so i'm fully supportive of what we've done so far and hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would see the wisdom of protecting america's privacy and yield back. >> thank you. mr. heinz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked for time, really, in a state of mind, a real sadness. sadness, really, because i love this committee's work and i like every single member and i like what we do because what we do is really important. we are the only people, really, who oversea a roughly 80 billion dollar operation which does essential critical and important things, dangerous things, controversial things, and theoretically, we could have had a really good debate and conversation about a controversial program that we all understand is critical, but

we all understand at its heart gets to the terms on which the government gets to go through the private communications of american citizens. and i'm sad because historically this committee had has operated in a bipartisan way. instead, where we are today is a bill that was presented to us about 36 hours ago, a bill that has had exactly zero hearings associated with it, and as much as i like and respect the chairman of the nsa and cyber security subcommittee, i consider him a friend, i'm the ranking member of that subcommittee, nsa cyber security subcommittee. my friend said there had been extensive outreach. i'm the ranking member of the nsa and cyber security subcommittee. i've been invited to zero hearings on 702. i've been asked for zero opinions on 702 in that subcommittee. we've had no discussions about

this. i offered my friend, the chairman, a letter with some thoughts on 702, hoping to start that conversation, and i received no response. we've had not one hearing on this topic. we saw this bill for the first time 36 hours ago. we haven't even talked about it within the democratic caucus. so, what could have been a process around one of the most essential things we do is now going to be by a political looking at unmasking. we know where it came from. the president tweeted that accused president obama in the tower. and they've ingauged in looking to justify that tweet. i've looked at every single unmasking and sat in every

hearing. sam powers, susan rice, people who are casually accused of violating the rights of american citizens, i sat in every one of those in the whole hearing. i've looked at every single unmasking. there's not a shred of evidence there was an illegal unmasking. that doesn't mean we couldn't tighten up the process, i think we could. i have looked at that process, it should be better documented. i would love to have at that conversation, but let's not kid ourselves what's happening this morning. ... american citizen information. let's have a hearing about that. let's at least talk about it. instead we're going to scupper an essential conversation by the terms on which the federal government gets to look at the private communications of

american citizens, something i would relish doing in favor of an nakedly partisan thing which would codify the fantasies of fox news and to the united states code. let's at least have a hearing before the due. let's at least present the evidence we heard from susan rice, that we heard from sam powell. let's let people see how unmasking done before we betray the expectations and responsibility that this essential committee has. i don't have an amendment. i just have a lot of sadness and i guess i will just join in the ranking members plead that let's engage, do what our constituents expect us to do it have a conversation. let's at least have a hearing and take this seriously. i yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member. >> i think the gentleman. i would just say because it's been suggested that my statement that there's not a scintilla of evidence that there was any improper unmasking under 702.

i would ask any of my colleagues whether in closed session after the searing it would be willing to sit down with me and children in evidence under 702 of an improper unmasking. okay? i will look forward to that. >> at the gentleman would yield i will be glad of a discussion with you. i think almost everyone on the site would be glad to have that discussion with you. >> i think you'll be very surprised at how you may have been misled as to -- >> i assure you i've not been misled. i assure you that i've seen the same things you've seen and i've assured, and i can assure you that it is absolutely evidence of improper access, and that if it was reversed in the butchered administration have been accessing the obama administration in the manner in which we've seen and the testimony, it would be outrage in your site. also the other things interesting, this isn't just about providing oversight -- >> reclaiming, regarding my time. regarding my time. i yield back.

>> mr. himes time has expired. just for the record, we had countless hearings and meetings regarding 702. i know that there's not a day that goes by that my colleagues don't get phone calls from someone within the ic was preakness on the boards of this program. we have held actually for all the members of both republicans and democrats, with the heads of most of the agencies in a classified setting, and this, without an educational program put together for the republicans to come to on our side that of course you guys, the democrat side welcome to do that and you can still continue to educate the rest of our colleagues because as you all know dieter with fisa is quite complicated. at this time i want to go to mrt clarification. we will have time for amendment

for those who want to offer amendments but mr. rooney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, and sad because you know, it's unfortunate that the ranking member of the subcommittee has brought up our relationship as far as what we talked about privately as what our game plan or how we're going to move forward. it's been very difficult and frustrating with everything else that's been going on in this committee. i agree with you over the last year with the investigation that we are engaged in now. at that i don't think has disrud the fact that you and i have both seen the importance of reauthorizing this hugely important tool that keeps this country safe and how we're going to go about doing that. i got your letter get the reason i didn't respond is because i didn't feel a need respond because i greet with what you said in your letter. we talked about, you said we never talked about. we did talk about was going to

happen with 702 at some point in the future. we didn't really know when this day was going to be here, but my side, my job is to make sure that i educate the members on our side of the aisle and your job i think is to educate the members on your side of the aisle while the program is important we have had countless meetings on our site to try to educate, which is by the way as you know very difficult on my side of the aisle to try to get everybody to agree that this tool is not sacrificing their civil liberties or the fourth amendment protections, that we're looking at peoples e-mails or phone calls without a warrant or without fourth amendment protections. that will be doing in this bill is within the constitutional yet balanced by the national security guidelines that they would expect, that our founding fathers would expect. that's not an easy chore on our

side of the aisle. and so when you talk about our relationship and our communication, or lack thereof as you say, that does make me sad as well. but i will just say this. it's trying to tighten the screws on unmasking, which is the one thing i think in this investigation that i i thought that we were in agreeance, there was a huge disparity on a people that were either in the administration, , and i don't ce what side of the aisle they were on, how some people are asking for names to be unmasked with literally, i want this name unmasked because of what it unmasked, verses of the people that would get a full-page explanation as to why. and our attempt to make it more uniform and use more strict scrutiny as to people would get a united states citizens name unmasked, that we could possibly be having an argument on this committee in his room that

trying to do a a better job and make those screws tighter is somehow political, that somehow that playing politics that we trying to make a political statement by doing a little bit better job to make sure there's uniformity within the administration on how united states citizens names are unmasked. how that's political i have no idea, but that just goes to show how this committee has devolved with something as simple as trying to get unmasking right, how you could potentially vote no on a bill that keeps this country safe because you think that we're playing politics with regard to unmasking in the last administration or transition period. even if that's true the next administration might be a democrat. and guess what? it still in place. so if you wanted to be in place for democratic nominee and a republican congress, and you can get those assurances, too. all we're trying to do is

tighten the screws to make sure the language for people that are trying to unmasked u.s. citizens names in an intelligence report is done with the strictest scrutiny and has to be justified down to the last letter that is reasonable or justified and i can say that's political and how you could vote no for that, i hope you sleep well at night on that went because that is absurd here i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you. i yield my time to the ranking member. >> i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i think it's apparent from the comments of my colleagues, and hope this is just a misunderstanding and something more deliberate. the critique that you're making unmasking you have every right to make, but it's not about 702. all the comments you've made it not been about this program, and

i soon that you know that. i hope that you know that and if you don't know that, when we sit down, mr. turner, my colleagues, you'll find out the concerns are expressing are not -- >> are you questioning my knowledge? >> i would yield. >> i look for when you say were in a classified briefing going through what you and i have both already read, which are testimonies were actually a couple of them that we were in attendance and both question the witnesses where they related to is what i believe are absolute abuses of the obama administration where they did use the process of unmasking i think to the detriment of the rights of u.s. citizens. now, this is a process that i believe -- >> reclining my time -- >> and by addressing -- >> reclining my time. >> under 702? >> well protecting american citizens and the bill in front of you on the issue on unmasking. >> i guess your answer is no, we're not talking a 702.

at precisely my point. we are not talking about 702. the comments my colleague has just made as you are aware -- >> you are talking about 702 and -- >> program. that's my point. now, if you wish to nonetheless interfere with our partners on this issue of this program because concerns about other things, then at least be open about what you are doing, okay? we happen to think this program is too important to be potentially dragged down by a debate over something else. but nonetheless, that is where we are. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to yield. >> mr. schiff, you know this is a vote we have in front of us today. i understand what you're saying about the differences, but this is the vehicle by which we are going to make the reforms, the problems were faced with today. the reality of the situation on both sides of our aisle, forget about all the politics of russia and all that. the reality is is that this is a

vehicle that's moving the reforms that we want to do. that's true on your side of the aisle and its two on our side of the aisle. we're going to get speedy reclining my time. >> we have to do this today. >> we in agreement then mr. rooney that the concerns you are raising are not implicated by anything we've seen on 702? are we agreement on that? >> i am an agreement that today is a day we have a chance to make the reforms. and if we miss this opportunity then we're making -- >> reclining my tie. i i assume we're therefore in agreement, at the problems you're talking about are not pertaining to this program and we merely using this vehicle and my plea to you is don't you 702. it's too important. if we want, if you want to have a stand-alone bill you're in the majority. you can take it up anytime you want, and a speaker can scheduled for the house or anytime you want. it doesn't have to be with this program, and you know the ic is not in favor of this language in

the bill. you know that. we know that. and yet you insisting on it for political reasons unrelated to 702. with that i would yield to my colleague, mr. himes. >> thank you, mr. schiff. people watching this debate might arrive at an accurate conclusion, which is that there's a debate to be had over unmasking. i said that in my original statement. i have looked at every single unmasking and i'm very much looking for to meeting with mr. turner. and i've been in every single hearing on this issue. there is a debate to be had, but this is not the vehicle and it's not the vehicle because the number of years we've had on unmasking is zero. the number of meetings that we've had in a bipartisan way on unmasking is zero. a number of presentations that we've we made to the american public on this issue is zero.

we have had that lots of classc information. we have a difference of opinion. if we were responsible we would come together, try to resolve this difference of opinion as mr. turner and mr. schiff have attempted to do and then we would share our conclusions with the people who sent us here. so now this is not the vehicle. it is an important issue. you see the debate. let's do this right. let's not jam it through. with that i yield back to the ranking member. >> i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. just for the record, this does not only the unmasking cover 702, unmasking occur -- so to try to bifurcate that as quite interesting point since we put in other provisions that have absolute, i was a less to do with 702 into this bill, like some of the pclob provisions and

other provisions. is the gentleman one to pull some of those out also? >> will the gentleman yield? >> i would yield. >> we had bipartisan agreement on that. we don't have -- >> you can't make the argument, you can't make the argument that one thing applies to 702 because you wanted to, but something that our side wants in when it actually does. >> my point is since this is not a problem with 702, and there's no bipartisan agreement on it, why insert it in bring the bill them in something that does not relate to 702? >> reclining my time. the bill is not going to go down. mr. stewart is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's interesting this is an open hearing at a think there's something that's apparent, that is her democratic colleagues feel badly about something that i i feel badly about as well, that is one of the things i most appreciate about this committee was it was bipartisan. and i looked across the aisle,,

some your travel with the many of you i've considered france. it was bipartisan while we had a democratic president. now it's not bipartisan. what changed? what changed was on november 20. i would argue the first week of november everything changed. and suddenly this committee was not bipartisan because we had a republican nominee or republican president. and you are exactly right. this committee has changed. because we have a republican president now. some of the things that i've heard some of you that i respected, and some of the accusations that you made against private citizens and the innuendo and a cloud you put over people with laughable evidence, and then, complained

about being bipartisan. the ranking member asked for evidence to he said there was no scintilla of evidence. i'll give evidence right here, right now. 300 times. more than 300 times the ambassador united nations requested unmasking. which is astronomically higher than anything we saw before that. it's higher than national security adviser rice. it's higher than the director of cia rain and. much, much higher. they had 70. 70. she had hundreds and hundreds. and i you going to go say to the american people that that's okay? a political appointee in a political and a powerful position takes american citizens who are not under investigation,

they are private citizens. they've been accused of no wrongdoing, and this political appointee demands that those citizens identities be not only unmasked but in far too many cases their identities were released and leaked to the press. and you think that's okay. and you're going to go tell the american people we are okay with that. because i think if you're going to make that political argument, good luck with that. the american people demand and expect and they deserve the identity and the privacy to be protected. that's the only thing were trying to do here. and if you think that's partisan i don't know what to say to you. because it seems to me that something the republicans and democrats could agree on. if you are not under investigation, you deserve and have right to privacy. and if you would vote against this bill because you want to go to the american people and say

we don't want to assure you of that, we will make it harder for you to privacy, once again good luck with that. because i think it's a nutty political argument to make. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. the member wish to be heard before offer amendments? move on to amendments. mr. carson. >> thank you, chairman. thank thank you, ranking members well. since becoming a member of this committee i've seen exactly why our overseas or business programs are so critically important. we need the ability to target and track individuals who we have reason to suspect are plotting against the united states. my time honestly has illustrated clearly just how valuable it is to be able to quickly collect, score, and analyze intel on

overseas suspects. it has and will continue to save lives. so i support section 702 and believe strongly that should be reauthorize before it expires later this year. all of that being said, i have concerns that this bill has not gone far enough to narrow the authorities in section 702 of fisa. we need to go further to address many of the civil liberties concerns raised since our last reauthorization of 702. we should be stronger on about collections and ensure that the nsa can only turn this collection back with the approval of congress. there is enough ambiguity about collection collections that the decision to turn its back on needs to be heavily debated. the bill also lacks a strict work requirement in order for the fbi to search 702 database for information on specific americans and to be utilized in

criminal proceedings. i am aware that each and every year and the program is approved, and must be found consistent with the fourth amendment iv attorney general and director of national intelligence, which it has already met. however, having worn a law enforcement uniform i think the way we gather and are able to use evidence is critically important. i think there are additional protections which we should implement in this program when we're dealing with the information of u.s. persons. now, to be clear on not soft on terrorism durably that robust intelligence collection is critical to our national security, and that our intel officials need all possible tools to do their jobs well. but sitting on this very esteemed committee has shown me that we collectively could address these provisions. we could and should protect the fourth amendment rights of americans any stronger and more forceful way.

so as the bill is probably drafted and take up with the motivated unmasking language, that polls this bill. i hope we can work with our colleagues on the house judiciary and in the senate to reauthorize and reform this authority in a very tough away for it expires. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. carson. mr. gowdy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have worked for i guess the better part of the last nine months with my friend from connecticut. he is always prepared. he is thorough. he is every bit as effective as a question or in private as he is in public but but i would ty friend from connecticut, there were republicans who told president trump that he was wrong when he accuse president obama of wiretapping trump tower. there were republicans who were contemporaries with the claim so just ask my friend from connecticut, no matter how heated the political debate make it, don't ever lose sight of that fairness and don't lump

everyone together. there were republicans who said there is no evidence to support that. and if there is, produce at immediately. to my friend from california, i would say you are correct. you are correct that we spent the better part of the last nine months looking at issues and related with this precise reauthorization. but my friend from california is also experienced and bright enough to know that if the problems can manifest themselves in one surveillance program, they can certainly manifest themselves in another because it's the same techniques. it's the same principles. it's the same players. so why would we wait until similar problems manifest themselves? why not fix it before it happens? the issues, the word illegal was used in connection with unmasking. there is no illegal unmasking. they may violate policy. they may be improper.

it's not against the law to do it, but we both have been in the room, all three of us have been in the room when principles with almost precisely the same job description had wildly disparate unmasking numbers. it doesn't meet the crime was committed. it doesn't even mean the motive was nefarious. what it does mean is that are different policies and paradigms being applied to the requested unmasked. and what was most troubling to me, and i note was to my two friends on the other side of the aisle, is that some instances the principal himself or herself was not even aware of the unmasking request had been made. that's not what we want. if we are going to cost a national security adviser -- trust -- we will trust and attorney general with the power

to unmask a fellow citizens name, lease make sure it's the principle doing it. and we were all there and we were all i think surprised at the testimony. so my question to my friends would be this. why wait until similar problems manifest themselves? this president, unless he is going to mayor grover cleveland, is never going to go back to another transition. unless we have another non-successive president presie suck when you go back to transition so this has nothing to do with president trump he's not going to go back through it. it has to do with the next democrat administration, the next republican one. more than that it has to do with, it wasn't two months ago we sat in this room with admiral rodgers and director comey and we put them on notice, that this agreement, this passage agreement that we have between government and the american people that we will empower you but you have to be good stewards of the power, and we put them on notice that there were issues. and he we are in december, eight

months later, discussing those very issues. and if they have taken steps to resolve them, though steps have been lost on me. so it is our responsibility to do and, yes, i would yield to my friend from california. but what i would ask is why would we wait until similar issues manifest themselves in this surveillance program? >> and i would ask my colleague why did you wait? you in the majority. you could've introduced an unmasking bill. we could've taken up at anytime. why wait until this program is about to sunset and try to jam it in the bill if you think is such a good and important idea? i'll tell you the answer. because this is a clinical messaging tool that is a were in a stand-alone bill, it would not get bipartisan support. but by putting it a must pass program -- >> this is the first reauthorization i participate in since i've been on -- this is my

first time. so you're welcome to quit my colleagues as to why they haven't done it in the past but this is my first opportunity to do it. so i'm not a johnny come lately to it was talking about it, call me and rodgers been on this committee for a month. so you can query my colleagues that you and i both know this is the first time i've been through a reauthorization on this program. >> and i'm not questioning my colleagues good faith. i'm just saying it is was expressing an issue as my colleagues and majority make out, it was nothing preventing them of the last six measurement is a bill in the subject. but by putting in a must pass program, the effort is to shoehorn up our support for a partisan narrative and that is simply -- >> time has expired. anybody wish to be heard over here before we get to amendments? ms. speier? >> thank you. i must say that i really value of a member of this committee. and i do think we're all people

of goodwill and i think this dialogue were having right now would be really constructive if we could talk about it separate from 702. because mr. dowd is making some good points. there's many things that i think we've come to an agreement on, but i do worry that separate and distinct from that we have not fully dealt with this measure in the matter that it's consistent with what the american people would want. since 2012 there there been a significant number of americans who been improperly swept up in surveillance activities that the law says must not target americans and that this information is retained for years. this improperly obtained information has been used in court against americans charged with crimes have nothing to do

with national security. no warrant and without the required notification to the defense. leaving aside the unmasking of language also included in the bill, civil liberties groups have says that the so-called fixes in this bill would be worse than no fixes at all. there is no reason for this to be the case. there have been numerous other fisa authorization reauthorization bills introduced in both chambers of congress. many of which contain elements with mary that she received the debate on the floor. this is far too serious of a matter to ram a renewal of these authorities through on a ridiculously short timeline. this bill was shared with my office less than 24 hours ago, and here we are marking up legislation that is incredibly profound constitutional implications for all americans and business implications i might add. my concerns are shared widely by both sides of the aisle and there's no reason that we can't work together to fix these problems. we could be sitting here

thoughtfully debating the balance between security and civil liberties, and the best path forward but instead the majority has decided to do otherwise. waiting until the authorities are about to expire and then janet this bill through committee with no time for debate and discussion is the very definition of undemocratic. it's disrespectful to all americans and to the constitution. i do believe that section 702 authorities are critical to our national security and and in su balance to be struck here. we are all speed if we believe hearing on foreign intelligence surveillance act or fisa at this point as you sin is about to gavel in. you can sit here and in its entirety if you go to our website c-span.org. type fires in the search bar. the senate coming in today to work on authorizing and instructing gaucher to meet with house conferees to resolve differences in the tax reform plans. votes are expected during the session today. there may also be updates on the

off the floor talks for short-term extension of government funding beyond this coming friday. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black , will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, we trust you to direct our lives. you are holy,