we'll go live as they review foreign intelligence

surveillance act. it is designed to improve foreign intelligence and selections of safeguard ov oversight. we are located outside t-- this coverage. should start? just a moment.

committee will come to order. pleased to be out for a rare appearance. to our guests in the audience, welcome. thank you for being here. proper decor rum must be observed at all times. disruptions will not be

tolerated. as a remainor to our members we will remain in open session. it will remain only on classified matters. pursuant to committee rule 6c subsection may postpone on any question of approving any matter in which are ordered. without objection the chair can declare recess at any time. and clerk will designate the bill. hr 4478 to amend to intelligence act to improve foreign intelligence collection and the safeguards accountability and oversight of ak by sags to extend title 7 of such act and for other purposes. >> i ask unanimous consent the

bill be considered as read. without objection so order. today we will krr bill that reform and reflew including section 702. in preparing the bill the house held an in depth reduction. we also drew upon ideas from the bill produced by the senate intelligence committee. i would like to thank them for the work they put into this issue. the loss of authorities would be a dangerous blow to the intelligence community. it is to keep troops safe from terror attacks from home and abroad. it is located in foreign nations. it is a program that helped

terror plots such as the 2009 new york city subway city bombing plot. the programs operation should be subject to regular adjustments as necessary to ensure americans privacy and civil liberties. this committee identified several areas. after careful consideration without hindering the programs

effectiveness the committee devised to section 702 and other surveillance authorities that are included in this bill. these include briefly requiring procedures separate from the minu minute mization procedures adding optional warrant requirement and restrictions on the use of communications in criminal prosecutions against americans. mandating new procedures related to unmasking of americans temporarily codifying an end to the nsa section abouts collection until the government collects new procedures. improving transparency as well as requiring additional

reporting to congress hoon how e community is using other authorities. i would like to thank all of the members of this committee who have cosponsored this bill. i would like to thank a former member for cosponsoring the bill. finally i would like to thank the ranking member that was

incorporated in this bill particularly a permissive warrant requirement to review section 702 query returns. at this point i want to yield the remainder of my time to mr. rooney. >> thank you mr. clarm. as the chairman mentioned reauthorized section 702 which is a program targeting foreigners. this legislation was carefully crafted based on our committee's extensive outreach to members of the house, senate and administration over the last two years. we provided information sessions and we reached out to the member to member level to discuss the authorities and protections related to section 702 that are currently in place. it strengthens our national security by adding an emergency provision. the bill also adds a new foreign

power covering malicious cyber. this bill also makes key privacy reforms indeluding restrictions on the use of section 702 against people and criminal prosecutions, codification of unmasks pro vehicle code yseetd new reporting requirements. these strengthen congressional oversight of the ic as well as section 702 without any operational impact to the program. this is an ideal outcome given the effectiveness in u.s. counter terrorism efforts. this bill reauthorizes section 702 for four years which ensures the use of this critical program in protecting u.s. national security. as a chairman of sub committee

i'm aware of the responsibility 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. i'll now yield to ranking member and any he would like to make. >> thank you. i hope we can change the hearing from the path it is on at the moment to a party line vote on this proposal and see if we can produce an almost completely bipartisan work product.

it is a program and it targets foreigners on foreign soil but there are times when we target foreigners where information -- because of foreigners talking to an american is nonetheless captured within the date the base. the lesson is under what circumstances should they be able to query. should there always be a warrant requirement? how do we make sure this database doesn't become a vehicle for fishing xpeditions. what we arrived at was a sensible conclusion that built on what the judiciary committee put together but did so in a way

that was operationally viable. in cases of criminal matters not involving national security or serious violent crimes we would require there be a warrant or evidence could not be used in court. that language is now in the bill as well as other privacy protections we have added to the bill. i think we have a fairly broad agreement on that. we do not have any agreement on is the unmasking language in the bichlt

bill. we have uncovered not a bit of evidence that there was any unproper unmasks in the 702 program. so the unmasking issue does not exist with respect to the 702 program. for that reason it is not only unnecessary but in our view is simply an effort to politicize the 702 bill and to further a political narrative. nar reason we can't support it. and you would have aid it the politicizing the bill. we haven't sought to do that. we would ask you to not do to same. let's not mix up the unmasking

stuff which has nothing to do with this program and defeat what is otherwise a bipartisan work product. the judiciary bill will go nowhere and we will have to the senate. they will attach it to a must pass legislation at the end of the year and all of our efforts will be for not. i would rather see us not in this way and i would urge that we come to agreement and offer to compromise on the unmasking

legislation. i will yield back. >> mr. conway. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i find my good friends arguments to be less than persuasive. whether there is any evidence of wrong doing or not it should be protected and what we are trying to do with this unmasking is to make sure that it happens. we have seen instances in the record that we have been collecting so far where it appears to be perhaps reckless or in a number of unmaskings of american identity. we should be less concerned is

pretty shocking quite frankly. it does not to ability to use this tool. it protects americans identities who should be protected and it should be a high bar in order to unmask an identity that has not gone through the normal privacy protections of the fourth amendment we are forwarded across everything else. this is too important to not put in place. it is powerful. its power can be used inappropriately. whether that's the dais or not we need it to -- we need these to make sure future transitional administrations are coming in or leaving administrations doesn't miss use this. just because we don't have as you said -- which i think is a bit of a stretch of evidence

this is important to say we'll trust them with this tool. we also want to make sure americans are treated fairly and their confidentiality is protected. if an american is involved in some wrong doing this is -- there is ways to get that identity known to the people who should know it. if it is simply the local pizza man his or her identity should never be unmasked and that will be confident that that's the case. i think we require the ability for congress to have an immediate oversight and all of

the other things it does does not hinder anything in any way. so i'm fully supportive of what we have done so far and hope you see the wisdom of protecting america's privacy and with that i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i ask for time really in a state of mind of real 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 who oversee a roughly $80 billion operation which does critical and important things, dangerous things, controversial things and we could have had a really good debate and conversation about a

controversial program that we understand as critical and all understand that its heart gets to the terms on which is government get to go there the private -- this is in a bipartisan way. instead where we are today is a bill presented to us about 36 hours ago, a bill that has had exactly zero hearings associated with it. i consider him a friend on the ranking member of the sub

committee. i received no response. we have had flolt one hearing on this topic. we saw the bill for the first time 36 40urs ago. we haven't even talked ability it within the democratic caucus. so what could have been a process about one of the central things we do will be skuperred by a nakedly political continuation of the unmasking issue. we all know where it came from. the president in one of his early morning tweets accused obama of wiretapping in trump tower. since that tweet my friends on the other side have been engaged in a feverish attempt to justify that tweet. i looked at every single unmasking. i have sat in every hearing.

what's happening this morning is an attempt to feed the beast that barack obama administration officials unlegally unmasked american citizen information. let's have a hearing about that. let's at least talk about it. no. we are not going to do that. instead we'll skuper a conversation about 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 a nakedly partisan thing which would codefy the fantasies of fox news into united states code. let's at least have a hearing before we do that. let's at least present the evidence we heard from susan rice. let's see how the unmasking is done before we betray this committee has. i'll just join in and say let's at looets have a hearing. let's take this seriously. i'll yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member. >> because it has been suggested that there's not evidence that there was any unproper unmasking

i would ask any of my colleagues whether in closed session they would be willing to show me any evidence of an unproper unmasking. okay. i will look forward to that. >> gentleman will yield. i will be glad to have that discussion with you. i think almost every member on this side would be glad to have that discussion with you. >> i think you'll be very surprised at how you may have been mislead. >> i assure you i have not be mislead. i can assure you that it is absolutely evidence of improper access and that if what was reversed in the bush administration in the manner in which we had seen and had testimony that would be outrage on your side. the other thing that's interesting, this is about providing oversight. >> reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time.

i yield back. >> just for the record for the audience to know we have had countless hearings and meetings regarding 70 t2. i know there's not a day that goes by we don't get phone calls from people that are breefg us on the importance of this program. at this time i want to go to mr. rooney.

we will have time for amendments for those who want to offer amendments, mr. rooney. >> i too am sad because, you know, it is unfortunate that the ranking member brought up our relationship as far as what we have talked about privately as what our game plan or how we will move forward. it has been very difficult and frustrating with everything going on in this committee, i agree with you, over the last year with the investigation that we are engaged in now. you and i have both seen the importance of reauthorizing this hugely important tool that keeps this country safe and how we'll go about doing that. i got your letter. the reason i didn't respond is because i didn't feel a need to respond because i agreed with what you said in your letter. we did talk about what was going

to happen with 702 at some point in the future. we didn't flow whknow when thiss going to be here. my job is to make sure i educate the members on our side of the aisle. your job is to educate the members on your side of the aisle while your program is important. we have had countless meetings on our side to educate, which is by the way, very difficult on my side of the aisle to try to get everybody to agree that this tool is not sacrificing, that we are look at e-mails or phone calls without a warrant that what we are 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. it's not an easy chore on our

side of the aisle. so when you talk about our relationship and our communication or lack there of, as you say, that does make me sad as well. but i will just say this, if try to go tighten the crews on unmasking, which is the one thing i think in this investigation that i thought was in agreement there is a huge disparity an how -- i don't care what side of the aisle they were on, how some people were asking for names to be unmasked with literally -- i want this name unmasked because i want it unmasked versus other people that would give a full page inminui inplin nation and how people would get a united states citizen's name unmasked that we could be having an argument on this committee, in this room

that trying to do a better job and make those screws tighter is some how political, that some how that's playing politics that we are trying to make a political statement by doing a little bit better job to make sure there is uniformity on how united states citizens names are unmasked. how that the 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 are 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. guess what? it's still in place. so if you want it to be in place for a democratic nominee then you get those assurances too. all we are trying to do is

tighten the crews to make sure that the language for people that are trying to unmask 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 it's reasonableable or justified. i hope you sleep well at night on that one because that is absurd. i yield back. >> 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 commenting of my colleagues and i hope this is just a misunderstanding and not something more deliberate, the critique that you're making of unmasking you have every right to make but it's not about 702. all of the comments you have made have not been about this

program. i theep you know that. if you don't knee when we sit down you'll find out that the concerns you're expressing -- >> would gentleman yield since she questioning my knowledge on the bill in front of us? >> i would be happy to yield. i look forward to going through what you and i have both already read, which are testimonies where actually a couple of them that we were in attendance and both questioned the witnesses where they related to us that are absolute abuses by the obama administration where they did use the process of unmasking. i think of the rights of u.s. citizens. this is a process that i believe -- >> i reclaim my time -- >> are you talking about under program 702, sir? >> we are protecting -- >> i guess the answer is no. i guess the answer is no.

that's my point. we are not talking about 702. the excellents my colleague has just made. >> you're not -- that's my point. now, if you wish to nonetheless interfere with this issue because of concerns about other things then at least be open about what you're 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. shift, you know this is the vote we have in front of us today. i understand what you're saying about the differences. this is the vehicle by which we are make the reforms nt and the problem that is we are faced with today. the reality of the situation, on both sides of our aisle, forget about all of the politics in russia and all of that.

the reality is this is the vehicle that's moving the reforms that we want to do. that's true on your side of the aisle and it's true on our side of the aisle. >> reclaiming this time. >> we have to do this today. >> are we in agreement that the concerns you're raising are not implicated by anything we have seen on 702? are we in agreement then on that? >> i am in agreement. if we miss the opportunity we are making -- >> i reclaim my time. i assume we are in agreement that the problems you're talking about are not pertain today this prm and we are merely using this vehicle. don't use 702. it's too important if we want -- >> if you want to have a stand alone bill you are in the majority. you can take it up any time you want abdomen the speaker is schedule it any time you want. it doesn't have to be with this program. and you know the ic is not in

favor of the th language in the bichlt you me that, we know that, and yet you're insisting on it for paralegal reason unrelated to 702. i will yield people watching this debate might arrive at an inaccurate conclusion which is that there is a debate to be had over unmasking. i said that in my original statement. i'm looking forward to the meeting with mr. turner. i have been in every 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 hearings we have had on unmasking is zero. the number of meetings that we have had in a bipartisan way on unmasking is zero. the number of presentations we have made is zero.

we have lot of classified information. we have a difference of opinion. if we were responsible we would come together, try to resolve this difference of opinion and then we would share our conclusions with the people who sent us here. so no, 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. >> okay. gentleman's time has expired. just for the record, this does not only the us masking revision so to try to do that as kwiequi the interesting point since we put in interesting provisions into this bill like some of the

provisions. so does the gentleman wanting to pull some of those out also? >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'll yield far little why. >> we had bipartisan agreement on that. >> you can't make the argument. you can't make the argument that one thing applies to 702 because you want it to but something that our side wants in when it actually does. since there's no agreement on it why bring the bill down on something that does not relate to 702? >> reclaiming my time the bill is not going to go down. mr. stewart is recognized. >> it is interesting there is an open hearing. i think there's something that's apparent. that is our democratic colleagues feel badly about something that i feel badly about as well. that with one of the things i feel bad about is that it is

bipartisan. many of you have considered friends. it was bipartisan while we have a democratic president. now it's not bipartisan. what changed? what changed was on november 20th. i would argue on the first week of november everything changed. and suddenly this committee was not bipartisan we had a republican president. you're exactly right. this committee has changed because we have a republican president now. and some of the things i have heard that i respected and some of the accusations that you have made against private citizens and the cloud you put over people with laughable evidence and then come and complain about

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

they are private citizens. they have been accused of no wrong doing. it demands those citizens identities be not only unmasked but in 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 their identity and privacy to be protected. that's the only thing we are trying to do here. if you think that's partisan i don't know what to say to you. it seems to me that is something republicans and democrats could agree on. if you are not under investigation you deserve and have a right to privacy. and if you would vote against this bill because you want to go to american people and say we

don't want to assure you of that or whether he make it harder once again, good luck with that. i think it's a nutty political argument to make. with that i'll yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any member wish shto be heard before we offer amendments? want to go onto amendments? mr. carson.

it has and will continue to save lives. so i spoupport section 702. all of that being said i have concerns that this bill has not gone far enough to narrow the authorities in section 702. we need to address many of the civil liberties concerns. we should be stronger on abouts collections and ensure that the nsa can only turn this collection back with the approval of congress. there is enough ambiguity that the decision to turn its back on needs to be heavily debated. the bill also lacks a strict warrant requirement for

information to be utilized in criminal proceedings. i am aware that each and every year the program is approved it must be found consistent with the fourth amendment by the attorney general and director of national intelligence. however i think the way we gather evidence is important. i think there are additional protections we should implement in this program when we are dealing with the information on u.s. persons. now, to be clear i'm not soft on trichlt i believe that robust intelligence collection is critical to our national security and our intell officials need all possible tools to do their jobs well. sitting on this very esteemed committee has shown me we could request these provisions. we could and shout protect the

rights in a stronger and more forceful way. i oez pose this bill. i hope we can work with our colleagues to reauthorize and reform this before it expired. >> thank you mr. carson. i would tell my friend there were republicans who told president trump that he was wrong when he accused president obama of wiretapping trump tower. there were republicans who said it with the claim. i would ask my friend from connecticut no matter how heated the political debate may get

don't lump everyone together. there were republicans who said there is no evidence to snoort and if there is produce it immediately. to my friends from california i would say you are correct. you are correct. we have spent the better part of the last phone line months looking at issues unrelated with this precise reauthorization. my friend from california is also experienced and bright enough to flow 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 principals. 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 unlegal unmaskings.

they may violate policy or be improper. it's not against the law to do it, but we have both been in the room. all three of us have been in the room when principals with almost precisely the same job description had unmasking numbers. it doesn't mean a crime was committed. it doesn't even mean the motive was -- there are different policies and pair dimes being request to unmask. what was troubling to me and to the two friend tons other side of the aisle the principal himself or herself was not even aware the unmasking request had been made. that's not what we want. if we will trust a national security adviser and trust an

attorney general at least make sure it is the principal doing it. we were all there and all i think surprised at the testimony. so my question to my friends would be this. why wait until similar problems manifest themselves? unless he is going to mirror will never go back through another transition unless we have another nonsuccessive presidency. he is fnot going to go back through transition. this has nothing to do with president trump. it has to do with the next democrat administration and the next republican one. more than that it has to do bsh we have all -- it wasn't ten months ago we at in this room with director comey and admiral rogers that we are going to empower you but you have to be good stew arounds and we put them on notice there were

issues. and here we are there december, eight months later discussing those very issues. if they have taken steps to resolve them it has been lost on me. it is our responsibility. yes, i will yield my friend from california but what i would ask him is why would we wait until similar issues manifest themselves in this surveillance program? >> i would ask my colleague, why did you wait? you're in the majority. you could have introduced an unmasking bill. why wait until this program is about to and try to jam it in the bill if you think it is such a good and important idea. i'll tell you the answer, because this is a political messaging tool that if it were in a stand alone bill it would not get bipartisan support. but by putting it in a must-past program -- >> this is the first i have participated in. this is my first time on hipsi.

you're welcomed to question my colleagues but this is my first opportunity to do it. so i'm not a johnnie come plightpligh lightly to it. so you can query my colleagues but you and i both flow this is the fooirs time i have been through this program. >> if it is as pressing an issue it was nothing preventing them over the last six month to introduce a bill on the subject. by putting it in a must-pass bill or must-pass program the effort is to far partisan narrative. >> time has expired. anybody wish to be heard over here before we get to amendments? >> mr. chairman, thank you. i must say i really value every

member of this committee. i do think we are all people of good will. i think this dialogue we are having right now would be really constructive if we could talk about it separate from 702 because he is making some good points. there is many thing that is i think we could come to an agreement on, but i do worry that separate and distinct from that we have not fully dealt with this measure in a manner that is consistent with what the american people would want. since 2012 there have been a significant number of americans that have 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 has been used in court against americans charged with crime that is have nothing to do with national security with no warrants and without the

required notifications to defense. leaving aside the unmasking language civil liberty that the so called fixes in this bill would be worse than no fixes at all. there is no reason for to be 2 case. there have been numerous other reauthorization bills introduced in both chambers of congress many should receive debate on the floor. this is far too serious of a matter to ram a renewal of these authorities through on a ridiculously short time line. this bill was shared with my office less than 24 hours ago. and here we are marking up legislation that is incredibly profound for all americans and business implications i might add. my concerns are shared and there's no reason we might work better to fix these problems.

we could be here considering the balance between security and civil liberties and the best path forward. instead the majority has decided to do the authorities are abou to expire and then jamming the bill through committee with no time for debate and discussion is the very definition of undemocratic. and it's disrespectful to all americans and to the constitution. i do believe that section 702 authorities are critical to our national security and there is a true balance to be struck here. we are all here because we love our country. and we are all driven to protect it both for external national security threats and from internal weakening of our constitutional protections. this bill fails to balance those concerns. and so i must oppose it. i would like to yield the rest of my time to mr. himes. >> thank you, miss speier. i want to honor congressman gowdy's observations.

i agree wholeheartedly. he is right. there have been republicans who have taken risks to acknowledge what you said about the tweet, and this is not fundamentally, i think, a partisan thing and shouldn't fundamentally be a partisan thing. i want to reassure mr. rooney, though i am unhappy with the process that has led us here today and though we have had heated words i think the personal relationships on this committee are really important. i want to distill the issue down to two points, though, number one, and i think these are sort of unarguable. we all know what we do and we know there are certain issues that are political dynamite. unmasking is one of them. benghazi is one of them. the possibility of collusion is one of them. and every time one of these items of political dynamite get put out there, msnbc does what it does. fox does what it does. we try our best, usually, to be staid and careful in talking

about these. but they're political dynamite. we know that. my problem is we know that and we're moving forward on a change to united states code on an issue that we all know is political dynamite without educating the american people one bit. look, i am open-minded. i think i have seen as much of the evidence as anybody up here. i am open-minded. i am not close-minded to the possibility that there were improper unmaskings, but i am not ready to jump to a conclusion. we haven't had the conversation. we haven't had a hearing publicly or privately. we have disagreements. if we're disagreeing how do we reduce the temperature on this issue of political dynamite for the american people? my plea is not that republicans be better or anything else. we know this issue is political dynamite. let's deal with it in a way that does justice to what we should be doing for the american people. yield back. >> mr. winstrop.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. we all know that the 702 tool is subject to unmasking. and if this foreign intelligence tool has the potential to be abused, i feel it's up to us to protect that and to provide oversight. and in some ways stating that you want to restrict the oversight, i think it tells the american people that maybe we shouldn't be trusted, why would we want to restrict our oversight as representatives of the people over a tool that we are supposed to have oversight on. let's not wait any longer. why wait any longer? let's let the american people know that we intend to provide oversight and make sure that they are protected and that we are doing things right.

it's just one more opportunity for us, on a very important committee, to do what they used to say on superman, fight for truth, justice and the american way. and i yield back. >> anyone else want to be heard before we get to amendments? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we debate this here today, our enemies are toiling away abroad, plotting to carry out what could be the next attack against our allies or, god forbid, here in the united states. and our constituents at home are counting on us to do all we can to ensure that, as we seek to prevent the next attack, understand the next attack, thwart the next attack that we also respect their civil liberties. what a message it would send to them if this committee could produce a bipartisan piece of

legislation. and i think you have heard today that there is a commitment from all of the democrats that, if the unmasking part of this legislation is taken out, you will have a anonymous 702 reauthorization that would show our enemies resolve to understand what they're doing and to fight it and the american people a resolve to respect their civil liberties. and their god-given right to privacy. i implore my colleagues across the aisle, pull the unmasking piece. let's have a conversation about it. mr. schiff, in public and in private, has pleaded for us to just sit down in an informal manner and talk about the russia investigation, to talk about the unmasking concerns, and it's fallen on deaf ears. the invitation has never been

taken up. i think so much can be accomplished and so much has been accomplished when we just talk informally. mr. stewart mentioned the foreign travel we've done. we've gone to some of the roughest places in the world and some of the tightest bonds among us have been made. i think we can do that again, but let's informally meet and address these concerns, and then let's have a hearing on proper unmasking. if there is a standalone bill to be had to address some of the concerns that mr. gowdy has and mr. himes brought up, i think we can find bipartisan support for that. but to our enemies and to the people at home who are counting on us to produce a bipartisan bill today, they're not going to get that. they are going to get a partisan bill that addresses claims that have not yet been proven. and it's going to be just one more setback that we've seen, ironically, that started back on march 20th in this room, which i

would submit was the day that the wheels came off the bipartisan spirit that this committee has always shown. so i hope my colleagues will pull this part of the legislation and allow us to show the american people that we are united in fighting the threats that we face and protecting the civil liberties we depend upon. i yield back. >> republican side. mr. castro. >> thank you, chairman. i am sorry. >> i skipped mr. turner. mr. turner. >> i am just going to speak briefly. the partisan tone that you are hearing is the partisan characterization of this bill by the democrats on this committee, not -- there is not one partisan word in this bill. there is no word donald trump. there is no word obama administration. there is no word trump tower. in fact, if you read this bill, which is the only reason why i

asked for time, is to make the clarity of the issue of what we're debating, it's an issue merely of overnight. there is no prohibition that is included in this bill. there is no restriction that is included in this bill. there is an issue of oversight. open government and our responsibility in our role of oversight is essential to the functions of this committee. when you argue against these provisions, you're merely arguing against oversight. when you make it partisan, you make it partisan. there is not one word in this bill that's partisan. it applies to democrats. it applies to republicans and it applies basically to the obligation of oversight and what is that oversight? of protecting american citizens' constitutional rights. you can't have something more important in this committee than that. to take it down to trump tower when the word "trump tower" doesn't exist in this bill is -- is just absolutely to cast aside

our obligations constitutionally to protect american citizens to make this partisan. then, when you turn to members of this committee and personally attack them, you are the ones who are destroying the bipartisan aspects. now, there hasn't been one person on this side who has pointed one finger over there except to respond to the attack of partisanship on the other side. let's get back to our job. read the bill. look at its oversight provisions. understand that it protects americans, that it would protect the operations of our government, and that it would strengthen the functions of this committee. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. castro. >> thank you. regarding this bill, i still have concerns about the privacy issue, about the inclusion of the unmasking language and about the short time frame in which we have had to consider this legislation, so i am going to vote no.

i yield back. >> any other republican who wants to be heard before we get to amendments? mr. heck. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for having this open committee hearing coming up out of the skiff is a delightful change from our past practice. they say sunshine is the best disinfectant. i think we're getting a bit of a ray of sunshine here today. i also want to add my voice of appreciation to the staff on both sides. i know there was a fairly furious runup to today and a lot of effort expended and even though we clearly did not get there finally, it wasn't for failure of a lot of effort on a lot of people's parts. i am going to vote no today, but not for most of the reasons that have been expressed today. people have suggested that they are going to vote no because of the process and the fairly short time line, 36 hours to examine this bill. i share that concern, as a matter of fact.

i think there are questions that we have not had time to actually explore and fully understand, such as the expansion of the scope of collection to include civilian groups not associated with terrorist organizations or state actors that is found in section 102. that's new language, and it's expansive, and i don't understand who it's aimed at and is it appropriately scoped. i don't understand how it interacts, for example, with the eu privacy shield. new questions kept popping up about this yesterday and even into the night. i also don't think we had enough time to understand how this bill defines malicious cyber activities. it gives a different definition than that which was included in the sifius bill introduced two weeks ago. the chair was a sponsor. i was a co-sponsor. i am not sure why these differ

in that definition and how that interrelationship might be of importance or not. but these -- at the end of the day these are not the reasons i am voting no. they are concerns. i share the concerns that there has been a devolution of bipartisanship here and is fully on display here today. don't think we're actually moving the chains down the field by accusing one another of partisanship in any way. but again, that's not the reason i am voting no. there have been concerns expressed here today about inclusion of the unmasking part. i think for the first time in my 11 months of grateful service on this committee i must disagree with my dear friend from california, mr. swalwell. you could take this out and i would still vote no because i have other concerns, as a matter of fact. indeed, i think the questions about unmasking are fair and that we need to explore some of this as we go forward. i am voting no because i believe

that this bill sets up a false choice between whether or not we can be secure or whether or not we can protect our rights to privacy, especially under the fourth amendment. benjamin frank lynn equipped those who would trade privacy for security deserve neither. i feel the weight of the bill trades off privacy for security and i believe it's a false choice because i believe we can have both. we have the issue about collection which was never envisioned by this committee and it was never specifically authorized, yet the text of this bill implicitly approves about collection. i find that unacceptable without continuing work on our part to address about collection in a clear way that leaves no ambiguity for what can and cannot be collected about us. that's the fourth amendment

protection and right to privacy that i think is not sufficiently upheld in this legislation. we have the question of the u.s. persons query s. this does not close the door on u.s. persons queries. it merely oils the hinges. we do have constitutional rights. we do include among them the fourth amendment to be secure in our houses and papers and effects, and we need to close the back door search loophole and lock the door. so at the end of the day i am voting no not because of the process or the concern of the lack of bipartisanship, though concerned, or the inappropriate inclusion in my humble opinion of the unmasking provision in the 702. i am voting no because i do not think we have struck the right balance and secured both our privacy and our security, and i believe we can achieve both.

but not in this legislation. and with that i yield back. and thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. we are ready to start the amendment process. i have an amendment. i offer amendment in the nature of a substitute. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number one offered by mr. nunes of california. >> without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. can you disperse the amendment. everyone should have the -- it's at the desk. tab two. the amendment and nature of a substitute, a copy of which is in the binder and incorporates a copy of the changes made. most of the changes are minor and technical in nature and have been signed off on by the dni. i appreciate their quick turn-around on that. furthermore i want to point out that, in this amendment, we have

three bipartisan provisions, all of which ironically are not directly related to 702 but we felt it was important to listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle and incorporate these into the bill. the first is a requirement that the department of justice brief the congressional judiciary intelligence committees on their interception of derived from and used interpretation of derived from and used in fisa. second a reporting requirement for the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to outline to congress current and future challenges to the effectiveness of foreign intelligence surveillance activities under fisa. the third provision put in is the whistle blower protections for contractors. do other members wish to be heard on this amendment? seeing -- seeing none, no -- no further members wish to be heard, the previous question is ordered, the question is on the

amendment. those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed will say no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. do any members wish to be heard -- recognized for an amendment? mr. schiff has an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number two, offered by mr. schiff of california. >> without objection, the amendment shall be considered as read. i now recognize mr. schiff to speak on his amendment. >> mr. chairman, this amendment is in the nature of a substitute to the manager's amendment. it is the text of the bill without the unmasking provisions. and i would offer this as a last-ditch effort to see if there is some accommodation we can reach to keep this process

moving forward. there were a couple options we have here. we can have a party-line vote today. when i said the bill would go nowhere, that's where it will go. it will pass out of committee but it won't go anywhere beyond that. we could do a couple of things. we can adopt this amendment in the nature of a substitute and at the same time we take up this bill on the floor take up a standalone bill on unmasking giving the members an ability to vote no or yes on the unmasking language and give us all the ability to vet yes ote yes in f a reauthorization of 702 in which case the work product of the committee would be much more likely to go forward. the other alternative which we'd once again offer to my colleagues but my colleagues may not have all been aware of the offer, we don't think unmasking language belongs in this bill at all as we have made clear. we did express a willingness in the interest of compromise to adopt the unmasking language

that the judiciary committee put out. we are still willing to do that. if the majority is. that would maintain the bipartisan character of the bill. and if there is interest in exploring that, we can recess briefly and we can take that up as an amendment. so i do want to make sure that all the members are aware that we have offered that as a way of compromise and see if there is any interest in that. and if there is i would be happy to yield to any of my colleagues. >> is the gentleman yielding back his time? >> no. i was offering to my colleagues if there was interest in adopting the judiciary language as a compromise that we might move forward. and seeing none, in that case, i will offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute, which would preserve a bipartisan work product of the committee and give us a chance of having a

role in the final shape of this legislation. otherwise, i think we're simply going to abdicate to the senate. and with that, mr. chairman, i would urge an aye vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> anybody else wish to be heard? mr. conoyway. >> i understand the gentleman's amendment that he would strike among other things sections 207 of the amendment which puts in section 512 to the underlying base document. the base of this section basically gives americans protections, identity protections, sets up the requirements by which someone within the administration has to go through the hoops they have to go through to unmask a u.s. citizen's name to be used within the intelligence community. as you look through here, the originating element documents,

the element, the entity, documents in writing, each covered request for the document. given the name and title of the person asking for the request, the reasons why and going through the -- good governance, sets up the oversight. as i understand the gentleman's amendment, it would strike all of those protections for u.s. citizens for every time frame we're doing this in, however it does. nevertheless, if we put this in law the good governance oversight protections would be struck under your amendment. is that the understanding? >> mr. conaway the amendment strikes the unmasking language. >> i'll take that as a yes that all the protections how quickly that came together, whatever time frame, got all that, today, we have the opportunity to put these in place and the gentleman's amendment strikes that and for that i will oppose the gentleman's amendment. i yield back. >> anyone else wish to be heard on mr. schiff's amendment?

>> all right. seeing no further members wish to be heard without objection the previous question is ordered. those in favor of the amendment please say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair the nos have it. the amendment is not adopted. >> are there any further amendments to the bill? seeing none, the question is now on the adoption on favorable adopting as amended to the house of representatives. all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. without objection the previous question is ordered. the clerk will call the role. >> nunes, aye. >> conaway, aye. >> mr. king. aye. >> mr. lobe yando.

aye. >> mr. rooney. aye. >> miss ross leighton. aye. >> mr. turner. mr. turner aye. >> dr. wenstrup, aye. mr. stewart, aye. mr. crawford, aye. mr. gowdy. aye. miss steph onic. aye. mr. hurd. aye. ranking member schiff, no. ranking member schiff, no. mr. himes. no. miss sewell. no. mr. carson. no. miss speier. >> no. >> mr. quigley. mr. swalwell. no. >> mr. castro. no. >> mr. heck. >> no. mr. chairman, there are 13 ayes and eight nos. >> thank you. the bill will be purported to

the -- for the house of representatives without objection pursuant to clause 2 l of house rule 11. i and unanimous consent that the we be able to make technical changes to the bill subject to the approval of the minority. so ordered. if there is no further business without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [ gavel ]

the senate is working on the gop tax reform bill with amendment debate and votes and a final passage vote expected later. watch live on c-span2. >> all of the claims that tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will pay for --

>> this from the hill a short time ago. special counsel robert mueller charged president trump's former national security adviser michael flynn with willfully and knowingly making false and fictitious statements to the fbi about his conversations with russia's ambassador. a plea hearing has been scheduled for 10:30 friday morning. read more at thehill.com. join us on c-span this weekend for american history tv. here are a few highlights. saturday at 3:00 p.m. eastern in honor of the 50th anniversary of the 1967 public broadcasting act the library of congress hosts a discussion about the history of news and public affairs programming with former pbs news hour anchor jim layerer and dick cabot. university of kansas professor on the role of african-american ministers in politics and how

churches help members game experience with organizing and running for political office. sunday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, x recollections of the battle of midway. sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on real america, the film "dreams of equality" featuring a recreation of the 1848 women's rights convention. american history tv, all weekend, every weekend. only on c-span3. next, a house hearing on the cybersecurity of u.s. voting machines. and what the federal government and states can do to prepare for the 2018 midterm elections. louisiana, virginia officials and senior dhs officials testify. the subcommittee on information tlej and the subcommittee on intergovernmental affairs will come to order. without objection the chair has