Surveillance act. It is designed to improve foreign intelligence and selections of safeguard ov oversight. We are located outside t this coverage. Should start . Just a moment. Committee will come to order. Pleased to be out for a rare appearance. To our guests in the audience, welcome. Thank you for being here. Proper decor rum must be observed at all times. Disruptions will not be tolerated. As a remainor to our members we will remain in open session. It will remain only on classified matters. Pursuant to Committee Rule 6c subsection may postpone on any question of approving any matter in which are ordered. Without objection the chair can declare recess at any time. And clerk will designate the bill. Hr 4478 to amend to intelligence act to improve foreign intelligence collection and the safeguards accountability and oversight of ak by sags to extend title 7 of such act and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered as read. Without objection so order. Today we will krr bill that reform and reflew including section 702. In preparing the bill the house held an in depth reduction. We also drew upon ideas from the bill produced by the Senate Intelligence committee. I would like to thank them for the work they put into this issue. The loss of authorities would be a dangerous blow to the Intelligence Community. It is to keep troops safe from terror attacks from home and abroad. It is located in foreign nations. It is a program that helped terror plots such as the 2009 new york city subway city bombing plot. The programs operation should be subject to regular adjustments as necessary to ensure americans privacy and Civil Liberties. This Committee Identified several areas. After careful consideration without hindering the programs effectiveness the committee devised to section 702 and other surveillance authorities that are included in this bill. These include briefly requiring procedures separate from the minu minute mization procedures adding optional warrant requirement and restrictions on the use of communications in criminal prosecutions against americans. Mandating new procedures related to unmasking of americans temporarily codifying an end to the nsa section abouts collection until the government collects new procedures. Improving transparency as well as requiring additional reporting to congress hoon how e community is using other authorities. I would like to thank all of the members of this committee who have cosponsored this bill. I would like to thank a former member for cosponsoring the bill. Finally i would like to thank the Ranking Member that was incorporated in this bill particularly a permissive warrant requirement to review section 702 query returns. At this point i want to yield the remainder of my time to mr. Rooney. Thank you mr. Clarm. As the chairman mentioned reauthorized section 702 which is a Program Targeting foreigners. This legislation was carefully crafted based on our committees extensive outreach to members of the house, senate and administration over the last two years. We provided information sessions and we reached out to the member to member level to discuss the authorities and protections related to section 702 that are currently in place. It strengthens our National Security by adding an emergency provision. The bill also adds a new foreign power covering malicious cyber. This bill also makes key privacy reforms indeluding restrictions on the use of section 702 against people and criminal prosecutions, codification of unmasks pro vehicle code yseetd new reporting requirements. These strengthen congressional oversight of the ic as well as section 702 without any Operational Impact to the program. This is an ideal outcome given the effectiveness in u. S. Counter terrorism efforts. This bill reauthorizes section 702 for four years which ensures the use of this Critical Program in protecting u. S. National security. As a chairman of Sub Committee im aware of the responsibility 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. Ill now yield to Ranking Member and any he would like to make. Thank you. I hope we can change the hearing from the path it is on at the moment to a Party Line Vote on this proposal and see if we can produce an almost completely bipartisan work product. It is a program and it targets foreigners on foreign soil but there are times when we target foreigners where information because of foreigners talking to an american is nonetheless captured within the date the base. The lesson is under what circumstances should they be able to query. Should there always be a warrant requirement . How do we make sure this database doesnt become a vehicle for fishing xpeditions. What we arrived at was a sensible conclusion that built on what the Judiciary Committee put together but did so in a way that was operationally viable. In cases of criminal matters not involving National Security or serious Violent Crimes we would require there be a warrant or evidence could not be used in court. That language is now in the bill as well as other privacy protections we have added to the bill. I think we have a fairly broad agreement on that. We do not have any agreement on is the unmasking language in the bichlt bill. We have uncovered not a bit of evidence that there was any unproper unmasks in the 702 program. So the unmasking issue does not exist with respect to the 702 program. For that reason it is not only unnecessary but in our view is simply an effort to politicize the 702 bill and to further a political narrative. Nar reason we cant support it. And you would have aid it the politicizing the bill. We havent sought to do that. We would ask you to not do to same. Lets not mix up the unmasking stuff which has nothing to do with this program and defeat what is otherwise a bipartisan work product. The judiciary bill will go nowhere and we will have to the senate. They will attach it to a must pass legislation at the end of the year and all of our efforts will be for not. I would rather see us not in this way and i would urge that we come to agreement and offer to compromise on the unmasking legislation. I will yield back. Mr. Conway. Well, thank you, mr. Chairman. I find my good friends arguments to be less than persuasive. Whether there is any evidence of wrong doing or not it should be protected and what we are trying to do with this unmasking is to make sure that it happens. We have seen instances in the record that we have been collecting so far where it appears to be perhaps reckless or in a number of unmaskings of american identity. We should be less concerned is pretty shocking quite frankly. It does not to ability to use this tool. It protects americans identities who should be protected and it should be a high bar in order to unmask an identity that has not gone through the normal privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment we are forwarded across everything else. This is too important to not put in place. It is powerful. Its power can be used inappropriately. Whether thats the dais or not we need it to we need these to make sure future transitional administrations are coming in or leaving administrations doesnt miss use this. Just because we dont have as you said which i think is a bit of a stretch of evidence this is important to say well trust them with this tool. We also want to make sure americans are treated fairly and their confidentiality is protected. If an american is involved in some wrong doing this is there is ways to get that identity known to the people who should know it. If it is simply the local pizza man his or her identity should never be unmasked and that will be confident that thats the case. I think we require the ability for congress to have an immediate oversight and all of the other things it does does not hinder anything in any way. So im fully supportive of what we have done so far and hope you see the wisdom of protecting americas privacy and with that i yield back. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. I ask for time really in a state of mind of real 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 who oversee a roughly 80 billion operation which does critical and important things, dangerous things, controversial things and we could have had a really good debate and conversation about a Controversial Program that we understand as critical and all understand that its heart gets to the terms on which is government get to go there the private this is in a bipartisan way. Instead where we are today is a bill presented to us about 36 hours ago, a bill that has had exactly zero hearings associated with it. I consider him a friend on the Ranking Member of the Sub Committee. I received no response. We have had flolt one hearing on this topic. We saw the bill for the first time 36 40urs ago. We havent even talked ability it within the democratic caucus. So what could have been a process about one of the central things we do will be skuperred 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 obama of wiretapping in trump tower. Since that tweet my friends on the other side have been engaged in a feverish attempt to justify that tweet. I looked at every single unmasking. I have sat in every hearing. Whats happening this morning is an attempt to feed the beast that Barack Obama Administration officials unlegally unmasked american citizen information. Lets have a hearing about that. Lets at least talk about it. No. We are not going to do that. Instead well skuper a conversation about 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 a nakedly partisan thing which would codefy the fantasies of fox news into United States code. Lets at least have a hearing before we do that. Lets at least present the evidence we heard from susan rice. Lets see how the unmasking is done before we betray this committee has. Ill just join in and say lets at looets have a hearing. Lets take this seriously. Ill yield the remainder of my time to the Ranking Member. Because it has been suggested that theres not evidence that there was any unproper unmasking i would ask any of my colleagues whether in closed session they would be willing to show me any evidence of an unproper unmasking. Okay. I will look forward to that. Gentleman will yield. I will be glad to have that discussion with you. I think almost every member on this side would be glad to have that discussion with you. I think youll be very surprised at how you may have been mislead. I assure you i have not be mislead. I can assure you that it is absolutely evidence of improper access and that if what was reversed in the Bush Administration in the manner in which we had seen and had testimony that would be outrage on your side. The other thing thats interesting, this is about providing oversight. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. I yield back. Just for the record for the audience to know we have had countless hearings and meetings regarding 70 t2. I know theres not a day that goes by we dont get phone calls from people that are breefg us on the importance of this program. At this time i want to go to mr. Rooney. We will have time for amendments for those who want to offer amendments, mr. Rooney. I too am sad because, you know, it is unfortunate that the Ranking Member brought up our relationship as far as what we have talked about privately as what our game plan or how we will move forward. It has been very difficult and frustrating with everything going on in this committee, i agree with you, over 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 this country safe and how well go about doing that. I got your letter. The reason i didnt respond is because i didnt feel a need to respond because i agreed with what you said in your letter. We did talk about what was going to happen with 702 at some point in the future. We didnt flow whknow when thiss going to be here. My job is to make sure i educate the members on our side of the aisle. Your job is to educate the members on your side of the aisle while your program is important. We have had countless meetings on our side to educate, which is by the way, very difficult on my side of the aisle to try to get everybody to agree that this tool is not sacrificing, that we are look at emails or phone calls without a warrant that what we are doing in this bill is within the constitutional yet balanced by the National Security guidelines that they would expect that our Founding Fathers would expect. Its not an easy chore on our side of the aisle. So when you talk about our relationship and our communication or lack there of, as you say, that does make me sad as well. But i will just say this, if try to go tighten the crews on unmasking, which is the one thing i think in this investigation that i thought was in agreement there is a huge disparity an how i dont care what side of the aisle they were on, how some people were asking for names to be unmasked with literally i want this name unmasked because i want it unmasked versus other people that would give a full page inminui inplin nation and how people would get a United States citizens name unmasked that we could be having an argument on this committee, in this room that trying to do a better job and make those screws tighter is some how political, that some how thats playing politics that we are trying to make a political statement by doing a little bit better job to make sure there is uniformity on how United States citizens names are unmasked. How that the political i have no idea but that just goes to show how this committee has devolved with something as simple as trying to get unmasking right, how you could potentially vote no on a bill that keeps this country safe because you think that we are playing politics with regard to unmasking in the last administration or transition period. Even if thats true the next administration might be a democrat. Guess what . Its still in place. So if you want it to be in place for a democratic nominee then you get those assurances too. All we are trying to do is tighten the crews to make sure that the language for people that are trying to unmask u. S. Citizens names in an Intelligence Report is done with the strictest scrutiny and has to be justified down to the last letter that its reasonableable or justified. I hope you sleep well at night on that one because that is absurd. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Thank you. I yield my time to the Ranking Member. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I think its apparent from the commenting of my colleagues and i hope this is just a misunderstanding and not something more deliberate, the critique that youre making of unmasking you have every right to make but its not about 702. All of the comments you have made have not been about this program. I theep you know that. If you dont knee when we sit down youll find out that the concerns youre expressing would gentleman yield since she questioning my knowledge on the bill in front of us . I would be happy to yield. I look forward to going through what you and i have both already read, which are testimonies where actually a couple of them that we were in attendance and both questioned the witnesses where they related to us that are absolute abuses by the Obama Administration where they did use the process of unmasking. I think of the rights of u. S. Citizens. This is a process that i believe i reclaim my time are you talking about under program 702, sir . We are protecting i guess the answer is no. I guess the answer is no. Thats my point. We are not talking about 702. The excellents my colleague has just made. Youre not thats my point. Now, if you wish to nonetheless interfere with this issue because of concerns about other things then at least be open about what youre doing, okay . We happen to think this program is too important to be potentially dragged down by a debate over something else, but nonetheless, that is where we are. Will the gentleman yield . I would be happy to yield. Mr. Shift, you know this is the vote we have in front of us today. I understand what youre saying about the differences. This is the vehicle by which we are make the reforms nt and the problem that is we are faced with today. The reality of the situation, on both sides of our aisle, forget about all of the politics in russia and all of that. The reality is this is the vehicle thats moving the reforms that we want to do. Thats true on your side of the aisle and its true on our side of the aisle. Reclaiming this time. We have to do this today. Are we in agreement that the concerns youre raising are not implicated by anything we have seen on 702 . Are we in agreement then on that . I am in agreement. If we miss the opportunity we are making i reclaim my time. I assume we are in agreement that the problems youre talking about are not pertain today this prm and we are merely using this vehicle. Dont use 702. Its too important if we want if you want to have a stand alone bill you are in the majority. You can take it up any time you want abdomen the speaker is schedule it any time you want. It doesnt have to be with this program. And you know the ic is not in favor of the th language i