i'm certain the majority of republicans in the house will see their stomaches chur when they hear him spew that kind of rhetoric. that's not dialogue, mr. speaker to see that kind of thing and what i wonder is why would chuck know he would know when the stomaches of republicans might churn. i think they might churn when they hear him say those things. . my doesn't. i take this with good humor. i understand it's a tactic. it's designed to bring out a goal. and it's not necessarily to raise me up to the point where he assigns me with the full sense of responsibility and authority to determine immigration policy here in the house of representatives. i wish it were so, mr. speaker. i don't believe it's so. yes, there is some influence there. history will decide how much. not he me, not chuck schumer. but here's his goal.

i believe that senator schumer has concluded that he could taunt the leadership in the house of representatives, and that includes our speaker of the house, into brigham necessary at this legislation to the floor of the house because if it does, and if it should pass, the senate would conform with any amnesty legislation because they are controlled by democrats. and i have long known and long been restrained by people in my own party, mr. speaker, from laying out the argument as to why almost every democrat i know wants open borders and amnesty and a never-ending supply of illegal aliens in the united states of america. it's a pretty easy formula to figure out, especially if you sit here for 10 or a dozen years engaged in hearings and debate on a weekly basis, you begin to hear the threat of their conversation and you begin to understand the real truth behind their motives. and it works out to be this.

of course there are a large number of illegal immigrants in the united states. we have been using the number 11 million since we stopped using the number 12 million. but they didn't stop coming into america. i don't quite understand why we would think that there are fewer illegal aliens in america today than there were 10 years ago. i believe there are more. if they come across the border at the rates that the witnesses from the border patrol and other witnesses and the hearings have been testifying, they will say that they will stop perhaps 25% that try. when i go down to the border and ask them, they say 10% has to come first. it's probably not 10. some will say, well, a little smirk, 3%. but if i take the 25%, 25% effectiveness on our border and you look at those whom they do interdict on the border, and you do the calculation, that turns out to be a number that's equillent to 11,000 a night. on average, 11,000 a night

coming across our southern border. that would be at some of the peak levels that we have, mr. speaker. i would think it's more objective for us to dial that number back down to somewhere in the neighborhood of about half of that. so half of 11,000, 5.5,000 a night. 5,500 a night is pretty close to the last reliable information i have found on how many are coming across our border illegally. well, so i ask this question, what was the size of santa ana's army? about that, about 5,500 or 6,000. so it gives you a sense the size of santa ana's army coming across our southern border every night on average. i don't say day and night. most is at night. i have sat down on the border at night multiple times. i have traveled on the border and done multiple trips to monitor what's going on. it's gotten a little better in arizona. it's gotten worse in texas. we don't have control of this border, but that doesn't trouble

most democrats because they recognize that the millions of people that are coming into this country illegally are counted in the census. and -- if you would go to a district in california like maxine waters' district, she only needs about 40,000 to 50,000 votes in her district to get re-elected to the united states congress. if you go to my district it's well over 120,000 votes for me to be re-elected to the united states congress. and the difference in that is two things. one is, i have a very, very high percentage of real american citizens that do vote in my district. she has a lower percentage. and i have a higher turnout of people that are responsible enough to vote. she has a lower percentage. but illegal aliens are counted in the census all over america, and when new district lines are drawn, those district lines treat people the same as citizens. the constitution doesn't say, count the citizens and then reapportion. it says count the people.

so democrats are happy enough to see the country filling up with people that they get to count when they do a district because they get a democrat dis the house passed a bill limiting nsa data collection. then, house majority leader eric cantor class. -- on helping the middle class. >> coming up on the next "washington journal," retired sergeant discussing this management that va hospital's. then i look at immigration policy and chances are you. i just is from the immigration policy institute.

later, "washington post" writer congressionaling district. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. defense secretary chuck hagel delivers remarks at the naval academy graduation and commission ceremony in annapolis, maryland. it includes the navy secretary live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> if we don't step up the enforcement side, and brings the media attention. if we're going to say the only thing we are going to rely on making these are risky and colleges do with a should be doing is for them to get a bad story, first of all, that's a

lot of victims. me, would be a depressing conclusion. we've got to figure out some way to the anti-that is short of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front rages -- pages. >> i would look at the department of ed. the changes i have seen institutions start to make our when they are immediately under investigation. there is no fine yet area be don't know if it is upwards of $1 million. i would almost rather see that investment. >> but in all fairness, the paying for this. it can come from the institutions that have done wrong and they can fund their own enforcement. i think that is justice. >> senator claire mccaskill and the first of several discussions

on combating rape and sexual assault on college campuses saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the wife of former vice president dick cheney and senior fellow at the american enterprise institute examines the political philosophy and presidential tenure of james madison sunday morning at 11:00 on c-span 2. data morning at 10:00, the life and work of american red cross founder clara barton. a visit to the missing soldiers office and comments live for the national museum of civil war medicine on c-span 3. voted 303-121 to limit the collection of phone records. members of the house judiciary committee spoke to reporters after the vote. the senate is likely to take up the issue this fall. this is 35 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

i want to thank you all for being here. vote's strong bipartisan bans the ball collection of american records. getting here was not easy. for nearly a year, the house judiciary committee has worked together across party lines. with civil liberties advocates and the obama administration to reach a bipartisan solution approved today. as the house judiciary committee work to reform our foreign intelligence committee programs, we knew that both our national security and civil liberties are at stake in the debate, but that both could be protected. the usa freedom act accomplishes both of these goals among protecting our cherished individual liberties enshrined in the civil rights, and protecting our -- and preserving our fundamental duty to keep our citizens safe from foreign enemies. it protects by prohibiting the government from indiscriminate collecting of phone records.

this goes beyond just the telephone metadata program. the prohibition will apply to all records, from e-mail communications to firearms purchase records to financial records. at the same time, the bill ensures the federal government continues to have the tools it needs to identify and intercept the tax. -- attacks. it will also guarantee transparency of our gathering operations. for example, it requires the federal government to report the number of orders issued annually. it also authorizes tech companies to publicly report national security request from the government to inform their customers.

the terror threat is real and ongoing and we must always be aware of the threats we face. at the same time, congress must ensure our individual liberty is not sacrificed in the name of national security. the usa freedom act allen's is these concerns, protecting both -- balances these concerns, protecting both our individual liberty and safety. we will now hear from chairman sensenbrenner, a tireless advocate to and bulk data -- to end bulk data collection and the author of the usa freedom act, who has been working on this through very difficult personal times right now. i want to thank him for his commitment to both his family and his country in working on this bill today. jim? >> thank you, bob. as the author of both usa freedom act and the patriot act of 2001, let me say that my concern through all of these debates is to balance out the need for increased security with the civil liberties and personal freedoms that have made america different than any other country in the world.

the freedom act, i believe, does that. because for the first time, it does rain in the bulk collection of data from americans. and it does not allow the administration or the nsa to get around and use something other than section 215 of the patriot act to try to reauthorize bulk collection. there has been some criticism both on the floor today as well as beforehand about the specific selection criteria section that is contained in the freedom act as past. -- as passed. let me say that a lot of those included, including our staffs, tried to work on a definition of a specific collection criteria that they -- the lawyers of nsa would not be able to blow a hole in and get the fisa court to do an about-face like they did

making irrelevant -- making the definition irrelevant in section 215 and seven. while we are not able to lock the door and throw away the key in this area, what we have done is probably going to be more effective in stopping the nsa from attempting to use bulk collection through this definition by requiring a classified notice to congress within a day after a policy change, and then an unclassified notice to the public within 45 days after the policy change. and that way, if the nsa goes too far, congress will be able to stop it and the american public will know what the nsa is doing. and i hope if they go too far, they will be as outraged as they were when they found out what the nsa was doing in terms of the indiscriminate bulk collection.

i think the closure provisions are specifically stated as applying to the specific election criteria part of the bill. it will give us the distant early warning, a major change. and let me say, as a result of the freedom act passing the house, the nsa might still be watching us. but now, we can watch them. and we means all of us, not just members of congress and our staffs, but all of americans through disclosure and transparency. now, i'm happy to introduce the ranking member and my successor as chairman of the full judiciary committee, john conyers of michigan. >> thank you. greetings. the usa freedom act is, to me, an important step to our reforming the in dash the

nation's intelligence gathering programs and improving -- reforming the nation's intelligence gathering programs and improving civil liberties. this is a win for civil liberties today. here is why. first of all, we end woke collection -- bulk collection. although it is not perfect, the bill itself would require the public disclosure of all significant opinions of the fisa court. and we ask for a protection of the content of the u.s. persons communications from unnecessary disclosure or dissemination. this is a great move forward.

we think that our civil liberties are protected. this is the first time since the foreign intelligence surveillance act was passed in 1978 that we have taken steps to roll back some of the aspects of government surveillance. and for that reason, i'm proud to stand with my colleagues today as we got a huge, overwhelming vote of support that makes me feel that the senate maybe even go -- may even be able to go further and take more steps. i now introduce the senior member of the house judiciary committee, a former subcommittee chairman from new york, jerry nadler. >> thank you very much. let me begin by thanking chairman goodlatte and chairman

sensenbrenner and mr. scott for their great work on this bill. this is the first time since 1978 that we have advanced a bill to really rein in government surveillance. this bill will end will collection -- old collection, not only under -- bulk collection, not only under 215, but in other ways. it does it in a number of ways. through use of national security letters and other devices. there will be no bulk collection. it is described within, and i think quite thoroughly. it also opens up the nsa somewhat. it opens up the five the court. -- court.it requires that there

be an amicus to advocate the position opposed to the government position. and it provides that significant interpretations of the law will have to be given to the congress within a day and to the public within 45 days. we cannot have secrets anymore. if there were ever to be an egregious misinterpretation of the law as there was to the word relevance in the patriot act, we would know about it and can do something about it. i want to say that these are very significant changes. the criticisms of the bid -- the bill, all of the criticisms of the bill are that the build did not go far enough. i would wish that the bill went farther. it went farther when it was initially introduced. but congress has to work its will. i hope the senate will take it a little further. but there was never a good criticism to the bill that says it doesn't go far enough, therefore we should vote against it. this ill goes quite far in ending bulk collection.

and bulk collection is one of the reasons this country has established as an opposition to general war and by the british, to protect people's rights to privacy and to their effects and papers. it reopens with the fourth amendment. this goes a long way toward shutting those doors. i think it is a very good step. it could go further, but it goes quite far. i'm very glad we have done this. i hope the senate will follow through. and i introduce -- oh, i thought i was introducing bobby. bobby scott. >> thank you. i'm pleased to join my colleagues in the judiciary committee. proposing the amended version of usa freedom act. i commend my colleagues for working together to develop a bipartisan bill to address some

of the shortcomings in the statute. as recent revelations about the way some of these statutes have been used have come to light, members of the judiciary committee, which has primary jurisdiction over these statutes, studied the issues, proposed solutions to work together to find a way forward. we have also worked with our colleagues from the intelligence committee to find common ground and bring meaningful surveillance reform to the floor today. the bill is amended to enhance privacy protections and provides more rigorous review of legal interpretations, and increases transparencies are citizens will know what is eating done and decided in their name -- what is being decided and done in their name. and it is the first rollback of any aspect of government surveillance since the original foreign surveillance intelligence act in 1978. while the administration has

agreed to change some of the procedures, i believe the best course is to trust, but codify. it may not accomplish all that we want, but is a significant step in the right direction. now i call on my colleagues from virginia, a member of not only be judiciary committee, but a subcommittee chair on the armed services committee, randy force. -- forbes. >> bobby, thank you. it is always difficult to get the pendulum of government just right. and sometimes, that is almost an impossible thing. i think this moves along way in trying to do that. jim sensenbrenner, we all thank you for grabbing this issue and staying with it so long. and as you know, these kinds of issues don't happen unless you have the right committee chairman who is doing the leadership for that.

and chairman goodlatte has exemplified that kind of leadership in doing this, and also the support of a strong ranking member like congressman conyers. we thank both of them, and all of the staffs, majority and minority, for making sure they came together to get this just right. and today is an attempt to get that right, by enhancing our civil liberties protections, but at the same time preserving our ability to protect national security. you have heard everyone fade is a new comprehensive review, extensive public disclosure, but the big word is more transparency. the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the intelligence committee has taken appropriate action to root out threats to the security of the american people within the boundaries of the united states constitution. i think the house of representatives took a huge step in making sure they got that balance right today with this piece of legislation. inc. you. -- thank you. >> i want to second that

appreciation for all the members of this bipartisan team. now we will be happy to take any questions from the media. yes, sir? >> [inaudible] is there a last step in renewed ambiguities in the bill [inaudible] >> civil authority issues and national security issues are never debates at the bottom of the stack. we are always looking for ways to both enhance our civil liberties and our national security. i think this bill accomplishes both of those in improved ways. particularly with regard to creating the kind of transparency that will allow american people to trust what if going on. -- what is going on. unfortunately, the biggest casualty for this whole past

year has been the trust of the american people. in the organizations and -- in the organizations keeping our people safe, they want that to be accomplished, but they also want to know that their privacy and civil liberties are being respected at every turn of that process. at examination and discussion, i believe, will always go on. but we have a big problem to solve here right now with the program that has been carried in a direction that in my opinion, and i think in the opinion of everyone up here, was not intended when it was passed. and the correction of that and the added transparency that goes along with it is a huge step in the right direction. >> could you better explain the language with regard to selected terms? what was it the administration would have been prevented with this new language that the original language would have allowed? is this hypothetical?

>> i cannot share hypotheticals, and maybe someone else can. but what i can say is when we worked on this legislation, we had to make sure that it was not just stopping bolt data collection in section 215. it was not just stopping bulk data collection with regard to telephone records. it had to encompass all types of data collection and all statutes used around the collection of that. that meant that the terms of this legislation has to cover not just one statute, but at least six different statutes, for related to national security letters, one related to pen register trap and trace, and it had to take into account what law enforcement has traditionally done when it has confronted the need to get pieces of information and for all those chains.

under certain circumstances, the courts have been very clear. you have to have under the fourth amendment of the constitution, a warrant. but under other circumstances, having a phone number and morning to get phone numbers that have been called -- not the content of the calls, but just the numbers called, you can do that with a lesser standard. this bill is not about changing every aspect of how law enforcement in the country goes about doing its work. and keeping people safe. that language was necessary to bridge all of those considerations. if you were to try to list every single circumstance in which a different selector would be used, you would have to try to come -- sit down and come up with every single word and phrase that could be used as a selector. this would be a better way to do it. but we were also concerned that if you did not list every single thing, something inappropriate could be used. that is why we added terms like "discrete close quote and terms like "such as" and "wanted to --

"pointed to." i think that coupled with the increased rent parents he at five to -- at fisa and at nsa being capped when they want to track phone calls or some other data they want to pursue, all of the american people can be assured of the kind of abuse that took lace with the use of section 215 cannot take lace with section 215 or any of those statutes. that is what brought us together in the resolution in dealing with those or these agencies. after all, they're responsible these enormous in keeping the american people safe. they can sure -- making sure we know how they work and how this process works was critical in

bringing it to the floor. >> i have a technical question. still on the definition of what the select criteria are, it was mentioned earlier that congress needs to be informed if there was a policy change, one day, and then 45 days. let's say there was a broad definition of one of the select terms chosen by the nsa. is that a policy change? is that something they are required to tell you? what is the difference between a definition and a policy change and having to report about it? it? >> two things. first, they have to get a court order for the use of that. and that court order, if it is, indeed, a new selection, a new process -- it might be a word

selector change or a change in technology that is used. because this bill will not only cover things that we have used for long -- a longtime i telephoned, but it covers a wide array of technologies being used right now. mostly for legitimate purposes, but also by people who would wish this country and its citizens harm. our intent under the statute requires that at the appropriate time to be disclosed. i don't know if anyone wants to add anything to that. >> i was wondering if you or anyone else there believes edward snowden should be allowed into the country? >> no, i do not believe that. i think it is important to understand that what edward

snowden took as a contract employee of the nsa was not just information about processes used, which was important for us to know and understand and address, as we have done, but he also took massive amounts of information regarding the security interest of the united states and the people who help to protect that security. some have said he took the crown jewels of american intelligence. and i believe that is correct. i cannot share with you all of that information, but i have reviewed the reports regarding what was taken, and i can tell you this is a very serious matter. secondly, i believe that mr. snowden, if that were his only interest in here, made a tremendous mistake in going first to china, to hong kong, and then onto russia to seek the protection of vladimir putin

rather than coming to the united states congress, or someone else, or some other entity in the united states and seek the protection under our whistleblower statute. i think he could have done this very differently than he did. the consequences of him having done it the way he did it our as yet untold and a big concern to me and many others. >> could i just add to that? it is hard for me to imagine that snowden didn't realize he was breaking the law in several respects and that he was apparently willing to pay the price, or at least take the risk for that activity. i don't think there should be some committee seeking to give him a pass or lighten his responsibility. i have to assume that he

realized that if he were detected that this thing would not work out too well. >> several of you have indicated that you hold the senate comes back with stronger language, but we also know this is a delicate compromise that has been reached over weeks and months. i think we know what the administration has said they could support. what makes you think negotiation with senators will be able to reduce any stronger language? -- produce any stronger language? >> we always think operatively, -- positively first of all. even with the senate. [laughter] it is very critical that they understand what happened in this debate today, because there is room for improvement. i haven't met a member supporting that voted for the legislation that doesn't have some ideas about how we could make it better.

i'm hopeful that some of those ideas can work their way into the debate and the law and the bill that they sent over. >> let me just add that no legislation is perfect, and in this case, there are people on both sides of the team -- some would say that this is not the perfect way to protect our national security and others would say it's not the best -- the perfect way to protect our civil liberties. i think you can have a tremendous bill that provides for that. we are always interested in seeing what dissent might do, but you are correct. this has been very carefully can -- negotiated here within the house and also with the administration. it will be very important that if the senate does something different, that it is as ranking con your met -- ranking member conyers said, it is better and not just different. we will look forward to working with the senate to reach a final

conclusion on what can be put on the president's desk to be signed into law. >> let me get somebody who hasn't asked a question, in the back. >> mr. sensenbrenner, and those who were around for the original patriot act, i'm wondering if you could explain a little bit of the evolution here in congress, from crafting a bill, what happened, and what we seen in the implant mentation -- implementation of that to this day. >> first, at of the gift as evolutionary as you think. we still try to believe we are protecting the national security. we still know the events that occurred on september 11, 2001, could happen again. and of course, that was written in the close aftermath of that. but it was also carefully crafted and vetted. it has been reauthorized with some changes over that time will stop -- over that time. but nonetheless, the majority of the provisions in that are valid and important.

and there's still some is agreement about some of the provisions, but not most of the provisions in that legislation. our trouble here, and i will let jim sensenbrenner address this because he can do so better than i can, but our trouble here is be carefully considered what section 215 should be used for. they used it for purposes different than what i believe congress intended, and certainly the vote here today reflects that. if that same question were asked back end, you would get the same answer. -- back then, you would get the same answer. >> thank you, bob. when we negotiated out the original patriot act after september 11, 12 thousand one -- 2001, probably the most difficult thing was to get an agreement between house and the senate and bush administration over section 215 and the scope of 215. other members of congress and i have sent letters throughout the

year each year over to the justice department requesting information and we put the responses up jointly on the committee's website. until the 2006 amendment to the patriot act and the reauthorization, which put the term "relevant post quote in -- "relevant" in, there was really not much of a problem with section 215. there was a lot of material that the nsa and the justice department came to through the use of national security letters rather than through 215 five the court warrants. but with the insertion of "relevant" and subsequent five the court determination that relevant meant everything rather than it be a limiting factor, that is when the nsa and the justice department literally went out of control.

and i can say that most of us did not know about it until the snowden revelations. we have prevented that from happening in the freedom act by requiring significant policy changes. and this certainly would have been one of them, as the law would have been as proposed of the time, to be disclosed to the american public. and my opinion is, had this disclosure provision been in the patriot act, we would not be here at this time. mr. snowden would not have become a worldwide figure, because the congress would have taking care of this either through job owning and legislation or both. -- job owning or legislation or both. >> [inaudible]

do you see any need to reform the surveillance program like prism? >> there are some reforms to 700 to in this to make sure it cannot be used for the purposes of section 215 was being used for. and some of the provisions will allow for greater transparency with regard to any request for any type of data across all these different statutes. but we, as has been said earlier, are always open to new ideas that would enhance the civil liberties of americans if they do not significantly jeopardize the security of americans. i don't think there is a specific postal on the table, -- proposal on the table but we are always open to new ideas. >> a number of members of both parties did the -- did decide not to support the bill because they did not think it went far

enough. was there enough going on behind the scenes to prevent the falling off of key members? >> that never happened. [laughter] we have, from start to finish, conducted a thorough effort to educate members regarding what the still -- this bill does. the focus of any discussions, and there were many, i'm sure, by many members -- in my case, and i hope in other cases as well, it was to look at the actual language and what the parameters and ramifications of that are. i will not speak for any member who voted against it, but i will say that this is a major step forward in protecting america's civil liberties, and in ending both data -- bulk data collection by the government. i think that is the salient point here. but for those who want to have

more, i would recommend, as i think mr. nadler said earlier, don't make the perfect enemy of the good. and i understand there are differing opinions. there were a few members who voted against the bill because they think it went too far in that direction. that is something that always has to be weighed in the balance. it is very unusual to get everybody to support everything. but i think we had a very resounding, bipartisan victory with the majority of both republicans and democrats, large majorities of both were publicans and democrats supporting the bill. we had a large group of democrats and republicans who voted for the bill, and we will continue to educate the members and the public about what this accomplishes, because we want it passed by the senate and signed into law. we want to and bulk data collection. it is continuing and flowing, by the minute, by the hour, and

this is a major step forward, but there's still more work to be done. we have made an important contribution. now we would like to see the senate act on it properly so we can and data collection. >> could i add, when we noted on the final vote of the freedom act that there were a number of members that switched their vote from no -- from yes to no, and we think we would have gotten even a larger vote in support of it had they not realized, as most of us did, that it was going to pass overwhelmingly, so they decided to vote a no vote.

>> [indiscernible] >> right. >> can you describe to us what happened over the weekend. the language -- [indiscernible] the language was tightened twice. how did that process occur? >> first of all, you need to ask people who voted no regarding their reasons for voting no. in terms of the process, i can assure you that it is not at all unusual when legislation comes out of committee that concerns expressed by other committees, concerns expressed by other leadership, concerns expressed by national security and law enforcement organizations, concerns expressed by civil liberties organizations, were all heard and carefully considered in making the changes that were made.

we felt those changes were necessary in order to make sure that there were not unintended consequences in moving this legislation forward toward becoming law, and we had to address it from that standpoint because the judiciary committee produces legislation. we do not get to decide when bills come to the floor. and i think the work was done in an expeditious manner, but also in a very thorough manner, and this bill was at the point where it was ready to come to the floor of the house, and though we spent a good deal of effort over the long term in general terms, over the short term, with regard to specifics here about how they would work. could some people have done more and more information to bring about a different vote on their part? you can always say that, but

that is the nature of a legislative body as large as ours that when legislation is ready to go to the floor, it is ready to bring it to the floor. >> thank you. >> thank you, all. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] voted 303-wantse to want to limit the nsa collection of americans phone records. 303-121.s. house voted american -- from the founding of the american republic, this country has been engaged in a profound debate about the limits of government. in the federalist papers, the founders argued passionately for a federal government that would protect the american people from foreign threats.

at the same time, the founders struggled to create a structure to contain and control that government in order to protect the god-given rights of the american people. they carefully crafted the constitution and bill of rights to accomplish these two different yet complementary goals. in essence, this debate has illuminated the exceptionality of the united states. the ceaseless effort to he restrain the reach of government is in our d.n.a. as americans and for 225 years, we have refused to accept the idea that in order to have national security we must sacrifice our personal freedoms. some, however, think these goals are in conflict with one another following last year's unauthorized disclosure of the national security agency's data collection programs operated under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, or fisa. today the house will consider legislation that once again proves that american liberty and security are not mutually exclusive.

we can protect both american civil liberties and national security without compromising either one. for nearly a year the house judiciary committee as studied this issue in detail. we have held hearings, condulted the obama administration, and worked across bipartisan lines to ensure these programs protect our national security and individual freedoms. this bill, the u.s.a. freedom act, was unanimously approved by both the house judiciary committee and the house permanent select committee on intelligence. the u.s.a. freedom act makes clear that the government cannot indiscriminately acquire americans' call detail records and creates a new narrowly taylored process for the creation -- tailored evered process for these records. this ends bulk collection by keeping americans' phone records in the hands of providers and requiring the government to get the permission of the court to request information from

providers using a specific selection term in their request to the court. that limits the scope of information collected. for example, the government would have to identify a specific person or account as part of any request for information or tangible things. furthermore, the u.s.a. freedom act bans bulk collection not just for the controversial telephone metadata program but for all of section 215 authorities, as well as n.s.l. letters and pen register trap and trace devices. these limitations will protect americans' records of all types, including medical records, email records, telephone records, and firearms purchase records, among many others. at the same time, the u.s.a. freedom act ensures that the federal government will continue to have the tools it needs to identify and intercept terrorist attacks. the bill preserves the traditional operational use of

these important authorities by the f.b.i. and other intelligence agencies. it provides needed emergency authority to national security officials if there is an immediate national security threat. but still requires the government to obtain court approval of an application within seven days. the u.s.a. freedom act increases the transparency of our intelligence gathering programs cureo in an amicus the fisa court. this will be chosen from a panel of experts to help ensure the court adequately considers privacy concerns and the constitutional rights of americans when reviewing the government's request for records. it also requires the director of national intelligence and the attorney general to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the court that includes a significant construction or interpretation of the law, and mandates that the government report the number of orders issued, modified, or denied by

the court annually. last year's national security leaks have also had a commercial and financial impact on american technology companies that have provided these records. they have experienced backlash from both american and foreign consumers, and have had their competitive standing in the global marketplace damaged. in january of this year, the justice department entered into a settlement with several companies to permit new ways to report data concerning requests for customer information under fisa. the u.s.a. freedom act builds upon this settlement, allowing tech companies to publicly report national security requests from the government to inform their american and foreign customers. from beginning to end, this is a carefully crafted, bipartisan bill. i would like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, crime subcommittee chairman jim sensenbrenner, full committee ranking member john conyers,

intellectual property subcommittee ranking member gerry nadler, and crime subcommittee ranking member bobby scott, for working together with me on this important bipartisan legislation. i also want to thank the staffs of these members for the many hours, weeks, and months of hard work they put into this effort. furthermore, i would like to thank my staff, caroline lynch, the chief counsel of the crime subcommittee, and sam raymer, for their long hours and steadfast dedication to this legislation. i might add that sam is going to be missed by the committee as he he moves on to take a new responsibility in the private sector, but he wanted to be sure that he could be present today for the passage of this legislation through the house. i thank sam and caroline for their long and dedicated hours put in to making sure that this was a finely crafted piece of legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr.oniers -- mr. conyers: i rise to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the u.s.a. freedom act. the version of the bill pending before us today is not a perfect vehicle. there is more that we can do and must do to ensure as the fourth amendment requires the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. but let me be clear the compromise bill before us today is a significant improvement over the status quo. it is a good bill. now, with this legislation we stand poised to end domestic

bulk collection across the board. in section 215 of the patriot act and the pen register authority and in the national security letter statutes by requiring the use of a specific selection term. before the government may obtain information or tangible things. this legislation will create a panel of experts from which the foreign intelligence surveillance court can draw expertise and questions involving privacy, civil liberties, and technology. it will also require the court to disclose every significant opinion it issues because in this country there should be no such thing as secret law. and we have accomplished all these things while providing president obama with his

requested authority for the limited prospective collection of call detail records. any bill we might have offered on this subject would have been imperfect, but we have been careful to include the critical safeguards in this legislation. with the additional reporting, declassification, and transparency requirements laid out in the measure before us, we believe the government would be hard-pressed to attempt to expand its surveillance authorities beyond the narrow intent of this legislation. as the administration stated yesterday in a formal statement of policy, the u.s.a. freedom act prohibits bulk collection. this is our intent. and we will hold the current and future administrations to this

intent. in closing, i want to thank chairman goodlatte and mr. sensenbrenner of wisconsin, mr. nadler of new york, mr. scott of virginia, for their tireless leadership on this issue. i also want to express appreciation to chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger for their willingness to work with us to reach this point. the house is poised to approve the first significant rollback of any aspect of government surveillance since the passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act in 1978. we must seize this opportunity. so i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3361, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized.

million goodlatte: i yield myself 15 seconds. i neglected to add another key member of the committee, congressman randy forbes of virginia, a member of the judiciary committee, who has also been a key bipartisan member of this negotiation. at this time it is my pleasure to yield six minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, the chairman of the crime, terrorism, and homeland security investigation subcommittee, and the chief sponsor of this legislation, mr. sensenbrenner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for six minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: i want to thank the house for bringing the u.s.a. freedom act to the floor today. i was the chairman of the judiciary committee on september 11, 2001. in the wake of that tragedy the committee passed the patriot act with unanimous bipartisan support. the bill easily passed in both the house and senate and president george w. bush signed it into law. i believe the patriot act made america safer by enhancing the

government's ability to find and stop terrorist attacks. we were careful to maintain the civil liberties that distinguished us from our enemies. we are here today because the government misapplied the law and upset the balance between privacy and security that we have thought to preserve 13 years ago. in a feat of legal gymnastics, the administration convinced the fisa court that because some records in the universe of every phone call americans made might be relevant to counterterrorism, the entire universe of calls must be relevant. that decision opened the floodgates to a bulk -- practice of bulk collection that congress never intended when the patriot act was passed. senator leahy and i introduced the u.s.a. freedom act to end bulk collection, increase transparency, and to re-establish a proper balance

between privacy and security. after months of input and negotiations, and an historic ecoof its vote on the patriot act -- echo of its vote on the patriot act, the judiciary committee unanimously passed the freedom act. the challenge we faced was to draft legislation that was tight ough to avoid abuse, without incringing on intelligence collection. perfect is rarely possible in politics and this bill is no exception. . in order to preserve core operations of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the administration insisted on broadening certain authority and lessening certain restrictions. some of the changes raised justifiable concerns, and i don't blame people for losing trust in their government because the government has violated their trust. let me be clear. i wish this bill did more. to my colleagues who lament the

changes, i agree with you. the privacy groups who are upset about lost provisions, i share your disappointment. the negotiations for this bill were intense. we have to make compromises, but this bill still does deserve support. don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. the day we have the -- today, we have the opportunity to make a powerful statement. congress does not support bulk collection. the days of the n.s.a. indiscriminantly vacuuming up more data than it can store will end with the u.s.a. freedom act. after the freedom act passes, we will have a law that expresses congress' unambiguous intent to end bulk collection of americans' data across all surveillance authorities. the bill requires that in addition to existing restrictions, the government must use a specific selection term as the basis for collecting foreign intelligence

information. and maybe more importantly, after this bill becomes law, we will have critical transparency provisions to ensure that if the government again violates our trust, congress and the public will know about it and will be able to do something about it. the freedom act gives private companies greater discretion that disclose their cooperation with the government. these disclosures gives the companies increased autonomy and will alert the public to the extent of data collection. the bill also requires public notification of any decision that contains a significant construction of law. expressly, including interpretations of, quote, specific selection term, unquote. this is the end of secret laws. if the administration abuses the intent of the bill, everyone will know. that's why the freedom act will succeed. it bans bulk collection and ensures disclosure of attempts

to dilute it. today's vote is the first step and not a final step in our efforts to reform surveillance. it gives us the tools to ensure that congress and the public can provide an adequate check on the government. in the post-freedom act world, we have turned the tables on the n.s.a. and to say to them, we are watching you and we will. i want to thank chairman goodlatte, ranking member conyers and congressman scott, nadler, forbes of virginia, for all their hard work. i also want to thank the staff for so many long hours. i cannot overstate the amount tears ective sweat and from carolyn lynch, heather, joe put in this bill. but most of all i want to thank my wife. cheryl has always been the world's largest and loudest advocate for the preservation of civil rights. she encouraged, supported it

and some might say demand i lead this effort. there's no question that we would not be here today for this historic vote on the u.s.a. freedom act if it weren't for her. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize the ranking member of the intellectual properties subcommittee, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, today we have the first chance in more than a decade to finally place some real limits on the sweeping unwarranted and at times unlawful government surveillance that many of us have fought against for years. first and foremost, and as the administration stated in the statement of administration policy, this will end bulk

collection under section 215 of the u.s. patriot act and ensure the government will be prohibited from using the national security authority or trap and trace devices for bulk collection. it will not allow a specific selection term, something like a perm pern's name or an account or telephone number as he basis for obtaining information. this will have a reasonable relationship between the particular records and the subjects of the terrorism investigation. i share the concerns that the current definition of specific selection term may still allow overbroad collection, but given the presumptive relevant categories that congress has already identified in section 215 and because the bill will now require participation in the fisa court that can overly ad the law, they can't use a telephone code just because the

terror suspect might be use a phone in that area code. moreover, to the extent the fisa court ever construes the selection term too broadly, other reforms in the bill will ensure that congress and the american people will know about it immediately and can rein them in. these changes are quite significant as are the new restrictions to the use of fisa section 702 which allows the n.s.a. to target persons located outside of the united states. the u.s.a. freedom act on the floor today certainly does not give us everything we want or need. it is a product of heated negotiations across party lines. it is far from perfect but is an important step forward and we will work to fix remaining problems and strengthen the bill as it moves to the senate. but a no vote on this bill oday may mean no reform at all. this must end. this bill makes critically important changes that we must all support.

that's why i will vote for it and i will urge everyone else to vote for it. with that i thank congressman sensenbrenner and goodlatte and conyers and scott and forbes and all the staff members who worked on this bill. this is a signal occasion. it's the first real progress we have made. not enough but a really good first step. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, who's worked so hard on this, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i join the author of the bill, the gentleman from wisconsin, chair of the judiciary committee, subcommittee on crime, mr. sensenbrenner. my colleague from virginia, the chair of the full committee, mr. goodlatte.

the gentleman from michigan and ranking member, mr. conyers. mr. nadler, my colleague from virginia, mr. forbes, in proposing this amended version of the u.s.a. freedom act. i commend my colleagues for working together to develop a bipartisan approach to addressing some of the shortcomings in our foreign intelligence surveillance statutes. as recent revelations about the way that -- recent revelations about the way some of these statutes have been used have come to light, members of the judiciary committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the statutes, studied the issues, proposed solutions and worked together to find a way forward. we also worked with our colleagues from the intelligence committee to find common ground in order to bring meaningful surveillance bill to the floor today. the bill, as amended, addresses the abuses and answers privacy protections, provides more rigorous review of critical questions of legal interpretation and increases transparency so our citizens will know what is being decided and done in their name.

while the administration has already indicated that it will change its procedures, to paraphrase president reagan, i think the best course is to trust but codify. while this version of the u.s.a. freedom act does not accomplish all that we had hoped for it, it is in fact a significant step in the right direction. i therefore urge my colleagues to support the legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the time is as follows -- the gentleman from virginia has 7 1/4 minutes left, and the gentleman from michigan has 12 1/2 minutes left. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased now to recognize the gentlelady from california two minutes, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i certainly respect the role that

mr. sensenbrenner has played in this and honor him and his wife, cheryl, for their commitment to freedom, but i must oppose the freedom act that's on the floor today. this is not the bill that was reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously. i voted for that bill, not because it was perfect but because it was a step in the right direction. after the bill was reported out, changes were made without the knowledge of the committee members, and i think the result is a bill that actually will not end bulk collections, regretfully. as mr. scott has said, our job is not to trust but to codify, and if you take a look at the selection changes made in the bill, it would allow for bulk collection should the n.s.a. do so. further, i would note that the transparency provisions have also been weakened. the 702 section would no longer

be reportable by companies who receive orders, and instead of the attorney general noting decisions that change the law, it's now sent over to the director of national intelligence. regrettably, we have learned that if we leave any ambiguity in law, the intelligence agency will run a truck right through that ambiguity. i think that's why all the civil liberties groups have withdrawn their support from c.d.t., open technology. i would add freedom works and other libry tarian groups have also -- libritarian groups have also pulled their support. companies like facebook and google have pulled their support of the bill. now, i hope that we will defeat this bill and come back together, because we do work together well here in the judiciary committee, and fix the problems that were created.

i think at the insistence of the administration and give honor to mr. sensenbrenner's original bill that had 151 members co-sponsoring it. and with that i see that my time has expired and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: simply to point out two things. first off, as the gentleman from wisconsin has noted, this legislation is an effort to ring together widely points of view of how to maximize our national security and our civil liberties and there are those outside groups that were just referenced who would like to see more than the language that they were able to obtain in this bill. but i think it's very important for everyone to know that while those groups, some groups have

withdrawn their support for the bill, they do not oppose the bill. and that is a very important distinction for members to understand. mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the chairman of the judiciary committee for yielding to me and i also want to thank the efforts of the judiciary committee and the select committee on intelligence for the broad and intense work they've done on this bill. the u.s.a. freedom act starts with the right concept and that is that the civil liberties of americans were under risk even though we have very few examples of people being victimized by it. there's not a level of comfort in this country. and so the move to block the federal government from storing metadata and still allowing for them to be able to set up under

a fisa warrant a query through privately held data is the right way to go. it's a conclusion i drew early on in the many hearings i've been to, both classified and unclassified hearings. i quizzed the witnesses. i put my mark down on those committee hearings, but what happened was the process moved quickly and over a weekend there was an intense job to write a bill that turned into a substitute amendment and a debate in the judiciary committee referred over to select committee on intel, both committees acted quickly. i offered an amendment before the judiciary committee. it was voted on, but i have to say that in my opinion it was not considered in the fashion that would have allowed for the full judgment of the judiciary committee to weigh in. my amendment is set up that allows for the intelligence community to negotiate with the telecoms, the telecommunication providers for a period of time longer than required by the f.c.c.

i think it's not possible for anyone who supports this bill to argue that it makes us safer. it protects our civil liberties more, but there's a window beyond the f.c.c. requirements that i'd like to see available than something on a voluntary basis. so i want to come here to this floor and put my marker down on that concern so we should not sacrifice the security in america and we should protect the civil liberties of americans. we can do that at the same time. i think this bill falls somewhat short, although the underlying concept of the bill i do support. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize a very active member on judiciary committee, sheila jackson lee of texas, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. and i thank the ranking and the chairman for this work and mr.

sensenbrenner, who we have worked with from the beginning of the first stages of the patriot act when the judiciary committee passed it out after that terrible and heinous act of terror, bipartisan. unfortunately it was changed. today i want to announce that megadata collection as we know it has ended. that is a major tribute to the american people. and the judiciary committee and intelligence committee heard them. more importantly the intelligence committee and judiciary committee stand united. can we do more? should there have been an open rule or a number of amendments that may have wanted to be in? yes. i believe in participatory democracy, but today we end bulk collection on the patriot act section 215. we can always do better. today we prevent the bulk collection under fisa pen register, and to the american people we increase the transparency. let me make it very clear, when we first discussed and debated

the patriot act, reverse targeting to me was heinous. it means that it captured and innocent person as we were looking for someone who happened to be a terrorist. today in this bill we have any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are determined to be located in the united states and prohibit the use of any discreet communication that is determined to be to or from a united states person or a person who appears to be located in the united states except to protect against an immediate threat to harm. it is eliminated. reverse targeting is no longer. in addition, i introduced a bill some time ago called the fisa court and sunshine act of 2013. in that bill it required the attorney general to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of the fisa court allowing americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming under the patriot act. and the foreign intelligence surveillance act to conduct surveillance to keep americans safe. i am pleased that in section 402

and 604 of the us freedom act it requires the attorney general to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion. it opens it up to the american people. that includes a significant construction of interpretation of the law and submit to congress within 45 days. mr. conyers: i yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. as indicated the bill specifically contains an explicit prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things pursuant to section 215. the freedom act provides that section 215 may be used only where specific selection and term is provided. as the basis for the production of tangible things. clearly we worked very hard to ontain what was an ame ba -- amoeba that would not end. as i indicated on section 301 was included as it was in my

amendment in h. 3773. let me conclude, mr. speaker, by simply saying the bill of right lives. the bill of right is for the american people, both the right to freedom, both the right in essence to privacy, and our respect for the gathering of intelligence to protect us from terrorists. this bill, the freedom act u.s.a., is, indeed, an enormous step forward. let's work together to move us even more, but today we end megadata collecting as we know it. mr. speaker, i believe we have made a giant step forward for civil liberties, respect on the integrity of the american people and their right to freedom, and as well for the protecting of all of us from terror. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. holding: mr. speaker, on

wednesday the state department acknowledged that terrorist attacks worldwide have increased by more than 43% last year, killing nearly 18,000 people. mr. speaker,ed odds are rising we will be hit here in the united states. that's why a balanced legislation that protects civil liberties and keeps americans safe is so important. and the u.s.a. freedom act does just that. i rise in support of the passage of the u.s.a. freedom act. bipartisan legislation that reforms our intelligence gathering programs while importantly preserving operational capabilities that protect national security. this legislation will make sure that americans are protected at a time when the world is a more dangerous place than when the patriot act itself was enacted in the law. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from california, mr.

honda, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to add my thanks to the work that has been done up to now. i became an original co-sponsor of the u.s.a. freedom act because i was disturbed by the revelations about surveillance programs. the bill is a good step toward balancing security and privacy. but this amendment does not. it leaves opened the possibility that bulk surveillance could still continue. and it no longer protects the public through the fisa court. i'm disappointed that this popular, bipartisan bill has been so drastically weakened and i can no longer support it. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia

reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. hold, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. r. hold: i thank the gentleman -- mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. and i recognize the work that mr. goodlatte, mr. conyers, and others have put into this. but it still falls woefully short. this legislation still allows the government to collect everything they want against americans. to treat americans as suspects first and citizens second. it still allows decision abouts whom to target and how aggressively to go after acquaintances of acquaintances of targets to be made by mid level employees, not federal judges. most important, the fundamental decisions under this will be made by a -- against a weak and inferior standard that does not reach probable cause. so that the government can spy

on people based on weak suspicions and not on legally established probable cause. now, my friends say don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. the perfect, how could anyone here vote for legislation that doesn't uphold the constitutional standard of probable cause? probable cause has been well established in law for two centuries to keep americans secure by keeping intelligence and enforcement officers focused on real threats. not on vague suspicions or wild goose chases. a decade ago there was a major change in the relationship between americans and their government. this bill does not correct it. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. does the gentleman from virginia continue to reserve? mr. goodlatte: at this time i yield myself one minute to respond to the gentleman from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: a number of the things the gentleman has stated are not accurate. first of all the selectors all

have to be approved by court order. secondly, it's important for everyone to understand that the information gathered is targeted to foreign nationals not to american citizens. thirdly, the increased transparency that's created by this legislation, both in the fisa court itself and with the fact that the data is now going to be required to be retained by the companies that own the data and not held by the government, provides extra assurance that if some kind of massive data collection grab were attempted by the government, it would be exposed as mr. nadler pointed out earlier. and finally, the special selectors' language that was carefully worked out in a bipartisan manner, carefully limits the ability of people to gather data. it has to be based upon discreet requests, and discretion has

meaning in the law. it has to be limited to identifiable persons and things. and it has to be done in such a way that the court approves it. i would be happy to yield. mr. holt: why not -- mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 30 seconds. mr. holt: is it not correct that this bill does not invoke the probable cause standard? mr. goodlatte: this is not a search under the fourth amendment and probable cause has never applied. the gentleman is attempting to change the law if he thinks that -- mr. holt: would the gentleman yield further? mr. goodlatte: i would yield further. mr. holt: does any american doesn't think this is a search? mr. goodlatte: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, reclaiming my time. when it comes to gathering information about foreign nationals who are deemed to pose a national security threat to the united states, the fourth amendment does not apply.

and a court must still order the particular selectors that are used. the gentleman's characterization is inaccurate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. i am yers: mr. speaker, going to yield an additional minute to mr. nadler of new york. a member -- senior member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i have heard arguments against this bill and all of them amount to one argument. the bill doesn't go far enough. i agree. it doesn't. but it is rarely a good argument against a bill to say it doesn't go far enough if it goes a long way towards solving a real problem. this bill will end bulk collection. it will end it under section 215. it will end it under pen trace and track, it will end it under n.s.l.s. without this bill. and i hope it passes in the

senate, we'll have no chance to end bulk collection, and the current framework which allows the dragnet surveillance of our citizens will continue. i wish this bill were stronger. but what we are able to get now, it's a major step forward and not to pass this bill now would say to the n.s.a. continue what you are doing. we are placing no restrictions on you beyond what the law already has. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan continues to reserve. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. conyers: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: rather just a minute instead of such time as i may consume. i wanted to take this opportunity to thank staff on both sides of the aisle for the

hard work that went into drafting the bill and the many compromises that were reached when we went into the final product. in addition to carolyn lynch and am raymer, with chairman goodlatte, bart forsyth with mr. ensenbrenner, our own staff, erin, heather, all deserve appropriate credit and praise for the many late nights and long weekends that they spent working on the public's behalf on this critical legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman wish to continue to reserve? mr. conyers: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i have only one speaker remaining and would be

prepared to close our portion of the remarks if the gentleman is prepared to do so. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. i yield myself an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. conquears -- mr. conyers: it's to clarify the term specific selection term, because the definition of specific selection term that appears in the compromise bill isn't perfect, but the u.s.a. freedom act still ends bulk collection. that's why we are here. under the act the government may not obtain information or tangible things under section 215, the fisa pen register authority or the national security letter statutes without using a, quote, specific

selection term, end quotation, as the basis for production. critics are correct, this is not as clean or straightforward as the definition approved by both -- by the intelligence committees and judiciary. nothing in the definition explicitly prohibits the government's -- the government from using a very broad selection term like area code 202 or the entire eastern seaboard. . but that concern is largely theoretical. the type of collection is not likely to be of use to the government. ms. lofgren: if the gentleman will yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman wish to reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is

recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized. mr. conyers: i'm going to close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has three minutes. the gentleman from virginia has 2 1/4 minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you. the definition of specific selection term includes a phrase -- pursuant to the statute authorizing the provision of information -- and that's intended to keep the definition within the four corners of the statute. in will now be an amicas the court to have the expansive

reading of this text. ke reading that took relevance in section 215 to mean all called detailed records, end quote, are inconsistent with the plain meaning of the law. under this bill any fisa court opinion interprets this definition -- interprets this definition must be declassified and released to the public ithin 45 days. if the government tries to expand this authority, the public will know it in short order. the house, the house is poised to prove the first significant rollback of any

aspect of government surveillance since the passage of the foreign intelligence surveillance act in 1978. we must seize this opportunity if this bill is not approved today, we're giving our intelligence people in n.s.a. a green light to go ahead. i cannot imagine that happening in this body. and i support h.r. 3361 yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. mr. speaker, 86 years ago, justice lewis brandize wrote in s dissent in holmstead vs. the united states, secure conditions favorable to the

pursuit of happiness. they recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature of his feelings and of his intellect. they knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. they sought to protect americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensation. they conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone. the most comprehensive of right and the right most valued by civilized men, end quote. after the horrific tax -- attacks on september 11, 2001, the country was determined not to allow such an attack to occur again. the changes we made then to our intelligence laws helped keep us safe from implaqueable enemies. today we renew our commitment to our nation's security and to the safety of the american people. we also make this pledge that the united states of america will remain a nags whose

government answers to the will of the people. this country must be what always has been, a beacon of freedom to the world, a place where the principles of the founders, including the commitment to individual liberties will continue to live, protected and nourished for future generations. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

>> mr. speaker, i rise to claim time pursuant to the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd yield myself as much time as i might consume, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i'd like to recognize mr. goodlatte, mr. sensenbrenner, the other judiciary sponsors, leader cantor, for their continued hard work of forging a compromise with the intelligence committee while preserving operational capabilities. it's commendable we have found a legislative solution to address concerns about the bulk telephone metadata program so we may move forward on other national security legislative priorities. our obligation to protect this country should not be held hostage by the traitor or

traitors who leak classified information that put our troops in the field at risk or those who fear monger and spread mistruths and misinformation to further their own misguided agenda. following the criminal disclosures of intelligence information last june, section 215 telephone metadata program has been the subject of intense and often inaccurate criticism. the bulk telephone metadata program is legal, it's overseen and effective in saving american lives. no review has found anything other than that. all three branches of government oversee this program, including congress, inspector general, privacy and civil liberties offices in the executive branch agencies. despite the effectiveness of the program, an immeans -- and immense safeguards on the data, many members of this body have concerns about the potential

abuse. the debate has been about the potential of abuse, not that abuse had occurred. the legislation we are considering today is designed to address those concerns and reflect hundreds of hours of member and staff work to negotiate a workable compromise. in march the intelligence committee ranking member, mr. rupp ersberger, and i -- mr. ruppersberger, and i had legislation that accomplished these main priorities. we committed to ending bulk metadata collection. we committed to providing more targeted, narrow authorities so as not to put america at risk. we committed to provide and even more robust judicial review that exists today and process for that program. and we committed to providing more transparency into the fisa process and the decisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. the revised u.s.a. freedom act accomplishes the same goals as well. the u.s.a. freedom act provides

the meaningful change to the telephone metadata that members of the house have been seeking. if we had the fortune of having a commander in chief firmly dedicated to the preservation of this program, we may have been able to protect it in its entirety. with that not being the case, and i believe this is a workable compromise that protects the core function of a counterterrorism program we know has saved lives around the world. i urge members to support this legislation. i want to thank all of those who came together to forge something that has been certainly a difficult process along the way. but at the end of the day, something important happened here. a better understanding of the threats by i think more members of congress that posed every single day to the lives of american citizens by terror groups around the world. and that rise in threat level is getting worse. the matrix for that threat

level is getting worse. and it was important as we forged and i think met the concerns of so many and educated i think many on the misinformation that was out there that we protect the core capability to detect if a foreign terrorist on foreign soil is making a call to the united states to further advance their goals of killing americans. i think we accomplish that today. it's not the bill i would have written completely, but i think we protected those operational concerns and met the concerns for those who had a mistrust of that metadata being locked away with the national security agency. so with that i would reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker, and look forward to a thoughtful debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise in strong support of the u.s.a. freedom act. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. ruppersberger: on may 8, the house intelligence committee passed out of the committee the bipartisan u.s.a. freedom act. the identical bill that the judiciary committee passed out of may 7. i especially want to thank chairman rogers for his years of leadership on the house intelligence committee. i also want to thank chairman goodlatte and ranking member conyers and also congressman sensenbrenner and the staff of our intelligence and judiciary committees for the hard work they did on this bill. we have worked together in a bipartisan manner and we have come a long way. after our committee markups, chairman rogers and i have continued to work with the judiciary committee and the administration to iron out some remaining issues which we have done and which is represented in the current bill. the bill represents the productive efforts of bipartisanship and working together for the american people. just yesterday, the administration stated that it strongly supports passage of our bill. again, the administration said that it strongly supports

passage of our bill. it also stated that the u.s.a. freedom act, quote, ensures our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have the authority they need to protect the nation while further ensuring that individuals' privacy is appropriately protected. the u.s.a. freedom act contains important measures to increase transparency and enhance privacy while maintaining an important national security tool. first, we have ended bulk collection of telephone metadata and ensures the court reviews each and every search application. the database that contains phone numbers of millions of americans will go away. it will be replaced with a tailored, narrow process that allows the government to search only for specific connections to suspected terrorists to keep us safe here at home. there is an important emergency exception when there isn't time to get prior approval from the foreign intelligence surveillance court, also known

as fisc. second, we have expanded reporting for court decisions to improve transparency without threatening sources and methods. third, we are creating an advocate to provide outside expertise for significant matters before the fisa court. fourth, we have established a declassification review process of court opinions to ensure the public has access to our national security legal rulings in a manner that still protects our sources and methods. the u.s.a. freedom act is critical to our country's safe and our intelligence community -- safety and intelligence community. it is focused on a logical bill that will protect our citizens through important legal tools while strengthening civil liberties. i was opposed to the original u.s.a. freedom act because it sets high a standard. in short it would cut off the building blocks of foreign intelligence investigations.

we have worked together in a bipartisan manner and created a solid bill. now, it ends bulk collection of all metadata by the government. those that say this bill will legalize bulk collection are wrong. they are trying to scare you by making you think there are monsters under the bed. there aren't. we end all collection of metadata records. i'm again saying, read the bill. that's what the bill says. there's nothing else in the bill. it states that we will end all bulk collection by the government. the u.s. freedom act includes the necessary checks and balances across all three bruverages of government. it protects our -- branches of government. it protects our nation while protecting the nation's privacy and civil liberties. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit a longer statement for the record. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker.

i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, who has been incredibly important, not only on forming this piece of legislation to find the right balance but his work across northern africa on boko haram before it was even popular and bringing attention and resources to important intelligence problems around the world in difficult places, a good friend and a great member and a great patriot, mr. lobiondo from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. . mr. lobiondo: thank you, mr. speaker. let me start out by thanking my colleagues for bringing together an incredibly complicated and difficult issue that probably as recently as a couple months ago no one thought possible. tremendous, tremendous accolades to chairman rogers, to mr. ruppersberger, to mr. sensenbrenner, to mr. conyers on a whole host of issues that, again, are critically important to our nation. you have heard the chairman and mr. ruppersberger outline some of the key portions of this, but

i think it is critically important to stress that the protection of american civil liberties must always be a top priority and always will be a top priority. and this bipartisan bill underscores the importance of that while keeping our nation safe. the u.s.a. freedom act increases transparency. that's something that people have demanded. increased transparency to the american people and allows for greater oversight. something else that we listen to that people wanted to see. it firmly, as mr. ruppersberger and mr. rogers have stated, ends bulk collection records. this is critically important. and it reforms the foreign intelligence surveillance court on fisa to ensure greater checks and balances are placed in such sensitive national security programs. but as we discuss this, let's not miss the bigger picture. i have had the opportunity to see firsthand in some pretty dark and remote places on the earth how our enemies are plotting not just on a daily

basis, but on a minute-by-minute basis on how to find a chink in our armor. how can they find some gap which will allow them to attack our homeland, to attack our citizens. this is a constant and ongoing threat. this bill strikes the balance to allow that transparency for civil liberties, but while it underscores the ability of our intelligence community to be able to do their job. and having been, as mr. rogers indicated, firsthand in some very remote places on the earth, we've got some incredibly dedicated people who are putting their lives at risk every day to protect this country. this is a good bill, let's pass it. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan continue to reserve. mr. rogers: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i yield one minute to ms. jan schakowsky, a very important member of our intelligence committee who focuses very strongly on issues of privacy and constitutional rights and people's rights.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. speaker. as a co-sponsor of the u.s.a. freedom act and a member of the permanent select committee on intelligence, i have been committed to reforming these laws. no bill is perfect, including this one. the u.s.a. freedom act we are voting on today is quite different from the original bill i co-sponsored. it has changed significantly from the version recently passed by the house intelligence and judiciary committees. on its path to the floor several of the bill's proposed reforms have been watereddown and many of us would like to see more meaningful change, however we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. i want to congratulate all those who have been part of this bipartisan compromise. the bill we are considering today includes real reforms and the intent of congress is clear. we are putting an end to the bulk collection of metadata, and ensuring that important fisa court decisions are declassified for public consumption.

these reforms are important and future interpretations of fisa must reflect our intentions here today. i support the act and i look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with my colleagues to make even more improvements in the in you ture. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired -- in the future. -- improvements in the future. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to mr. reed of new york for a colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, i rise today to commend your efforts along with those of the judiciary committee in bringing this legislation to the floor of the house. as you and i have met and discussed on fume russ occasions along with my good friend from indiana, mr. stutzman, this issue is important to not only many of my constituents back in western new york but also to our country. provisions in this bill such as the reforms made to bulk data collection and enhanced declassification requirements

are specific ideas that were shared with me by constituents in western new york and brought to here in washington, d.c. as you know i'm happy to report through our work with you these provisions were incorporated into this legislation. mr. chairman, as this bill moves forward, i hope i have your commitment to continue to work together to assure that a balance between national security and the protection of our personal freedoms is achieved. thank you again and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan reserves. mr. rogers: actually if i may continue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i would thank the gentleman from new york for his diligent work on this issue since last summer. mr. reed's work along with mr. stutzman from indiana was critical to ensuring we struck the right balance on this legislation. would not have been able to find that sweet spot that got us to a strong bipartisan agreement without input from these and other members interested in finding a solution.

again i want to thank the gentleman from new york for his interest, his time, and his effort to help be a part of the forging of this important piece of legislation. with that, sir, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan -- maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to mr. langevin from rhode island, an expert in cybersecurity. the years i have been in congress i worked with mr. langevin on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the u.s.a. freedom act and want to thank and congratulate all those who had a hand in crafting the legislation before us. particularly chairman rogers and ranking member ruppersberger. changes to our national security program should not be taken lightly. this compromise legislation is the result of a vigorous debate and careful consideration.

as chairman rogers pointed out, with all the reviews and investigations that have taken place with respect to the bulk collection program, no violations of law were found, but there was concern that there could be abuses in the future and the american people wanted a better balance to be struck between national security and protecting privacy, sib liberties, and more accountable. many of my constituents have expressed concerns about the sanctity of their civil liberties and i share their concern. i firmly believe this legislation protects that privacy by ending bulk metadata collection while still safeguarding our national security. i'm particularly pleased this legislation includes provisions very similar to those that i championed in the intelligence committee which allows the foreign intelligence surveillance court to appoint an independent advocate with legal or technical expertise in the field such as privacy and civil liberties, intelligence collection,le ity communications

cyber, or any other area of law necessary to ensure independent checks on government surveillance within the court's process w that i urge my colleagues to support the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland continue to reserve. mr. ruppersberger: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you. i just want to briefly thank mr. langevin who has done not only incredible work on this particular bill but his work on cybersecurity should make americans proud of his effort to move that ball down the field. without his and other effort and expertise on these matters, the united states would be a little worse off when it comes to national security. i want to thank the gentleman for his work on this bill and cyberand other national security issues. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. adam schiff, a very important member of our committee. does his homework and has helped me a lot and advised me on a lot of issues important to our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the u.s.a. freedom act. this bill ends the bulk collection of americans' telephone records and puts in place reforms to surveillance authorities to protect privacy and increase transparency. i have long advocated that the telephone metadata program should end in favor of a system in which telecommunications providers retain their own records so they could be queried based on a court approved, reasonable standard. that's precisely what this bill puts in place. it allows us to keep the capabilities that we need to protect the nation from terrorist plots while protecting privacy and civil liberties. there are many ways the bill can be improved and i hope as it heads to the senate there will be opportunities to do so. in particular, i'd like to see provisions to introduce an adversarial process in the fisa court. the fisa court and public trust would benefit from an independent advocate in the limited number of cases that call for significant statutory interpretation or novel legal issues.

i hope that the senate will include such provisions which would be both wise and actually sound. with that i urge a yes vote. i compliment my chair and ranking member on the extraordinary job they have done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. rogers: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from maryland. mr. ruppersberger: i have one ore speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gallon lego: -- thank you, mr. speaker. i serve on the house armed services committee and through that assignment i have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with soldiers and airmen and marines and sailors and their families. like all americans i certainly

want our sons and daughters to be safe when we send them into harm's way. we want to take as much care of them as we possibly can. the media has talked some about some of the documents that were released by mr. snoweden, but there were at one point seven million documents that were released. many of these documents didn't even relate to the n.s.a. so when those files are disclosed in the press and they are disclosed to our adversaries, that naturally puts our sons and daughters in harm's way. it should say something that the first place you go is china and the second place you go is russia. that should say something to the american people. this memorial day i want the american people to focus on those men and women, our country's sons and daughters, who have honorably served our nation and stood by their brothers in arms and protected one another as we have asked them to fight for us. mr. speaker, thank you for -- mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, thank you for your work

on this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is advised he has two minutes left. the gentleman from michigan is advised he has two minutes left. mr. ruppersberger: i'm ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for closing. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the u.s.a. freedom act is a bipartisan compromise that is strongly supported by the administration. our bill protects privacy and civil liberties while also protecting national security. i urge members to support the u.s.a. freedom act. nothing in this bill will legalize bulk collection. unfortunately, there are those members that are saying this will legalize bulk collection. it is clear that this bill, read the bill, states there will be no more bulk collection by the government. that's what the bill says. end of story. this bill balances the issue of taking care and protecting our country from people and

individuals who want to kill us and attack us and our allies. yet it also does what's so important to americans, to make sure that we protect our actual rights and -- constitutional rights and prifecy. it is a balance, republicans, democrats, left, right, middle coming together doing what is right for this country. this is what this body should do and we are asking for a yes vote on the u.s.a. freedom act. i also in closing want to acknowledge the leadership of chairman rogers and his important leadership that has allowed us to get to this level, along with the judiciary committee. the chairman goodlatte, ranking mber conyers, and also mr. steinbrenner. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 2086, cited as the

reliable home heating act. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. thank you very much, mr. speaker. in the comity of the moment when all the love extended and the group hugs and the high five's, i think it's important for america to understand how much effort and how proud i think they should be about the intensity of the debate and discussion over what this bill looks like. because i believe everybody involved in this cares about civil liberties and prifecy. they do. wherever you fall on it. i do believe that everybody who is involved in this cares about our national security. and this debate, this fierce, intense debate that happened off of this floor in committees, in

negotiations over every word and every paragraph and every period resulted in the bill that you see before us today that did get bipartisan support and buy-in for a very critical issue. at the end of the day the national security of the united states and the public's trust in the intelligence agencies that have the responsibility, each and every day, in some very dangerous places around the world to collect the information that keeps america safe. i think at the end of this i hope that people take away from this debate that those who believe that the first round of negotiations meant that our national security was in peril and those who believe the first rounds of negotiation that our civil liberties and privacy were in peril found that right balance today. it's that important for our country. mr. speaker, i only bring that up to talk about the republicans and democrats on the judiciary committee, the

republicans and democrats on the sblell committee and all those that were involved in this negotiation, i think have done america a favor today and they've brought back the institutional notion of negotiation and intensity of debate that brings us to a better place today. i think this bill is the result of that. america should be proud. and now we can move forward on other national security priorities that will serve to protect americans and our allies' lives around the world and with that, mr. speaker, i >> coming up on c-span, house majority leader eric cantor. anotherfollowed by panel on conservative solutions to domestic issues. >> join us tomorrow morning for a preview of ukraine's presidential election this

sunday. the country will vote for a oustedor to replace president viktor yanukovych. in the afternoon, we will look at the relationship between north and south korea and how that affects u.s. national security interests. the institute for korean american studies hosts the event live at 12: 30 eastern. also on c-span2. >> i focus on trying to stop trying to catch people who did in the past, but to figure ito out and 20%,nd say it's 50%, 30%, 60%. i think we're spending a lot of money and my staff time can be to find the trying

problems, identify the problems them.lp correct you have thek american people got their money's worth? worth,r full money's definitely not. there have been some good things of good things done and we have a lot of hard working people. a lot of people have devoted their lives and energies over there. but have we gotten the biggest no. for the buck, and that's what we fine all the time, poor planning, poor execution. >> john sopko on his role as inspector wren and how american taxpayer dollars are spent on reconstruction in afghanistan, at 8:00.ght