mr. schiff? >> thank you, mr. chairman.or comey, i wanted to ask you about the apple case as well. the fact that the san bernardino case is pretty compelling, in terms of wanting to know what is on that phone, whether there were other parties involved, or other plans, or targets of attack, and while that application, as you pointed out, is focused solely on that phone, when i read the emotion in support of the application under ae all writs act, i don't see principle, and by that i mean if the argument is accepted by the court in this case, wouldn't it lead district attorneys and other prosecutors to make the same argument in their cases, and some of those may be compelling. i think you pointed to a pregnant woman who was murdered in arkansas, and the phone may be the only key to her killer is , but nonetheless that action may be good in misdemeanor cases, involving nonviolent offenses. may only affect this phone, the precedent will be there for many others. i guess what i would like to ask you is, is there a limiting princ

mr. schiff. >> thank you, mr. mr. chairman. director comey, i want to ask you about the apple case as well. the facts of the san san bernardino case are, obviously, pretty compelling in terms of wanting to know what's on that phone, whether there were other parties involved, other plans or targets of attack. and while that application, as you've pointed out, is focused solely on that phone, when i read the motion in support of the application under the all writs act, i don't see a limiting principle. and by that i mean that if that argument is accepted by the court in this case, won't it lead district attorneys and other prosecutors around the country to essentially make the same argument in their cases? and some of those may be compelling. i think you pointed to a pregnant woman who was murdered i think in arkansas, and the phone may be the only key to who her killer is. but nonetheless, that application may be good in misdemeanor cases involving nonviolent offenses. and so while the result may only affect this phone, the prec

mr. schiff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you in joining our witnesses. we are very grateful for your reference, and for those of the men and women of the intelligence community. the threats we face today are incredibly diverse and daunting, from cyber terrorism, to russian aggression, to threats from space, to threats from below the sea. we are living in a dangerous world. because of technology, some of these threats are new. the internet of things presents unique vulnerabilities to the advanced nations like us, as does the rise of artificial intelligence. other threats are more traditional, but still potentially devastating. north korea's nuclear test and recent space launch, russia's interventions and ukraine, syria, and its threat to the baltic states, china's activity in the south china sea, and regional power struggles in the middle east, are a reminder that state-based threats have not gone down, they are getting worse. still, other threats are shifting. even as coalition bombing has halted the group's expansion in iraq and syria, isis is expanded

mr. schiff's.ding that the position of the fbi is a narrow one, that they of apple really pertains to this device and this instance. there's a legitimate worry, though, that a decision in favor of the fbi could be the narrow end of a very wide wedge. and mr. schiff asked about the legal domain of cases to which this might apply. i want to ask about the authority. if the fbi prevails, apple will be required to write some code at the behest of the government. my question is, where does this authority end? for example, is it the position of the fbi that it has the authority to compel the inclusion of code into a new device? can you paint a very bright line for us with respect to where you think that authority ends that might re-assure those people that say where does it end? >> thank you. i don't think i should by virtue of expertise or should by virtue of my role, i think the lawyers representing the government in this case are best situated to do that. these are reasonable questions, judges on both

mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss the environmental tragedy affecting residents in porta ranch. a few miles from my district and until yesterday methane gas continued to leak into the air from one of the wells spewing 110,000 pounds of methane per hour. this leak began last october. the full health and environmental impacts of this unmitigated disaster may not be known for many years and already it has displaced thousands of families and caused innumerable illnesses and property losses. today i'm calling on the u.s. department of energy to lead a comprehensive investigation into what caused this leak and its inadequate response and provide recommendations for mitigating the damage and preventing future incidents. this tragedy must never be repeated. between porta ranch and flint, michigan, it is clear that both the government and the private sector are far from placing the priority we need on our family's health and their safety. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yie