hings right. >> c-span where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> the house intelligence committee considered legislation that would re-authorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act or fisa. section 702 allows intelligence agencies to listen in on phone calls and read emails and other electronic communication of people outside the u.s. this is an hour.

>> the committee will come to order. the permanent select committee on intelligence is pleased to be out in public for a rare appearance. to our guests in the audience, welcome, we appreciate you being here. please be advised that proper decorum must be observed at all times and disruptions in today's proceedings will not be tolerated. as a reminder to our members, we are here and will remain in open session. this markup will address only unclassified matters. mr. nunes: pursuant to committee rule 6-c the chair announce he is may postpone further proceedings today on any question of approving any measure on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. the item for conversation -- for

consideration today is the fisa re-authorization act of 2017. clerk will designate the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2478, to amend the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1974 to extend title 7 of such act and for other purposes. mr. nunes: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. without objection, so ordered. today our committee will consider the fisa amendments re-authorization act of 2017 a bill that will reform and renew surveillance authorities including section 702 of the fisa act. in preparing the bill, the house intelligence committee held an in depth discussion on the hughes judiciary committee and adopted numerous ideas based on their efforts. we also drew on ideas from the senate intelligence committee. i'd like to thank both of those committees for the hard work and careful consideration they put into this issue.

without congressional actions, 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 targeting of foreigners located in foreign nations. it's an effective program that's helped thwart potentially devastating terror plots such as the 2009 new york city subway bombing plot. it's also led to the elimination of critical terror suspects such as hajji amman in isis who was killed by u.s. forces in 2016. testimony to this committee from flout the -- from throughout the intelligence community as well as tech la rations from the bipartisan civil liberties oversight board, an executive branch civil liberties watchdog, indicate beyond any doubt the

program's effectiveness in locating and tracking foreign terrorists. though section 702 is subject to numerous layers of oversight, the program's operations should be subject to regular adjustment as necessary to ensure american's privacy and civil liberties are being fully protected. while analyzing the program's current operation this committee identified several areas that should be updated. after careful tchoferingse best way to strengthen privacy pr teches without hindering the program's effect i haveness, the committee devised key reforms to section 702 and other authorities included in this bill. these include briefly requiring specific fisa section 702 query procedures, accept are the from the procedures which must be reviewed by the foreign intelligence surveillance court every year. adding an optional warrant and codifying restrictions on the use of fisa 702 communications in criminal prosecutions against

americans. minnesotadating new procedures and reporting requirements relating to unmasking of meshes in intelligence community report, temporarily codifying an end to the n.s.a.'s fisa section 02 collection until the government develops new procedures an briefs the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees. improving transparency by mandating the publication of section 70 minimization procedures as well as requiring additional reporting to congress on how the intelligence community is using other fisa authorities this ebill will renew these authorities for four year, providing greater opportunity for scrutiny and oversight in that time. it strikes a careful balance between security and privacy that should give the american people confidence that the intelligence community is working hard to keep them safe while faithfully respecting their privacy and civil liberties. i'd like to thank all the members of this committee who have co-sponsored this bill. i'd also like to thank chairman rodney frelinghuysen of the committee on appropriations, former member of the committee,

for co-sponsoring the bill, as well as chairman thornberry on the committee on armed services and i extend thanks to chairman kay granger of the defense appropriations committee and representative ken calvert. all of these members who serve as nonvoting members of the intelligence community all for co-sponsoring this bill. finally i'd like to thank the ranking member of the committee for his work incorporated in this bill particularly the idea of a warrant rirpte for the f.b.i. to review section 702 query returns. at this point i want to yield to -- the remainedmoifer time to mr. rooney who chairs the n.s.a. and cyber subcommittee. mr. rooney: as the chairman mentioned this bill re-authorizes fisa 702 a critical intelligence gathering program targeting foreigners overseas. this was carefully crafted based on our extensive outreach to members of the house, the senate and the administration over the

last two years. we provided information sessions both on the hill and at the n.s.a. we've also reached out to member -- at the member-to-member level to discuss authorities and protections related to section 702 that are currently in place. h.r. 4478 strengthens our national security by adding an emergency provision to fie is section 705. it also adds a new power covering international malicious actors that threaten our national security. this bill also make keys privacy reforms include regular strixes 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 eporting requirements. these privacy pr texts strength b congressional oversight of the

i.c. without any operational impact to the program. this is an ideal outcome given the effectiveness of section 702 and u.s. counterterrorism efforts. most important, this bill re-authorizes fisa section 702 for four years. which ensures the continued use of this critical program in protecting u.s. national security. as the chairman of the n.s.a. and cybercommunity i'm keenly aware of the responsibility 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'll support it. i yield back. mr. nunes: i now yield to mr. schiff for any opening comments he'd like to make. mr. schiff: 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 a 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 database that's created by 702? 702 as we all know is a program that has been enor louse -- enormously important to the intelligence community and law enforcement. it targets foreigners on foreign soil. but there are times when we target foreigners on foreign soil where information because a foreigner is talking about an american or to an american is nonetheless captured within the database. so the question is, under what circumstances should law enforcement be able to query that database that may contain

information about americans? should there always be a warrant requirement? should will to be a warrant requirement under certain circumstances? and how do we make sure the database doesn't become a vehicle for fishing expeditions? what we proposed and arrived at was a sensible conclusion that built on what the judiciary committee put together but did so in a way that was more operationally viable. and that is, we would allow queries of the database but in cases of criminal matters not involving national security or serious violent crime well, 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 that we not have this large and growing database that includes information about americans that could be used just to fish for evidence of a ax crime or a fraud.

that language is now in the bill. as well as other privacy protections we've added to the bill and i think we have fairly broad agreement on that what we do not have broad or any bipartisan agreement on is the unmasking language in the bill. as the members are aware, from extensive time we spent on this issue, we've uncovered not a scintilla of evidence that there was ever any improper unmasking of anything in the 702 program. so the unmasking issue to the degree that it exists at all does not exist with respect to the 702 program that we've been able to see. for that reason, this language is not only unnecessary, but in our view is simply 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 he shoe was on the other foot and we were offering

language in this bill, 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'd ask 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 are new. we'd have to go forward, we'll have a party line vote on the bill, it'll go nowhere. the judiciary bill will go nowhere either and we'll have completely abdicated to the senate and they'll cobble together whatever they will and attach it to a must-pass legislation at the end of the year and all our efforts will be for naught.

and i would rather see us not abdicate in that way. and i would just urge that we come to agreement. we offered a compromise even on the unmasking legislation language which we don't think belongs in here at all but we did offer a compromise. i would urge we reconsider this and not simply go forward with one or two party line votes. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. nunes: the gentleman yields back. other members wish to be heard? mr. conaway. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman. i find my good friend's arguments to be less than persuasive. whether there's evidence of wrongdoing or not, persons' personal identify should be protected and what we are trying to do with this unmasking provision is just to make sure that that happens. we have seen instances in the record we've been collecting so far where it appears to be reckless or certainly an

inordinate number of unmasking of american identity and with that good -- and without good proof, without establishing why, the analyst or whoever is asking for the unmask to happen and to hear the argument that we should be less concerned bt the privacy of americans than what this attempts to do is pretty shocking, quite frankly. this does not hamper the ability of the intelligence community to use this tool. it simply protects americans' identities. those are americans whose identities should be protebted and there should be a high bar to cross in order to unmask someone's identity from a collection tool that has not gone through the normal privacy protections of the fourth amendment that we are afforded across everything else. so this tool is too important to not put in place. by the same token, it's powerful. its power can be used

inappropriately, whether that's the case or not, we need audit procedure it is be able to understand who has been unmasked over what period of time and need these procedures to make sure that future transitional administrations either coming in or leaving, particularly leaving administration, couldn't misuse this and just because we dent have, as you said, a scintilla, which i think is a bit of a stretch, of evidence, nonetheless, this is important protections for the american public to be able to say ok, we'll trust intel agencies to -- with this tool but we also want to make sure that americans are treated fairly and that their confidentiality is protected. in all instances where that's the case. if an american is involved in some wrongdoing, there's ways to get that identity known to the people who should know it. if it's simply the local pizza man being called to deliver pizza, his or her identity should never be unmasked. and that will be confident that's the case.

i'm really concerned with a lot of logic that my good colleague has put forward as to why this should not be in here. it should be in here. if we're going to gain the broad support of the american p public on maintaining the use of this tool, i think being able to look at them and say, we're going to require that whoever gets unmasked, require the ability to congress to have immediate oversight and all the other things that this does does not hinder anything in any way. don't think it's a politicalization of anything gu good afternoonance. i'm fully supportive of what we've done so far. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle see the wisdom of protecting americans' privacy and i yield back. mr. himes.thank you, mr. himes: i ask for time in a

state of real sadness. i like this committee's work and i like what we do because it's important. we are the only people who oversee a roughly $80 billion 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 it's hard to get 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 operated in a burn way. instead, where we are today is a bill that was presented to us about 36 hours ago. a bill that has exactly zero hearings associated with it. and as much as i like and respect the chairman of the n.s.a. and cybersecurity

subcommittee, i consider him a friend, i'm the ranking member of that subcommittee, n.s.a. -cybersecurity subcommittee. my friend said there had been extensive outreach. i'm the ranking member of the subcommittee, i've been invited to zero hearings on 702. i've been asked for zero opinions on 702 and that subcommittee. we have had no discussions about this. i offered my friend the chairman a letter with some thoughts on 7 2 hoping to start that conversation and i receive no response. we've had no 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 scuppered 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 arack obama of wiretapping him in trump tower. since that tweet, my friends on the other side have been engaged in a feverish i attempt to justify that tweet. i've looked at every single unmasking. i've 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 hearings, through the whole hear, looked at every single unmasking. there's not a shred of evidence that there was an inlegal 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 that conversation. let's not kid ourselves about what's happening this morning. what's happening this morning and i say this with great sadness is an attempt to feed the beast.

of this idea that barack obama's administration officials illegally unmasked american citizen information. let's have a hearing about that. let's at least talk about it. no, we're not going to do that. instead we're going to scupper an essential 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 codify 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. that we heard from sam power. let's let people see how unmasking is done. before we betray the expectations and responsibilities of this essential committee has. i don't have an antidepressant,

i just have a lot of sadness. i'll join in the ranking member's plea that, lest engage. let's do what our constituents expect us to do and have a conversation. let's have a hearing. let's take this seriously. i yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman. i would just say because it's been suggested that my statement that there's not a scintilla of evidence that thrft there was any improper unmasking, i would ask any of my colleagues whether in closed session after this hearing they would be willing to sit down with me and show me any evidence under 702 of an improper unmasking? ok. i will look forward to that. >> if the gentleman will yield, i'd be glad to have that discussion with you. i think almost every member of the -- on this side would be glad to have that discussion with you. mr. schiff: i think you'll be surprised as to how you have been misled. >> i assure you you have noit --

i have not been misled. i have seen the same things you have seen. i can assure you it is absolutely evidence of improper access and that if it was reverse and the bush administration had been accessing the obama administration in the manner in which we have seen and had testimony there would be outrage on your side and also the other thing that's interesting, this is about providing oversight. that's all we're doing. mr. schiff: reclaiming my time. i yield back. mr. nunes: mr. himes' time has expired. for the audience to know, we have had countless hearings and meetings regarding 702. i know that there's not a day that goes by that me or my colleagues don't get phone calls from someone within the i.c. who is briefing us on the importance of this program. we have held for all the member os of -- both the republicans and democrats, with the heads of most of the agencies in a classified setting.

and this is, we've had an educational program put together for the republicans to come to on our side. that of course you guys on the democrat side were welcome to do that and you can still continue to educate the rest of our colleagues because as you all know, dealing with fisa is quite complicated. but at this time i want to go to mr. rooney. and just a clarification, we will have time for amendments for those of you who want to offer amendments. mr. rooney. mr. rooney: thank you, mr. chairman. i too am sad because you know, it's unfortunate that the ranking member of the subcommittee has brought up our relationship as far as what we've 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're engaged

in now. but that, i don't think, has disrupted the fact that you and i have both seen the importance of re-authorizing this hugely important tool that keeps this country safe and how we're going to go about doing that. i got your letter. the reason i didn't respond is because i didn't feel a node to respond because i agreed with what you said in your letter. we talked about you said we never talked about, we did talk about what was going to happen with 702 at some point in the future. we didn't 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 why this program is important. we have, as the chairman said, have had countless meetings on our side 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 their fourth amendment protections, that we're looking at people's emails or phone calls without a warrant or without fourth amendment protections that what we're doing in this bill is within the constitutional yet balanced by the national security guidelines that they would expect and our founding fathers would expect. that's not an easy chore on our side of the aisle. when you talk about our relationship, our communication or lack thereof as you said that does make me sad as well. i will just say this. if trying to tighten the screws on unmasking, which is the one thing i think in this investigation that i thought that we are in agreeance, there was a huge disparity on how people that were either in the administration, and 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 explanation as to why and our attempt to make it more uniform and use more strict scrutiny as to how people would get a united states citizen's name unmasked, that we could possibly be having an argument on this committee in this room that trying to do a better job and make those screws tighter is somehow political. that somehow that's playing politics. that we're 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's still in place. if you want it to be in place for a democratic nominee and republican congress, then you get those assurances too. all we're trying to do is tighten the screws to make sure that the language for people that are tiing to unmask u.s. citizens' names in a intelligence report is done with the strictest scrutiny and has to be justified down to the last letter that is reasonable or justified and how you can say that's political and how you can vote no for that, i hope you sleep well at night on that one. that is absurd. i yield back. mr. nunes: the gentleman yields back.

>> i yield my time to the ranking member. mr. schiff: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i think it's apparent from the comments of my colleagues and i hope this is just a misunderstanding and not something more deliberate, the critique you're making of unmasking, you have every right to make. but it's not about 702. all the comments you've i assume that you know that, i hope you know that and if you don't know that, you will find out the concerns you are expressing -- >> will the gentleman yield, you are questioning my intelligence? mr. schiff: i will yield. you are going through what you and i have already read. >> testimonies that we were questioning the witnesses, where they related to us what i believe are absolute abuses by

the obama administration where they did use the process of unmasking to the detriments to the rights of u.s. citizens. this is a process -- mr. schiff: reclaiming my time. are you talking about the program 702? i guess the answer is no. i guess your answer is no. we aren't talking about 702. the comments that -- >> mr. rooney. mr. schiff: if you wish to nonetheless interfere with our progress on this issue of this program because of concerns about other things then at least be open about what you are doing, ok. we happen to think this program is important to be pogesly something a debate by

else. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. schiff: i would be happy to yield. >> mr. schiff, you know this is the vote. i understand what you are saying about the differences, but this is the vehicle by which we are going to make the reforms in the problems that we are faced with today. mr. rooney: the reality of the situation, forget about the politics of russia and all that, the reality is this is the vehicle moving the reforms we want to do. it's true on your side of the aisle and our side of the aisle. r. schiff: reclaiming my time. the concerns you are raising are not implicated by anything we have seen on 702, are we in agreement on that? mr. rooney: today is the day we have the chance to make the reforms and if we miss this opportunity -- mr. schiff: reclaiming my time. therefore we are in agreement that the problems you are

talking about are not pertaining to this program and using this vehicle. my plea is don't use 702 because it is too important. if you want a stand-alone bill, you are in the majority. and the speaker can schedule it to the house floor any time you want. it doesn't have to be with this program. and you know the i.c. is not in favor of this language in the bill, you know that, we know that. and yet, you are insisting on it for political reason unrelated to 702, with that, mr. chairman, i yield to my colleague, mr. heins. >> people watching this debate will go to an inaccurate conclusion. i looked at every single

unmasking and i'm looking forward to the meeting with mr. turner and i have been on every single debate. but this is not the vehicle and not the vehicle because the number of hearings we have had on unmasking is zero. the number of meetings we have had in a bipartisan way on unmasking is zero. the number of presentations that we have made to the american public on this issue is zero. we have lots of class tied information. we have a difference of opinion, if we were responsible, we would come together and 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 bark to the ranking member member -- i yield back to the ranking member.

mr. nunes: just for the record, this does not only the unmasking -- they occur all across fisa. to try bifurcate is quite the interesting point since we put in other provisions that have i would say less to do to 702 into this bill like other provisions, is the gentleman wanting to pull some of those out also? >> would the gentleman yield? >> we had bipartisan agreement on that. we don't have -- mr. nunes: you can't make the argument that one thing applies to 702 because you want it to and -- mr. schiff: mr. chairman, my point is, since this isn't a problem with 702 and no bipartisan agreement on it, why

insert it and bring the bill down that does not relate to 702? mr. nunes: the bill is not going to go down. mr. stewart is recognized. mr. stewart: this is interesting there is an open hearing. our democratic colleagues feel badly about something that i feel badly about as well and one of the things i most appreciated about this committee was that it was bipartisan. and i look across the aisle and some of you i have traveled with and i consider you friends, it was bipartisan while we had a democratic president. and now it's not bipartisan. and what changed? what changed was was on november 20. and 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. and some of the things that i have heard -- some of you that i respected and some of the accusations that you have made against private citizens and inyou endo and the cloud you put over people was laughable and then and come complain about being bipartisan. the ranking member asked for -- said there was no evidence. i will give you evidence right now. times, s, more than 300 the ambassador of the united nationses requested unmasking, which is astro no, ma'amically higher than anything we saw before that. it is higher than national

security adviser rice, higher than the director of c.i.a. brennan, much, much higher. they had 70. she had hundreds and hundreds. and are you going to say to the american people that that's ok? a political appointee in a political and a powerful position takes american citizens, who are not under investigation, they are private citizens and been accused of no wrongdoing and this particular appointee demands those citizens' identities be not only unmasked but in some cases, their identities were released to the press and you think that's ok. and you are going to tell the american people we are ok with that. if you are going to make that political argument, good luck with that. the american people demand and expect and they deserve their

identity and their privacy to be protected. that's the only thing we are 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's something that republicans and democrats could gee 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 the american people and say we don't want to assure you of that or make it harder for you to have that privacy, once again, good luck with that, because i think it's a nutty political argument to make. with that, i yield back. mr. nunes: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any member wish to be heard before we offer amendments? move on to amendments. >> thank you, chairman.

thank you ranking member as well. since becoming a member of this committee, i have seen exactly why our oversees' programs are critically important. we need to target and track individuals who we have reason to suspect are plotting against the united states. my time on this committee has illustrated clearly how valuable it is to quickly collect, store and analyze intell on overseas' suspects. it will continue to save lives. so i support section 702 and believe strongly it should be re-authorized 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 address many of the civil liberties, concerns, raised since our last

authorization of 702. we should be stronger about collections and ensure that the n.s.a. can only turn this collection back with the approval of congress. there is enough ambiguity about collection that the decision to turn back on on needs to be heavily debated. the bill lacks a strict warrant requirement in order for the f.b.i. to utilize. i'm aware each and every year, the program is approved and must be found consistent with the fourth amendment by the attorney general and director of national intelligence, which it has already met. however, having worn a law enforcement uniform, the way we are able to gather evidence is critically important. there are additional protections which we should implement in this program when we are dealing with the information of u.s. persons. now to be clear, not soft on

terrorism. i believe that robust intelligence collection is critical to our national security and that our intell officials need all possible tools to do their jobs well. sitting on this committee has shown me we collectively could address these provisions. we could and should protect the fourth amendment rights of americans in a stronger and more forceful way. as the bill is currently drafted and with the politically motivated unmask language, i oppose this bill. i hope to work with our colleagues on the house judiciary to re-authorize and reform this authority in a thoughtful way before it expires. i yield back. >> i have worked for the better part of the last nine months with my friend connecticut is always prepared. every bit ugh, he is

as effective as a questioner but i would tell my friend from connecticut, 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 con temperature prainyouse with the claim. no matter how heated the political debate may get, 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 it immediately. to my friend from california, i would say, you are correct, you were correct. we have spent the better part of the last nine months looking at issues unrelated with this precise re-authorization. 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 unmaskings. they may violate policy or improper. it's not against the law to do it. but we have been in the room, all three of us have been in the room when principles were precisely the same job description, had wildly disparity unmasking numbers. that doesn't mean a crime was committed or the motive was knee feryouse. there are different policies and

radigms being required for unmasking. what was most troubling to me, in some instances, the principal, himself or herself was not even aware that the unmasking request had been made. that's not what we want. if we are going to trust a national security adviser, we're going to trust an attorney general with the power to unmask a fellow citizen's name, make sure it was the principal doing it. we were all there and surprised by the testimony. my question to my friends would be this, why wait until similar problems manifest themselves? this president, unless he is going to mirror grover cleveland is never going to go back to another transition. unless we have another nonsuccessive presidency, he isn't going to go back to transition. this hasn't anything to do with

president trump but the next democrat administration, the next republican one. and more than that, it has to do -- it wasn't 10 months ago we sat in this room with add mirl rogers and director comey and put them on notice that this agreement that we have between government and the american people, we are going to empower you but you have to be good stewards and we put them on notice there were issues. and here we are in december, eight months later discussing those very issues and if they have taken steps to resolve them, those steps have been lost on me. it's our responsibility -- and i will yield to my friend from california. but what i would ask him is why would we wait similar issues manifest themselves in this program? mr. schiff: why did you wait? you are in the majority and you could have introduced an unmasking bill.

why wait until this program is about to sunset and jam it in the bill if you think this is such a good and important idea? tile tell you the answer because this is a political messaging tool which if it were in a stand-alone bill would not get in bipartisan support. mr. gowdy: this is my first time on hipse. this is my first opportunity to do it. i'm not a johnny come lately. i was talking to comey and rogers. so you can questionery my colleagues but this is the first time i have been through a re-authorization on this program. mr. schiff: i'm not questioning my colleague's good faith. if this was as pressing an issue, there was nothing preventing them from over the

last six months introducing a bill. but putting it in a must-passed rogram this is to shoehorn bipartisan support and -- mr. nunes: time has expired. anyone else who wish to be heard over here before we get to amendments? ms. speier: i must say i really value every member of this committee. and i do think we are all people of goodwill. and i think this dialogue we are having right now would be really constructive if we could talk about it separate from 702, because mr. gowdy is making some good points. there are many things that 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 swept up in surveillance activities that the law says must not target americans and this information is retained for years. this improperly obtained information has been used in court against americans charged with crimes that have nothing to do with national security. with no warrants and without required notification to the defense. leaving aside the unmasking language civil liberty groups have assessed 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. fisa have been numerous authorization bills introduced in both chambers of congress which contain provisions with merit which should receive debate on the floor. this is far too serious of a

manner to ram renewal 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 constitutional implications for all americans and business implications. my concerns are shared widely by both sides of the aisle and we could be sitting here debating the precarious 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 jamming this bill through committee is a very definition of undemocratic and disrespectful to all americans and the constitution. i do believe 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 protect it from external national security security threats and internal weakening of our constitution protections. this bill fails to balance those concerns. i must oppose it. i yield the rest of my time to mr. himes. mr. himes: i just want to honor congressman gowdy's observations. i agree with them wholeheartedly. he's 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 be a partisan thing and i want to resure mr. rooney that although i'm unhappy with the process here today, i think the personal relationships on this committee are important. i want to diss tell the issue down to two points, though. number one and these are

unarguable. we all what we do and there are certain issues that are political dynamite. unmasking is one of them. benghazi is one of them, the possibility of col like is one of them. and one of them gets put out there, fox does what it does, we try our best to be stayed and careful, but they are political dynamite, we know that. my problem is we know that and we are moving forward on a change to united states code on an issue that we all know is political dine hit without educating the american people one bit. look, i'm open minded. i have seen as much as the evidence as anybody up here. i'm not close minded to the possibility there are improper maskings. we haven't had the conversation or that hearing publicly or

privately. and we have disagreements. if we are disagreeing, how are we going to reduce the temperature on this issue of political dine hit for the american people. my plea is not republicans be better, but we know this issue is political dynamite. let's deal with it and deal with it in a way that does justice for the american people. i yield back. mr. nunes: mr. wenstrup. mr. wenstrup: we all know that 702 tool is subject to unmasking. and if this sworn 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 the american people know we intend to make sure they are protected and doing things right. it's just one more opportunity for us to a very important committee to do what they used say on "superman" fight for truth, justice and the american way. and i yield back. mr. nunes: anyone else want to be heard? mr. swalwell. mr. swalwell: 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, understandings the next attack, thwart the next attack that we also respect their civil liberties. and what a message it would send to them that this committee could produce a bipartisan piece of legislation. and i think you have heard today there's a commitment from all of the democrats that if the unmasking part of this legislation is taken out, you will have a unanimous 702 re-authorization that would show our enemies a resolve to understand what they're doing 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, hold 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 years and the invitation hasn't been taken up. mr. stewart mentioned the foreign travel we have done and gone to some of the roughest places in the world and tightest bonds among us have been made. we can do that again, but let's informally meet and address these concerns and let's have a hearing on improper masking and if there is a stand-alone bill to address the concerns that have been brought, i think we could find bipartisan support to

that. but to our enemies and the people at home who are counting on us to produce a bipartisan bill today, they aren't going to get that but a bipartisan bill that addresses claims that have not yet been proven. and it's going to be just one more setback that we seem ironically that started back on march 20 in this room which is the day the wheels came off the bipartisan spirit that this committee has always shown. i hope my colleagues will pull this part of the legislation and allow us to show the american people we are united in fighting e threats that we face and efend the liberties.

mr. nunes: mr. turner. mr. turner: i'm going to speak briefly. >> there is an issue of oversight. open government and our responsibility and our role of oversight is essential to the functions of this committee. when you argue against these provisions, you are merely arguing against oversight. when you make it partisan, you make it partisan.

there's not one word in this bill that is partisan, it applies to republicans and democrats and 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 on this committee than that, to take it down to trump tower, when those words doesn't exist in this bill is just absolutely to cast aside our obligations. and 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. let's get back to our job. read the bill. look at its oversight provisions

and understand that it protects americans and would protect the operations of our government and it would strengthen the functions of this committee. i yield back. mr. nunes: mr. castro. >> i have concerns about the privacy issue, about the inclusion of the unmasking language and about the short time frame in which we had to consider this legislation. so i'm going to vote no. i yield back. mr. nunes: any other person wish to be heard? mr. heck. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman and thanks for having this open committee hearing ming up out of the scif is a delightful change. sunshine is the best and we are getting a bit of a ray of sunshine here today and add my voice of appreciation to the staff on both sides. runup there was a fierce

to today and it wasn't for failure of a lot of effort on a lot of people's parts. i'm 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 nod 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 expansive and i don't understand who it is aimed at and properly scoped. i don't understand how it interacts with the e.u. 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 deficient nigs than was included in the bill that was introduced two weeks ago. the chair was a sponsor and i was a co-sponsor and not sure why these differ and how that interrelationship might be of importance or not. but at the end of the day these are not the reasons i'm voting no. i share the concerns there has been a devolution of bipartisanship here and fully on display here today. i don't think we are actually moving the chains down the field by accusing one another of partisanship in any way, but again that's not the reason i'm 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 gritful service on this committee, i must disagree with mr. swalwell. you could take this out and i would still vote no, because i have other concerns as a matter of fact. i think the questions about unmasking are fair and that we need to explore some of this as we go forward. now i'm voting no because i believe that this bill sets up a false choice between whether or not we could be secure and whether or not we can protect our rights to privacy especially under the fourth amendment. benjamin franklin quiped and i'm amazed he hasn't been quoted, though those who trade security for privacy deserve neither. this trades off privacy for security. i believe we can have both. we have the issue of about

collection, which was never envisioned by this committee and was never specifically authorized. the text of this bill implicitly approves about collection. and i find that unacceptable without continuing work on our part to address that collection in a clear way that leaves no ambiguity for what can and cannot collected about us. that is the fourth amendment to protection and right to privacy that i think is not upheld sufficiently in this legislation. we have the issue of u.s. persons' queeries. this does not close the door on u.s. person's queeries but merely oils the hinges. but we do vr 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. at the end of the day i'm voting

no not because of the process or time line or the lack of bipartisanship or the inappropriate inclusion in my humble opinion of the unmasking provision in the 702, i'm 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. thank you, mr. chairman. r. nunes: i have an an amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one offered by mr. nunes of california. mr. nunes: without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. everyone should have the amendment. tab 26.

the amendment in the nature of a substitute, a copy of which is in the binder before you incorporates the changes made since the bill was introduced. most of the changes are minor and technical in nature. and have been signed off on by the d.n.i. i appreciate their quick turn-around on that. i want to point out that in this amendment, we have three bipartisan provisions, all of which irnot 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 and ntelligence contest -- committees, derived from and used in fisa. the director of intelligence has to outline to congress current

and future challenges of foreign intelligence activities unged fisa and third provision put it in is the whistleblower protections for contractors. to do any members wish to be heard on this amendment? members ne, no further wish to be heard, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he 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. the clerk: amendment number 2 offered by mr. schiff of california. mr. nunes: without objection,

the amendment shall be considered as read. i now recognize mr. schiff to speak on his amendment. mr. schiff: this amendment is the nature of the substitute to the manager's amendment. it is the text of the bill without the unmasking provisions. and i would offer this as the last-ditch effort to see if there is some accommodation to reach to keep this process going forward. there are a couple of options we have here. we could have a party line vote today and when i said the bill would go nowhere. it will pass out of the committee but won't go beyond that. we can adopt this amendment in the nature of a substitute and at the same time, we take up this bill on the floor and take up a stand-alone bill on unmasking and give members the ability to vote yes or no and give us the ability to vote yes

on the re-authorization of 702. in which case the work of the committee would be likely to go forward. the other alternative which would offer to my colleagues but my colleagues may not be aware of the offer, we don't think unmasking language belongs in this bill, but we did express a willingness to adopt the unmasking language at the judiciary committee. we are still willing to do that, if the majority is. that would maintain the bipartisan character of the bill and if there's interest in exploring that, we can recess briefly and take that up as an amendment. so i do want to make sure all the members are aware 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. mr. nunes: is the gentleman yielding back? my chiff: i was seeing if colleagues would like to compromise and might move forward and seeing none, in that case, i will offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute, which would preserve the 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 are going to abdicate to the senate. ith that, i would urge ana vote. mr. nunes: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conaway? mr. conaway: if i understand the gentleman's amendment he would strike section 207 of the amendment which puts in section 512 to the underlying base document which entitled