weinstein and mr. olson, based on your experience of law-enforcement and the intelligence community, what with the operational effect be to subjecting these queries to judicial approval? >> i agree with this brand. it is hard to predict, but it certainly the case having worked in national security division that it would mean it was slow down the process of simply searching for information that would be collected. the attorneys in the national security division's weathers fbi or an essay would have to compile applications to the courts. now in case that the court can move quickly and it's proven it can move quickly there's no doubt that it would become a more cumbersome and slow process in instances where i'm confident that agility and speed is critical. i think without really any gain from privacy perspective and the record that does not have any indication of abuse in terms of the current approach of allowing these agencies to conduct without judicial approval. >> go ahead. >> thank you mr. chairman just ha

so, mr. olson, i wonder if just briefly you could talk a little bit more about what efforts have been built into the program to minimize the breadth of -- the sweep of this program in a way that might otherwise pick up american citizen communications in a way that really frankly the intelligence community could care less about. >> thank you, senator. and as you mentioned, one of the hallmarks of the legislation is that all three branches of government play a central role in ensuring that the law is implemented in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. certainly the executive branch, the agencies that implement are the law are on the front lines of oversight and conformance. the fisa court plays a robust role. having been a federal prosecutor for years, i can tell you the court is not a rubber stamp. it is aggressive and assertive in its oversight of the cases it handles. and of course this committee and the intelligence committee plays a significant role. all three branches of government

before mr. olson goes head, i would ask senator leahy to give his opening remarks at this point. >> thank you mr. chairman. as i mentioned earlier, we have conflicting schedules this morning. this is a very important hearing and i think a year ago this week the house of representatives overwhelmingly passed usa freedom act, several weeks later the senate followed suit. that marked the first major overhaul that government surveillance authority in decades. now today, we are examining the fisa act referred to as section 702, this expires, this expires at the end of 2017. i'm glad we are getting an early start on this. i hope we can avoid the need this expiration of authorities that we have seen last year in the leadership would not bring up the usa freedom act until after the exploring expiration. i am also glad and i pledge you on this mr. chairman that we are holding this hearing in the open. so the the american people can be part of this conversation. this type of discussion was not possible last tim

before mr. olson goes head, i would ask senator leahy to give his opening remarks at this point. >> thank you mr. chairman. as i mentioned earlier, we have conflicting schedules this morning. this is a very important hearing and i think a year ago this week the house of representatives overwhelmingly passed usa freedom act, several weeks later the senate followed suit. that marked the first major overhaul that government surveillance authority in decades. now today, we are examining the fisa act referred to as section 702, this expires, this expires at the end of 2017. i'm glad we are getting an early start on this. i hope we can avoid the need this expiration of authorities that we have seen last year in the leadership would not bring up the usa freedom act until after the exploring expiration. i am also glad and i pledge you on this mr. chairman that we are holding this hearing in the open. so the the american people can be part of this conversation. this type of discussion was not possible last tim

mr. olson based on your experience in me and intelligent community, what would the effect he of subjecting these queries to judicial approval? with ms. brand. it is hard to read it but it is certainly the case having work in the division that that would slow down the process of searching for information lawfully collected. the attorneys working with the fbi or nsa would have to compile applications to the court. in cases where the court can move quickly there is no doubt it would be a more cumbersome and slow process in instances where i am confident agility and speed is critical. i think without any gain from a privacy for spec of and against a record that has no indication of abuse of allowing these searches. >> go ahead. to add to that, keep in mind that kind of requirement is not in place for information collected incidentally under title iii which is the criminal wire tap statute so it is ironic you would impose that in a national security context where you are often trying to prevent that

mr. olson and mr. wainstein have discussed this. it's been found that 702 collection has found to disrupt terrorist plots and identify previously unknown individuals involved in terrorism and understand terrorist operations, priorities, strategies and tactics. the board concluded it was authorized by congress and reasonable under the fourth amendment. the board recommended refinements to the program but did not find them to be legally required. the board did not recommend any legislative changes to section 702. it's worth noting that the board's five members were unanimous in the central conclusions, we were also unanimous inually unanimous in how to protect the program's rules. one issue that divided the board concerns u.s. person queries. particular concern has been raised about u.s. person queries by the fbi so i'd like to address that for a moment. at the fbi a typical early step in a criminal investigation is to query the fbi databases to see what the fbi already knows. they do not distinguish between u.s. persons and others be

mr. pete olson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. i thank my colleague from north carolina. i'd also like to thank the chairman of the committee, mr. chaffetz and the ranking member, mr. cummings. d the entire committee for bringing h.r. 4877 to the house floor this afternoon. this bill names a post office a few miles from my home after lance corporal garrett gameable, united states marine corps. garrett died defending our freedom on march 11, 2010. in afghanistan. he was 20 years young. garrett died before i could meet him, but i'll never forget him because of the stories i was old after god called him home. his mother, shel, told me about a 10-year-old boy who got very angry when he saw those towers fall, the plane crash into the pentagon, the plane go down in rural pennsylvania, 9/11. never wanted to see his homeland attacked like that again. the drive to join the marine corps had started and that drive would never end. evil. wanted to destroy he knows that joining the marine corps was his calling. he saw heinous evil firsthand. ga

mr. olson: mr. speaker, this week the people's house celebrates national police week. we celebrate heroes like our colleague, dave reichert, who caught the green river killer after 20 years. celebrate heroes, like ann, from stafford, texas, who was shot in the face and near her heart and sped off at over 100 miles an hour to apprehend the thugs who shot her. and we celebrate heroes like these young teenagers from my hometown of sugarland, texas, who sold lemonade for cops because blue lives matter. lives like deputy sheriff darren goforth, who last year was gunned down in cold blood, shot 15 times in the back of is head and back side. he was pumping gas in his uniform with his cruiser. heroes like dave reichert, ann, rren, and young texans selling lemonade have a message for america. blue lives matter. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired, for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: wit

an unclassified number, mr. olson, of about 1000 investigations going on today in this country. we should not let down our guard, because to do so is to invite disaster. i believe from the time we began looking at this, and with the is renewedelp there transparency going on and there is discussion that is helpful. i think the 702 program is really important. it would be most unfortunate and it would expose his country if that program were made ineffective. the key really is to do what we can, i think the faa has done that to provide and the masking and unmasking and how everybody has the numbers with respect to that for the year 2015. i just wanted to make those comments. if anybody has a comment - opposition to backdoor searches is not a call to rebuild the wall. >> what is a backdoor search? >> that is when the fbi or any other agency targets a u.s. person for a search of data that was collected under section 702 >>. regardless of the minimization that was properly carried out. data, the gets raw nsa and the cia gets raw data using u.s. identifiers. personto address a u.s. que

we've even had -- i think it's an unclassified number, mr. olson, of about 1,000 investigations going on today in this country. so we shouldn't let down our guard. because to do so, is really to invite disaster. i actually believe from the time we began looking at this, and with the pclob's help and the information you provided and the response to it. there is renewed transparency going on and there is discussion that's helpful. but i think that the 702 program of the programs is really important. and it would be most unfortunate and it would expose this country if that program were made ineffective. the key really is to do what we can, and i think the faa has done that, to provide -- and the masking and the unmasking and now everybody has the numbers with respect to that for the year 2015. i wanted to make those comments. and if anybody has a comment. >> yes, i'm twitching over here. i wanted to respond to one thing you said. opposition to back door searches is not call to rebuild the wall. >> whoa. whoa. what's a back door search? >> back door se

now mr. olson, would you continue?> yes, thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member leahy, distinguished members of the committee i'm honored to be here this morning to talk about this important issue. as the former director of the national counterterrorism center i can attest to the value that faa has provided to our national security. it significantly has contributed to our ability to prevent terrorist attacks inside the united states is around the world. also as the former general counsel of the national security agency and as a former official at the department of justice's national security division i was responsible in those jobs for ensuring that the law was implemented in a way that complied with the law, the constitution, and protected the privacy and civil liberties of americans. in my brief remarks this morning i will focus on the operational aspects of section 702 and the value that this authority has provided to our counterterrorism es. i think to start to appreciate the importance of section 702 it is h

mr. olson: if i could make a broader point which is, the targeting procedures you identified in the first document , the transparency figures in the report i think really highlight along with miss brand and most of the discussion today, the success that the fisa amendment act and 702 represent. this is a law which reflected a careful balance and has been an balance to tweak that in careful ways. a report unprecedented in terms , the pclobness report leading to the changes. we have a very carefully calibrated law that has been a major success from in intelligence to appoint and i search backdoor, it is a misnomer to call searches of a lawful nature and judges have up when having a chance to review, that is how it was meant to be used under the careful limitations of the minimization procedures. i think this is a very good news story addendum the day. senator feinstein: we have looked at this and there are a number of opinions from some of your colleagues on the subject that have an studied and i

mr. olson: he was a medical pioneer who transformed the lives of many thousands of people. from performing surgeries to creating medical devices to leegged several health care companies, glenn did it all. health care was his career. and that's because he recognized the power of medicine and innovation, how it could be used to make a difference in the lives of his neighbors. he put it best when he said as a urgeon you save one live at a time but with medical devices you know you are saving so many more. mr. paulsen: glenn did what he did not to make money or gain fame. he was a leegged doctor, inventor, philanthropist, and great family man because he cared about people and valued giving back to others. mr. speaker, the loss of glenn nelson is something all of minnesota is feeling. our state and our country and our medical community are better off because of the leadership and passion and spirit of glenn nelson. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent

mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent that lucy olson, a legislative fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i have waited to give this speech. waited for weeks. waited for the rhetoric to die down after the untimely and unexpected passing of justice scalia. waited to speak about this sad state of affairs out of a hope that no more words would be necessary before this senate acted. mr. president, it was my fervent hope that the initial reaction to justice scalia's death was due to the shock, the grief at the loss of a conservative icon. i, like many of my colleagues, were publicly mourning the loss, and i assumed that my colleagues were simultaneously realizing that after decades of trending to the right, it was now more than likely the supreme court was going to shift back to a more centrist, progressive point of view. but now it appears that the senate has descended into an alice in

mrs. mcmorris rodgers, messrs. olson, mckinley, pompeo, griffith, johnson of ohio, flores, mullen, pallone, rush, mrs. capps. ms. matsui, castor of florida, messrs. sarbanes, welch, ben ray lujan of new mexico, tonko, and loebsack. from the committee on agriculture from consideration f sections 3017, 3305, 4501, 4502, 5002, part 2 of subtitle c of title 10, and section 10233 of the senate bill and sections 1116 and 5013 of division a, division b, and ections 1031, 1032, 1035-1037. subtitle k of title 1, section 2013, subtitles f, m, and q of title 2. and title 25 division c of the house amendment and modifications committed to conference. messrs. conaway, thompson. pennsylvania, and peterson. from the committee on natural resources for consideration of sections 2301, 3001, part 2 of tle 2, 3017, 3104, 3109, 3201, 3301-3306. 3308-3312. 4407, 401, 4403, 4405, 4410, 4412-4414, title 5, section 6001, subtitle a of title 6, section 6202, title 8, title 9, subtitles a, b, and c of title 10, parts 1, 2, 3, 4 of subtitle d of ti