[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the committee will come to order. The Permanent Committee on intelligence is pleased to be out in the public for a rather appearance. To our guests in the audience, welcome. We appreciate you being here. Proper decorum must be maintained at all times and were here and in open session. This markup will address only unclassified matters pursuant to Committee Rule 6c and clause 2 subsection h4. The chairman mri conclude any on adopted member for recorded votes or yeas and nays, authorized to declare a recess at anytime. Item hr4478 fisa amendments reauthorization act of 2017 and the clerk will designate the bill. Hr4478, to improve foreign ip intelligence collection, and foreign intelligence to extend title 7 of such act and for other purposes. Consent 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 would reform and renew surveillance authorities including 702 of the fisa act. In preparing the bill, the House Intelligence Committee held an in depth discussion with the House Judiciary Committee and adopted numerous ideas based on their efforts and the bill produced by the senate Intelligence Committee. Id like to thank both committees for hard work and consideration they put into this issue. Without congressional action 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 for the targeting of foreigners located in foreign nations, an Effective Program that helped to thwart attacks such as the subway bombing plot and led to the critical information hamid ahmad, killed by u. S. Forces in 2016. Testimony to this committee from throughout the Intelligence Community as well as declarations from the bipartisan private and Civil LibertiesOversight Board and watch dog indicate beyond any doubt the programs effectiveness in locating and tracking foreign terrorists. Although 702 is subject to numerous layers of oversight from all three branches of government, the it should be subject to regular adjustments as necessary to ensure americas privacy and Civil Liberties are fully protected. While analyzing the programs current operation this Committee Identified several areas that should be updated. After careful consideration the best way to strengthsen privacy protections without hindering the effectiveness the committee devised several reforms to section 702 and other surveillance authorities included in this bill. These include briefly, requiring specifiesa section 702 query procedures separate from procedures that must be reviewed by the Surveillance Court every year. Adding an optional warrant requirement for the fbi to view query returns and codifying on use the fisa section 702 in criminal prosecutions against americans. Mandating procedures to unmasking of americans in Intelligence Community reporting temporarily codifying an end to the fisa section 702 about collection until the government develops new procedures and briefs the intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Improving transparency, on the procedures and additionally reporting to congress how the Intelligence Community is using other fisa authorities. The bill will renew this for four years and strikes a careful balance between security and privacy that should give the American People confidence that the Intelligence Community is, woulding hard to working hard to keep them save and respectfully protecting their privacy and id like to thank the committee, and a former member of the committees for cosponsoring the bill as well as the chairman on committee of Armed Services and extend thanks to chairman kay granger Defense Appropriation Committee and ken calvert all three members who serve as nonvoting members of the community, for cosponsoring the bill. Thank the Ranking Member of the committee. Mr. Schiff for his Work Incorporated into the bill and the warrant for the fbi to view section 702 query returns. At this point, i want to yield to the remainder of my time to mr. Rooney. Thank you, as the chairman mentioned this reauthorizes fisa 702, which is a critical intelligence Gathering Program targeting foreigners overseas. This was care. I crafted based on our committees extensiveout reach the last two years. We provided sessions on the hill and nsa and reached out to member to member level to discussion the authorities and protections related to section 702, that are currently in place. Hr4478 adds a security provision to 705 and adds a new foreign power to fight the coughing international malicious cyber actors at that threaten our National Security. This bill also makes key privacy reforms, 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 ic, as well as transparency of fisa, section 702 without any Operational Impact to the program. This is an ideal outcome given the effectiveness of fisas section 702 in u. S. Counter terrorism efforts. Most important, this bill reauthorizes fisa section 702 for four years, which ensures the critical use of this protecting the nam security. As a chairman of the subcommittee im keenly aware of the responsibility that 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 you will support it. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Rooney, ill now yield to Ranking Member schiff for any opening comments he would like to make. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 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 an 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 data base created by 702. 702, as we all know, is a program thats important. Ap targets foreigners on foreign soil. And there are times we target foreigners on foreign soil where information, because of foreigners talking about an american or talking to an american is captured in the data base. So the question is, under what circumstances should Law Enforcement be able to query that data base that may contain some information about americans . Should there always be a warrant requirement or a warrant requirement under certain circumstances . And how do we make sure this data base doesnt become a vehicle for fishing expeditions. What we have proposed and arrived at i think is a sensible conclusion that built on what the Judiciary Committee put together, but did so in a way that was more operationally viable. We would allow queries of the data base, but in cases of criminal matters not involving National Security or serious violent crimes, we 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 at that we not have a growing data base with information about americans used for fish for evidence of a tax crime or a fraud. That language is now in the bill. As well as other privacy protections we a added and we have broad agreement on that. We do not have broad is the unmasking language in the bill. As members are aware from the time weve spent on the issue, weve uncovered not a scintilla of evidence that there was improper masking in the 702 program. So the unmasking program does not exist to the 702 program that we have been able to see. For that reason, this language is not only unnecessary, but in our view is simple an effort to politicize the 702 bill and to further a political narrative. For that reason we cant support it, im sure if the shoe was on the other foot and offered language we 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 weve asked you to do is not to do the same. Lets not mixup 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 were now. Wed have to go forward, we will have a part line vote on this bill, it will go nowhere, the judiciary bill will go nowhere either and we have have completely abdicated to the senate and the senate will cobble together what they will and to attach to a mustpass by the end of the year and i would not like to see this abdicate in this way and urge that we come to an agreement. We offer to compromise on the unmasking legislation, language which we dont think belongs here at all, but we would offer a compromise, but i would urge that we consider this and to go forward with one or two part line votes. Ill yield back. Other members wish to be heard . Mr. Conaway. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I find my good friends arguments to be less than persuasive. Weather theres evidence of wrongdoing or not, americans identities should be protected. And what were doing with unmasking is to make sure it happens. Weve seen in the record weve been collecting so far, there appears to be perhaps reckless or certain an inordinate number of unmaskings of american identity and with that good proof, without establishing why, the analysts or whoever was asked for the unmask to happen, and to hear argument that we should be less concerned about the privacy of americans than what this attempts to do is pretty shocking, quite frankly. This does not hamper the ability of the Intelligence Committee to use this tool. It simply protects americans identities who should be protected and there ought to be a high bar in order to unmask someones identity that has not gone through the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment we are afforded across Everything Else. This tool is too important to not put in place, but by the same token, its powerful and its power can be used inappropriately. Whether thats the case or not we need these to understand who you can unmask over a period of time and make sure that future transitional administrations either coming in or leaving, particularly leaving administration, doesnt misuse this, and just because we dont have, as you say, the scintilla, which i think is a stretch of evidence, nevertheless, this is important protections for the american about you believe to say, okay, well entrust the agencies with this tool, but we also want to make sure that americans are treated fairly and their confidentiality is protected. In all this is the case if an american is involved in some wrongdoing, theres ways to get that identity unknown to the people who should low it. If its the local pizza man called to deliver pizza. His or her identity should never be masked and that its confident if thats the case. Im really concerned with a lot of logic that my colleague put forth as to why it should not be in here. It should be in here and well gain the broad support of the American Public in using this cool. Require that whoever is unmasked thats tracked. Require that congress have immediate oversight and all of this thing that does is not hindered in any way and i dont think is a politicalization of anything, but just Good Governance and a protection of american privacy. So im fully supportive of what weve done so far and hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would see the wisdom of protecting americas privacy and yield back. Thank you. Mr. Heinz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I asked for time, really, in a state of mind, a real sadness. Sadness, really, because i love this committees work and i like every Single Member and i like what we do because what we do is really important. We are the only people, really, who oversea a roughly 80 billion dollar 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 at its heart gets to the terms on which the government gets to go through the private communications of american citizens. And im sad because historically this committee had has 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 had exactly zero hearings associated with it, and as much as i like and respect the chairman of the nsa and Cyber Security subcommittee, i consider him a friend, im the Ranking Member of that subcommittee, nsa Cyber Security subcommittee. My friend said there had been extensive outreach. Im the Ranking Member of the nsa and Cyber Security subcommittee. Ive been invited to zero hearings on 702. Ive been asked for zero opinions on 702 in that subcommittee. Weve had no discussions about this. I offered my friend, the chairman, a letter with some thoughts on 702, hoping to start that conversation, and i received no response. Weve had not 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 by a political looking at unmasking. We know where it came from. The president tweeted that accused president obama in the tower. And theyve ingauged in looking to justify that tweet. Ive looked at every single unmasking and 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 in the whole hearing. Ive looked at every single unmasking. Theres not a shred of evidence there was an illegal 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 at that conversation, but lets not kid ourselves whats happening this morning. American citizen information. Lets have a hearing about that. Lets at least talk about it. Instead were going to scupper an essential conversation by the terms on which the federal government gets to look at the private communications of american citizens, something i would relish doing in favor of an nakedly partisan thing which would codify the fantasies of fox news and to the United States code. Lets at least have a hearing before the due. Lets at least present the evidence we heard from susan rice, that we heard from sam powell. Lets let people see how unmasking done before we betray the expectations and responsibility that this essential committee has. I dont have an amendment. I just have a lot of sadness and i guess i will just join in the Ranking Members plead that lets engage, do what our constituents expect us to do it have a conversation. Lets at least have a hearing and take this seriously. I yield the remainder of my time to the Ranking Member. I think the gentleman. I would just say because its been suggested that my statement that theres not a scintilla of evidence that there was any improper unmasking under 702. I would ask any of my colleagues whether in closed session after the searing it would be willing to sit down with me and children in evidence under 702 of an improper unmasking. Okay . I will look forward to that. At the gentleman would yield i will be glad of a discussion with you. I think almost everyone on the site would be glad to have that discussion with you. I think youll be very surprised at how you may have been misled as to i assure you ive not been misled. I assure you that ive seen the same things youve seen and ive assured, and i can assure you that it is absolutely evidence of improper access, and that if it was reversed in the butchered administration have been accessing the Obama Administration in the manner in which weve seen and the testimony, it would be outrage in your site. Also the other things interesting, this isnt just about providing oversight reclaiming, regarding my t