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 todays 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 6c 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 reauthorization 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 reauthorization 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. Id 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. Its an Effective Program thats helped thwart potentially devastating terror plots such as the 2009 new york city subway bombing plot. Its 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 LibertiesOversight Board, an executive branch Civil Liberties watchdog, indicate beyond any doubt the programs effectiveness in locating and tracking foreign terrorists. Though section 702 is subject to numerous layers of oversight, the programs operations should be subject to regular adjustment as necessary to ensure americans privacy and Civil Liberties are being fully protected. While analyzing the programs current operation this Committee Identified several areas that should be updated. After careful tchoferingse best way to strengthen privacy pr teches without hindering the programs 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. Id like to thank all the members of this committee who have cosponsored this bill. Id also like to thank chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen of the committee on appropriations, former member of the committee, for cosponsoring 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 cosponsoring this bill. Finally id 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 reauthorizes 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. Weve also reached out to member at the membertomember 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 LibertiesOversight 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 reauthorizes 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 im 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 youll support it. I yield back. Mr. Nunes i now yield to mr. Schiff for any opening comments hed 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 its 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 thats 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 doesnt 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 weve 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, weve 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 weve 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 cant support it. Im 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 thats politicizing the bill, were not going to include your language on collusion. We havent sought to do that. This is too important a program. What wed ask you to do is not to do the same. Lets 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. Wed have to go forward, well have a Party Line Vote on the bill, itll go nowhere. The judiciary bill will go nowhere either and well have completely abdicated to the senate and theyll cobble together whatever they will and attach it to a mustpass 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 dont 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 friends arguments to be less than persuasive. Whether theres 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 weve 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 someones 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, its powerful. Its power can be used inappropriately, whether thats 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, couldnt 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, well 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 thats the case. If an american is involved in some wrongdoing, theres ways to get that identity known to the people who should know it. If its simply the local pizza man being called to deliver pizza, his or her identity should never be unmasked. And that will be confident thats the case. Im 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 were 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, were 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. Dont think its a politicalization of anything gu good afternoonance. Im fully supportive of what weve 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 committees work and i like what we do because its 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 its hard to get to the terms on which the government gets to go through the private communications of american citizens. And im 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, im the Ranking Member of that subcommittee, n. S. A. Cybersecurity subcommittee. My friend said there had been extensive outreach. Im the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, ive been invited to zero hearings on 702. Ive 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. Weve had no one hearing on this topic. We saw this bill for the first time 36 hours ago. We havent 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. Ive looked at every single unmasking. Ive 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. Theres not a shred of evidence that there was an inlegal unmasking. That doesnt mean we couldnt 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. Lets not kid ourselves about whats happening this morning. Whats happening this morning and i say this with Great Sadness is an attempt to feed the beast. Of this idea that Barack Obama