it's still a search. >> all right. how do we determine whether somebody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in any of information that is contained on a cell phone? of the interconnect activity of the data, i don't can say a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in this app but not that app. you don't know what is >> today the house judiciary committee will consider a bipartisan proposal that is the linked to any other part of the of months of phone. oversight and collaboration between members from both sides to reform certain provides thehat national security programs operated under the foreign surveillance act,

security of the fourth amendment or fisa. intended to give -- over which this committee has jurisdiction. i want to thank the sponsor of act, for hiseedom that the fourth dedication to this important amendment, the search is issue. and i also want to take a moment incident to an arrest or an and thank him and ranking member mr. nadler and exception. mr. scott for working with me to prepare the bipartisan >> yes. does that extend to a new substitute that we'll consider in a few moments. the fisa business records provision, often referred to as section 215 of the patriot act, phones?, cell >> whether the scope of a allows the gopt to access justifiable search incident to business records in foreign to include ang intelligence, international clandestinend search of the cell phone. you say they're an intelligence operations. exception to the fourth amendment? they just don't violate the year's unauthorized fourth amendment. disclosure by edward snowden the fourth amendment covers certain things and it doesn't revealed to the american people securitynational cover other things. it doesn't cover agency, as part of its mission to protect the united states are not exceptions, they're just terrorist attacks, had been covered.t espousedthis court has underting bulk met adata

section 215. since the unauthorized public a presumption and has classified this program, many to arrest ascident members of congress and their exceptions to the warrant constituents have expressed requirement, saying that the program isut how the is for a warrant to operated, and whether it poses a americans' civil be obtained and under certain liberties and privacy. the leaks by edward snowden also defined circumstances we are going to -- classified program operated pursuant to the fisa presumption is simply, wasdments act of 2008 which you don't believe that presumption, do you? enacted to maintain the n.s.a.'s searches many more conducted without a warrant than ability to gather intelligence with a warrant, i bet. foreign targets overseas. over the past year, the house search, anyobile judiciary committee has inventory search, any search of aggressive oversight businesses. of these programs. searches are in july 2013 the committee held conducted without a warrant. public hearing at which we but you still believe that a heard from officials with the is the rule and justice department, the director exception.s is the national intelligence, the i think it may be the opposite, n.s.a., and the f.b.i., and liberties groups. actually. in september 2013, the committee >> it's the exceptions that classified hearing where rule. the members were afforded the opportunity to further probe officialsrams with thehe exceptions, viewing

from d.o.j., odni, n.s.a., and search incident to arrest exception as having limited the f.b.i. in february of in year the parameters, as the first circuit comprehensive a aryg hearing to examine the did -- >> the question is whether it's recommendationings an unreasonable search. formmmendationings to rere mucharrant clause follows later, the question is, is this search.sonable .hese in january of in year the >> this court has said in many president announced his desire to end the bulk collection of a search nott data.one melta in march president obama prunt oh a -- outlined his proposal to allow noncontent telephone preubt to a warn is unreasonable records held by telephone unless it falls within -- companies. situation,mergency >> then it's a search that's the government would obtain the reasonable. that's not necessarily an exception. >> but in terms of pursuant to reasonableness, this court is individual orders from the fisa balancing the intrusion against record provided to the government would only be the individual's privacy. of the selection term being used and the balancing test. and we suggest that that balance government's handling of any records it acquires would be by minute myization

supports the cease and procedures approved by the secure rule -- court. >> i understand that. but that's the question that i correctlyobama also was asking before. acknowledged that reforms to is it a reasonable search or these perhaps must be implemented through len seizure, all right, so you have passed by congress. intereste the privacy the house judiciary committee is versus the law enforcement taking the first important step interest. how do we fine out what the towards this goal today. privacy interests are, what the the terrorist threat is real and privacy expectations are? we must always be into that balance. cognizant of the threats we with respect to cell phones in face. prevent terrorist attacks unless we can first 2014. identify and then intercept the >> well -- >> does it matter? strongly,le feel very terrorist. at the same time, congress must law we havethe every single thing that's in their cell phone is private, or maybe they don't. think some things are enacted are executed in a manner private, some things are not that protects our national private. protectingile also >> i think that by virtue of the our civil liberties, so that we that you carry them around theregain the trust of in a generally a closed american people. or pocket, a purse, i am confident that today the that.tee will do just briefcase, that that exhibits, now my pleasure to recognize the is an indication that ranking member of the committee, from michigan, people expect that the cell mr. conyers, for his opening phones, that the information stay. you, chairman. contained on their cell phone is

members of the committee, it is private. >> as opposed to what, carrying it around somewhere other than that the house pocket? judiciary committee is the primarye of do you think it's a difference someone'stached to jurisdiction with respect to the belt and everybody can see it or legal architecture of the if it in a pocket? >> no. government surveillance. i believe that because you're carrying it with you, that it is, it's not something that you public, you'rehe the most part not exhibiting the contents of lawyers. must immediately single the phone. if itely it's more rieft locked in your car or in your house. that have played carrying it with you in public makes it less private. such important roles in this. >> but it may be less private, but that doesn't mean that you goodlatte, former don't have a reasonable privacy against sensenbrenner, the people taking it from you and gentleman from new york, gerald and --g to intrude course the of gentleman from virginia, bobby scott. >> i thought that incident to questionsse difficult arrest, 'the police could take the phone.

because we are the proper forum the question is whether they can without a warrant. discussion about >> yes, i was responding in terms of just a general notctation that people are liberties. civil going to, because you're itrying a phone in public, moreover to the maximum extent does not mean that you expect this committee has that people are going to walk up always worked to hold the debate and remove it from your belt or your pocket -- we and thehere >> you could say the same thing pack that hastte officials we call before us can accountable to each cocaine in it. >> or a gun. other and to our constituents. andnd the police may seize we believe it is possible to examine those containers and have an open, honest conversation about the tools our see -- exactly theat's safe.ment uses to keep us question. do you have a reasonable -- we believe that this it on your person, conversation includes a serious you ought to know it is subject examination.d at whether these tools values.ith our national >> it's the scope of examination issue with a cell debate on that public phone. a cell phone is fundamentally core questions of privacy and different from a cigarette pack. you can open the cigarette pack, not onlyciation,

you see whether or not there is builds confidence in our something that is subject to government but lends credibility and resilience to the national whether --, but >> and you can open a cell phone and see what's ever in it. so security infrastructure that is thatu carry a cell phone built to last. and for a number of reasons, i isn't encrypted or whatever, you get what you should have believe that the u.s.a. freedom expected. that's been the rule. if you're arrested, we can seize h.r.3361, is the proper it and examine it. ofcome of just that sort >> the question is what is the permissible open debate. examination. the u.s.a.lse, about a you're talking freedom act represents the cigarette pack, you're looking at another physical object, that all domestic you're not looking at the of somebody -- bulk collection must end. >> i understand. so you're arguing for a new rule. in the aftermath of the attacks has been weto now 2001, without1, can seize it, we can examine it canlly, if it's a book we notice to the courts or read every page of the book. government seized you want a new rule for cell phones, right? that want a rule that says for itself the authority to you cannot search the contents brd surveillance on its of the cell phone. >> at all. all. or citizens, without warrant

>> on sent exigent .ndividualized suspicion circumstances. >> what would be an exigent over the years since, these you couldce where gained an -- search, in your view? said you are arguing for let me be clear much dragnet surveillance of the united not legal,zens is nor is it necessary. a -- would be an exigent has been., it never and with the passage of the circumstance, without getting a act, thisedom warrant to search the cell phone. position will be made explicit. would be an example of police are investigating a has gained the support bombing, a potential bombing and cosponsors, evenly information that divided between democrats and republicans. whoever is going to set off the more than 40 organizations is going to, they do it libertiesng civil groups and technology groups going cell phone and is to be in a particular place at a particular time, you see someone spectrume political approaching with a cell phone, under those circumstances passage to call for the you could get whatever

of h.r.3361. knee.ation you >> this is somebody in an area selling drugs where the police the technology and typically usehey telecommunications sectors also cell phones to arrange the deals back this bill. and the transfers, and this guy largely because it enables with two cell phones companies to be more transparent much why would he have two cell their consumers. phones? have multiple but also because comprehensive cell phones. there was no owe. surveillance reform is good for >> really? their bottom line. what is your authority for the statement that many people have the u.s.a. freedom act takes all on theircell phones person? of these interests interest .> just observation account. although the managers amendment today is a less >> you look through different that ifrom the people than perfect compromise. look through. and that's not unusual. in their they're pockets. it makes important, vital but is it insignificant in your view that the cell phone was a for which criminal substantive changes that will work to restore confidence in transactions were typically under taken in this area and intelligence community. fellow had two cell my conclusion is that these reforms are both phones rather than what i would normalought is amore one? >> yes. i don't believe that should be a appropriate and consistent with

searchingion for our commitment to the right of be secure in their phone.cell persons, houses, papers, and the maybe convenience for the police to get information effects. searching a crime by so therefore i urge the members committee to support without a warrant, but this has said repeatedly that convenience and efficiency don't h.r.3361. the balance ofk individual my time. you. constitutional rights. and sanctioning a general gathering search of the entire contents of a cell phone, thehe chair thanks gentleman and i now recognize the current expansive contents is an mr. sensenbrenner. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment in the name much substitute at the desk. unwarranted expansion of a thelerk will report amendment. >> amendment in the name much a traditional search incident to substitute to h.r.3361, offered arrest. because we are not talking about mr. sensenbrenner of kind of traditional containers that hold limited wisconsin -- >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent that the bill be finite quantities of usually considered as read and open for amendment at any point. other objects. objection the amendment in the nature much is nothing a cease and substitute is considered as read mr. sensenbrenner is

secure rule protects both the recognized to plain the individual's expectationings of amendment. >> thank you very much privacy and security, and the mr. chairman. i want to thank the members of the committee for coming government's right to obtain together to reach this particularly chairman goodlatte, ranking member evidence, with the protectionings of the warrant requirement, giving the neutral conyers for their come parent an magistrate an opportunity to determine whether there's expertise. it's no secret that congress has the search of for gotten more different vice it. gratifying to see this the cell phone and to define the search.f that committee come together to address one of the most issues facing our country. i remember this committee similarly cooperating after >> you have four minutes september 11. remaining. search incident to arrest i was chairman of the committee at the time of these horrific has always been considered a reasonable search within the meaning of the fourth amendment attacks. think this case e wrp asked in short order to restructure how the government illustrates why that principle our nationalrotect applies. security. very big confusion the intensity of the debate of the fourth amendment. exceeded anything i've in my career. fourth amendment doesn't then speaker hastert was under permit reasonable searches without a warrant. warrant forneed a considerable pressure to bring a bill to the floor, quickly. that. debate theay's

we've created exceptions could leadership threatened to by-pass that, but not because a search the committee's jurisdiction. askedded for patience and is reasonable. virtually every search could be them to have faith in the warrant, ifithout a judiciary committee. you caught somebody selling he agreed and gave me a mob to reasonable to go broker a deal. the committee into their house. banded together and passed the patriot act with exigentnt the unanimous bipartisan support. circumstance of the drugs it was fromadd that disappearing, you can't. representatives like maxine about reasonable waters to the left and bob barr on the right. searches. about -- of them voted aye on the >> it doesn't actually say you judiciary committee's product. need a warrant. the committee's the rightotect actions made the country safer while protecting civil liberties searches.reasonable that distinguish us from our enemies. we're here today, however, this court has created language because the government has miss applied the law that we passed. in that prefers warrants in certain circumstances. the administration's recognized inrt of section 215 is wrong. under current law the government mcneely last term and in maryland versus king, the search tangible things if to arrest doctrine is a they are real van to an cat gore cal exception. and this case illustrates why. terrorism information that was found investigation. in a feat of legal and verbal on the phone was very time

sensitive and important to law gymnastics, the administration convinced the fisa court that enforcement. it helped fulfill the typical because some records in the of every phone call purposes, the cat gore cal the search incident americans make or receive are counterterrorism, to arrest, it helped verify the entire universe of those helped solve the crime calls must be relevant. for which the individual was the floodion opened gate to a practice of bulk in ated, and it was done collection that was never before reasonable and nonintrusive alone legal in our manner. there was nothing about this exposed reams of country's history. after the revelationings of private data to view to. the abuse surfaced last summer, i extent that the data was not in knew that congress had to act to a call log really subject to a civil liberties of reasonable expectation privacy innocent americans. all, it was discovered in a as a result in october of last search, but i think that introduced the u.s.a. underscores why the search was freedom act with senate reasonable. so this case i think exemplifies lahey of chairman a categorical rule would not vermont. since the bill's introductions i ofe worked with members congress in both chambers from be appropriate. across the political spectrum. and we submit that this court privacyd input from should reverse the court of groups, legal experts, tech appeals. >> thank you, mr. dreeben, the case is submitted. companies, and the american verye. the result is a next "washington strong compromise that the journal," congressman john delaney of maryland on the committee will vote on today.

highway trust fund. to create a new today's bill end bulk collection funding source. charles denttative across all the n.s.a. authority of pennsylvania talks about his legislation to provide emergency and under national security letters. insurance, and let me repeat. there is no bulk collection that promote job creation. "washington journal" is live by the n.s.a. or under 7:00 eastern on national security letters should c-span. you can join the conversation on enacted into law. facebook and twitter. it creates a new process for the detailion of call records pursuant to the administration's proposal. today a house subcommittee looks for counterterrorism purposes at the federal role in tracking only, the government can use a specific selection term to get the 23,000 plus man made objects orbiting around the earth, live detailed records when it has a at 10:00 a.m.s 2.tern on c-span are tick ultimate suspicion that the collection term is associated with a areign power or agent of beingyou were accused of foreign power. ambitious in chinese, if you were accused of being wild the bill also pro hib it's the intentionallym that was a death targeting americans under codifies02 of fisa and sentence, professionally it could damage your family. put it meant was that you the group before anything procedures to minimize oles -- i'm sorry, you put yourself dissemination of nonpublic

about u.s.a. group.the for chinese history that was persons, which are citizens and resident aliens. innocent, either under to increase transparency and to the confucian period or the fisa, the presiding socialist period. got there, things were beginning to change in some deep what i began to hear judges of the fisa court will around me was people talking designate five individuals who to serve as about themselves. a self promotional way. but just in a self protective amicascurea to the court. would say it they this is intended to serve the same purpose as a specialed matters what i want in in world and the world i want to define advocate. myself. so even the term in chinese for be expert in any area of law that may lend legal or myself, i, was transforming, technical expertise to the people were getting comfortable court. using it. further the attorney general in the united states we talk about the me generation, as being this period in which we declassification started to focus on ourselves review of every decision, other too much. or opinion of the fisa court in china it was a revolution in a significant our conception of what it meant a person. construction or interpretation in the past people would always of law. aligns the sunset of the the about us, the group, three sunsetting provisionings family, the clan, the village, under the patriot act where the fisa amendment

the factory, and all of a sudden act on december 31, 2017. when the after 1979 country embarked on this economic transformation, people the committeeow the opportunity to conduct had no choice but to think about verifyoversight and to themselves and that became the that drove dynamic the law is being properly interpreted the applied. line is that the my eight-year investigation of amended freedom act makes it china. doesal clear that congress >> evan osnos on the rising conflict between the individual not endorse bulk collection, and and the chinese government sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's americans civil liberties are protected. q and a. on a technical note today's >> the house is debating legislation that would change amendment includes a few changes from the bill noticed on monday. regardinge rules the chairman has agreed to these charter schools in the united the concurrence of states. the ranking member. is education week they include first adding a reporter. what type of rules would this of specific selection house bill change? terms to strengthen the make it this bill would easier for folks to have a track prohibition on bulk collection. striking the long title of the high qualityrting bill. charter schools, groups like theng technical changes to emergency authority provisionings of section 215. aspire. while also making sure that the lone wolf charter schools serve students provisionings in the revised in special education and english clarifyingfinally language learners.

those are two populations that that the administration's charters have sometimes been collection of call detail accused of ignoring. to two hopsimited fairlying the sense of a from the original target. bipartisan bill, there are some i urge my colleagues to support dozen amendments split even by this amendment. it is a good compromise. between democrats and republicans. what are the ones we should i would plead to some of my watch for? colleagues not to make the >> some of the amendments we should watch closely are perfect the enemy of the good, i i'mdments that have been, bill can go all the way to the president's desk and sorry, that have the strong be signed into law and i support of the national support of it.he education association, which is neutral on this bill but wishes it went a little ofther in terms >> chair thanks the gentleman. who seeks recognition? accountability for charters. one of the amendments, which is from new york. introduced by rep castor would gentleman is recognized. mr. chairman. require the secretary of mr. chairman, i happily join my education to basically develop enforce conflict of interest mr. sensenbrenner, guidelines for charter schools. another would set aside mr. conyers, mr. scott and mr. foashes in offering this provides thech money for state oversight of the oversights, first real chance in more than a decade to place real legislative that is introduced by sweeping unwarranted representative moore. klein, your tweet says and i believe unlawful government surveillance. 9/11 terrorists

attacks the united states some. backed amendments government has aggressively expanded surveillance in and including one on charter caps meetings weren't the united states at a high cost to individual liberty and privacy. accepted. again a dozen amendments to be subjected toe been debated on this. warrantless wiretapping, of support like in the white house for this kind national security letters have been issued without proper of len legislation? education arnie authorization, and claiming an emergency when none existed. duncan who testified before the security agency house education committee, has collected warehouse and who wrote this bill, see search the daily phone records that he's really excited to work who haveday americans on this since absolutely no ties to terrorism. today we have a chance to roll this is a bipartisan issue. back some of the changes mate >> i want to get your take on through the u.s.a. patriot act the article you wrote in and the fisa amendments act that week. the headline says, house set to consider toe allowed to give rise many of these abuses. charter legislation, key we should seize this chance. senators write their own bills. critically, to so is the senate version did it managed amendment ends dragnet house will do are low it's virtually identical. section 215 under there are a couple of changes, of the patriot act and ensures instance the senate bill that the government cannot use gives a little more flexibility national security letter using aers in particular grant to cover the cost of facilities, and it would bulk collection also steer some more money to charter management organizations, those are the either.

groups that grow charters. ends bulk collection, operate more than one or drag me surveillance. allowsection 215 which charter. it would steer more money to collection of tangible things organizations than the relevant to a national security house bill would. hasstigation, the n.s.a. but those are pretty minor been warehousing telephone melta tweaks. >> alyson klein, covering data, this reveals all numbers education issues for education week, covering the debate on dialed, all incoming phone legislation, and numbers and call duration. you can read more at ed while not providing the actual this information politics also on the still reveals highly personal and sensitive information that ,12 blog there and on twitter paint a detailed picture of one's personal, professional and politics k12. political associations and alyson klein, we appreciate you activities. congress never intended to us.ing authorize this type of unchecked >> thanks for having me. sweeping surveillance of our citizens. instead by authorizing collection of relevant records, reasonable a relationship between the collection of records and persons actually being suspected offor or terrorism. this real haven't standard was effectively written out of the statute when the fisa said to the government's argument that the entire universe of call records are relevant because it >> i could not vote to violate an individual's fifth amendment allows the latest search for

rights just because i want to to say.t she has calls associated with actual a much greater principle is at terror suspects. stake here today. amendment expressly bans the fifthty of amendment rights for all bulk collection and requires the citizens of the united states of specifict to include a america. selection term that identifies a >> i have never alleged that it specific person, entity or goes to the president. basist to be used as the the tea partyat for requesting a court order. would clearly and fairly be # this restores meaning to the enemies or adverse relevant by requiring the government to establish that the to the president's policies and record sought are tied to an i think that's pretty andortable to understand, authorized foreign intelligence they were targeted by somebody investigation and pertain to a whose politics is with the president and who quite frankly specific person or instrument. the same time, the amendment to overturn the, i'm sorry, the supreme court files the -- decision and citizens united in president'she position using her power, and allows thed, it urgethat i yield back and government to obtain a court obtainuthorizing it to support. >> this weekend on c-span, house former i.r.s.ing the phone records it needs. the companies, not the official lois lerner in contempt government, keep the underlying of congress for refusing to records, which can only be targetingstions about searched using specific terms.on conservative groups, saturday at 10:00 eastern. this new program is limited to tv, john yoo, sunday at does notil records, it

extend to any other tangible things. these changes are very theificant, as are ajustments to section 702 which to obtain dataa. 7:30 onth span 2. chat, ande-mail on american history tv a look at the newly unveiled reforration washington's mount vernon dining room. section 702 results in the collection of domestic communicationings and information to, from or about >> the house judiciary committee united states persons. approved legislation wednesday other things the managed the bulkd end collection of phone data by the amendment prohibits the and dissemination of n.s.a. the len legislation passed wholly domestic communications through the committee with a and prohibits the g.o.p. from bipartisan vote of 32-0. information acquired in this hearing is two hours 10 violation of court approved minutes targeting. give usdment does not everything we want or need, but it's a very significant step in the right direction. i apleud chairman goodlatte and representative sensenbrenner for leadership. this committee has long take ten lead and held responsibility for

that our national security needs do not trump our core constitutional freedoms. over the past decade under the leadership of four chairmen with views the members of this committee have debated the safetypal between our and civil liberties. will send a clear signal that we are serious about privacyng our people's as well as their security. mr. sensenbrenner in urging that 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 civil liberties and to restore the civil liberties the improper interpretation by the fisa court by by the administration, both administrationings, bush and obama, of the u.s.a. patriot fisa amendments act, have inflicted upon us. chance, we ought to

seize it and i urge everyone to amendment, and for the bill. and i thank you and i yield back time.lance of my >> chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes himself in the gentleman substitute. i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for offering this on behalf amendment of myself. our amendment achieves collective goal of ending bulk collection and storage of data by thelta government. the amendment also eliminates bulk collection of all tangible section 215. it preserves the individual use of section 215 under the existing relevancy standard for all business records while narrowly a new taylored mechanism similar to that outlined by president obama year that allows the government to request telephone records held by the fisa courtsing approved queries. under this amendment the fisa

court, rather than the government, will be required to reasonableing that suspicion exists before an individual's telephone records accessed on a prospective basis. except in the case of a national security emergency. the amendment also prohibits bulk collection of records under fisa pen register trap and trace statute and the national ledger statutes. the substitute amendment enhances civil liberty and privacy protections for americans by codifying authority with the fisa court for applicationings involving a novel or significant fisa.retation of the amendment adds additional fisac reporting on annual orders and expands existing codifies congress and existing procedures under the act to reiterate congress intent in protecting the communicationings of

americans. this is an appropriate approach that i support, an approach that will allow the government to country and at the same time reflect our country's fundamental respect for civil liberties. i encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. recognizes theow gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. chairman,ou, goodlatte and members of the committee. the managers amendment, sensenbrenner managers amendment, remains by far the most important step taken to roll back the government surveillance of united states citizens since the passage of the foreign intelligence 1978.llance act of this committee now stands poised domestic bulk collection across the board. section 215ies to

penhe patriot act, the fisa register authority, and the of national security letter statute. strengthen we protections on u.s. person collected under section 702. reporting and transparency requirements with ofpect to the use of each these authorities. and we create a panel of civil liberties and privacy advocates from which the foreign intelligence surveillance court may draw expertise and in future decisions. workthin this framework we to accommodate the administration's request for a limited telephone metadata program.

program may be used only for counterterrorism purposes. it will require a case by case judicial determination of articulatable tick suspicion above the government acquires a single call detail record. in this january 17 remarks at justice,tment of president obama observed that point oute right to that without proper safeguards, bes type of program could used to yield more information open our private lives and the door to more intrusive bulk collection perhaps in the future. we agree. we built those safeguards into proposal. and with the additional reporting declassification and transparency requirements, also bill, wein this

believe the government would be hardill advised and pressed to attempt to expand this new authority beyond our narrow attempt. i believe that we have arrived at a compromise that represents thelegitimate consensus of congress and the support of the american people. there is certainly more work to do. in future hearings, we should take more time to examine the mechanics of collection under section 702. not convinced that we are doing all that we can to safeguard our privacy under that authority. the reachalso address of surveillance under executive 12333, and in particular how that type of surveillance

affects united states persons both at home and abroad. but today i hope and believe that we will be able to come together to pass the meaningful bill.s outlined in this former the chairman, the chairman, mr. sensenbrenner, and mr. nadler of new york and mr. scott of virginia for their determination to see this bill through. urge myproud to colleagues to support the yieldrs amendment and i back, mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the yeah from iowa? the have an amendment to amendment. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in much a substitute -- >> i ask unanimous con send that read.considered as

>> it is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. you.ank first i want to commend the people that have worked so hard bill.s underlying the focus has been to protect the civil liberties of americans ending the bulk collection of metadata. the gentleman from wisconsin's remarks, this bill ends bulk collection across the n.s.a. i agree with that statement. i listened to the gentleman from just nows statement and he said we're poised to end domestic bulk collection across board. i'd ask the gentleman from michigan would consider an amendment to that, bulk collection across the board by because i would submit that bulk collection will continue by will the private telephone companies, and in fact for national security this managers amendment, or the amendment to the amendment, actually relies the private sector to store

the data that might be queried fisa warrant. as i have gone to hearing after topic, bothhis classified and unclassified, i've sat and read the material that was classified and available to me that are the actions, the snowden and as i look at this bill i compliment the people that worked on it the whole weekend. i'd like to weigh in on the toal product before we got this point, but i ask this question. does it protect the civil american to the extent that is our intent? and i agree that it does protect the civil liberties of americans. what it doesn't do, and i'll ask next question, does it make us safer? and the answer to that is no one mention how it might make us safer. i will conclude that in fact safe,t makes us less because that window to query isa under a fisa warrant now

not five years, as requested by the intelligence community, but months, as directed by an f.c.c. regulation. and if we're going to rely upon f.c.c. to regulate our telecommunications companies to storing 18hey're months of data, i would suggest that's a precarious place for us national security. so i offer this amendment, mr. chairman, and to the committee, this is an amendment that is something i've brought up multiple times throughout these hearings, that we've had and it does this. it allows for the intelligence theunity to negotiate with telecommunicationings companies 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. provide for any bulk data to go into the possession of government. preserves the principles of the underlying bill and the aendment in the name much

substitute. and it provides for the safety and security of america. we should are two things in mind here today. one of them is protect the civil americans.f 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 if this amendment goes on and becomes part of law, we are would befe as we otherwise. and with my amendment, we are much safer than we would be otherwise, but neither are we sacrificing any of the civil liberties protection that are part of this under lifing bill intent purpose and coming before this committee. so if as i may hear asserted in it is suggested that the authority to negotiate with telecoms already exist, my wouldon would be why anyone want to oppose my amendment. this is a careful my worded well thought out amendment, it

protects our civil liberties and it protection the data collection that might be our intelligence communities that would be stored in private sector hands, not requireand would still a fisa warrant in order to query .hat data if we fail to do this and the telecommunicationings companies decide to dump data, they could it in a shorter period of time than 18 months. the if catchs probe not going to that, but we'd allow the intelligence community to negotiate with them so the sector companies would hold that data for a longer provide theto national security necessary. also suggest -- i urge the amendment's adoption and yesterday back the balance of my time. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes himself in opposition to the amendment. say i appreciate the gentleman's interest and work on this issue. however, offered by the gentleman from iowa makes changes to the substitute amendment that would allow the to enter into a

contract with a company to retain data for the purposes of this act. nothing in current law that would ban any company from entering into a contract with the government to retain data longer purposes. nor is there anything in the substitute amendment that would occurring as well. but the notion that private companies should retain records for a longer period of time than do currently in their normal course of business was bycifically not contemplated president obama when he announced in january his desire to end bulk collection by the government. president obama specifically shoulde bulk records stay in the hands of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. all the members involved with substitutes have considered and rejected such a concept. record retention by the

communications companies does not necessarily assuage civil privacy concerns and could expose these records to hackers.ches by cyber for these reasons i cannot support this amendment, although thatl again reiterate there is nothing in current law or in this legislation that privateohibit any company from entering into such negotiations or the government into suching negotiations if they both found do so.ally desirable to so with respect to the gentleman, i appreciate his concern about the issue, it's a legitimate issue that has been carefully considered, but i come down on the opposite side of not i could support his amendment. i must oppose it. >> mr. chairman. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. you.ank members of the committee, the

problem that the king amendment presents from my point of view is that at no point has this administration asked for a data retention mandate. in fact, the president has said explicitly that these records should remain at telephone of times for the length they currently do today. secondly we design section 215 to cover business records kept voluntarily and in the normal course of business. mandating the companies go to the expense and effort to retain this information for extended periods of time would mean that the companies are no longer doing so in the ordinary

ourse of business. the gentleman is well-intentioned and said some good things about the measure before us. for that reason i hope this amendment is not successful. >> what purpose does the gentleman seek rec snigs >> to strike the last word. >> recognized for five minutes. >> i certainly appreciate the chairman's comments and those f my friend mr. conyers. one of the reasons some of us heard the government made some grabs that they had is the phone companies don't keep this stuff very long necessarily and we've got to make sure we have it when we need it.

so i am one of the cosponsors of the underlying bill. i have real concerns about some of the changes made in the manager's amendment. but applaud my friend mr. sensenbrenner for the fantastic work that was done on the bill that i cosponsored. the debate with c.i.a. attorneys and other attorneys for some of our intelligence entities who seem to think that, gee, if a private company has information, then why shouldn't the government? and it is easily explained. private companies don't have the authority to go down and put you in jail if they're

upset with you. that's why it is important that the government not be the reposstri for every single phone call logged from every single phone in america. that should be in the private entity's hands. and i applaud my friend from iowa making an effort to say let's make it possible for negotiation to occur so that these companies that would actually incur a burden by keeping the data longer, go ahead and let them negotiate so they keep it longer so it's in private hands and not in the hands of the government under some excuse they've got to get it before it goes away. that way if probable cause or some other cause that is utilized in the bill is established then you can still have the data available. it's not just wiped out because it was beyond 1 months.

so i appreciate the amendment, urge support for it and would yield any remaining time to my friend from iowa. >> i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. in response to some of the remarks that i've heard first the response by mr. conyers that applied that my amendment is a mandate. it's not a mandate. it allows for the nrnl community to negotiate with the private sector. if those two entities reach an agreement they have a exact tull agreement. but it is not a mandate. i notice that we're relying on -- our national security we're relying on an f.c.c. regulation. which is our only window to get a fisa warrant to query that data. and that's kind of teanyuss place to be. we don't have a mandate in the bill that the private companies

hold for even 18 moth months. so we're suggest to a regulation that can change and it's only an 18-month deal. i suggest instead that this is an open contractual agreement not a mandate. i didn't hear a reason to oppose my amendment the one that seemed to be the underlying reason was it wasn't part of the agreement going in today. and i didn't have that opportunity and didn't know the 12:30 s comeing up until on monday. but does this bill protect the civil liberties? i agree it does. does it protect our national security? less so. i don't think anyone can analyze this bill and conclude otherwise that we are less secure if this becomes law because we lose 3-1/2 years of access to data that in many cases qurnl exists. and so i would again urge adoption of my amendment. it is one that i believe is well thought out, careful, not

a mandate, protects our national security, our civil liberties. that's in keeping with the theme here even though i seem to be the only one bringing up the national security side of here and my state was not attacked by terrorists i'm thankful for that. i don't want to see that happen again. and i think we have to be considering the national security side of this. there is no downside, it's all upsate and the upside is in national security without diminishing the civil liberties protection. so with that i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. >> to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i i disagree with the gentleman from iowa. there is no upside to this amendment. there may be a downside. as was pointed out, this amendment does not give the

intelligence agencies any authority they don't already have. and not as a result of this bill. but they can negotiate under current law with the phone company. and if they want to they can make a deal and pay them as this amendment would authorize to retain records for a term of years. they can already do that. this amendment adds nothing and therefore adds nothing to our security. what it does however is it goes against what we ought to be doing. it's not an important amendment because it doesn't really do anything but it goes in the wrong direction. and it goes in the wrong direction as follows. what it really said is that for the sake of security all the privacy of american people citizens ought to be held for the government's use for as long a term as the government may agree with the phone company. all telephone meta data -- now who i'll calling, who you're calling, how long i'm talking. am i calling my psychiatrist?

my mistress -- if i had one. you know, all that information steve had fun with that when i was on his program once. all the information. am i calling right wingers, left wingers? all that information is is telephone meta data. you can learn a lot from meta data about a person and invade his privacy tremendously. now, it's inevitable the phone company has to keep that record for a certain period of time for billing purposes but it is not inevitable that the government ought to have that or have use of it or keep it for longer than they decide they need to for the inevitable purpose of the use of the instrument. and this says they really ought to. t isn't mandated but it says they ought to keep it. all this data ought to be a the

disposele of the government. i don't agree. again it's not mandatory so it's not the worst amendment in the world but it goes in the wrong direction and it goes against the spirit of what we're trying to say, which is that the government doesn't own all your personal data. the government doesn't have a right to any of your personal data frankly unless it shows some relevance which is what we're establishing here in this bill some relevance to a terrorist investigation to the sheatsion of a court order. this is what we're trying to do. this goes against the spirit. doesn't help national security but it does harm privacy and therefore it goes against the spirit of the bill, goes against the manager's amendment. it goes against what we're trying to do. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i yield back. >> for what purposes does the gentlewoman from california seek rec snigs >> to strike the last word?

>> i want to say express my appreciation to all the members who worked on this. but most particularly to the former chairman mr. sensenbrenner who i think has taken this whole issue so seriously. i know the hours that he has worked to try and improve this situation. i think although i'm going to have some amendments that i think might improve the anager's amendment, to proceed without giving congressman sensenbrenner the tremendous thanks that he deserves would not be proper. i do very much appreciate -- along with others but especially mr. sensenbrenner's efforts on this as to the king amendment i similarly oppose the amendment. mr. naddler has pointed out that this is unnecessary but i would like to raise another issue.

after the leaks of the records and the information about surveillance surfaced in the press, there were a lot of things that happened. americans became very irate about their prive city. people in other countries became irate about their privacy. and we're concerned about that as defenders of the constitution, we're concerned about that as people who love liberty. but there's another issue which is its impact on american business. now, right now companies around the world are using surveillance to try and get a competitive edge against american companies by suggesting to utilize american technology is to open yourself up to privacy violations. i think the mere existence of this amendment actually further aggates that problem by making

it even more possible for competitors to say, look, if you buy an american phone, if you have service from an erican company, your privacy is at hisk. so i think that's an additional reason not to support this amendment. i understand the gentleman from iowa is trying to make this a better situation. but i think actually it goes in the other direction and with that i would yield back and thank you for recognizing me. wisconsin leman from seek regsnigs? >> i oppose the amendment. i believe the gentleman from iowa is very well intentioned in this and i emphasize the fact that again there's nothing in this bill that prohibits the intelligence community from making a deal and signing contract with any of the phone

companies. but my fear is with the adoption of the king amendment the phone companies are going kind of being under the gun if they don't want to do this. they probably have to disclose some proprietary information on how much they would charge the government for holding on to the records for a longer period of time. the groups that were involved in these discussions did not want the have language like this. the president has said that he doesn't want to have language like this. and it seems to me that the argument that is the gentleman from iowa is making is why don't we give them specific authority to do this i think really tilts the scale and phone companies would end up being coerced by the approach of the government but would have a hard time saying no.

so i hope this amendment would be rejected. >> the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. it.nos have >> i would ask for a recorded vote. >> the clerk will call the roll. snfment clerk calling roll

roll call.

>> the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. scott vote no. >> has every member voted who wishes to vote? the clerk will report. one more. the gentleman from tennessee. >> mr. cohen votes no. > the clerk will report. mr. chairman four members voted aye, 24 members voted no. >> the amendment is not agreed to. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by members. >> wousm the amendment is

considered as read and the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i thank you and ranking member conyers for your willingness to work to make progress on this shufment ending the bul collection of america's phone records cannot be used in a similar way are critical priorities and i am pleased that these have been addressed in the manager's amendment but i am not satisfied with a bill that the doesn't fully tackle transparency and enable greater reporting by companies about information about government requests they receive. greater transparencey will help inform congress and the public and help hold our government accountable. in january attorney general holder and james clapper announced that the administration was taking action to allow administer more detailed disclosures about the number of requests issued to communications providers and the number of customer accounts targeted under those leaders

and requests. in their statement announcing this agreement they say that the administration determined that the public interest in this information now outweighs the national security concerns that require this classification. my position is that even greater disclosure is warranted in order to restore the credibility and trust of the american public in our depovet. i cosponsored the surveillance order reporting act included in the ormle u.s.a. freedom act. i will continue to say that i think the language providing for disclosure in that bill takes a much stronger steps and makes a great deal of sense. i don't believe there's a good arlingtonment against that bill but i want to find middle class and seek compromise on this shufment this which i think i thank you for joining me on and is a step in the positive direction. the intent of the amendment is to offer additional disclosure

flexibility to companies beyond what was included in the january agreement that major technology companies entered into. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> i thranchinge the gentlelady for yielding and thank her also for being an original cosponsor of the -- my surveillance reporting bill. i had actually planned to offer 0 amendment that had bans of to 100 but in view of the agreement on this amendment i am not going to offer that today. however, i would hope mr. chairman that we will have an opportunity to discuss between now and the floor the possibility of having smaller bans. i have been unpersuaded by the defense agencies and intelligence agencies why that is problematic.

it would be enormously helpful to technology companies who live in my district and in the witness' drigget to be able to tell the truth about what is happening. and i would further add this. it also serves a purpose for this committee. the technology companies are to some extent the can airy in the mine for us. and if we are able to learn because of the transparency provisions the scope of what is occurring would be of great interest to the committee itself. i commend the gentleman gentlelady from washington for the granularity. i think that is really important and i do appreciate that. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> well, i don't have the time. >> i yield. >> and i just appreciate your yielding. i appreciate the amendment and fully support it and appreciate your work in doing this. thank you. >> would the gentleman yield?

>> i will yield. >> i think this amendment would allow companies to report with greater detail on their cooperation with government requests for business records and other information. so i am happy to support it. thank you. >> i dwreeled back. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes in support of the amendment. i am pleased to join the gentlewoman from washington in offering this amendment. the amendment autsd rises companies to buy annually public report request for information they receive under fisa national security letter authorities. american technology companies are experiencing a lack of customer trust and loss of international business as a result of the snowden leaks based upon the fear that information about their customers is readily and routinely turned over to the american government.

since the leaks companies have sought permission to publicly report national security combt from the government to inform an hopefully assauge the concerns of their american and foreign customers. in january of this year several companies entered into a settlement with the justice department which perpts the companies to report some certain aggregate fisa and nsl requests. this amendment cod fizz that settlement with several modifications to allow for even greater transparency to the american people about their privacy and the extent of the intelligence communities work while protecting national security. i support this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do the same. >> will the chairman yield? >> i yield to the gentlewoman from washington. >> thank you. i thank you for all your work and commitment on this issue overall. and i i would appreciate your continuing to work with me to make more ex provements on this bill. i hope we can all agree that we're willing to make technical

changes to make sure that companies currently reporting aren't in any way impacted in the wrong direction if we discover there are change that is need to be made. also, i would like to have us work together to consider going further particularly if the d.o.j. at a future time determines that it's in the public interest to provide further details and move those in a downward direction that our legislation doesn't prevent them from doing that. >> well, reclaiming my time. i certainly agree with what the gentlewoman from washington and the gentlewoman from california have stated. codifying this with your amendment will force the d.o.j. to come and talk to us which is not been the case in many other issues that have come before this committee. i yield to the gentlewoman from texas. >> let me indicate my support for this amendment. i want to point out the obvious

that there are two markups this week that i think as i look at this legislation it answers two questions that are very important to the american people. transparency and privacy. and i am particularly grateful for the section in the bill that requires a report of what was required meaning what did you have to comply with? that's the meat of the initiative from my perspective. or the amendment is tell us what you actually had to do and then the provisions that deals with a number of categories which will be part of the response. i think this is clearly an additional that helps both the industry know just what is required of them but more importantly is a very viable amendment that gives

information to the public. i think it is a good balance and i thank the gentleman and her cosponsor for this amendment. i think it adds to the language as well. with that, i yield back. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i wanted to also agree and support the amendment. i think it does give us a great start. i appreciate her hard work. i was also a sponsor of ms. lofgren's amendment. it is my hope that the chairman and others will continue to look at this as we come to the floor. we now have a strong supporter of that. this is something that needs to be taken care of. i wish to rise in support of that. and also what was left out of the final product was -- and i would like to see it put back. this is where we can come together and find these agreements and i appreciate it.

i yield back. trr question is on agreeing to the amendment tolt the eament in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from washington. the ayes appear to have it the ayes have it and the amendment tolt amendment in the nature of sbatute is agreed to. are there further amendments? for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? plfment scott has an amendment i would defer to him since he is the ranking member. oh, you're striking the last word? >> for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek reg nigs? >> to strike the last word. >> i join my colleagues from virginia mr. glat and mr. foishes, yourself, mr. conyers and mr. naddler in proposing

the substitute and i commend our colleagues to work together to develop a bipartisan approach. as recent revelations about the way some of these statutes have come to light members of this committee has primary jurisdiction studied these issues, proposed solutions, and work the way forward. the substitute amendment addresses abruces, provides more rigorous review of questions of legal interpretation and increases transparency so our citizens will be decided and done in their name. when we enacted the section which requires the government to show that business records sought are relevant to investigations to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a united states person or to protect against international terrorism or clan destine intelligence activities no one

believes that we're permitting the government to collect information on every single made past present and eevep into the future. the president has taken steps to mitigate through executive action, this eaks will ensure the underlying amendment in the nature of a substitute will urge you to not be i want pretting to allow such collection to take place again for these or other ties of records. without codifyication any future president could return to the policies that we are expressly forbidding today. the amendment would also change other surveillance statutes to ensure that they are not being almitt to being manipulated under section 215. i note we permit acquisition of these records under relaxed standards because the information sought relates to terrorism or foreign intelligence. of course we would not allow these standards to apply to the

collection of information for domestic law enforcement purposes just like the information gathered should not be used for domestic law enforcement investigation. while much of the initial attention after the snowden disclosure focused on mass collection of telephone meta data the sponsors have already worked to propose significant 702. s to ssm 72 -- however, as confirmed by recent disclosures about government surveillance it has become apparent that at times the government has engaged in inappropriate collection of u.s. communications. accordingly the substitute amendment claferse that the government may not intentionally intercept the communications of a person if it's to target a person

reasonably believed to be in the united states. also with respect to section 702 because of concerns about the government's inadverntnt collection of communications the amendment cod fizz the prohibition of retention and disemination of any purely domestic communications which are inadvertently acquired under section 702. in addition to these surveillance authorities the amendment will provide greater assurances about the review of significant legal questions relating to these authorities. the substitute provides for the appointment of individuals to serve as amicus curi so that the only parties participating who is listening to the government's side of a case. as a result the public should have greater confidence. i also note that foreign intelligence information gathered using extremery

matters. it only becomes useful when those chaired who can act on it. the recent complaints about the oobt about hon case wide disemination. sitting on a computer, but information about u.s. persons may sometimes be shared with officials who are friends and neighbors about those who the information was collected. therefore, we must insist on afting these authorities narrowly. in conclusion, i support this amendment because it represents a significant step forward and public confidence and our practices. the administration has offered to change some of its procedures and the fisa court is taking steps to address concerns that have arisen. but est course is to trust

codify. therefore, urge the adoption of this amendment and the passage of the bill. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california again seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. > the clerk will report. >> i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. >> without objection. and the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> under current law, section 215 allows that the collection of phone meta data if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information being sought is relevant to an authorized investigation. and as we have learned much to our regret, that phrasing has been used to engage in bulk

collection of business records. the original u.s.a. freedom act which you autsdzedrd which i cosponsored used the standard of relevant and material to an authorized investigation. that language was a huge improvement and may have well ended bulk collection but we have seen that the creative intpretation of language has led the nation to places that we were in some cases surprised to find ourselves. the manager's amendment more directly attempts to limit bulk collection although the request is still subject to increasing the standard to one of reasonable articulable facts. however, i believe that this standard is insufficient. when we had a hearing here in

the judiciary committee the department of justice confirmed on the record under oath that business rosheds would include virtually anything held by a third party. with bruary 4th hearing attorney general james coal confirmed that such business records would include a photo taken by an an tm machine, the collection data where all cookies, all internet searches, all pictures captured by crrn ctv cameras all would be in the same legal posture as phone meta data. as we have learned further in some cases from testimony by computer science professors in the senate judiciary committee, meta data cactly can -- actually can provide more

information about an individual than content itself. said, meta data absolutely tells you everything about somebody's life. if you have enough meta data you don't really need content. >> now, the fourth amendment requires probable cause to get information about americans and it seems to me that we should ask for a standard of probable cause when seeking information that will tell us everything about an american. when if fourth amendment was written, the founders thought in a desk er drawer. now, the meta data that could be collected could tell us much more than what a litter in your desk would do. mine would first require that

could ernment before p to protect against terrorism we would need to get a wasn't. of course there is an exception for emergencies as is provided for in the law. but i do think that we ought to stand up for the protections of the fourth amendment in the age of big data. i offer thurm effort to do so. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes in opposition. this amendment offered by the jolt from california would require probable cause. aurned longstanding constitutional precedent requests for noncontent third

party business records such as those eligible to be obtained under section 215 do not require a showing of probable cause because they do not constitute the search under the fourth amendment. sections 215 orders are similar to grand jury and administrative subpoenas and that they can only be used to request business records and cannot be used to acquire the content of communications. section 215 going beyond criminal and investigation subpoenas by requiring that the government obtain an order from the fisa court meaning there is an additional burden a fisa order under section 215 than the criminal orders. the amendment would raise a routine request for information to the level of the search warrant. we must remain cognizant that our countries still face significant national security security threat then the

government should be able to investigate and response effectively. while add fortunately there are problems with the patriot act which brings us here today, reasonable suspicion was not one of those problems. i would fear that this may blow up the fast track passage that this bill appears to be having. for all these reasons i oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from new york for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> to speak on the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i too rise in opposition to this amendment. and doy so for two difference f different reasons. if you look at the history of the patriot act, that this

committee reported as the gentleman from wisconsin recalled, was reported unanimously. that bill, however, was then changed before it got to the floor and many of us opposed the change to the bill. one of the reasons we opposed the change to the bill aside from the fact that we haven't had a chance to go through it in any detail at that point but one of the substantive reasons was we thought the standard for -- that the standard was too loose. that the relevant standard should be higher. and we thought so at the time, i still think it would be nice. but the fact is we never thought probable cause. because the gentleman is addition of he probable cause is section 215 would go far beyond any reforms contemplated in the original text of the u.s.a. freedom act and far beyond what those of white house oppose the patriot

act at the time wanted then. although we're unanimous in our criticism, the consensus has always been that section 215 must be preserved for traditional section 215 orders or the f.b.i. demonstrates true relevance on a case by case basis. this amendment would have immediate consequences and we do have to have a balance to sitch liberties and national security. i think iver never in the last dozen years argued on the side of national security on that balance. but i think here we have to. section 215 is designed to cover business records. business records he would by a third party have never been granted traditional fourth and not required probable cause. so the government has reached beyond and we are going to

correct that today. but this amendment would go even beyond what those of us who oppose it had patriot act at the time thought we ought to do then. that's the first reason. the second reason is that as just mentioned by the chairman. after a dozen years we finally have a chance to rein back the government's abuse and to end bulk collection, to end surveillance. we finally have a bill which can actually pass and this amendment would probably upset that ability to pass a bill. so i will quote what benjamin franklin said to the constitutional convention. i can sense sir to this constitution because i expect no better and because i am not sure that it is not the best. i do not expect that we can get a better bill than we can only start to get a house. but i'm not sure it is the best we can get. i don't want to jeopardize the ability to get what we have in

this bill with the tremmed's amendment, a tremendous achievement. and this amendment would jeopardize that. i don't think we can afford that risk. >> would the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i understand especially the comment made that we do want to get the improvements represented in this bill enacted into law and i don't disagree with that. however, as to the issue of business records, in 2001 when we worked together on the patriot act and when the committee unanimously reported the bill big data did not exist in the same way it does today. i believe -- and i suspect my amendment will not pass but i do believe this committee and this congress is going to have to come to grips with that

standard and what it means for personal privacy in the digital age. >> reclaiming my time. i agree with the gentlelady. i agree. i think you can make a good case that this bill does not go far enough in protecting that and we should work to improve that. but a probable cause standard i think goes too far and is too blame a blunt an instrument and now is not the time to do that by jeopardizing this bill. i do think we want to protect further protect the privacy of data held in the cloud and further protect the ability of american high tech companies to go abroad and say we're not jeopardizing the privacy. i don't think a probable cause standard in this bill at this time will accomplish that and i don't think -- if just jeopardizes the bill. but i think we ought to work toward that bill because i think it's probably the best we

can do now. >> what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. >> mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment but i think that the amendment points out a real problem even with the original u.s.a. patriot act. we have relaxed standards and i think the relaxed standards for getting information are appropriate when you're trying to protect a nation from terrorist attacks. but section 215 covers a lot more than terrorist attacks. foreign intelligence. that's not even spy. that's, that could be a trade deal. thing that is are not dangerous to anybody. and i think the relaxed standards may be inappropriate for those situations but unfortunately we're either you accept the amendment and cover everything or cover nothing.

i think the standards are a lot easier to protect the company but inappropriate when applied to a lot of other situations. so i'm going to oppose the amendment but i hope we would notice that this -- that the present law is overbroad and gives a relaxed standard. >> the gentleman? >> i would just i thank the gentleman for further yielding. i do believe that the entire doctrines in nt the fourth amendment are going to be -- need to be dealt with by this congress and ultimately if we drop the ball by the supreme court. because if the fourth amendment is going to provide protection it's going to have to deal with the issue of how big data can tell everything there is to know about that person. i think modern americans should

have the benefit of the fourth amendment. i realize the point being made. i'm not insensitive to that point that we have a bill here that might -- that does good and we don't want to blow it up. but i do think that this hopefully will be the opening discussion of what protections are going to be afforded to modern americans under the fourth amendment. >> reclaiming my time. one of the complications was created when we allowed the sharing of information. once you started passing it all over town so everybody else could see it you create an incentive to go use foreign intelligence relaxed standards to get the information in the first place. there was no incentive before the u.s.a. patriot act because you couldn't do anything with it. so it kind of with no insentive it's kind of took care of

itself. once you allow the sharing particularly since more is involved than just terrorism, you have this problem. and i hope we will notice that as we go forward. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the question occurs on the amendment by the gentlewoman from california. in the opinion of the chair the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose? >> i mive to strike the last word. i want to begin by thanking you and congressman conyers. i also want to recognize the hard work of mr. forbes and mr. scott all who were critical partners in arriving at this amended version. this bill includes critical reforms of the authorities and is certainly a positive step forward scommared with common

law. most importantly this ends bulk collection. it carefully establishes new data to ensure it's used to collect data for specific term. further more requires judicial review is required in nonemergency cases and guarantees that collection authority sacramentoly contingent on the government presenting a reasonable articulable suspicion. under this, the days of bulk collection and meta data for individuals who don't meet a standard of suspicion are over. instead, a more targeted thought will exist. these are important steps forward and i'm very proud to support the committee's work. at the same time i believe our work is not complete. i have real concerns about the use of national security letters and their authority to get at some of the same information as the data collected under section 215.

i'm encouraged that this bill authorizes to the same new starnt of section 215 ending the government's ability to use authority for bulk collection of data. still, i believe we must work to better reform this process. in particular we should adopt the review standards outsigned by the president's review group in december. i still strongly believe the national security letter should be issued only upon an additional finding that the information sought is relevant. i'm also very pleased that the gentleman from washington's amendment passed. this was badly needed transparency and i commend the gentleman from washington for including this eafment i'm confident that our committee will continue to work diligently to come to an

agreement and i think that today's efforts we are committed to working on a bipartisan basis to solve problems. i wish to once again congratulating the committee to coming to ap agreement. this bill is strong effort helps protect privacy and curtail the national security age sis' authority to collect data ip volved. i'm proud to support the effort and look forward to continuing our work together of keeping americans safe. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. for what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. > i thank the chair. as i think i indicated in my earlier conversation, we're in the midst of a markup that also includes another committee who

has a great interest in this area. i am, however, glad that the mark on this legislation h.r. 3361, the u.s. freedom act, intertwines now closely and carefully. those veppeders who here to forewas the holder of what we call mega data resulting in the opportunity for mr. snowden to take his voice around the world and in essence undermine the intelligence efforts of this nation but open the eyings of americans on the question of mega data privacy and trarns parnesy and security. i believe that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance. that recognizes that americans do have the trithe privacy. there was a justifiable concern on the part of the public and large number of members that

the extent of it occurs ceeded by orders of mag tude anything -- magnitude anything previously contemplated under the business provision section 215. for many of us who were here who helped draft the patriot act, that is and was not the intense. so there was a question of the invasion of privacy and a threat to civil liberty. to quell the growing controversy the director released limited information about this program. the information required under this program do not include the clents of any identity or communications of any subscriber. the only information required is -- acquired is telephone mega data. however, we saw that there was a great importance in introducing legislation.

again, i thank mr. conyers, glat, mr. sensenbrenner and other cosponsors in the judiciary committee in fact for recognizes the importance of qualifying the u.s. patriot act introduced.en the bill would require the attorney general to disclose each decision and order opinion of a fisa foreign intelligence surveillance court allowing americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming under data riot act and the needed to keep americans safe. i'm pleased these are ink kated into substantial part. in section 4002 rireds the attorney general to conduct a review. again, a significant move forward for privacy and transparency.

604 requires the attorney general to provide to this committee and other relevant committees within 45 days an opinion which includes a significant construction or interpretation. a brief statement of the relevant background also believes it containts specific prohibition pursuant to section 215. in my remaining time i think it is important that we discuss section 301 of the bill which continues a prohibition against reverse targeting which became law in h.r. 3773 the restore act of 2007. reverse target congress be harsh and in my concept understand constitutional. it is a practice where the government targets foreigners without a warrant while its

purposes is to collect information on u.s. persons. one of the main concerns as well as progressive civil liberty organizations and giving authority to the executive branch was the in the dable choice absence of strong safeguards. again, let me say that over the years we have worked on this issue with the number of amendments and legislative initiative out of this committee. i think this act captured the body of upsing by americans. we have the right to freedom, we have the right to privacy, transparency and yes we have the right to be protected from those who would want to do us harm. it is the right balance and i look forward to continuing as we move in this markup to assess the opportunity for further involvement before this legislation goes to the floor but i do think that this is

going to make an important statement in answer to the american >> what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. lofgren number 3. >> the clerk will report. >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 33 -- >> without objection the amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> 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 i have about the manager's amendment is that it ok meaningful reforms in mr.

sensenbrenner's bill that i cosponsored watered it down significantly. this amendment return the highly lauded requirement that a warrant would be needed to search the 702 data base for the communications of u.s. persons. under current law nsa can search without a wasn't. the bill that mr. sensenbrenner stripped the old u.s.a. freedom act, the manager's amendment stripped out the new requirements that were in the bill. and i will tell you why i think this is important. we were all concerned about bulk collection of americans. i think if we leave this loop hole in the manager's amendment

we're going to be right back where we are today with the same problem. and i will give an example. you have to have -- you have to believe that the object of your search is not a person. belle, what is -- well, what the the basis for that belief? could bit that you are a provider of email services 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 nonu.s. persons. if there is no requirement -- and i'll get into with my next amendment -- the definitional problem of what you can be looking for you actually could ent up with the same broad-based data base of u.s. persons using section 702 as we

are trying to stop under section 215. i do think that if you're searching for this data base that's been lawfuly collected for information about u.s. citizens you ought to meet a warrantless requirement. i think that's required under the >> i would recommend to my colleagues that we make this stick on the manager's amendment bill itself that mr. sensenbrenner himself wrote. chair thanks the gentleman. the amendments to section 70 two made by the substitute reflect the bipartisan agreement carefully negotiated by myself, the sponsor of the act, mr.

sensenbrenner, mr. scott and mr. forbes. this authority, designed to allow the government to target persons reasonably believed to be outside the united states, cannot be used to reverse target a u.s. person. in addition, the amendment reiterates