>> 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. . .

markup to assess the opportunity for further involvement before this legislation goes to the floor i do think this is going to make an important statement in answer to the american people and providing for the security of this nation. without i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. >> i have an amendment at the desk, lofgren number three. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> a minute to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to h.r. 33 -- >> without objection the amenable be considered as read. >> mr. chairman, my concern about the manager's amendment and its treatment of the reforms

in 702 is pretty serious. i have a couple of amendments i will offer on that, but i will say that the biggest disappointment have about the manager's amendment is that it took meaningful reform and mr. sensenbrenner's bill that i cosponsored, and watered it down significantly. this amendment would return the highly lauded requirement that a warrant would be needed to search the 702 database for the communications of u.s. persons. under current law, in his they can search the communication's they collect on u.s. persons without a war at your the bill that mr. sensenbrenner introduced had stripped the old u.s.a. freedom act, the

manager's amendment stripped out the new requirements that were in the bill. and i'll tell you wha why i thik this is important. we were and 55% of your account holders live outside the united states. i think arguably you could use that as a basis for believing. it was more probable than not that these were non-u.s.

persons. if there's no requirements, and i'll get into it with my next amendment, the definitional problem of what you can be looking for, you actually could end up with the same broad-based database of u.s. persons using section seven of do as we are trying to stop under section 215. i do think that if you're searching for this database that's been lawfully collected for information about united states citizens, you ought to meet our ward requirement. i think that is required under the fourth amendment. it should be provided for in this statute, and i would recommend to my colleagues that we make this fix on the manager's amendment. the bill itself, mr. sensenbrenner wrote was far superior and with that i would yield back. >> the chair thanks the

gentleman to recognize himself in opposition to the event. this speaks to alter the substitute amendment changes section 702. mms's section seven of to me by the substitute reflects a bipartisan agreement carefully negotiated by myself, the sponsor of u.s.a. freedom act, mr. sensenbrenner, ranking member conyers, mr. scott. the substitute and reiterates congress original intent in enacting the fisa amendments act that this authority designed to allow the government to target a person reasonably believed to be outside the united states cannot be used to reverse target a u.s. person. in addition the bipartisan substitute amendment reiterates congress intent of section 702 does not apply to wholly domestic communication. the substitute preserves the provision from the bill as introduced in instructing that should information be collected concerning a u.s. person under

section 702 despite defined by the fisa court that a certification was efficient, such information cannot be used. there have been careful detailed negotiation between members on both sides of the aisle on the committee to craft the substitute amendment to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from california will disrupt this agreement and accordingly i opposed the amendment. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. all those in favor? those opposed? the opinion of the chair of the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. what purposes does the gentleman from texas seek? >> i have an amendment. >> the clerk will report. >> the nature the subject to h.r. 3361 offered by mr. gohmert, page 17 after section 109 insert the following, section 110 clandestine effort jim's

activities. section 501, 50 usc 1861 a speech without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the incredible amount of work that was done by those negotiating this agreement, but what makes the committee structure in congress strong is when the committee itself gets to participate, it's to look for little nuances that make a bill better. remembering my freshman term in 2005-six when we took up our renewal of the patriot act, we had a lot of discussions behind the scenes with administration officials, justice department intelligence, people from the white house. we talked to a lot of people. and a question that i asked back at the time that we were told repeatedly that this only

pertains to getting information about someone or from someone who is either a foreign agent, engaged in foreign intelligence, or has contact with a foreign agent or a foreign government. and, in fact, we were so assured of that that i made the statement and debate that gee, if any of my democratic friends want to avoid their telephone data being gathered, all they got to do is make sure that any foreign terrorist doesn't call them on that phone. that seemed to pretty much summarize what we were told. you had to have that contact. but i kept asking a question because like in 50 u.s. -- under subparagraph day, this allows them to get the required

production of tangible things for investigation to obtain foreign intelligence, records, papers, important intelligence information not concerning a united states person. well, that gave us a lot of cover. that's only for somebody who's not a united states person. or here's the second one, to protect against international terrorism. i thought that's good. that supports just what the bush administration people were saying. you've got to have a relationship with a foreign country, foreign terrorist. but then there was this other clause after the disjunctive the or, and that is or clandestine intelligence activities. and that asked the question in private meetings, you said this only had to do with foreign contact, foreign governments, foreign intelligence activity,

or contact with foreign agents to foreign governments. i was assured, look, things are national, foreign, it's throughout the document. everybody knows this has to do with foreign contact. but i was still troubled. i was assured not to worry. well, i worry now because they have obtained data on american citizens who did not have contact with foreign terrorists or foreign governments. they still got the data. we know from our history that robert kennedy, j. edgar hoover, authorized all kinds of surveillance an, inappropriate i will submit, of martin luther king, jr. look, we don't need another time where somebody under a vague term like clandestine intelligence activity, heaven help you if you look over a fence into a government secured area, you just engage in clandestine intelligence activities. look, this is so broad, so

vague, you could drive a truck through this for anyone wanting information on american citizens. and that's also true in 1842 where it says to obtain foreign intelligence information, that makes me feel better, not concerning a united states person. oh, goody, it's got to be some and not a u.s. person, or to protect against international terrorism, international good, or clandestine intelligence activities. same thing down in part c. commits to protect against international terrorism or clandestine activity. my amendment makes clear what we were promised in 2005-2006. this has to do with foreign intelligence, foreign terrorism. with plenty of law enforcement to go after to investigate terrorist, domestic criminals. we've got all kinds of criminal laws to address the. that's what i would like to get

rid of the debris year by making it specifically pertain to foreign entities. i yield back spent with the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i support the amendment. i think it makes it clear and it reminded me as you were speaking that when we had, we have tried as a committee to get information from our intelligence agencies. the chairman had a nothing hit attention and you were chairing the last classified briefing to obviously he can't discuss what was said but i do recall we had specific questions and those questions were not answered. >> they were not. >> and i would ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds. >> without objection the gentleman from texas is recognized additional 30 seconds. >> in fact they promised to get back to us, and i'm still waiting for the answer to that question that was posed last year when you were chairing the classified briefing. so i do think we have to be very

precise because we are not provided information whether it's in public or in the classified briefings. i thank the gentleman for yielding. >> i yield back. >> what purposes does the job of the wisconsin seek recognition? >> in opposition. the minute goes well beyond control of deadline to of the substitute amendment to fundamentally change the long-standing authority for the government to gather intelligence on those who engage in clandestine intelligence activities. the purpose of the bill and the substitute is reform use of the -- as it pertains to boca collection. not to reform the underlying law. the word clandestine is one that is commonly and routinely used and understood to mean spidey. this term is used throughout fisa and the letters the statute, and importantly is limited in each of these statutes by prohibiting a clandestine intelligence investigation of united states

person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the constitution of the united states. fisa was enacted in part to authorize the united states to protect itself against those who choose to engage in spying our espionage against it. and to empower it to gather intelligence from within the united states to meet this important national security goal. i was around during the cleanup of the mess that the cointelpro fiasco occurred. this is why the church commission was appointed, and the definitions that have been referred to in fisa or as a result of something that was carefully crafted to prevent a repeat of cointelpro while protecting the american public. for those reasons i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek

recognition? >> i thank chairman sensenbrenner in a bipartisan manner in which this bill has been brought to the committee. i am concerned about the lack of specificity in the legislation. i support the gentleman's amendment. i think we're here today because the government, and is a specifically, has interpreted this act in the most federal way to seizing the information they want to. and that's why we are here. since we must assume that is the way they will interpret all legislation, this amendment makes it more specific to deal with foreign governments and foreign nationals. otherwise to me it's today. the gentleman used the phrase peaking over the fence. the legislation clandestine effort intelligence activities

reminds me of the old soviet law that that shall not engage in anti-soviet activities. that means different things to different folks as it did under the soviet regime, editing isn't -- this can also be interpreted to mean different things to different folks. make a specific, make it apply to foreign governments, foreign nationals, protect the integrity of the american citizen, and i would support the gentleman's amendment on getting rid of the vegas. be specific, because the government operates under presumption that they will interpret the law the most painful way to seize the evidence. that concerns me. i yield back. >> question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. all those in favor? opposed? opinion of the chair the no's have it and the minute -- >> i would ask for a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested and the clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> are there members who have not voted who wish to vote? the gentleman from florida. >> [roll call]

>> has every member voted who wishes to vote? the gentleman from missouri. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, -- >> hold on. as every member voted who wishes to vote? how am i recorded? >> mr. goodlatte vote no. i change my vote.

>> how am i recorded, mr. chairman? >> how is the gentleman from new york voted? >> mr. nadler votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, 14 members voted aye. 11 voted no. >> the and then it is agree to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number four. >> clerk will report. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 3361 offered by ms. lofgren

of california. after the last section in title iii add the following section. section 30, limiting the collection of u.s. persons communications to only those that include the target of an authorized investigation. 50 usc 1881 -- >> i ask unanimous consent the amendment beats big without objection the an emmy is considered as read. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you i believe that this amendment fixes a loophole that was created by the fisa court in its november 2011 decision that is now in the public arena. the amendment clarified that the government can only use selectors to select information to or from the target of authorized investigation. under the current law as blessed by the fisa court, nsa is using

702 authority to collect communications that are to, from, or even about a foreign intelligence target so long as these communications are believed not to be wholly between u.s. persons. now, the u.s.a. freedom act did not address this loophole in the original picture i could not be this is a court constructed document but it allows false positives and potential use about criteria could be used to lead to massive collection of u.s. persons communications. this amendment would prevent that as an outcome by limiting the selectors target and collect communication only when one of the parties of that communication is the target of an authorized investigation.

i know all of us have worked in good faith on this bill and again i want to give great credit to the chair and ranking of the subcommittees with the jurisdiction and especially as i said earlier, to mr. sensenbrenner for his leadership, but if you think we don't want to end up in the same situation a few years from now as we are today, finding out we have failed to define terms and have allowed for the kind of unwarranted bulk collection that we're seeking to end the day. i think my amendment if adopted would prevent that from occurring, and with that i would yield back. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes in opposition of the amendment. i believe that the changes in the minimization statute section and the substitute which was not in the original bill already deal with this issue, and i

don't think the amendment is necessary and i think it is harmful to the bill as a whole. section seven of to as amended by the substitute prevents reverse targeting. i think we're all against that. i think that should be sufficient to prevent this from happening your reading the amendment of the gentleman from california, it limits the collection of u.s. persons mutation to only those that include the target of the authorized investigation. okay, say there is a section 215 order that is aimed at a target, that goes to hops and on the second hop there is a u.s. persons who was not at the time of the second hop a target of an authorized investigation. what this amendment does is limits adding that person to a target of an authorized

investigation and go to hops from that. a lot of these conspiracies are more than to hops. but i don't think that if there is a reasonable suspicion that if it goes for more than two hops that we to preclude finding out who those people are talking to in the furtherance of their plot. so for those reasons i urge rejection of the gentlewoman's amendment. and again i would repeat that i think the codification of the minimization procedures in section seven of two deals with the subject. yield back the balance of my time. the question is on a green to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. the memory of the nature of a substitute. those in favor? opposed? the nose appear to have it. been those habit and the enemy is not agree to. are there further amendments? gentlewoman from california.

>> i've amendment number six spent the clerk will report the amendment. >> a minute to the men and the nature of a substitute to h.r. 3361 offered by ms. lofgren of california. after speeders without objection the amendment is considered as written at the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman this amendment would correct a problem that some of us have discussed for many years which is the definition of intelligence information. under current law the definition of foreign intelligence information is simply too broad. it has an expansive definition that includes foreign affairs, not just serious spying and terrorism and things that would

do us harm. this is a similar issue to have that raised by our colleague from texas. i think the use of foreign affairs potentially invites abuse of practices using foreign affairs as an excuse to collect human occasions of u.s. persons, and it furthermore encourages the use of 702 authority to spy on friendly nations rather than focusing on foreign powers or agents that mean to do us harm. the original and amended u.s.a. freedom act failed to address this loophole. this amendment would fix the definition of foreign intelligence information by removing foreign affairs from the definition of foreign intelligence information to prevent such abuse and ensures that the foreign intelligence gathered under fisa and our and/or 702 in particular is only for counterterrorism,

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, with the consent or to protect the armed forces. i think it is a necessary and useful a minute and i would urge its adoption. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes now in opposition to the amendment. what the imminent would do is fundamental to change all of fisa, not just that part of fisa that relates to counterterrorism activities. and this can have consequences for foreign intelligence surveillance across all specters. i think that we would have a problem in dealing with assessors by the nsa relative to counterterrorism activity, particularly those authorized by the patriot act. i certainly would not want to hamper the ability of the government, and i'm not talking just about the nsa, but everybody in the government, to

deal with non-terrorist spying that occurs and to be able to surveil those who are engaged in non-terrorist spying. whether it's for a foreign government or elsewhere, but also to allow the courts to define what's necessary to the national defense of the security of the united states. i think you'd get a different definition from every judge that that went before. we will be back you're trying to figure out how to sort that out in a few years. for those reasons i would urge the rejection of the amendment. yield back the balance of my time. question is on agreeing to the amendment of the gentleman from california, ms. lofgren come to the amendment and the nature of the substitute. those in favor? opposed? the nose if you do have it. the no's have it.

are the further amendments? for what purposes the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk of amendment number eight. this is the last amendment i will offer spent the clerk will report the amendments. >> a minute to minute in the nature -- >> askin sentiment be considered as read. >> without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> i believe that this amendment fixes, at least i hope an air that was created in the manners of the amendment that i cannot believe was intended. as you know, we have specified that the content is not included in business record. this amendment clarifies that business records do not include the content of communication. we specified that in the new section about call detail records, but the specification

that content was not included somehow got dropped out of the business record section that was included in your original bill but it didn't make it into the manager's amendment. i think this amendment clarifies the ambiguity that could be created, and i hope it was not intentional. i do hope that we can adopt this what i think is more of a lyrical correction. and i would yield back. >> i thank the gentlewoman. we have a series of votes in the house floor. pursuant to the earlier order of the committee, the chair will recess the committee and to immediately after the votes on the house floor. members should return to this markup posthaste without delay and without -- without objection the committee is recessed.

>> we will reconvene. when the committee recessed the a minute offered by the gentlewoman from california was under consideration. the question a curse on the minute offered by the gentlewoman from california. >> it's my understanding if i may that since this is i think primarily a clerical error that could be fixed at a later time and that, therefore, if there's a commitment to try and work through the clerical error i would like to withdraw. >> only, this is a new development for me to hear that it's a clerical error. if, indeed, it is unhappy to work with the gentlewoman to find out if that's the case, and if it is, then

>> in the opinion of the chair the nosthe no's have it and the amendment does not agree to. are there any further amendments to the amendments? if not, the question is on this sensenbrenner and them and the nature of a substitute to h.r. 3361. those in favor respond by saying i go? opposed? in any of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. a reporting quorum being present, the question is on the motion to report the bill h.r.

3361 as a minute favorably to the house. those in favor respond by saying i go. spent i ask for a roll call. spent a record about his request and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? how is gentlemen from new york voted?

[inaudible conversations] >> has every member voted who wishes to vote? the clerk will report. >> the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from new york.

>> mr. jeffries votes i. spent his every member voted who wishes to vote? the clerk will report. >> thirty members voted aye. zero members voted no. >> mr. chairman? >> let me just -- >> and i recorded? >> the gentlewoman from texas. >> and i recorded? >> ms. jackson lee votes i go. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> without objection the role will remain open so the -- the gentleman from tennessee. >> i tried to vote by proxy but -- >> you don't know the trouble we went to. [laughter] for you. the clerk will report. >> thirty-one members voted aye.

>> the ayes have it. members will have two days to submit views without objection the bill is report as a single and and and the nature of a substitute incorporated all a top tournaments and stuff is authorized to make technical and -- >> mr. chairman? masking and consent that the vote records be reopened so this member can add -- >> without objection the vote record will open for the purpose of recognize the gentleman from florida. >> esther garcia votes yes. >> the clerk will report for the third time. >> thirty-two members voted i. zero members voted no. >> the ayes have it. everything i said earlier still stands. good work.

[inaudible conversations] >> if you're accused of being ambitious and if you're accused of being wild party, it was a death sentence, professionally

it could damage her family. what it meant was you put the group before anything else. you put yourself before the group. for chinese history that was totally unimaginable under the confucian period or underscores the socialist period. when i got there, things were beginning to change in some deep way. when i began to hear around me was people talking about themselves. not in a self glamorizing our self-promotional way but just in a self protected weight and anyway they said it matters what i want in this world and the world i want to define for myself. so even the term in chinese for myself was transforming. people were getting comfortable using it. in the united states we talk about the me generation as being this period in which we start to focus on ourselves perhaps too much. in china it was a revolution in our conception of what it meant to be a person. in the past people would talk

about us, a group, family, the clan, the village, the factor. all of a sudden beginning after 1979 when the country embarked on this economic transformation, people have no choice but to think about themselves and that became the fundamental dynamic that drove my eight years fascination and investigation of china. >> evan osnos on the rising conflict between individual and the chinese government sunday night at eight on c-span's q&a. >> coming up on c-span2, senators vickers and sanders. then supreme court oral arguments in dealing with cell phone privacy for people in police custody. >> white house budget director sylvia burwell testifies at a confirmation hearing to be the

next help committee services sector. live coverage of this and help committee hearing at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. today, the house picks up legislation that creates a select committee to investigate september 11, 20 oh but that on the u.s. consulate in libby. -- libya. you cannot take c-span with you wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or caplet. listen to all three c-span tv channels on c-span radio any time. there's a scheduled each of our networks so you can tune in when you want. play podcast of recent shows from our signature program like afterwards, they communicate us and q&a. take c-span with you where ever you go. download your free app online

for your iphone, android or blackberry. >> senator david vitter of louisiana spoke wednesday about reports that veterans died while waiting for care at va hospitals. he tried to bring up his bill authorizing 27 new va health clinics. the chairman of the veterans committee senator bernie sanders objected and tried to call up a much larger bill to expand services on cuts and costly adjustment. they debated for 35 minutes. >> madam president, i come to the floor to speak about an issue we should all be concerned about, the state of veterans health care in our va hospitals, our va clinics, our bae systems and around the country. i've been concerned about this for sometime working very hard

on getting outpatient clinics bill in louisiana, new ones come expanded ones in particular in lafayette and lake charles. i'm a member of the bar partisan working group on va backlog issues and we've made substantial progress through that bipartisan group. we've also introduced legislation to deal specifically with that va backlog crisis. and as we work as things unfortunately, the news out of the va gets worse and worse, and the need for real progress, including the community based clinics and i talk about louisiana and elsewhere, that need gets more and more dire. think about the recent report cnn and others have reported that in arizona, at least 40 u.s. veterans died, died waiting for appointments at the phoenix

va health care center. many of these were placed on a secret waiting list. the secret list was part of an elaborate scheme designed by the fda managers in phoenix who are trying to hide the fact that 1400-1606 veterans were forced to wait months to see a doctor. there's an official list that is shared with officials in washington. unofficial list shows the va has been providing timely appointments. the problem is you don't get to the official list until you have waited months and months and months on the secret list. that's hidden from washington. that's hidden from the world. that's hidden from outsiders until the news media broke the story. so 40 of those veterans died waiting for appointments to this abuse. in colorado, "usa today," another report that the clerks

at the department of veterans affairs clinic in fort collins were instructed last year about how to falsify appointment records so it appeared the small staff of doctors were seeing patients within the agency's goal of the 14 days. exact same abuse, exact same type of scheme, different details. many of the 6300 veterans treated at the outpatient clinic waited months to be seen, but that was hidden to this scheme. at the clerical -- of the clerical staff had allowed records to reflect that veterans waited longer than 14 days, they were punished i being placed on the bad boy list, the report shows. so again exactly the same fraud, abuse, the same scheme designed to hide the real weight that veterans in these places and many other places around the country are subjected to.

we see these horrible abuses. we see these examples with increasing frequency. it's gotten so bad that the head of the american legion and the head of the concerned veterans of america on monday called for secretary shinseki to resign. called for members of his top leadership to resign with him. the calls for his resignation came after months of reporting that i've been talking about. u.s. veterans have actually died waiting for care at va facilities across the country. came after these reports about phoenix, came after these reports about colorado your now, the heads of these organizations did not rush into a public call for his resignation. they did not take that lightly. that is virtually and perhaps completely unprecedented, but

they did that on monday. they called for the secretary's resignation. they called for a publicly. they called for several of his leadership teams to resign with him. that's how bad it's gotten. and yet in the midst of this, rather than responding to this crisis in any way as we can as quickly as we can, we have important matters hung up on pure politics here on the floor to a specific of talking about my proposal to move forward with 27 community based clinics around the country, including the two vital new and expanded the committee based clinics that we need to move on and approve and build in louisiana, in lafayette and in lake charles. now, these clinics around the country and particularly the two in louisiana, lafayette and lake charles, have been hung up through one bureaucratic screw

up after another. these should been built by now. first in terms of our to louisiana clinics, the va messed up how they let out the contract and that caused them to pull back. it was their mistake, pure and simple. they have admitted that freely, and it cost us a year in terms of moving forward with those clinics. after that mistake was correct at the loss of a year of waiting, then the cbo decided that they're going to score these clinics in a completely new way, something they had never done before and that caused a quote unquote scoring or fiscal issue with regard to all 27 of the va committee based clinics i'm talking about around the country. that further delay progress. finally, after these two major delays, leaders in the house got together on a bipartisan basis, and i want to commend my louisiana colleagues in the house in particular, led by

congressman -- and others to fix this scoring issue. they put together a reform bill. they got it approved by the house overwhelmingly, one dissenting vote. resolution to honor mother teresa don't pass the u.s. house of representatives these days with only one dissenting vote, but they did that. it came over here. i worked to address some small issues and objections that existed on the senate side through a perfecting a minute which i have at the desk. i worked very hard for weeks to clear up those objections so we could move forward with this nine -- noncontroversial measure. because of that we have unanimous support a united states senate. not one single objection to moving forward with these 27 community based va clinics around the country, not one single objection related to the substance of that proposal.

not one. the only objection now has been from the distinguished senator from vermont who objects to moving forward with its focus proposal because the senate does not agree unanimously or near unanimously with his much larger bill that encompasses dozens of va issues. now, again i have pledged and will work with the senator on those broader issues. i've been working hard on those issues, including these clinics, putting being an active member of the bipartisan working group on the va backlog issue. i will continue to work on that, but the fact remains that is larger bill has substantial opposition, around 46 senators -- excuse me, around 44 senators opposed that larger bill. in the meantime i think we should agree on what we can agree on.

we should make progress on what we can make progress on starting with these 27 clinics. veterans have been dying around the country because of these ridiculous waits and the fraud and abuse involved in hiding these weights. these 27 committee based clinics will directly help veterans are waiting months and months in some cases, waiting for medical treatment. it will directly alleviate that issue in the communities where these clinics will be located, 18 states, a significant number of communities or significant number of states. .. rest. last november senator sanders seemed to agree with that principle, and tha and that wayg forward, talking about another veterans affairs piece of