Now, the House Intelligence Committee considers legislation to reauthorize section 702 of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. That allows the Intelligence Community to Access Communications of nonu. S. Persons, outside the u. S. His is one hour and 15 minutes. And this is one hour and 15 minutes. Mr. Nunes 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. 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 consideration today is the fisa reauthorization act of 2017. Clerk will designate the bill. The clerk h. R. 2478, to amend 4478, 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 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 on the house 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 throughout the Intelligence Community as well as tech la declarations 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. Although 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 after careful consideration of the 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 separate 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. Mandating 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 minimization procedures as 702 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 of a permissive warrant for the f. B. I. To review section 702 query returns. At this point i want to yield to 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 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 including restrictions 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 reporting requirements. These Privacy Protections strengthen 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 and cyber subcommittee 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. Was more operationally viable. We would allow queries of the database, but in cases of criminal matters 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 ObamasAdministration 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