>> the clerk will report the telly. >> yes are mad bridger chairman. there are 30 to i met votes and 29 no votes. >> the amendment is agreed to. [applause] [laughter] what was the next one is mr. smith on guantánamo. the one that we had the long, long extended debate.

the clerk will please call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> the answer is yes. [inaudible conversations]

>> the clerk will report the telly. >> mr. chairman they were 23 aye vote's, 38 nay votes. >> the amendment does not agree to. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. smith. >> on the next boat ms. lempert's amendment that i had asked for a recorded vote i will withdraw that requested except the voice passage to move us along here. >> so we will move then to the next one a recorded vote for mr. johnson. on 187r1. is that correct? you want the recorded vote? the question now curse on the amendment offered by mr. johnson number 187r1. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [inaudible conversations] >> the clerk will report the telly. >> mr. chairman there are 29 aye vote's and 32 no votes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. if there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. thornberry vice chair of the

house for the purpose of offering emotion. >> mr. chairman and lifted up the chairman's marked portion of the bill as amended. >> questions on the motion. so many ours in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. a quorum present the eyes have it. the motion is agreed to. the chair now recognizes the g-men from texas mr. thornberry by sherman house for the purpose of emotion. >> is your children with may report the bill h.r. 4435 the howard p. buck mckeon national defense authorization act for the fiscal year 2015 as amended favorably to the house with a recommendation that it did pass. >> questions of emotion the gentleman from texas mr. thornberry so many as in favor will vote aye. those opposed, no. the chair calls for a recorded

vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

[applause] >> we are a couple of hours ahead of last year. there is some stuff when you go through but first let me thank all of you. it has been an honor and privilege a privilege to work with each of you and i told the republican members the other day and i will say it to all of you, if the people at home could get to know you or could see you our numbers would be much higher than 13%. most of you. [laughter] now, on behalf of all of us let's give the staff a round of applause. [applause]

[applause] they are fantastic. i know at times going through this process there are times maybe you think you are getting short shrift or you're not getting help. i will tell you this is really been tough and i will say one more time. next year is going to be a lot worse. if we can be rid of sequestration, go we owe to the troops to get that fixed. now the quorum being present the motion is agreed to and without objection the motion is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> mr. chairman i would like to assert the right of any member for inclusion in the committee's right to the house on the bill just ordered. >> pursuant to clause 2ll of how swirly lebanon members are

entitled to not listen to file such views in writing. i ask unanimous consent the staff be authorized to make necessary conforming technical and clerical changes to remove from the bill as amended provisions that would cause the bill to be referred to other committees are reversals in additional direct spending or that would result in an earmark. without objection so ordered. finally, i ask unanimous consent the chairman be authorized to make such motions on the floor as are necessary to go to conference with the senate on the bill h.r. 4435 for a similar senate measure. without objection so ordered. if there is no further business the committee stands adjourned subject to the call of the chair. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> we don't know that we are actually contributing to it. when you get addicted to drugs the whole world gets built around your need for drugs. when you get suicidal actually every signal of the world is going to die. the beautiful sunrise, a beautiful day and people love you but everything gets closed in. all i could think about, i've got to go. so i think we ourselves get caught up of those traps.

on the other hand we take it on personally and we can't see what's really out there. we can't see if the world is really there beautiful as angels and mentors and people who will care for you. >> the house judiciary committee approved legislation wednesday that would change u.s. intelligence under the foreign intelligence surveillance act known as fisa. the bill would and full collection of data including phone records. the legislation passed through the committee with a bipartisan vote of 32-0. this hearing is two hours, 10 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

i want to thank the sponsor of usa freedom act committee chairman sensenbrenner for his dedication to this important issue. i also want to take a moment and

thank him and ranking member conyers mr. nadler and mr. scott for working with me to prepare the bipartisan substitute that we will consider in just a few moments. the fisa business records provision often referred to as section 215 of the patriot act allows the government to access business records in foreign intelligence international terrorism and clandestine's intelligence operations. investigations. last year's unuthorized disclosure by edward snowden revealed to the american people that the national security agency as part of its mission to protect the united states from terrorist attacks had been collecting both telephony metadata under section 215. since the unauthorized public release of this program many members of congress and their constituents have expressed concern about how the program is operating and whether it poses a threat to american civil

liberties and privacy. the leaks by edward snowden also revealed a classified program operated pursuant to the fisa amendments act of 2008 which was enacted to maintain the nsa's ability to gather intelligence on foreign targets overseas. over the past year the house judiciary committee has conducted aggressive oversight of these programs radian july 2013, the committee held a public hearing in which we heard from officials within the justice department the director of national intelligence, the nsa and the fbi and civil liberties groups. in september of 2013, the committee held a classified hearing where members were afforded the opportunity to further probe these programs with officials from doj, odni, nsa and the fbi and in february of this year the committee held a comprehensive hearing to examine the various recommendations to reform these programs offered by the presidents review group on

intelligence and communications tech knowledge is and the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. in january of this year the president and announced his desire to end the book collection of telephone metadata. in march president obama outlined his proposal to allow access to noncontent telephone records held by telephone companies. absent an emergency situation the government would obtain the records only pursuant to individual orders from the fisa court. the records provided to the government in response to queries would only be within two hops of the selection term being used and the governments handling of any records would be governed by minimization procedures approved by the court. president obama also correctly acknowledge that reforms to these programs must be implemented through legislation passed by congress. the house judiciary committee is

taking the first important step towards this goal today. the terrorist threat is real and ongoing and we must always be cognizant of the threats we face we cannot prevent terrorist attacks unless we can first identify and then intercept the terrorists. at the same time congress must ensure that the laws we have enacted are executed in a manner that protects our national security while also protecting our civil liberties so that we can regain the trust of the american people. i am confident that today the committee will do just that. it's now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the committee for michigan mr. conyers for hope would -- his opening statement. >> thank you chairman goodlatte. members of the committee, it is not an accident that the house judiciary committee is the committee of primary jurisdiction with respect to the legal architecture of the

government surveillance. we are for the most part lawyers and i must immediately single out the people that have played such important roles in this. chairman goodlatte, format chairman sensenbrenner, the gentleman from new york, chairman nadler and of course the gentleman from virginia bobby scott. we ask these difficult questions because we are the proper forum for complex discussion about privacy and civil liberties. moreover, to the maximum extent possible this committee has

always worked to hold that debate in public where we and the officials we call before us can be held accountable to each other and to our constituents. we believe it is possible to have an open honest conversation about the tools our government uses to keep us safe. we believe that this conversation includes a serious look at whether these tools accord with our national values. we believe that public debate on core questions of privacy and free association not only builds confidence in our government that lends credibility and resilience to the national security infrastructure that is built to last. for a number of reasons i

believe that the usa freedom act h.r. 3361 is the proper outcome of just that sort of open debate above all else, the usa freedom act represents the consensus view that all domestic bull collection must end. in the aftermath of the attacks of september 11, 2001, got without notice to the courts or congress our government seized for itself the authority to conduct broad surveillance on its own citizens without warrant or individualized suspicion. over the years since these programs have gained and imprimatur of legality. let me be clear.

dragnet surveillance of the united states citizens is not legal nor is it necessary. in my view it never has been and with the passage of the usa freedom act this position will be made explicit. this view has gained the support of 149 co-sponsors evenly divided between democrats and republicans. more than 40 organizations representing civil liberties groups and technology groups across the political spectrum continue to call for the passage of h.r. 3361. the technology telecommunications sector has also backed this bill. largely because it enables companies to be more transparent to their consumers but also

because comprehensive surveillance reform is good for their bottom line. the usa freedom act takes all of these interests into account. although the manager's amendment we will consider today is less than perfect compromise, and that's not unusual, it makes important, 50 substantive changes that will work to restore confidence in the intelligence community. my conclusion is that these reasonable reforms are both appropriate and consistent with our commitment to the right of the people to be secure in their persons house is, papers and effects so therefore i urge the members of this committee to

support h.r. 3361 and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and i now recognize mr. sensenbrenner to offer a substitute amendment. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment in the nature of the substitute at the desk desk. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to substitute 3361 offered by mr. sensenbrenner of wisconsin. strike-all after the enactment. >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read in open for amendment editing point. without objection the amendment in the nature of substitutsubstitut e is considered as read and mr. sensenbrenner is recognized explain his amendment. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i want to thank members of the committee for coming together to reach this agreement particularly chairman goodlatte for his steady responsible leadership ranking member conyers and congressman adler

and forbes for their passionate and considerable expertise. it's no secret that congress has got more divisive so it's gratifying and even nostalgic to me to see this committee come together to address one of the most challenging and important issues facing our country. i remember this committee similarly cooperating after september 11. i was chairman of the committee at the time of these horrific attacks. we were asked in short order to fundamentally restructure how the government operated to protect our national security. the intensity advance anything i have experienced in my career and speaker dennis hastert was under considerable pressure to bring a bill to the floor quick weight. as with today's debate the leadership threatened to bypass the committee's jurisdiction. i pleaded for patience and asked them to have faith in the judiciary committee. to his credit he agreed and we were able to broker a deal. the committee banded together and passed the usa patriot act

with unanimous bipartisan support. i would add that it was for representatives like maxine waters to the left and bob tarmac to the right. all of them voted aye on the judiciary's product. i believe the committee's actions made the country safer while protecting cherished civil liberties that distinguish us from our enemies. we are we are here today however because the government has misapplied the law that we passed. the administration's interpretation of section 215 is wrong. under current law the government can acquire tangible things are relevant to an authorized terrorism investigation. in a feed feat of legal and verbal gymnastics the administration convinced the fisa court that because some records in the universe of every phonecall on americans make or receive are relevant to counterterrorism the entire universe of those calls must be where --

relevant. that decision opened the floodgates of practice of bull collection that was never before possible lead loan legal in our countries history. after the revelations of abuse surfaced last summer i knew that congress had to act to protect the civil liberties of the said americans. as a result in october of last year i introduce usa freedom act in the senate judiciary committee was patrick leahy of vermont. so suppose introductions i worked with members of congress in both chambers from across the political spectrum. we have had input from privacy groups legal experts tech companies governments and the american people. the result is a very strong compromise that the committee will vote on today. today's bill unequivocally ends book collections across all the nsa authorities and under national security letters. let me repeat, there is no bull collection that is legal by the

nsa are under national security letters should this bill be enacted to law. it creates a new process for the collection of call detail records pursuant to the administration's proposal. for counterterrorism purposes only the government can use these specific selection terms to give detailed or it's as a reasonable articulable suspicion is related to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. the bill prevents the government room potentially targeting americans under section 702 if eisen codifies procedures to minimize the dissemination of bad public information about u.s. persons which are citizens and permanent resident aliens. to increase transparency and to ensure that fisa --

not the fisa court will designate five individuals who are eligible this amicus curiae to the core. this is intended to serve the same purpose as a special advocate. these individuals will be experts in privacy and civil liberties intelligence collection telecommunications and any other area that may lend legal or technical expertise to the court. the court must conduct the ethos occasion review of every decision order or opinion of the fisa court and that includes a significant construction or interpretation of law.

is limited to the original target. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it is a good compromise. i would plead to some of my colleagues not to make it the

perfect the enemy of the good. i think this bill can go all the way to the president desk and be signed into law and i strongly urge the support of it. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the gentleman from new york seeks recognition. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman i happily join my colleagues mr. sensenbrenner and mr. conyers mr. scott and mr. forbes in offering this amendment which provides the first real chance of more than a decade to place real legislative limits on sweeping and warranted and unlawful government surveillance. since the 9/11 terrorist attacks the united states government has aggressively expanded surveillance in and outside united states at a high cost of individual liberty and privacy. americans have been subjected to learn wiretapping national

security letters have been issued without proper authorization and claiming emergency when nonexistent and the national security agency is lifted warehouse and research the daily phone records of everyday americans have absolutely no ties to terrorism. today we have a chance to roll back some of the changes made to the usa patriot act in the fisa amendments act that were allowed to give rise to many of these abuses. first and most we the amendment and book collection or dragnet surveillance under section 215 of the usa patriot act and insures the government cannot use its national security letter authority or trap and trace devices for bull collection either. as mr. sensenbrenner said this bill ends bull collection or dragnet surveillance. under section 215 which allows collection of tangible things quote relevant to an authorized national security investigation and the nsa has been collecting and warehousing telephone meta-metadata. this metadata reveals all

numbers dialed all incoming phone numbers and call duration. while not providing the actual words spoken this information revealed highly personal and sensitive information that contains it -- campaign to detailed pictures of a persons associations and activities. congress never intended to authorize this type of unchecked sweeping surveillance of our our citizens. instead by authorizing collection of relative records we required a reasonable relationship between the collection of records and persons being investigated for suspected of terrorism. his this relevant standard was effectively written out of the statute when the fisa court accepted the government's argument that the entire universe of core records are relevant because it allows a search for calls associated with terror suspects. diminishes men's fixes this by expressly banning bull collection in requiring the government includes the list -- specific term that identifies the specific person entity or

account to be used as the basis for requesting court order authorizing the collection of any information that is restores meaning to to the terminal that by requiring the government to establish our tie to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation and pertain to a specific verse and for or instrument. at the same time the manager's amendment codifies the presence telephone metadata reform proposal. as requested allows the government to obtain a court order authorizing it to obtain the metadata records and needs for phone companies in specific cases. the companies not the government keep the underlying records which can only be searched using specific selection terms designed to return only those records that are relevant to a real terrorism investigation. this new program is limited to call detail records. these changes are very significant. as are the adjustments to fisa section 702 which is lost the nsa to paint data including e-mail track video store data

for persons located outside essays. section 702 unquestiounquestio nably would result in a collection of holy domestic medications and information to, from or about the united states persons. among other things the amendment entirely prohibits their attention and dissemination of domestic medications and prohibits the government from using information acquired in violation of the court-approved targeting of minimization procedures. the memo does not give us everything we want or need but it is a very significant step in the right direction. chairman goodlatte and representative since i'm ready for their leadership and willingness to work with us to make this happen. as the committee of primary -- this committee has long taken a lead in holding responsibility for ensuring a national security does not trump our core constitutional freedoms. over the past decade under the leadership of the chairman with diverse political views of political views and members of his committee figures who debated the proper balance of

our civil liberties. civil liberties. for reporting this is meant to the house will send a clear signal that we are serious about this erdogan are privacy and civil liberties. i join mr. sensenbrenner and urging we support this bill which admittedly is not perfect but which is the first best and perhaps only chance in a decade to begin to right the balance between national security and the civil liberties which the improper interpretation by the fisa court and by the and by both of bush and obama of the usa patriot act and the fisa amendments act have inflicted on us. this is their chance to seize it and i would urge everyone to vote for this amendment to this manager's amendment and for the bill and i think you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair thanks the gentleman recognizes himself in support of the gentleman's

substitute. i think the gentleman from wisconsin for offering this as a german on behalf of myself ranking member conyers mr. scott and mr. forbes. this achieves a collective goal of ending book collection and metadata by the government. the amendment also eliminates bull collection of all tangible things under section 215. it preserves the individual use of section 215 under the existing relevancy standards for all business records while providing a new narrowly tailored mechanism similar to that outline by president obama earlier this year that allows government to request telephone records held by the companies using the fisa court approved queries. under this amendment the fisa court rather than the government will be required to make a finding they reasonable articulable suspicion exists before an individual's telephone records may be accessed on a prospective basis except in the case of the national security

emergency. the amendment prohibits bull collection of records under the fisa trap and trace statute and the national security statutes. the substitute amendment enhances civil liberty and privacy protections for americans by codifying an amicus curiae for applications involving noble or significant interpretation of fisa. the amendment adds additional public reporting on annual fisa orders and expands existing reports to congress and codifies existing minimization procedures under the fisa amendment act to reiterate congress intended to protect the medications of americans. this is an important -- appropriate approach that issa port and approach that will allow the government to protect the country and the same time reflector country's fundamental respect for civil liberties. encouraged my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment.

the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan mr. conyers. >> thank you chairman goodlatte and members of the committee. this substitute, this manager's amendment the sensenbrenner managed matters amendment remains by far the most important step taken to roll back the government surveillance of united states citizens since the passage of foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978. this committee now stands poised to and domestic bull collection across-the-board. the ban applies to section 215 of the patriot act fisa pen register authority and the entire suite of national security letters statute. in addition we have stricken

protections on u.s. person information collected under section 702. we enhanced reporting and transparency requirements with respect to the use of each of these authorities and we create a panel of civil liberties and privacy advocates from which the foreign intelligence surveillance court use expertise and perspective in future decisions. so within this framework we work to accommodate the administration's request for a limited telephone metadata program. of course this program may be used only for commentary as -- counterterrorism purposes. it will require a case-by-case judicial determination of reasonable articulable suspicion

before the government acquires a single call detail record. in its january 17 remarks at the department of justice president obama observed that critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives and open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future. we agree. we have built those safeguards into this proposal. with the additional reporting declassification and transparency requirements also laid out in this bill, we believe the government would be both ill-advised and hard-pressed to attempt to expand this new authority beyond our narrow attempts. i believe that we will arrive at

a compromise that represents legitimate consensus by the congress and the support of the american people. but there is certainly more work to do. for example in future hearings we should take more time to examine the mechanics of collection under section 702. i'm not convinced that we are doing all that we can to safeguard our privacy under that authority. we should also address the reach of surveillance under executive order 12333 and in particular how that type of surveillance affects united states

>> the subject and the focus and the topic is spent to protect the civil liberties of americans by ending the bulk collection of

metadata. i listen to the gentleman from wisconsin's remarks. this bill and bull collection across the nsa. i agree with that same imperialist and to the gentleman from michigan's statement just now and he said we are poised to end domestic bull collection across-the-board. i asked the gentleman from michigan to consider an amendment to that. bull collection across-the-board by government because i would submit that old collection will continue and will continue by the private telephone companies and in fact for national security this manager's amendment or the amendment to the amendment actually relies upon the private sector to store the data that might be queried under a fisa warrant. and as i have gone to hearing after hearing on this topic that both classified and unclassified i have sat and read the material

that was classified and available to me that are the result of the snowden actions and as i look at this bill i complement the people that worked on at the whole weekend and i would like to have an opportunity to weigh in on the final product before we got to this point but i asked this question. as a protect the civil liberties of americans to the extent that is their intense? i agree that it does protect the civil liberties of americans. what it doesn't do and i will ask this next question and that is does it make us safer? the answer to that is no one has mentioned how it might make us safer. i will conclude that in fact it makes us less safe because that window to query data under a pfizer warned now has gone five years as 18 months as directed by an fcc regulation. if we are going to rely upon the fcc to regulate our telecommuting fishing companies to make sure there are storing

18 months a 18 months of a day that would suggest that's a precarious place for us to place our national security. i offer this amendment mr. chairman into the committee. this is an amendment that is something that i have brought up multiple times throughout these hearings that we have had and it does this. it allows for the intelligence community to negotiate with the telecommunications companies so that the telecommunications companies can agree to retain that information in private hands for a longer period of time. it's not specific as to the length of time. it does not provide for any of bulk data to go into the possession of government. it preserves the of the underlying bill and the amendment and the nature of the substitute and it provides for the safety and security of america. so we should have two things in mind here today. one of them as protect the civil liberties of americans and the second one is not to diminish

our national security. in fact protect the national security that exists today. i would submit to this committee that if this amendment goes on and becomes part of law we are not as safe as we would be otherwise and with my amendment we are much safer than we would be otherwise but neither are we sacrificing any of the civil liberties protections that are part of this underlying bill and the purpose of the intent of coming before this committee. ..

>> the notion in that private companies should retain records for a longer period of time than they do normally for their current course of business was specifically not contemplated by obama when he announced in january his desire. president obama is specifically said bulk records should stay in the hands of some companies that would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. of numbers and fault have considered and rejected such a concept. record retention by the communications company does not necessarily to swaged civil liberty and privacy concerns with the danger preach by several factors. for this reason i cannot support the amendment but i

will reiterate there is nothing in current law or legislation that would enter into our negotiations if they found it mutually desirable to do so. so i appreciate his concern with assets has been carefully considered by come down on the opposite side if i can support of the amendment i must oppose it. >> strike the requisite number of words. >> members of the committee the problem from that point of view at no point has this administration asked for a data retention mandate.

in fact, the president has said explicitly that these should remain the telephone company for the of a length of time. and second we redesigned section 250 in the patriot act kept voluntarily. going to the expense and effort for the extended periods of time meaning they are no longer occurred doing so in the course of business. so the gentleman is well intentioned and said some good things in general about the measure before us and i

would hope this is not successful if i yield back the portion of my time. >> strike the last word. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the chairman's comments. but the phone companies don't know necessarily to make sure we have it when we needed. with the co-sponsors of the underlying bill i have concerns about the changes made but applied my friend

for the fantastic work that was done on the bill that i co-sponsored. with the cia attorney and other attorneys for intelligence so why shouldn't the government? it is easily explained. and that is why it is important the government not be the report -- repository for every single phone call log from every single voter in america. that should behalf in the

private entities the and if i applaud the effort from my friend from i want to make it possible for negotiation to ochers of these companies that would incur a burden so they keep the longer in private hands but that way if private -- probable cause because it is utilized in the bill is the established you can still have the data available. because it is beyond 18 months. into yield in the remaining time to my friend from iowa. >> i think the gentleman from texas to yield and the

response by mr. conyers that it is a mandate but it is knotted allows for the intelligence community to negotiate with the private sector if they reach a and agreement a contractual agreement but it is not a mandate. we are relying on the fcc regulation for 80 months of storage stated in the private sector that is our only window to get the fisa award to query the data. that is a tenuous place to be. there is no mandate that the private companies hold its even 18 months. so we are subject to regulation that could change. but to suggest instead this is an open end contractual agreement. i did not hear reason to oppose my amendment.

the one that seemed to be underlying reason it was not part of the agreement going and. i did not have that opportunity and did not know until 12:30 p.m. on monday. does this bill, does it protect the civil liberties? i agree. it does. doesn't protect we lose three and a half years of data access that excess. it is one that is well thought out in projects civil liberties keeping with the theme although i am the only one to bring up the risk that we have.

i am thankful for that. and there is no downside for go without with the civil liberties protection designed to protect. so with that i yield back the gentleman from texas or whatever is the preference of the chair. >> the gentleman from new york you're recognized for five minutes. >> there is no upside to the amendment. this does not give the intelligence agency they can negotiate with the phone company that it would

authorize but it does go against we ought to be doing. it doesn't really do anything. pour the sake of security and all the privacy of american citizens for as long as they may agree with the phone company. who i'm calling or who we were calling. ; when mr. is? [laughter] all of that information.

in my calling right wing or left wing? all that information is telephone message data. -- metadata. the half to keep that for a certain amount of time that the government should not have use of that or for the purpose of killing for the use of the estimated. i beg reid is better to that extent but we ought to keep it at the disposal of the government which is the entire purpose of the amendment. it is not mandatory so it is not the worst amendment in the world but the government

does not own all your personal data and doesn't have a right to any of its. unless there is some relevance to the satisfaction it goes against the spirit of the bill but it does harm security and privacy and goes against the spirit of the bill. and i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i yield back. >> first, before saying anything further to express my appreciation but most particularly to mr. sensenbrenner who has

taken the whole issues so seriously i know the hours he has worked to approve the situation although i will have amendments that might improve the amendments to give him what he deserves that i very much appreciate of course, but with the amendment some early i oppose the amendment as it is pointed out it is unnecessary but i would like to raise another issue. and there were a lot of things that happened. to become very irate people

in other countries became irate about their privacy. we are concerned about that as defenders of the constitution. but there is another issue. companies around the roads using surveillance to get a competitive edge against american companies by suggesting to utilize american technology is to open yourself up to a privacy violation. >> the existence further aggravates the problem so if you buy the american phone or service from an american company the privacy is at

risk. to support this amendment i vendors and the gentleman from iowa tries to make this a better situation but it goes in the other direction. the all i yield back. >> opposition and of the amendment. i oppose the amendment. i believe he is very well intentioned and i want to the emphasize the fact there is nothing that prohibits the intelligence committee to make a deal or sign a contract. but the fear is with the adoption of the king amendment.jb%w]eufpj

>> they would have to disclose the proprietary information, which charged to hold onto records for a longer period of time. the president has said he does not want to have language like this and it seems to me the argument he is making to give him specific authority to do this. if approached by a the government have a hard time to say no. for all these reasons i hope it is rejected. >> all those in favor respond? the no's have it.

i asked for a recorded vote. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] ron

teesixteen [roll call] [roll call] >> as every member voted?

we have one more >> forum members voted aye. >> it is not passed eric the amendment to the amendment with the substitute to h.r. 3611. at the appropriate place. >> without objection and it is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized. stemming thank you for your willingness to work on this issue.

with the phone records to make sure other authorities cannot be used in a similar way. but i am not satisfied with the bill that does not fully tap called transparency with the provision that the government requests they receive. into molds of government -- government accountable. attorney general holder in james clapper announced the administration is taking action in the number of customer accounts targeted under those orders and requests. but to determine the public interest to disclose this information out out raise the of national's security concerns with the classification.

with the american government. that was included in the original u.s. say freedom act. but the language providing it makes a of a great deal of sense. i want to find middle ground and see compromise. this amendment thank you for joining beyond will be a step in the positive direction and a far better course of action they and leading this out of the bill entirely. and beyond was that the technology companies entered into. i yield back. >> will you yield? thank you.

also with my a surveillance bill i plan to offer the amendment between zero and 100 with that amendment i will not offer that today but i hope we have an opportunity to discuss between now the possibility of having smaller bands. i have not been persuaded by the defense agencies and intelligence agencies with the technology companies that live in my district to be able to tell the truth what is happening and also

serves of purpose for this committee the technology companies are the canary because of these transparency provision it is a great interest to the committee. with that regularity that is included it is important. >> will you yield? >> i don't have the time. >> i will. >> i appreciate it is fully supportive to do this. think zero. >> -- thank you. >> i think this amendment would allow companies to report with greater detail with cooperation with business records.

>> the chair recognizes himself and supported the amendment. i am pleased to join the gentleman to offer this amendment that authorizes companies to buy a nearly request information american technology companies experiencing alas cahow of customer trust in international basis based on the snowden leaks appeared that the customer information is routinely turned over to the american government. and to do swage the foreign customers. and to enter into a

settlement with the justice department permits the companies to report certain aggregate request. this amendment codifies that subtle but with modifications for greater transparency to the american people about their privacy and the expense of the intelligence community well protecting national security. really to yield. >> ideal. >> they appreciate you continuing to work to make more improvements. and currently reporting under the settlement the there are changes that need to be made.

particularly if the doj determines it is in the public interest to provide further details to move those in a downward direction it does not prevent them from doing that >> i certainly agree what the gentlewoman from washington has stated to codify this with your amendment to force the doj to come talk to us that has not been the case with many issues for this committee. >> high-yield. >> let me indicate my support for this amendment. if there are too markups this week. looking at the legislation it answers to questions transparency and privacy and

i am particularly grateful for the section that requires a report of what was required what did you have to comply with? that is the amendment from my perspective to tell us what you have to do. with the number of categories that is part of the response. this is helping the industry but it is a viable amendment that gives information into the public. i think the gentlelady in her co-sponsors it adds to the wing grayish as well. >> i yield back the balance of my time.

>> for what purpose? this gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i just want to agree of course, i was also a sponsor. it is my hope that as we come to the floor with maurer transparency this is something that needs to be taking care of. the gentlelady from washington amendment of a like to see a cut back but that with that i yield back. >> offered as a substitute to use the gentleman from washington in favor say aye. oppose?

the aye have a and the amendment tuesday amendment is agreed to. >> for what purpose does the gentlewoman's seek recognition? >> if mr. scott has an amendment i would refer to him. >> simic said gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> my colleagues from virginia to commend our colleagues to work together with the foreign intelligence surveillance statutes.s.épu][5zq!ujt way they have been used come to light to members of the committee has primary

jurisdiction when they work together to find a way for word. the substitute amendment addresses abuses improvise rigorous review of legal interpretation and increase transparency. when reenacted section into 15 with the patriot act requiring the government to show business records to obtain foreign intelligence but to protect against international terrorism are clandestine nativities to collect information on every single phone call made pastor present jury in the future. but through the executive

faction with metadata id insurers that the statute may not be interpreted in the future for these or any other type of business records. said any future president could return to is the policies that we expressly forbid today. to make sure they're not manipulated similar under what we are beginning under section 215. every permit acquisition of business records under the standards because the informational relates to terrorism. we would not allow these standards to apply to domestic purposes just as the information gathered under 215 jet that be used for investigations.

>> with that telephone made a date -- metadata but to work together with significant reforms with section four '02. >> but has confirmed by a recent disclosures has become apparent that at times the government has engaged in inappropriate to communications. and may not intentionally intercept the communications to reasonably believe to be in the united states. also with section seven '02 with the government inadvertently collection of communications with

dissemination with the communications that are inadvertently it acquired but given to it will provide greater assurances about the review of legal questions with the individuals two's served that day are not just the judge. as a result is to have greater confidence to review these cases. also note to use extraordinary measures only becomes useful when shared by those who can act on it. recent complaints by the boston marathon case had not been applied to be disseminated.

it doesn't mean we're just talking about the information on a computer but will be shared with officials of our friends and neighbors we must insist do craft these for over a collection with the appropriate dissemination and a conclusion i support this amendment because it is a significant step forward as the administration has offered to change its procedures but certain in practices over the years to trust but codify to urged the adoption of this amendment and the passage of the bell -- the bill. >> thank you.

i have an amendment. >> as a substitute offered by the gentleman from california is to make unanimous consent it is red. >> without objection. >> under current law, under section 250 allows for the collection of metadata if there are reasonable grounds to believe the information is relevant to the authorized investigation and as we have learned with sample collection? the freedom act that you sponsored is material to the authorized investigation

that was a huge improvement and may have intended both collection with the creative interpretation of language to places that we were surprised to find ourselves. the amendment more directly with its collection also is still subject to wine and of reasonable fact. but you will recall the department of justice confirm don the record under oath that business records would include virtually anything that deputy general

confirms the business records include every photo by the atm machine were also recalls were made your credit card transactions or cookies or internet searches or captured by the tv cameras is in the same legal posture as the phone metadata and as we have to learn further testimony computer science professor that metadata can provide more information than the content itself. and as i said metadata tells you everything about somebody's life. if you have been enough you

don't need it content. the fourth amendment a shows probable cause to get information about americans. as a standard of probable causes to seek information that will tell us everything about an american. when the fourth amendment was written the founders thought about the letter in a desk drawer. now it would be collected with the standard to tell us much more than what a letter in your desk door on dash shore would reveal. >> and not involving the u.s. person or relevant to the ongoing investigation.

there was an exception for emergencies provided for in the of law but i do think with that projections of the fourth amendment with the age of big data and i have this effort to do so a and i yield back some of the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. this amendment would require the government to have probable cause inlander constitutional precedent with a third-party business records such as those eligible to be obtained under section 215. they do not show probable cause because they did not constitute a search under the fourth amendment. to 15 orders are similar to

a grand jury and administrative subpoena involve the use to request business records but not content. section 215 goes beyond criminal investigation by requiring the government before the fisa court can request the affirmation that there is an additional burden to get the fisa order under section 215. it would raise a routine request to the level of a search warrant. we must remain cognizant to face security threats to look get these threats effectively. i would add with a reasonable suspicion standard was put in giuseppe tracked although the

problems with the patriot fact brings us here today reasonable suspicion was not one. with the fear this could blow up with the of fast-track to passage and i oppose the gentleman's amendment. and yield back the balance of my time. >>. >>. >> verizon the opposition lip ashley history of the patriot fact as they recalled was report did unanimously. it changed for it got to the floor that one of the

substantive reasons was the standard it was too loose the relevant standard the it it would be nice if it was higher but we never saw a probable cause. the gentleman is correct the edition of probable cause sections to 15 before any reforms with the usa freedom act with of paul collection program is always a sense to 50 misspeak preserved on the

case by case basis that this amendment would admit address the immediate consequences but not arguing on national security with the business records held by a third party. they have never been considered a search. the government has reached beyond and we will correct that today. this goes beyond those that oppose the patron back at the time that we should do them. that is the first reason for opposition.

second after one dozen years we finally have a chance to bring back the government abuse to end surveillance and have the bill that can pass. this would upset that ability to pass a bill so i will quote what benjamin franklin said that i can sense to the constitution because they expect no better than i do not expect we get to have better bill now but i am sure it is not the best that we can get to jeopardize the ability with the manager's amendment that is it in a chief mitt achievement in this would jeopardize that. we cannot afford that.

>> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the comment made that we do want to get the improvement represented in this bill enacted into law and i don't disagree. however the issue of business records in 2001 when we worked together with a pager attacked when they reported the bill, a big dated did not exist to save way it does today. i suspect my amendment will not pass but i believe the committee of the congress will have to come to grips with the standard and what it means with the digital age. >> reclaiming my time. >> i agree. you can make a good case it

did not go enough to protect that and we should improve that but it is too blunt of day and the instrument for producing we want to do further protect the privacy the data held in the cloud to go abroad i don't think probable cause at this time will accomplish that. but just jeopardize is the bill. it doesn't accomplish everything that needs to be accomplished but the best that we can do now. i yield back. >> i oppose the amendment

but it points out to a real problem we have relaxed standards for getting information but a section 215 it requires more than that. that could be a trade deal. it could be inappropriate for those situations but to except the amendment the standards we can get information and a lot easier when applied to other situations i oppose the amendment but i hope that the present law is over

broad to give their relax standard that makes it totally inappropriate. i yield. >> i do believe the entire issue of ancient doctrines on the fourth amendment need to be dealt with by this congress and ultimately we drop the ball by the supreme court. if the fourth amendment will provide protection to americans it will have to deal with the issue of how big data can tell someone everything is to do no. i think modern americans should have the benefit of the fourth amendment's i am not insensitive to the point we might have a bill that does good and don't want to go without but this is the

opening discussion what protections will be afforded under the fourth amendment. with that i yield back. >> one of the of complications created with the sharing of information it did not stay in foreign intelligence. once it was all over town you creates an incentive with the relax standards there was no incentive before the patriots back to because you cannot do anything with it. so with no incentive it took care of itself. once you allow the sharing project through the with the war is involved in more than just harrison you have this problem and notice that as we go for word.

>> i yield back. >> all those in favor respond by saying aye. the no's have it to the agreement -- amendment is not agreed to. >>. >> mr. chairman i want to congratulate you and the ranking member for your tremendous work to reach some of bipartisan agreement. with mr. sensenbrenner and mr. scott all our critical pardners to arrive at the usa freedom act. it is of positive step forward and most importantly under section 215 to establish schaede new standard to richer any data collected it is used for a specific collection term.

furthermore before data is collected with non-emergency cases that it is contingent on the government presenting a reasonable suspicion. with this amended bill the days of paul collection don't meet of standard of suspicion or over. they are targeted in a thoughtful and will exist as they are important steps. at the same time a want to make clear our work is not complete. resisted previously i have real concerns about national security letters to their authority to get some of the same information is data collected under section 215. this elevates the authority to the same standard effectively ending the government's ability to use the authority for both collection data but still we must work to better reform

the up process and adopt the review process. i still strongly believe national-security letters and only be used if relevant to the investigation. and now this includes important language on transparency that company's km publicly report or disclose. this was badly needed transparency and i commend the gentlelady for including this amendment i am confident the committee will work diligently and today's markup shows as a group we're working on a bipartisan basis related to government surveillance. coming to an agreement in

curtailing the national authorities to collect the data involved. in looking for to continue the work to keep americans saved. i yield back. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> as i indicated earlier we are in the midst of a markup of another committee to has a great interest in this area. but i am glad the mark on this legislation the u.s. freedom act intertwines very closely and carefully the

vendors who were the holders of the metadata resulting in the opportunity for mr. snowden to take his voice around the world and in essence undermine the intelligence but to open the eyes of metadata privacy and transparency and security. i believe this legislation strikes the balance to recognize americans do have a right to privacy. there was a justifiable concern with the members of this body that the collection occurred exceeded orders of magnitude anything previously authorized nor contemplated under the

business section provision to 15 those that helped to draft a the page tract so there was a question with the invasion of privacy and civil liberties. to classify an entry these limited information about this program according to the dna -- the dna does not require in the communications for the entity of the subscriber it is just a telephone metadata. however we saw there was a great importance to introduce legislation and again i think the co-sponsors for recognizing the importance to modify the patriot act.

introduce the sunshine act of 2014 that requires them to disclose the court to allow americans to know it is cleaning under the patriot act with the surveillance needed. in substantial part is section four of two with the classification review of the opinion of the fisa court. a significant move forward with privacy and transparency. to provide to this committee the within 45 days of each decision that includes a significant interpretation and a copy of the brief statement of the relevant

background it contains tangible things pursuant to section 250 miss my remaining time i think it is important we discuss section three o one that has prohibition of reverse targeting that when it was included in the restore act of 2007. prefer starting can be harsh not well understood by those not in the ovary of the electronic surveillance. of the actual purpose to collect information on u.s. persons one of the main concerns of classical conservatives to give expanded authority the executive branch was the temptation of national

security agency to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist. i can let me say that over that here's rehab work of this issue with amendments and initiatives out of this committee. i think the usa freedom act captures the body of understanding by a rare chance. . .