that there are a number of companies like cloudflair that are that defensive struck thur -- structure that runs behind the scenes and makes the internet work. the question is, whether we are the right ones to make the decision on what content should and should not be aloud online. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the house intelligence committee considered legislation to re-authorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa. it authorizes the intelligence u.s. personsaccess outside the u.s. all democratic members voted against itprovision of the unma process and all except denny heck said they would have voted in favor of the bill had it not included the unmasking language. ranking member acam schiff

opposed an amendment that failed which would have removed that language. >> the committee will come to order. the committee on foreign intelligence is pleased to be out in public for a rare appearance. proper decorum must be observed at all times and disruptions in

today's proceedings will not be tolerated. as a reminder to members, we are here and will remain in open session. this markup will address only nclassified matters. the chair announces he may postpone any measure on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. item for consideration today is h.r. 4478, the fisa re-authorization of 2017. the clerk will designate the bill. caller: h.r. 447 -- the clerk: h.r. 4478, to improve foreign intelligence collection and safeguard accountability and oversight of acquisition of foreign intelligence to extend title 7 of such act and for ther purposes.

mr. nunes: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. without objection, ordered. today we consider the fisa amendments re-authorization act of 2017, to reform and renew surveillance authorities including section 70206 the fisa act. the house intelligence committee held an in depth discussion of the house judiciary committee and adopted numerous ideas we also drew on ideas from the senate intelligence committee, i'd like to thank both those committees for the hard work and careful consideration they put into this issue. this is necessary to help keep american citizens and troops safe from terror attacks at home and abroad. it allows for targeting of foreigners located in foreign

nations. it's helped thwart potentially devastating terror throts -- plots such as the 2009 new york city subway bombing plot and led to the elimination of critical terror suspects such as the second in command of isis who was locate through the section 072 activities and killed by u.s. forces in 2016. beyond any doubt the program's effectiveness in locating and tracking foreign errorists. 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 consideration, the best way to strengthen privacy without hindering the program's effectiveness, the committee devised key reforms to section 70 and other -- 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 mandating new procedures and reporting requirements relating to unmasking of americans in intelligence community reporting, temporary codifying an end to the n.s.a.'s fisa section 702 collection until the government develops new procedures and 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

his bill particularly the idea of a warrant requirement for the f.b.i. to view section 702 query returns. at this point i want to yield the remainder of my 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 -- to fisa 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 reporting requirements. these privacy protections strengthen congressional oversight of the i.c. as well as section 702 without any operational impact to the program. this is an ideal outcome given the effectiveness of fisa section 702 in 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 cyber subcommittee 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 hope you will support it. i yield back. mr. nunes: thank you, mr. rooney, i now yield to ranking member schiff for any opening omments 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 ave 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. -- now. 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 owhere 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 rotected 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

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 procedures 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 ministration doesn't misuse

this and just because we 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. at 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

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. i don't think it's a politicization of anything than good governance. 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. nunes: thank you, mr. conaway. mr. himes. mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask for time really in a state of mind of real sadness, sadness really because i love this committee's work and i, like every single member, i like what we do because what we do is really important. we are the only people really 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 bipartisan way. instead, where we are today is a bill that was presented to us about 36 hours ago, a bill that has exactly had zero hearings associated with it, and as much as i like and 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 in 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 hoping to start conversation and i received 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. scuffed with the unmasking issue. we all know where it came from. we all know where it came from. the president in one of his early morning tweets accused arack obama of wiretapping him double p 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. ice, people who are casually accused of violating the rights of american citizens. i have looked at every single unmasking. evidencenot a shred of that there was an illegal unmasking. that doesn't mean we couldn't tighten up the process. it should be better documented. i would love to have that conversation, but let's not kid ourselves about what is happening this morning. what is happening this morning, and i say this with great to feed is an attempt the beast, 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 that. no, we're not going to do that. we are going to scuffer a conversation about the terms in

which the government gets to look at the private communications of american citizens, something i would relish doing in favor of a nakedly partisan thing that would codify the fantasies of fox news into the united states code. let's at least have a hearing before we do that. it's at least as in the evidence that we heard from susan rice, that we heard from sam powell. let's let people see how unmasking is done before we the tray the expectations -- before we betray the expectations. what our constituents expect us to do and have a conversation. let's take this seriously. i yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member. >> i think the chairman. -- i thank the chairman. it is been suggested that there

has been no evidence of unmasking under 702, i would ask any of my colleagues in closed session if they would be willing to sit down and show me any evidence under 702 of and on proper unmasking, ok? i will look forward to that. itif the gentleman with the -- yield, i would be glad to have a conversation with you. >> i think you will be very at how you may have been misled. >> high assure you, i have not been misled. i've seen the same things -- i you, i have not been misled. i have seen the same things as you. havee bush administration been accessing the obama administration in the manner we have seen and had testimony, there would be outrage on your side. this is about providing oversight. >> i am reclaiming my time.

>> mr. haim' time has expired. for the record for the audience, we have had countless hearings and meetings regarding 702. i know that there is not a day that goes by that my colleagues do not get phone calls from someone within the ic who is informing us on the importance of this conversation. we have held for all of the members, both republicans and democrats, with the heads of most of the agencies and in a classified setting, and we have had an educational program put together for the republicans to you to on our side, that were welcome to do that. you can still continue to educate the rest of our colleagues, because dealing with fisa is quite complicated.

at this time, i want to go to mr. rooney. >> we will have time for amendments for those of you who want to offer amendments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too am sad because it is unfortunate that the ranking member of the subcommittee has brought up our relationship as far as what we talked about game plan orto our i agreean move forward with you -- i agree with your 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 our country safe and how we will go about doing that. the reason i didn't respond is because i didn't feel the need to respond because i agreed with what you said in your letter.

you said we never talked about it. we did talk about what was going to happen with 702 at some point in the future. we did not know when this day would be here, but my job is to make sure i educate the members on our side of the aisle, and your job is to educate the members on your side of the aisle. it is difficult to get everyone is note that this tool sacrificing their civil liberties or their fourth amendment protections, that we are looking at people's emails or phone calls without a war and for fourth amendment protections, that what we are doing in this bill is within the balancetional -- 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 trying 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 made have not been about this

program. and i assume 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 level of knowledge? 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 detriment of the rights of u.s. citizens. this is a process mr. schiff: reclaiming my time. are you talking about the program 702? >> we are protecting american citizen in the bill.

mr. schiff: i guess the answer is no. i guess your answer is no. that is a precisely my we aren't point. talking about 702. the comments that >> mr. rooney. mr. schiff: that is my point. 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 too important to be dragged by a debate by something 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. 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. that is true on your side of the aisle and our side of the aisle. we're going to get this passed. mr. schiff: reclaiming my time. that the agreement 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. i assume we are therefore 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. you can take it up anytime you want. 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 inaccuratee at conclusions, which is there is a debate to be had over unmasking. i said that in my original statement. i looked at every single unmasking and i'm looking forward to the meeting with mr. turner and i have been on every single hearing on this issue. there is a debate to be had, 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 -- lots of classified 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. nomportant 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. -- i yield back to the ranking member. mr. nunes: just for the record, this does not only the unmasking revision, it covers 702, it all of isaac. 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 -- to do with 702 into this bill

like other provisions, is the gentleman wanting to pull some of those out also? >> would the gentleman yield? >> are yield. -- i 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 , but something our side once in, when it actually does -- 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 on something 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 this is an open hearing. there is something apparent, and that is that 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 innuendo and the cloud you put over people was laughable and

-- over people with laughable evidence, and then and come complain about being bipartisan. the ranking member asked for evidence. i will give you evidence right now. 300 times, more than 300 times, the ambassador of the united nations requested unmasking, which is astronomically 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 citizen. they have been accused of no wrongdoing and this particular appointee demands those citizens' identities be not only unmasked, but in too many 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. any member wish to be heard before we offer amendments? move on to amendments. mr. carson. mr. carson: thank you, chairman. thank you ranking member as well. since becoming a member of this committee, i have seen exactly why our overseas' 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 intel on overseas' suspects. it has and 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 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, 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 intel officials need all possible tools to do their jobs well. but 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 unmasking 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. thank you, i yield back. >> think you, mr. carson. mr. gowdy. mr. gowdy: think you, mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. i have worked for the better part of the last nine months with my friend connecticut is always prepared. he is thorough, he is every bit 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 contemporaneous with the claim. i would ask my friend connecticut -- i would ask my friend from connecticut, 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 are 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 be 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 -- pitbulls with a most precisely the same job description, had wildly disparity unmasking numbers. that doesn't mean a crime was committed. it doesn't even mean the motive was nefarious. it means there are different policies and paradigms being applied to the request to unmasked. 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 is 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 has nothing to do with president trump. he is not going to go back through it. it has to do with the next democrat administration, the next republican one. it wasn't 10 months ago we sat in this room with admiral 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 is our responsibility to do it, and i will yield to my friend from california. but what i would ask him is why would we wait until 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. you could have taken it up at anytime. 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? i will tell you the answer, because this is a political messaging tool, that if it were in a stand-alone bill would not get in bipartisan support. by putting it in a must pass program --

mr. gowdy: this is my first time on hipse. you are welcome to query my colleagues why they haven't done it. 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 query 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. i am just saying, if this was as pressing an issue, there was nothing preventing them from over the last six months from introducing a bill. but putting it in a must-passed program, the effort is to shoehorn bipartisan support and -- mr. nunes: time has expired. anybody 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 improperly 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. there have been numerous fisa reauthorization bills introduced in both chambers of congress which contain elements with merit which should receive debate on the floor. this is far too serious of a matter 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

-- and there is no reason he can't work together to solve these problems. 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 that has led us here today, i think the personal relationships on this committee are important. i want to distill the issue down to two points, though. number one and these are unarguable. we all know 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 collusion is one of them. and anytime 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 dynamite without educating the american people one bit. look, i'm open minded. i have seen as much of the evidence as anybody up here. i'm not close minded to the possibility there are improper maskings. improperare unmaskings. 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 dynamite 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 the 702 tool is subject to unmasking. and if this sworn intelligence -- 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 we intend to make sure they are protected and 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. 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, understand the next attack, thwart the next attack that we also respect their civil liberties. and 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 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 ears. the invitation hasn't been taken up. so much can be accomplished if we talk informally. 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 unmasking and if there is a stand-alone bill to address the concerns that have been brought up, 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. they are going to get 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 the threats that we face and protecting the civil liberties we depend upon. i yield back. mr. nunes: mr. turner. mr. turner: i'm going to speak briefly. the partisan tone you are hearing is the partisan iaracter racing of this bill cannot the democrats on this committee, there is not one partisan word on this bill. there is no more donald trump, obama administration, trump tower.

if you read this bill, which is the only reason i ask for time is to make the clarity of the issue but we are debating, it is an issue merely of oversight. there is no prohibition included in this bill. there is no restriction included in this bill. there is an issue of oversight. open government and a responsibility and role of oversight is essential to the functions of this committee. when you argue against these provisions, you are arguing against oversight. when you make it partisan, you make it partisan. there is not one word in this bill that is partisan. it applies to democrats, republicans, and it applies to the application of oversight. -- the obligation of oversight. it is protecting constitutional rights. you can't have something more important than that. to take it down to trump tower when the word 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. mr. castro: regarding this bill, 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 -- any of the republicans wish to be heard before we get to amendments? mr. heck. mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman and thanks for having this open committee hearing coming up out of the scif is a delightful change. they say sunshine is the best disinfectant. we are getting a bit of a ray of sunshine here today and add my voice of appreciation to the staff on both sides. i know there was a fierce runup 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 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 expansive, and i don't understand who it is aimed at and is it appropriately 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 definition 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. they are concerns. 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 grateful 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 quipped and i'm amazed he hasn't been quoted today, that those who trade security for privacy deserve neither. i find the weight of this bill trades off privacy for security. i believe that is a false choice, because 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 be 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' queries. this does not close the door on u.s. person's queries but merely oils the hinges. but 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. 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. mr. nunes: we are ready to start the amendment process. i have 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. can you disperse the amendment? everyone should have. tab two. the amendment and 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 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 and intelligence committees on their derived from and used in fisa. the director of intelligence has to outline to congress current and future challenges of foreign intelligence activities under fisa and third provision put it in is the whistleblower protections for contractors. do any members wish to be heard on this amendment? seeing none, no further members 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. 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. the clerk: amendment number two 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 in 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 a 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 can have a party line vote today and when i said the bill would go nowhere, that is where it will go. it will pass out of the committee but won't go beyond that. we can do a couple 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 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 we 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? mr. schiff: i was seeing if my colleagues would like to adopt the judiciary language as a 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. --h that, i would urge and urge an aye 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 procedures of nonpublicly available information concerning u.s. persons. the base of this section gives americans protections identity , protections and sets up the requirements by which someone within the administration has to go through the hoop in order to unmask a u.s. citizen's name to be used within the intelligence committee.

as you look, the originating element is of the entity. each covered request or document, given a name and title, person asking for the request, reasons why, good governance, and sets up the oversight. emm it, it would strike all of those protections for u.s. citizens. if we put this in law, those good governments oversight protections would be struck, is that the understanding? mr. schiff: the nature of the substitute strikes the problematic unmasking language. conway: i will take that as a yes. today, we have the opportunity to put these in place, and the gentleman's amendment strikes that. for that, i will oppose the amendment. i yield back. mr. nunes: anyone else wish to

be heard on the amendment? seeing no further members wish to be heard, the question is on the amendment. those in favor, please say aye. those opposed, say 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 of hr 4478 as amended to the house of representatives. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the clerk will call the role. [clerk calls role]

clerk: there are 13 ayes and ei

ght nos. mr. nunes: the will be purporting to the house of representatives. members will have two days to submit views on the bills considered today. staff besent that the able to make changes to the bill recorded today subject to the approval of the minority. objections, so ordered. if there is no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[inaudible conversations] >> here on o c-span we'll take you live next to a preview of a supreme court argument dealing with the balance between eligious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. it centers on a colorado bakery that refused to provide a cake for same sex wedding air moany. the supreme court will hear the case. the audio will be released on friday and we'll air that friday night, :00 eastern on c-span. live coverage. >> center for constitutional studies. your host for anti-discrimination laws. it centers on a colorado bakery debate. i want to welcome also the people who are joining us through c-span and through cato's live streaming. we're here to consider whether religious liberty can coexist alongside modern anti-discrimination law. that's the question the supreme court will hear oral arguments on