civil liberties that distinguish us from our enemies. however, we are here because the government has misapplied the law we passed. the administrations interpretation of 200 16 is wrong. under current law, the effort can inquire tangible things of they are relevant to an authorized terrorism investigation. in a feed of legal and verbal gymnastics, the administration convinced the fisa court that because some records in the universe of every phone call americans make or receive are relevant to counterterrorism, the entire universe of those calls must be relevant. that decision of the floodgates to the practice of bulk collection that was never before possible, let alone legal in our countries history. after the abuse last summer, i .new congress had to act i introduced the usa freedom act

with senate judiciary chairman patrick leahy of vermont. since the bills introductions, i've worked with members of congress in both chambers from across the political spectrum. we have had input from privacy groups, legal experts, tech governments,lied the american people. the result is a very strong compromise the committee will vote on today. on it quickly ends bulk collection across all the nsa authorities under national security. let me repeat -- there is no bulk collection that is legal by the nsa or under national security letters should this bill be an active. it creates a new process for the collection of records pursuant to the administration's proposal for counterterrorism purposes only, the government can use specific collection terms to get

detailed records when it has a reasonable, articulate and -- suspicionhelated associated with a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. the bill also prohibits the government from intentionally targeting americans under andion 700 two of fisa tries to minimize the retention and dissemination of nonpublic information about non-us persons, citizens and permanent resident aliens. ink --ease transparent increased transparency and ensure privacy protections, the presiding judges of the fisa court will designate five individuals eligible to serve as fronts of the court. serve thetended to same purposes as a special advocate. any other area of law that may

lend legal or technical expertise to the court. the attorney general must conduct a declassification oriew of every decision opinion of the fisa court that includes a strict interpretation of law. sunsetting of the three provisions under the patriot act with the sunset of the fisa amendment act on december 31, 2017, which will anow the committee opportunity to conduct proper oversight and verify the law is being properly interpreted and applied. the bottom line is that the amended freedom act makes it crystal clear that congress does not endorse all collection and insurers american civil liberties are protected. on a technical note, today's amendment includes a few changes. the chairman has agreed to these changes with the concurrence of

the ranking member. adding a definition of specific selection terms to string and the prohibition on election, striking the long title of the bill, making technical changes to the emergency authority provisions, including the lone wolf provisions in the revised sunset and finally clarifying the records limited to two hops from the original target. it's a good compromise and i would lead to some of my colleagues not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. i think this bill can go all the way to the president's desk and be signed into law and i strongly urge the support of it. >> enqueue. who seeks recognition?

the gentleman is recognized. >> i happily join my colleague, mr. sensenbrenner and mr. conyers, mr. scott and mr. forbes any amendment which provides the first real chance in more than a decade to place legislative limits on sweeping and i believe unlawful government surveillance. since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the united states government has aggressively expanded surveillance in and out of the united states at a high and to individual liberty privacy. americans have been subjected to -- theless wiretapping national security agency has collected, warehouse, and searched the elite phone records everyday americans who have no ties to terrorism. today, we have a chance to roll back some of the changes made to the patriot act allowed to give rise to many of these abuses. we should seize the chance.

first and most critically, to all collectionhe under section 215 of the patriot act and ensures that government cannot use its nationals third letter authority or trace the vices for bulk collection. says, thisenbrenner bill and bulk collection or dragnet surveillance. under section 215 which allows collection of tangible things relevant to an authorized national security investigation, the nsa has been collecting and warehousing telephone metadata that reveals all incoming phone numbers and call durations. -- the information reveals highly personal and sensitive information that can that -- that contains details of professional associations and activities. congress never intended to authorize this type of surveillance on our citizens.

instead, by authorizing collection of relative records, we authorize the collection of records of persons actually being investigated for or suspected of terrorism. the relative standard was written out of the statue in the the court except did argument that the entire universe of call records because it allows calls associated with actual terror suspects. this fixes the problem by banning all collection and requiring the government to include a specific selection term that identifies a specific account to be used as the basis to request a court order authorizing requesting any information. government toe establish they are tied to it iternate investigation pertained to a specific person. at the same time, the same amendment codifies the metadata reform proposal.

it allows the government to obtain a court order, authorizing it to tainted the metadata records it needs in specific cases. company, the government, keep the records which can only be used using specific terms designed to only use those designed for a real investigation. it's limited to call detail records and doesn't expand to any other tangible things. these changes are very significant, as are the adjustments to section 702 which allows the nsa to store data for persons outside the united states. it and inevitably and unquestionably results in the collection of domestic medications to, from, or about united states persons. the amendment entirely prohibits the intention -- the retention of communications and prohibits the government from using it for

targeting our minimization procedures. the amendment does not give us a -- does not give us everything we want or need but is a significant step in the right direction. i applaud chairman goodlatte and sensenbrenner for their leadership and willingness to work with us to make this happen. this committee has long taken the lead and held responsibility for ensuring national security needs do not trump our poor constitutional freedoms. , under thest decade leadership of the chairman, the membership of this committee has debated the line between civil liberties and security. we will submit clear signal we are serious about protecting our people are busy and civil liberties as well as their security. i join 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 write the balance between national security and civil liberties and withre the civil liberties the improper interpretation by the fisa court and administration, both administrations, bush and obama, of the usa patriot act and the fisa amendments act have inflicted upon us. this is our chance. we have to seize it, i urge everyone to vote for this amendment before the bill. myield back the balance of time. >> the chair thanks the german and recognizes himself in support of the gentleman's substitute. i thank the gentleman from wisconsin for offering the substitute. amendment achieves our collective goal of ending bulk collection and storage of telephone but it a up by the government. the amendment also eliminates all collection of all tangible things under section 215 and

preserves the individual use of section 215 under the existing relevancy standard for all business records while providing a new, narrowly tailored mechanism similar to that outlined by president obama early this year that allows the government to request cell phone records held by that companies using pfizer court-approved queries. under this amendment, the fisa court rather than the government will be required to make a finding that reasonable, articulable suspicion exists before an individual's telephone records may be accessed on a prospective basis except in the case of a national security emergency. the amendment prohibits bulk -- under the natural -- under the national security stature. it enhances civil liberty and privacy protections for amicusns by codifying curiae authority with the fisa court for applications involving

a novel or significant interpretation of fisa. the amendment adds additional public reporting on additional fly zone warnings and expands additional reports to congress provisionss existing under the act to protect the vacations of americans. this is an important -- this is an appropriate import ties -- appropriate approach i support that will allow the government attacked the company and reflect our fundamental respect for civil liberties. i encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. the chair recognizes the children from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thank you chairman goodlatte and members of the committee. this manager's, amendment, the sensenbrenner manager's amendment remains by far the most important step

taken to roll back they government surveillance of theed states citizen since passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 will stop this to me now stands poised to and the mystic bulk collection across the board. the ban applies to section 215 of the patriot act, the pfizer and register authority, and the entire suite of national security letters statute. in addition, we issue elections on u.s. person information collected under 702. we enhance reporting and transparency requirements with respect to the use of each of these authorities and we create a panel of civil liberties and privacy advocates from which the

foreign intelligence surveillance court may draw expertise and perspective in future decisions. so within this framework, we work to accommodate the administration's request for a limited telephone metadata program. this program may be only used for counterterrorism or buses. it will require a case-by-case judicial determination of reasonable, articulable suspicion for the government acquires a single call detail record. remarks at the17 department of justice, president obama observed critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more

information about our private lives and open the door to more intrusive bulk collection in the future. we agree. safeguards into the proposal and transparency requirements also laid out in this bill. we believe the government would be both ill-advised and hard-pressed to attempt to expand this new authority beyond our narrow attempt. i believe we have arrived at a compromise that represents legitimate consensus of the congress and the support of the american people. but, there is certainly more work to do. in future hearings, we should take more times

i am not convinced that we are doing all that we can to safeguard our privacy under that authority. should also adjust the reach of surveillance under executive , and, in particular, of that type of surveillance, how it affects united states' p and abroad, at home but today, i hope and believe that we will be able to come together to pass the meaningful changes outlined in this bill. i think mr. sensenbrenner and mr. scott of virginia for their determination to see this bill through, and so i am proud to

urge my colleagues to support endmenr, and iam yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i have an amendment. >> the clerk will report the amendment. chair, i ask unanimous consent. >> without rejection, the amendment is considered as redad. -- read. >> thank you. the focus has been to protect the civil liberties of americans by ending the bulk collection of metadata. i listen to the remarks from the gentleman. i listened to the gentleman from 's statement right now, and he said we are poised to end domestic will collection across

the board. that is the gentleman from michigan. if he would consider a little amendment to that, bulk collection across the board by government, because, i would submit, bulk collection will continue. it 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 thatr to store the data might declare it under a fisa warrant, and i have gone to hearing after hearing on this topic, both classified and unclassified. i have sat there and read the material that was classified and available to me that was the result of the snowden actions, and as i look at this bill, i complement the people who worked on it the whole weekend. i would have liked to have had the opportunity to weigh in on it before we got to this point, but i asked this question. does it reject the civil

liberties of americans as is our intent? and i submit that it does. do, does it not make us safer, and the answer to that is no one has mentioned how it might make us safer. i would include that it would make us less safe, because to query data under a fisa warned is now not five years as requested by the intelligence community but 18 months as directed by an fcc regulation, and we are going to rely on the fcc to regulate our telecommunication companies to make sure they are keeping the data, i think that is a precarious place for us to store our national security, so i offer this amendment, mr. chairman, to the committee. this is an amendment i have brought up multiple times in the hearings, and it does this. the intelligence

committee to negotiate with the telecommunications companies so that the telecommunications companies can agree to retain that information in private hands for a longer. keeper of time. it is not specific to the length of time. it does not provide for any bulk data to go into the possession of the government. it preserves the principles of the underlying bill, and the amendment and the nature of the substitute, and provide for the safety and security of america, so we should have two things in mind here today. one of them is to protect the civil liberties of americans. the second one is not to diminish our national security. in fact, protect the national security that exists today. i would submit that if this amendment goes on and becomes a be asf law, we would not safe as we would 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 the underlying bill and the purpose of the agenda coming forward as a committee, so if i it asserted in a moment, if is suggested that the authority to negotiate with telecoms already exists, and my question would be why would anybody oppose my amendment, and this is a carefully worded, well-thought-out amendment. it protects our civil liberties and protect the data collection that might be negotiated by our intelligence communities that would be stored in private sector hands, not public, and it would still require a fisa warned in order to quirin that data. query that data. we would allow the intelligence community to get with them, and the national

security necessary, and i would suggest that had this been proposed over the negotiators weekend, it would have been a part of the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. i must say, i appreciate the gentleman's work on this issue. however, allows the government to enter, and there is nothing in current law that would ban any company from withing into a contract the government to retain data for longer purposes, nor is there anything in the substitute amendment that would prohibit such a thing from occurring as well. notion that private companies should retain records for a longer. keeper of time than they do regulate in a normal course of

business was pacific li na contemplated by president obama when he announced in january his desire to and bulk collection by the government. president obama said the bulk records should stay in the records of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. the members involved in drafting the substitute have considered and rejected such a concept. record retention by the mutations companies does not necessarily assuage civil liberties and privacy concerns and could expose these records to data breaches by cyber hackers. , i cannothe reason support the amendment. however, there is nothing in current law or legislation that would prohibit any company from entering into such negotiation or the government from entering into such negotiations if they both found that mutually desirable to do so, the with respect to the gentleman, i respect his concern about the issue.

it is a legitimate issue that has been carefully considered, what i come down on the opposite side about whether or not i can supported, and i must oppose it. >> mr. chairman. strike the requisite number of words. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. committee, the problem the king amendment presents from my point of view is that at no point has this administration asked for a data retention mandate. the president has said explicitly that these records should remain at telephone companies for the length of time they currently do today. secondly, we designed section 215 of the patriot act to cover business records kept

voluntarily and in the normal course of business. mandating that 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 course of business. and so i think the gentleman is well-intentioned, and he said some good things in general andt the measure before us, for that reason, i would hope that this amendment is not successful, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate the chairman's comments and my friend. one of the reasons why some of us heard that the government had made the intrusive grabs that they had is the phone companies do not keep this stuff very long necessarily, and we have got to make sure we have it when we 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 i applaud my friend, mr. sensenbrenner, for the fantastic work that was done on the bill but i haveonsored, had the debate with a cia attorney and other attorneys for some of our intelligence

thaties, who seem to think if, g, a private company has information, then why should not the government, and it is easily explained. private companies, like at&t, verizon, and others, they do not have the authority to go down and put you in jail if they are upset with you, and that is why it is important that the government not be the repository for every single phone call log from every single phone in america. that should be in the hands of a private entity, 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 encourage burden by keeping the data longer, go ahead and let them negotiate so they keep it longer so it is in private hands and

not in the hands of the government under some excuse, they have got to get it before it goes away. that way, if probable cause or some other cause in the bill is stillished, then you can have the data available. it is not just wiped out, because it was beyond 18 months. so i appreciate the amendment. i urge support for it, and i would yield any remaining time to my friend from iowa. fromthink the gentleman texas for yielding, and in response to some of the remarks that i have heard, first of all, thatesponse by mr. conyers applies that my amendment is a mandate, it is not a mandate. it allows for the intelligence community to negotiate with the private sector. if those two entities reach an agreement, they have a

contractual agreement, which is certainly above board, but it is not a mandate. our nationalt security, we are relying on fcc mandate for 18 months of storage data in the private sector, which is our only way to get a fisa warrant, and that is kind of a tenuous place to be. have a mandate that the companies hold it for 18 months, so we are subject for it to change, and it is only an 18 month deal. i suggest that this is an open, contractual agreement, not a mandate. i did not hear a reason to oppose my amendment. it seemed that the underlying reason was it was not part of the agreement going in today, and i did not have that opportunity. i did not know the bill was coming up until 12:30 on monday, but i asked the question does this bill, doesn't protect the civil liberties, and i agree, it does.

-- doesn't protect the civil liberties, and i agree, it does. we are less secure if this becomes law because we lose 3.5 years of access to data that in many cases currently exists, and so, again, i would urge adoption of my amendment. it is one that i believe is well thought out. it is not a mandate. it protects our national security. it protects our civil liberties. that is absolutely keeping with the theme, even though i seem to be the only one bringing up the national security side and the risks that we have. my state was not attacked by terrorists. i am thankful for that. it was terrible to see that happen. i do not want to see that happen again, and i think we need to be considering the national security part of it, and the only upside is to protect national securities without diminishing any of the other. so with that, i yield back to the gentleman from texas were

the balance of the time whichever is the preference of the chair. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i disagree with -- gentleman from iowa, and there may be a downside. out, this amendment does not give the intelligence agencies any authority they do not already have, and that is the result of this bill. can negotiate under current law with the phone company, and if they want to, they can make a and maintain records for a number of years. amendment adds nothing and therefore nothing to security. but what it does do is it goes against what we ought to be doing. it is not an important amount of because it does not really do anything. it goes in the wrong direction, and it goes in the wrong direction as follows.

what it really says is for the sake of national security, all the privacy of the american citizens ought to be held for the government's use for as long a term as the government may wanted from the phone company. also the metadata, who i am calling, who you are calling, how long i am talking, am i docking to my psychiatrist, am talking to my mistress if i have one, you know, all of that information. stephen colbert had fun with that when i was on his program. right oring left-wingers? all of that is telephone metadata. you can learn a lot from metadata about a person and in day their privacy tremendously. now, it is inevitable that the phone company has to keep that record for a certain point of time for billing purposes, but it is not inevitable that the

government ought to have that or have use of that or that they should have it for longer than they decide they need to for the purpose of billing, for the inevitable purpose of the instrument, and this amendment says they really ought to. it does not mandate it, i agree, but it says that they really all of hisep it, and private data ought to be at the disposal ultimately of the government. this is the entire purpose of the amendment. i do not agree. again, it is not mandatory, so it is not the worst of men in the world, but it goes in the wrong direction, and it goes against the spirit of what we are trying to say, which is the government does not own all of your personal data. the government does not have the right to any of your personal data, friendly, unless it shows some relevance, which is what we are doing in this bill, to the satisfaction of a court to get a court order. this is what we are trying to do in this bill. this goes against the spirit of the bill.

he does not really help national security in any way, but it does harm privacy, and therefore it goes against the spirit of the bill, it goes against the manager's amendment, it goes against what we are trying to do, and i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i yield back. >> what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to express my appreciation to all of the members who worked on this, and 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 to improve the situation, and i think, although i'm going to have some amendments that i think might improve the manager's amendment, to proceed without giving congressman sensenbrenner the

tremendous thanks he deserves would not be proper. , alongry much appreciate with others, but especially mr. sensenbrenner's efforts on this. as to the king amendment, i similarly oppose the amended. iswas pointed out, this unnecessary, but i would like to raise another issue. after the leaks of the records and the information about surveillance, in the press, there were a lot of things that happened. americans became very irate about their privacy. people in other countries became irate about their privacy, and we are as concerned about that as defenders of the constitution. we are concerned about that as people who love liberty, but there is 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. suggesting to utilize american technology is to open yourself up to privacy violations. i think the mere existence of this amendment actually further aggravates 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 american company, your privacy is at risk, and so i think that is an additional reason not to support this a minute. i understand the gentleman from iowa is trying to make this a better situation, but i think, actually, it goes to the other direction, and with that, i would yield back, mr. chairman, and i appreciate you for

recognizing me. >> opposition to the amendment. >> tournament is recognized for five minutes. the amendment. i believe the gentleman from iowa is very well-intentioned, but i want to emphasize again that there is nothing in this prohibits the intelligence community from making a deal and signing a contract with any of the phone fear is isbut my that with the adoption of the king amendment, the phone companies are going to kind of be under the gun if they do not and theyo this, probably have to disclose some proprietary information on how much they would charge the government for holding onto the records for a longer. keeper of time. the groups that were involved in these discussions did not want to have language like this. the president has said that he does not want to have language like this.

it seems to me that the argument that the gentleman from iowa is making is why don't we give them specific authority to do this? i think it really tilts the scale that the phone companies would end up being co-worst -- , so for all of these reasons, i would hope that it be rejected. >> those in favor, say aye. those not in favor, say no. the noes have it. >> i would like to have a rollcall vote. >> world call vote. >> mr. smith of texas votes aye. mr. schappert votes no. mr. bacchus, mr. bachus votes

no. issa, mr. forbes, mr. king. mr. king votes aye. mr. franks. .r. gomer at gomert vodevotes -- tes aye. its mr. marino, mr. marino votes no. mr. labrador, mr. labrador votes no. holding, mr. holding votes

aye. votes no.is missouri votes no. mr. conyers averts no -- votes no. scott, ms. lofgren, ms. lofgren votes no. , ms. jackson lee votes no. , mr. johnson, mr. pure lisi votes no. mr. deutsch votes no. mr. gutierrez votes no.

mr. richmond mr. garcia votes no. mr. jeffries? mr. jeffries votes no. >> the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. scott votes no. as every member voted who wishes to vote? clerk will report. wait, we have got one more. the gentleman from tennessee. >> mr.: votes no. >> the clerk will report.

>> mr. chairman, 4 members voted aye. 24 members voted no. without objection, the amendment is considered as red, and the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to thank you and the ranking member for making progress on this issue. stopping the ball collection and making sure surveillance 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 does not fully tackle transparency issues about government requests they receive.

greater transparency will help inform congress and the public and help hold our government accountable. in january, attorney general holder and director of national intelligence james clapper announced that the administration was taking action to allow more detailed disclosures about the number of national security orders and requests issued to communications providers and the number of customer accounts targeted under those orders and requests, and in their statement, they stated the administration had determined that the public interest in disclosing this information now outweighs the national security concerns that require its classification. even greaters that disclosure is warranted in order to restore the credibility and trust of the american public in our government. surveillance a reporting act that was included in the original usa freedom act. i will continue to say i think the line was providing for disclosure in that bill takes a much stronger step and makes a great deal of sense.

i do not believe there is a good argument against that bill, but i want to find middle ground and seek compromise on this issue. me.ink others for joining it will be a step in a positive direction, and is a far better course of action than leaving this out of the bill entirely. the intent of the amendment is to offer additional disclosure capabilities to companies the on what was included in the january agreement that major technology companies came to agreement with the administration on. >> with the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding, and i thank her also for being an original cosponsor of my surveillance reporting bill. i had actually planned to offer bans ofment that had zero to 100, but in little of the agreement on this amendment,

i am not going to offer that today. however, i would hope, mr. chairman, that we would have an opportunity to discuss between now and the floor the possibility of having smaller bands. i have been unpersuaded by the and theagency intelligence agencies as to why that is problematic. it would be enormously helpful to technology companies who live in my district and in her district to be able to tell the ,ruth about what is happening and it also serves the purpose of this committee. they are in some ways the canary in the mind for us. for us. great interestf to the committee. i want to commend the gentlelady from washington for what she has

included in this amendment. i think that is really very important. >> with the gentlelady yield? >> well, i do not have the time. i just appreciate your yielding. i appreciate the amendment. i am fully supportive and appreciate your work in doing this. thank you. >> with the gentlelady yield? >> i 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, and so i am happy to support it. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes in support of the amendment. join thesed to gentlewoman from washington in offering this amendment. the amendment allows companies to buy annually report requests

for information they receive under fisa national security letters of authority. american technology companies are experiencing a lack of customer trust and lack of international business as a result of the snowden leads on theirn information customers is readily and routinely turned over to the american government. since the leaks, companies have sought permission to report national security requests from the government to inform and hopefully assuage the concerns of their american and foreign customers. year, severalthis entered into a settlement with the justice department which allows them to report the certain aggregate fisa and nsl requests, and this codifies that to allow for even greater americanncy to the people about their privacy and the extent of the intelligence 's work while

protecting national security. i support this amendment, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. >> would you yield >> i will. >> i hope we can all agree that we are willing to make technical changes to assure the companies currently reporting under the terms of the current settlement are not in any way impacted in the wrong direction if we discover there are changes that need to be made. also, i would like to have us work together to consider going further, particularly if the doj at a future time determines it is in the public interest to allow companies to provide further details and to move those ranges in a downward direction as was referred to that our legislation does not prevent them from doing that. >> reclaiming my time, i certainly agree with what the gentlewoman from washington and the gentlewoman from california stated.

codifying this with your amendment will force the doj to come and talk with us, which has not been the case on many other issues that have come before this committee. >> mr. chairman? >> i yield to the gentlewoman from texas. let me indicate my support for this amendment, and i want to point out the obvious, that there are two markups this week, and i guess i look at this , it answers two questions for the american people, transparency and and this includes a report on what you had to release. ands when you had to do,

then there is one that deals with a number of categories. i think this clearly helps the know what is required of them, but it also helps the public. i think it is a good amendment with good language, it as well, and with that, i yield back. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> for what reason does the oneleman for georgia recognition? >> i also want to support her amendment. it does give us a good start. i appreciate your hard work on it. it is my hope that the chairman and others will continue to look

at this. i am a strong supporter and just wanted to rise to say that. were are several cases where can come together and find agreement, and with that, i yield back. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the amendment and the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor will say aye. opposed no. it, and thee amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute is agreed to. are there further amendment? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from gallup uneasy recognition? >> if mr. scott has an amendment, i would defer to him, because he is the ranking member

of the subcommittee. ? >> for whatan purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. ,> my colleagues from virginia aurself, mr. conyers, substitute, and we commend our colleagues were working together to develop a bipartisan approach revelations of how some of the statutes have been used have come to light, s haves of these committee proposed solutions to work together to find a way forward. the substitute amendment addresses abuses and answers travesty projections and provides more rigorous review of andl interpretation

increases transparency about what is being done in their name. with the usa patriot act, which requires government to show business records relative to to obtainions, intelligence information, not concerning a united states person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, no one believes that we are permitting the government to collect information on every single phone call made, past, present, and into the future. while the president has taken mitigate the collection of metadata, this amendment will assure the underlying amendment and substitute will make sure that the statute may not be interpreted in the future to allow such fall collection to take place again for these or any other type of business records. without codification, a future president can return to the policies that we are expressly prohibiting today.

the memo would also change other surveillance statutes to make sure they are not being manipulated to allow paul collection similar to what we are banning under section 215. collection similar to what we are banning. information linked to terrorism or foreign intelligence. of course, we would not allow tose standards to apply domestic law enforcement purposes, just as information gathered under section 215 should not be used for domestic law enforcement investigations. much of the initial attention after the snowden disclosures, the mass collection theelephone metadata, sponsors of this amendment have also worked together to propose significant reforms to sections tothe foreign intelligence outsidenon-us persons

the united states. however, as confirmed by recent disclosure about government surveillance practices, it has become apparent that at times, the government has engaged in inappropriate collection of communication. the substitute amendment clarifies the government may not intentionally intercept the communications of a person if the purpose of the acquisition is 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 inadvertent collection of domestic medications, the amendment codifies retention and dissemination of any purely domestic mutations which are inadvertently acquired under section 702 authority. in addition to these and other changes to the surveillance authority, the memo will provide assurances.ices -- the substitute provides for the

youth of people in cases where the only parties participating will not be just a judge who is listening to the government side of the case. there should be greater confidence in reviewing these cases. chairman, mr. intelligence gathered using extraordinary measures only when shared with those that can act on it. the recent complaints by the boston marathon case involved complaints of the available information had not been disseminated. thatmination of it means we are not just talking that the information sitting on a computer and information about u.s. persons that should something be shared with the issue that our friends and neighbors about those who the information is collected, therefore we must do this narrowly to protect against over collection and an appropriate

dissemination of collected information. in conclusion, i support this amendment because it presents a significant step forward in our government surveillance practices, and while the demonstration has offered to change some of its procedures, and the fisa court has taken steps with practices over the is to the best course trust but codify. i therefore urge the adoption of this amendment and the passage of the bill. time hasntleman's expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman in california want to be recognized? >> the clerk will report. >> an amendment to the amendment in the nature to the substitute, offered by the representative of california. say that the memo be considered as read.

under current law, section 215 allows the collection of phone metadata 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 that phrasing has been used to engage in paul collection of business records. act,riginal usa freedom which you offered, mr. chairman, in which i cosponsored, used a standard of relevant and material to an investigation, and that language was a huge improvement and may well have ended paul collection, but we have seen the creative interpretation of language has were, inaces that we some cases, surprised to find ourselves.

this more directly attempts to limit paul collection, although the requests are still subject, and it increases the standard to one of reasonable fax. however, i believe that the standard is insufficient. as you will recall, when we had a hearing here in the judiciary committee, the department of record confirmed on the that business records would include virtually anything held by third-party. thee was a hearing with typically attorney general, and it confirmed that such business records would include every photograph taken by an atm machine, the location data where all phone calls were made, all credit card transactions, all cookies, all internet searches, cctvictures captured by

cameras. all would be in the same legal andure as phone metadata, we have learned further in some by computerestimony science professor felten with the senate judiciary committee that metadata actually can provide more information about , and, in fact, the former nsa counsel said metadata absolutely toe shoe everything about somebody's life. if you have enough metadata, you do not really need content. now, the fourth amendment requires probable cause to gather 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. you know, when the fourth amendment was written, the founders thought about a letter in a desk for. now, with metadata, that could be collected under the standard in the amendment, it would tell us much more than what a letter in your desk drawer would do. my amendment would first require that before government can obtain metadata that they would show probable cause that the information is for intelligence operations not involving a u.s. ongoingr relevant to an investigation to protect against terrorism. 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, and i offer this effort to do so, and without, mr.

chairman, i would yield back. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes in opposition to the amendment. is offeredent, which by the gentlewoman from california would mean a noble cause would be needed for any order under this section. 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 it does not do a search under the fourth amendment. section 215 orders are similar to drain -- grand jury and administrative subpoenas and that they can't openly be used , andquest business records dealing with the content of communications. beyond this by requiring the government obtained an order from the fisa court before you can request the

information, meaning that there is an additional burden to get a fisa order under section 215 than the criminal orders. the amendment would raise the routine requests for information to the level of a search warrant. thatst remain cognizant our country still faces significant national security threats, and the government should be able to investigate and respond to these threats and actively. i would add that the reasonable suspicion standard was quoted in the patriot act, and there were problems with the patriot act, which is what brings us here today. reasonable suspicion was not one of those problems. i would fear that this may blow up a fast track to passage that this bill appears to be having, and for all of these reasons, i oppose the gentlewoman amendment

and yield back the balance of my time. york, forman from new what purpose do you seek recognition? >> to speak on the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. too, rise inan, i, opposition to this amendment, and i do for two different reasons. if you look at the history of actpatriot act, the patriot , and the bill the standard was to a loose. thought so at the time, and i

still think it would be but the gentleman is correct that the problem cause goes beyond anything and although we are this must be with true relevance on a case-by-case basis. this amendment without consequences, we do have to have and this is for national security.

here, you have to. this is for the third party. business records held by a third party have never been granted because they had never been considered search and therefore never had probable cause. and this goes beyond the patriot. and after a dozen years, we it looksre looking to like a bill that could actually pass, and this amendment would affect the ability to pass a bill.

and benjamin franklin said they expect no better, and they are not sure that it is the best. i suspect we can get a better bill than we have now, perhaps in some respects, but i certainly do not want to jeopardize what we have in this bill. this amendment would jeopardize that. the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the comment made that we do went to get the but as for the issue of business records, in 2001,

when we worked together, when and big dated does not exist the way it was. i do believe this committee and what it means for personal privacy in the digital age. >> reclaiming my time. i think you could argue this bill does not go far enough to protect that, and we could improve that, but i think the standard goes till far. is not the time to do that by jeopardizing this will. , do think we want to protect further protect the privacy of data held in the clouds and

further protect the ability of americans, like tech companies, to go abroad and say we are not jeopardizing the privacy. i do not think a probable cause in this bill at this time will accomplish that, and it just jeopardizes the bill, but i think we ought to work towards that and, but i do not think this bill accomplishes everything that needs to be accomplished, but it is probably the best we can do now. i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> the amendment point out a , even with the original usa patriot act. and ie relaxed standards, think the relaxed standards for getting information are appropriate when you're trying to protect the nation from care attack, but section 215 covers a lot more than terrorist attack, because foreign intelligence,

that is not even spying. that could be a trade deal. not dangerous to anybody, and i think relaxed standards may be inappropriate for those situations, but, coveringtely, everything or covering nothing, i think these relaxed standards were you can get information a lot easier to protect the country from terrorism are appropriate but inappropriate when applied to a lot of other situations, so i'm going to oppose the amendment, but i would hope that we notice that lack --ent law with the the relaxed standard would be inappropriate. >> i think the gentleman for further yielding. i do believe the ancient doctrines in the fourth amendment need to be dealt with by this congress and ultimately,

perhaps, if we drop the ball, by the supreme court, because if this amendment is going to provide protection to modern americans, it is going to have to deal with the issue of how can tell someone everything there is to know about that person, and i think modern americans should have the benefit of the fourth amendment. i know the point is to be made, and i am not insensitive to that we have a bill that does good and that we do not want to blow it up, but i think this would be the opening discussion of what protections are going to be afforded to modern americans under the gun -- under the fourth amendment. >> one of the complications that was created was created when we allowed all of the sharing of information. if you have foreign intelligence

information, it does not stay over in foreign intelligence. it gets past over town for everyone to see it, and you create an incentive to have relaxed standards to get the information in the first place. there was no incentive before the usa patriot act because you could not do anything with it outside of the foreign intelligence community, and so kind of with no incentive, it took care of itself. once you allow for sharing, particularly since more is involved than just terrorism, you have this, and i hope we will notice that as we go forward. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the mm forn is on the gentlewoman from california. all of those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the noes have it. is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i want to begin by congratulating you and the

ranking member for your tremendous work on reaching this bipartisan agreement. i also want to recognize the hard work of several, all of whom work with equal partners in the amended version of the usa freedom act. this bill has critical reforms of the government surveillance authority and certainly a positive step forward compared to current law. most important, this carefully establishes a new standard to ensure any data collected through section 215 authority is used for a specific selection term. furthermore, it assures that there is a review before data is collected in nonemergency cases and guarantees that collection theorities continue on government having a reasonable articulated suspicion. under this bill, it stops the ball collection for individuals that do not even meet a standard of suspicion according to a judicial process. that is over.

instead, a more targeted, thoughtful process exists, and, as i said, these are important steps, and i am proud to support the work in this area. at the same time, i want to say that i do not believe that our work in this area is complete. of the sameome information as the data collected under section 215. importantly, i am encouraged that this bill a living matters to the same standards of section 215, effectively ending the government ability to use authority for ball collection data. they must work to better reform this process. particularly, there should be judicial review standards as outlined by the president review group in december. theyll strongly believe should be only upon judicial finding that the information is relevant for authorizing the investigation. i am very pleased that the gentlelady from washington's

amendment passed and that this now includes important language on transparency, information companies can publicly report or national and what security letters are used by the government. this was badly needed transparency, and i commend the gentlelady. i am confident our committee will continue to work diligently to come to an agreement on these items, and i think today's markup has proved we are committed to working in a bipartisan way to solve important problems related to government surveillance. " my want to once again congratulate the committee for coming to an agreement on this clearly positive step forward. this helps protect american privacy and curtails the authority to collect data in bulk. i am proud of the committee effort and hope we can continue to work together to defend civil liberties and the right to privacy while keeping americans safe, and i thank the chairman and yield back. >> the chair thanks the

gentleman. texas isewoman from recognized five minutes. >> i thank the chair. earlier,k i indicated in my earlier conversation, we of in the midst of a markup another committee that has a great interest in this area. i am, however, glad that the mark on this legislation, 3361, the u.s. freedom act, intertwines very closely and vendorsy those as a mega data. the opportunity

for mr. snowden to take his voice around the world. opening this on mega data, privacy and transparency and security. i believe this legislation strikes the appropriate balance. was a justifiable concern. they felt this occurred by this. many of us who were here helped draft the patriot act. that was not the intent.

information did not include the entity of any subscriber. only type of information required is telephoning mega data. we solve there was a great importance in the -- in introducing legislation. i thank you for recognizing the wharton's of recognizing this out it has them interpreted. the bill would require to allow how broad thenow legal authority they are going

to keep american safe. section 402 requires a turns into the declassification of of the pfizer ax, a significant move forward. act, a significant move forward. i am pleased that the bill before his includes a prohibition on both selection of tangible things. important that we discussed section 301 of the belt which continues the prohibition against target and for 2007.s

reverse targeting can be harsh and unconstitutional. it is not so well understood by those in the arena of the laws electronic surveillance. the target is without the purpose. classical conservatives as well as the civil liberty organizations and giving expanded authority with the understandable situation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting. it may be difficult to resist in the afterthought. we worked on a number of amendment out of this committee. i think this is a freedom act. there is the body of understanding.

i think this will make an important statement and answer to the american people providing for the security of this nation. with that, i yield back. at theve an amendment desk. amendment into the the substitute hr336. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. my concern about the mmm and

reforms innts of the 702 is pretty serious. i have a couple of amendments i will act on that. biggest problem i have is that it took meaningful reform cosponsoredthat i and watered it down significantly. return theent would highly lauded requirement that he warned it would be needed to search the 702 database. under current law, an essay can search this without a warrant. hadbill but he introduced

, theped the freedom act new requirement that were in the bill. why this wasou important. we were all concerned about ball collections of americans. if we leave this in the amendment, we will be right back where we are today with the same problem. let me give you an example. that theto believe object of your search is not a u.s. person. what is the basis for that belief? could it be you are a provider of e-mail services and 55% of your account holders look out side the united states? arguably you could use that as a basis for believing.

it wasn't or probable than not that these were non-us persons. if there is no definitional problem of what you could be looking for, you absolutely could end up with the same broad-based database of u.s. persons using section 702 as we are trying to stop under section to fit team. i do think that if you are searching for this database that has been lawfully collect it, with information about citizens the requirement. it is required under the fourth amendment and should be provided for in the statue. i would recommend that we make this on the manager's amendment? the bill itself is far superior.

with that i would deal back. >> this agreement, the sponsor of the freedom act, ranking member conyers and four. the substitute amendment reiterates congresses original intent that this authority is designed to allow the government to target a person reasonably believed to be outside the united states and cannot be used to reverse target a u.s. person. the bipartisan substitute amendment reiterate the intent that section 702 does not apply publications.stic should it he collected

concerning a u.s. person under section 702 despite a finding that a certification was deficient. such information cannot be used. there have been detailed information by members on both side of the bow to craft the substitute amendment. theamendment will disrupt bipartisan agreement and accordingly i oppose the amendment. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. all those in favor respond by saying i. those opposed "no." the "no's" have it. is not agreed to. >> i have an amendment at the .esk >> an amendment to the amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by mr. gomert.

page 17, answer the following. section 110, clandestine intelligence activities. 8161a1. it is considered as read in the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i do appreciate the incredible amount of work that was done by those negotiating this agreement. what makes the structure strong is when the committee itself gets to look for little nuances that make the bill better. remembering my freshman term in a05/2006 when we took up renewal of the patriot act. we had a discussions behind the scenes with administration officials, intelligence, people from the white house. we talked to a lot of oh. a question that i asked back at the time, though we were told

repeatedly that this only pertains to getting information from someone who is either a foreign agent engaged in foreign withligence or has contact a foreign agent or foreign government. -- sot, we were show assured of that i made a debate my democratic friends want to avoid their telephone data being gathered, all they have to do is make sure that any foreign terrorist is not call them on that phone. that seemed to pretty much summarize what we were told. you had to have that contact. questionking the because like and 60 and 61 under

subparagraph a, this allows them to get the production of tangible things for an foreignation to obtain intelligence information concerning a united states person. comfort. us a lot of that is someone who's not even a united states person. the second is to protect against international terrorism. that supports just what the bush administration people were saying. you've got to have a relationship with a foreign terrorist. then there was this other clause . is or clandestine intelligence activities. you said this only had to do with foreign governments,

foreign intelligence activity or contacts with foreign governments. i was assured look, international, form, everybody knows this has to do with foreign contacts. i was still troubled but assured not to worry. i worry now. they have obtained data on american citizens who did not have contact with foreign governments. they still got the data. we know from our history that j edgar hoover authorized all kinds of surveillance and appropriate the martin luther king jr.. we do not need another time where somebody under a big term like "clandestine intelligence activities, heaven help you if you look into a government

security area, you just engage in when dustin intelligent activity. this is so broad and so they, you could drive a truck through this for anyone wanting information on american citizens. that is also true in 1842 which says to tame foreign intelligence information, that makes a faux butter, not concerning a united states person. it has to be someone not a u.s. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine activities. the same thing down and part c. my amendment makes clear what we were promised in 2005 in 2006. this has to do with foreign intelligence and terrorism. we have plenty of law enforcement is -- law enforcement terezin to go after.

we have all kinds of criminal laws to address that. that is why i would like to get rid of the vagary by making it so that we pertains to foreign entities. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i support the amendment. i think it makes it clear. we haveded me that tried as a committee to get information from our intelligence agencies. beecher had another thing he had to attend to. you are cheering the last -- chairing the last class i committee. the questions were not answered. >> they were not. unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds. >> without objection. get back to to west. i am still waiting for the answer to the question that was

close last year when you were chairing a classified briefing. i think we have to be very precise here. we are not provided information or inr it is in public the classified briefing. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. it goes well beyond the scope of the underlying bill and substitute amendment to fundamentally change the long-standing it or two for the government to gather intelligence and those who engage in activities. the bill is the use of this authority as it pertains to book collection, not to reform the underlying law. is understoodat to mean spy. this term is used throughout securityd the national letter statutes and is limited

in each of these statutes i prohibiting an investigation of the united states worsen. it is not conducted solely on the basis of activities are attempted by the first amendment to the constitution of the united states. enacted to protect itself against those who choose to engage in espionage against to gather empower it intelligence within the united states. i was around here during the that the fiasco occurred. this is why the church commission was appointed. beenefinitions that have referred to as a result of a something that was carefully crafted while protecting the american public ears for those reasons, i oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of

my time. >> with what purposes the gentleman from texas rise? >> i think the 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 amendment. i think we are here today because the government has this act in the most favorable way to seizing the information they want. that is why we're here. must assume that is the way they will interpret all legislation, this amendment makes it more specific to deal with foreign government foreign nationals. otherwise meeting is to be. use the phrase of peeping over

clandestinehe intelligence activity reminds me thoue old soviet law that shall not engage in anti-soviet activity. that means different things to different folks. i think this can be interpreted make it specifics. the integrity of an american citizen. i would support the gentleman thedment on getting rid of bacon is. the government operates under the presumption that they will interpret the law the most favorable way to seize the evidence and sense. >> i yield back. >> the question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor respond by saying i. those opposed? "no's" have it.

>> he'd vote no. mr. sensenbrenner vote no. .mr. smith of texas mr. shalit votes no. mr. issa. mr. forbes. mr. king. mr. frank. mr. gomert. mr. gomert votes "aye."

mr. jordon. "aye."don votes mr. poe votes "aye." moreno votes "no." mr. labrodor. mr. holding votes "no." mr. smith of missouri. mr. conyers. mr. conyers votes "no."

mr. nadler votes "no." mrs. votes "aye." "no."ackson lee votes mr. cohen. mr. johnson. mr. gutierrez. mrs. bass. mr. richmond. delbenay votes "no."

garcia. .". jeffries votes "aye voateteso illini boat "aye." mr. baucus votes "no." mr. king votes "aye." mr. labrador votes "aye." are there members who have not voted that wish to vote? votes "aye." "no."ckson lee votes

>> i change my vote to "aye." "aye."smith votes >> the clerk will report.

>> i change my vote to aye. >> how my recorded? >> mr. holding votes "no." "no."umbeadler votes >> the clerk will report. >> the amendment is agreed to. from what is a lady from california sick recognition? >> amendment number four. >> amendment to the amendment

and the nature of a substitute to hr3361. in title last section iii of the following section. limiting the collection of u.s. person, communications to only those that include the target of an authorized investigation. may i ask unanimous consent? >> it is considered as ready. believe that this amendment fixes a loophole that was created by the pfizer court in its november 2011 decision that is now in the public arena. that thement clarifies government can only use select yours -- collectors to collect thermation to or from targets of an authorized

investigation. under the current law as blessed by the fisa court, an assay is using 702 -- the nsa is using 702 against a communications target as they are viewed to not be holy between u.s. persons. the usa freedom act did not adjust this loophole. this is a court constructed. durham. it allows false positives and putntional use of criteria to use to lead to massive collections of u.s. communications. thatamendment would repent outcome by limiting the select first to target and collect communications only and one of

is the target of an authorized investigation. i know that all of us have worked in good faith. toant to give great credit the chair and ranking of the subcommittees of jurisdiction, especially as i said earlier to mr. sensenbrenner for his leadership. end think we do not want to up in the same situation a few years ago as a are today finding out that we have failed to define terms and have allowed for this kind of unwarranted book collection that we are seeking to end today. i think my amendment that is adopted with her event that from occurring in with that i would yield back. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes in opposition. in theve the changes minimization statute of section

02 and the substitute which was not in the original bill already deals with this issue. not think the amendment is necessary and i think it is harmful to the bill as a. -- themended to reverse against reverse targeting. we are all that. it should prevent this from happening. reading the amendment of the gentlewomen from california the targets of the as is the case. sitter is a section 215 order. -- say there is a section 215 order aimed at a target. there is and hop targetrson who is not a of an authorized investigation. what this amendment does is

adding that person to a target of an authorized the two hops going from that. a lot of these conspiracies are more than two pots. think if there is a reasonable suspicion that they goes for more than two hops that we ought to preclude finding out who those people are talking to in the furtherance of their lot. i urge the rejection of amendment. i would repeat that the complication in section 02 deals with that subject. the question is on the grain to the amendment offered by the gentlewomen for california. mean in favor will say i does appear to have it, they have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

are there further amendments? the clerk will report. the amendment to the amendment. ofered by mrs. lofgren california. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. amendment would correct a problem that some of us had seen for many years, it the definition of foreign intelligence information. law, therent broad.ion is simply too it has an expansive definition ,hat includes foreign affairs

not just serious spying or terrorism in things that we do like that. i think foreign affairs practicesy invites using it as an excuse to collect communications of u.s. persons. 702 authorityhis to spy on frenzied nations rather than focusing on foreign powers that mean to do us harm. they'llded freedom that will address this loophole in this amendment that would exclude definition of foreign intelligence definition by removing this from best to prevent such missuse.

it is a useful amendment. i would urge the adoption. the chair rises in five minutes for opposition. the amendment would fundamentally change all of thatr, not just that part relates to counterterrorism activities. consequences for surveillance across all spectrums. problem inhave a dealing with excesses by the nsa to counterterrorism activities, particularly those by the patriot act. i would not want to hamper the

ability of the government. i'm not just talking about the nsa but everyone in the government to deal with non-terrorist spying that occurs in to be able to survey old into asianre i non-terrorists i think. but also to allow the courts to define what is necessary to the national defense of the security to the united states would get a different definition from every judge that it went before. we will be trying to figure out how to sort that out in a few years. for those reasons i would urge the rejection of the amendment and you'll the question is on agreeing to the mmm of the gentleman from hell of foreign to the amendment of the substitute. those in favor would say i.

those appear to have it. it."no's" have the have an amendment at desk, amendment number eight. this is the last amendment i will offer. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the amendment. >> consent that it be considered as read. >> considered. she is recognized for a minute amendment or this at least i hope it fixes and every that was created in the managers amendment i cannot believe was intended. , we haveow, the the content is not included in the business record. this clarifies that business records do not include the content of communication.

we specify that in the new section about the detail records. these acidification that content was not included somehow got chopped out of the business record section that was included in your original note. it did not make it into the manager's amendment. i think it clarifies the ambiguity that could be created. i hope it was not intentional. i hope we can adopt what i think is more of a miracle correction. i would yield back. >> i thank you. we have a series of votes in the house floor pursuant to the earlier order of the committee. the chair will resource -- recessed the committee and saw immediately after the vote is on the house floor. members should return to this and without way hearing on the floor or

elsewhere. without objection the committee is recessed. clicks [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] recessed,e committee california was under consideration. a mimic continues. understanding, if primarily a this is careful error that it could be fixed at a later time and that therefore is there is a commitment to try and work or the clerical error i would like to withdraw.

for me a new development to hear that it is a clerical error. am happy to is, i work with the gentlewomen to find out if that is the case. if it is, fix it. i understand. i would not want you to make a commitment you are insurer. relates to untruth the call section. it may clear that content was not included. that was part of the underlying specifying that it does include it might be the ambiguity that was included in other business records. i cannot believe that is the intent. i understand there were substantial negotiations that are important. we were through this i would withdraw the amendment. >> without objection the amendment is withdrawn and i

will work with you to determine what the nature of that is. i know moved that the committee reconsider the vote taken on the all those in favor of the motion to reconsider the government amendment response by saying i. those opposed no. eyes have it. the motion to reconsider is adopted in this amendment is pending. the question is adopting the mmm. all those response i sang five. those opposed say oh. "aye." those opposed say "no." are there any further in the defense to the amendment? is on the sensenbrenner

amendment on the nature of a hr 3361.e to those in favor respond by saying i. those opposed, "no." the amendment is agreed to. present, thebeing question is on to report the to the amended favorably house. those in favor respond by saying i fear the eyes have it. call.d for a roll the clerk will call the roll. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. aye. >> aye. aye. >> aye. >> aye. aye.

aye.and him has every member voted that one into vote? vote?ahat wanted to >> aye. >> aye. mr. nadler votes aye.

>> is every member voted that wishes to vote? the clerk will suspend. >> aye. has every member voted that wishes to vote? zero members votes aye, vote no. >> the gentlewoman from texas. >> how am i recorded? votes aye.son-lee

>> aye. >> mr. cohen votes aye. >> you don't know the trouble we went to for you. [laughter] aye, members votes zero no. >> members will have two days to submit use. without objection it will be recorded as a single amendment as a nature of a substitute recording all adopted amendments. >> may as asked that it be reopened so this number can add his? it willut objection reopen for the purpose of recognizing the gentleman from florida. >> mr. garcia vote yes. >> the clerk will report for the

third time. zero2 members voted aye, voted no. everything i said earlier still stands. >> good work.

>> it was rebuilt to have falsified information about the care it was providing to veterans.

he said he does not think the problem started with his term at "this is something that should have been looked at years and years ago. on thursday, the chair of the committee called an emergency meeting to issue subpoenas to the v.a. department. it is seeking e-mails and written correspondence relating to waiting lists at the health care system. a secret waiting list was being backlog.ide the this is under 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. i would like to take care of one item of business this morning. hearing a motion for the issuance of a subpoena to the

department of veterans affairs to produce emails and other written correspondent related into the investigation of the phoenix v.a. medical center. it's unfortunate that we have to come to this decision, but we did not do this without some substantial justification. the last few weeks have been a model of v.a. stonewalling which precipitated the need for this subpoena. first on april 24 our staff was briefed and informed on the existence of an alternate wait list and how that list was subsequently destroyed. we made follow-up phone calls to va-ocla beginning on the 28th asking for additional information about the list. however we didn't get a response back on the 28th so we called back on the 29th and got no response on the 29th. so we called again on april 30 and spoke directly to assistant