Transcripts For CSPAN FISA Reauthorization 20171202 : vimars

Assified matters. Rrsuant to committee ules, the chair announces he may postpone ing any measure or adopting an amendment on which a recording a vote is ordered. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at anytime. Item for consideration today is fisa act. To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to improve foreign intelligence collection and the safeguard of accountability and oversight of acquisition of foreign intelligence to extend title vii of such acts and other purposes. I ask the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered. Today, the committee will consider the fisa reauthorization act that will renew section 702. The Committee Held an indepth discussion and adopted numerous ideas based on those efforts. We drew upon ideas built by another committee. I thanked him for the hard work and consideration they put into this issue. Without congressional action, section 702 will expire at the end of this year. It would be a dangerous blow to the counterterrorism efforts of the Intelligence Committee. Decisive action is needed to help troops and citizens be safe from terror attacks at home and is an section 702 Effective Program that has helped towards potentially devastating helped thwart potentially devastating plots. It has also led to the elimination of critical terror suspects, the second in command of isis who was killed by u. S. Forces in 2016. Frommony to this committee throughout the Intelligence Committee, as well as bipartisan on the Civil Liberties board, executive branch Civil Liberties watchdog, indicate no doubt of the effectiveness. Subject section 702 is to operations should be adjustments to ensure privacy and Civil Liberties are being fully protected. While analyzing the current operations, this committee has identified several areas that should be updated. , the careful Consideration Committee devised several key reforms to section 702 and other surveillance authorities that are included in this bill. These include briefly requiring inquiry procedures separate from the existing procedures that must be reviewed at the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court every year. Adding an optional war and requirement for the fbi to view optional warrant requirements. Temporarily codifying into the nsas section 02 about collection, and breeze the committee. Improving transparency by mandating the publication of section 702 minimization procedures, as well as requiring addition additional reporting as to how they are using other pfizer authorities. The bill will renew these. Uthorities it strikes a careful balance between security and privacy that should give the American People confidence of the Intelligence Community working hard to keep them safe while respecting their privacy and Civil Liberties. I would like to thank the members of this committee who have cosponsored this bill. I would also like to thank the chairman and the committee on appropriations for cosponsoring this bill. As well as the chairman for the committee of the armed services. I also extend takes to kate granger of the Appropriations Committee and ken calvert. All of these members serve as nonvoting numbers of the Intelligence Committee Intelligence Community. Finally, i would like to thank workanking member for his that has been incorporated in this bill, particularly the idea rrantpermissive wa requirement. I want to yield the remainder of my time to mr. Rooney, who chairs the subcommittee. Has the chairman mentioned, this bill reauthorizes section 702, which is a critical intelligence Gathering Program targeting foreigners located overseas. This legislation was carefully crafted based on our committees extensive outreach to members, the house, senate, and the administration over the last two years. We have provided information sessions both on the hill and at the nsa. We have also reached out to the tober to member level discuss the authorities and protections related to section 702 that are currently in place. This strengthens our National Security by adding an emergency provision to fisa. The bill also adds a new foreign power to fisa covering international militias that threaten our cyber security. It also makes key drive us he, including restrictions on the use of fisa section 702 against u. S. People in criminal provocation 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 transparency of, fisa section 702 without any operational impact. This is an ideal outcome given the effectiveness of fisa section 702 in counterterrorism efforts. Most importantly, it revises the bill for seven years, which ensures the program. As the chairman of the nsa and cyber subcommittee, i am aware of the responsibility we have to keep the American People happy American People to ensure that the Intelligence Community has the tools they need. I hope you will support this bill. I yield back. Yieldnk you, i will now to the Ranking Member for any comments you would like to make. You, mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to address my colleagues and hope that we can change this hearing from the path it is on at the moment, which is a partyline vote on this proposal, and see if we can still produce an almost completely bipartisan product. What we had suggested when we engaged in the early discussions of the bill was a way of resolving the most difficult issue around 702, and that is how we should deal with queries of the database created by 702. Is a program that has been enormously important to the Intelligence Committee community am on enforcement. Sometimes we target foreigners where information because a foreigner is talking about or to an american is nonetheless captured within the database. Is, under what circumstances should they be able to query that database that may contain information about americans . Should there always be a warrant requirements or only under certain circumstances . How do we make sure this doesnt become a vehicle for fee for fishing expeditions . . What we arrived at was a wasible conclusion that more operationally viable. We would allow queries of the database, but in cases of criminal matters not involving National Security or serious violent crimes, we would require there be a warrant or the evidence cannot be used in court. That i think is a workable construct but the Intelligence Community workable construct. For the Intelligence Community, it prevents fishing for tax fraud. That language is now in the bill. As well as other Privacy Protections we have added to the bill, and i think we have a broad agreement on that. What we do not have rod or any bipartisan but we do not have broad for bipartisan agreement on is we have uncovered evidence that there was ever any improper masking in the 702 program. The unmasking issue to the degree it exists is not in the 702 that we have seen. For this reason, this language is not only unnecessary, but in our view, simply an effort to , and further2 th the political narrative. On there if the shoe was other foot and we were offering language in this bill, and the could have offered language in to make a point on collusion if we wanted to, and you would have said that is politicizing the bill, we will not include your linkage on collusion. We have not sought to do that. What we would ask you to do is not do the same. Mix up the unmasking stuff, which has nothing to do with this program, and the feet what is otherwise a very bipartisan work product, because i will tell you with the result will be. We will have a partyline on this bill and it will go nowhere. The judiciary bill will go nowhere, either, and we will completely abdicate it to the senate. The senate will cobble together whatever they will, and attach it to legislation at the end of the year and all of our efforts will be for naught. I would rather see us not abdicate in that way. I would urge that we come to an agreement that we offer to compromise on the language that we dont think belongs here at all, but we did offer a couple of a compromise. With that, i yield back. Other members wish to be heard. Mr. Conaway . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I find my good friends arguments to be less persuasive. Personal identity should be protected, and what we were trying to do with this unmasking provision is to make sure that happens. We have seen instances in the record we have been collecting so far where it appears to be reckless or certainly an inordinate number of unmaskings of american identity. Without that proof and establishing why, the analyst or whoever is asking for the unmasking to happen. And to hear the argument that we should be less concerned about andprivacy of americans what this attempts to do is quite shocking. This does not hamper the ability of the Intelligence Community to use this 12. It simply protects americans identities. Those americans whose identities should be protected, and there should be a high bar to cross and unmask someones identity for a collection tool that has not gone through the normal Privacy Protection from the Fourth Amendment. This tool is too important to not put in place. By the same token, it is powerful, and its power can be used inappropriately. Whether that is the case or not, we need these audit procedures. We need these procedures to make sure future transitional administrations either coming in or leaving doesnt misuse this. Just because we do not have as you say the scintilla, which is a bit of a stretch, these these are important protections for the American Public to say we will and trust intel agencies with this tool, but we also want to make sure americans are treated fairly and their confidentiality is protected. If an american is involved in some wrongdoing, there are ways to get the identity known to people who should know it. Simple pizza man who was called to deliver pizza, his identity should never be unmasked. I am really concerned with a lot of logic that my good colleague has put forth as to why this should not be in here. Weshould be in here, and will gain the broad support of the American People with the use of this 12. Being able to look at them and say we will require whoever gets , it does not hinder anything in any way. I do not think it is a politicizing of anything other than protection of privacy. I am supportive of what we have done so far. The hope our colleagues would see the wisdom of protecting americans privacy. With that, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In a state of mind, i really sat in s because a real sadness because i like this committees work. What we do is really important. We are the only people who billiona roughly 80 operation, which does essential, critical and important things. Dangerous things, controversial things. Theoretically, we could have had a really good debate and conversation about a Controversial Program that we all understand is critical, but also understand gets to its terms on which the government goes through the private communications of american citizens. I am sad because historically this committee has operated in a bipartisan way. Is aad, where we are today bill that was presented to us about 36 hours ago, a bill that has had exactly zero hearings associated with it. I consider him a friend. I am the Ranking Member of this subcommittee. My friend said there has been extensive outreach. I have been invited to zero hearings. Have been asked for zero 702 and that02 subcommittee. We have had no discussions about this. I offered my friend the chairman a letter with thoughts on 702 hoping to start the conversation and received no response. We have had not one hearing on this topic. We saw this bill for the first time 36 hours ago. You have talked about it within the democratic costs caucus. What we do will now be discovered will be scuffed with the unmasking issue. We all know where it came from. The president accused barack obama of wiretapping him, double p, in trump tower. Since that tweet, my friends on the other side have been in toged in a feverish attempt justify that tweet. I have looked at every single unmasking. I have sat in every hearing. Sam powers, susan rice, 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 doesnt mean we couldnt tighten up the process. It should be better documented. I would love to have that conversation, but lets 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 Obamas Administration Officials illegally unmasked american citizen information. Lets have a hearing about that. Lets at least talk about that. No, were 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. Lets at least have a hearing before we do that. Its at least as in the evidence that we heard from susan rice, that we heard from sam powell. Lets 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. Lets 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. Ive 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 didnt respond is because i didnt 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 peoples emails or phone calls without a war and for Fourth Amendment protections, that what we are doing in this bill is within the balancetional were 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. Thats 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 dispar