Also make the case that i must delay notice. That could happen for 180 days, before a provider or anyone else, you know, notifies the subject, they have to tell the government that they are gonna do that, giving the government the ability to go back to the court and say, you know what, the reasons for our delay have not ended, we need to expand it. I think it is a very reasonable, very balanced approach that supports a fundamental constitutional value, one of notice thats embedded in the Fourth Amendment. Thank you, yield back. Gentlemens time expired. This time, the chair recognizes the gentleman. As former u. S. Attorney, i will always appreciate and listen to concerns expressed by Law Enforcement whenever Congress Proposes changes to a law that may impact your ability to do your job because the folks working so hard to keep us safe and i want to certainly make sure you have the tools and resources and capability necessary to do that effectively. That being said, i also strongly believe that in in an increasingly connected, complex, digital society, our laws have to be modernized to make sure they reflect the current technological landscape as our technology is involving, this extremely personal information being scored on our computers, own our smartphones, on our fit bui bits, where we travel, what we read, where we shop, who we communicate with, make sure we have robust protections in place for that i certainly dont believe that the Fourth Amendment protections that we all hold so dear and the needs of Law Enforcement are mutually exclusive and i appreciate all the witnesses being here today to have a thoughtful discussion about that. I want to start with you, mr. Shah rezny, from my perspective, it seems like the s. E. C. s been the most vocal civilian agency in expressing concerns about modifying ac ba. The s. E. C. Doesnt appear to haver issed a subpoena on a commercial provider in five years, since the rorschach decision and despite that the s. E. C. s annual report last year, 2014, um, touted a record year, cuttingedge Enforcement Actions, more cases than ever before, a number of firstever cases that span the securities industry. And i know that chairman white has testified that the isnt issuing subpoenas to thirdparty Service Providers for content, so, given the Record Number of cases, Enforcement Actions and firstever cases brought by the s. E. C. All done without encroaching on Fourth Amendment rights of americans, why is the s. E. C. Asking congress to give it the authority to get content on something less than a warrant . We certainly have been successful, we think, in enforcing the securities laws, but that does not mean there arent cases that would benefit tremendously from emails we would be able to obtain from isps, i guess the point i would assert is the Fourth Amendment is not violated by what we are proposing which would be an order before a judge, which a judge could issue, with notice to the subscriber after the subscriber has the opportunity to raise whatever objections they have under a standard the congress would establish and from our perspective that does comply with the Fourth Amendment and it also balances privacy protections because would you have an objective fact finder reviewing the situation and determining whether it is appropriate for us to obtain emails in that circumstance and i can tell through are ongoing investigations now which we have refrained from seeking those emails from definitely benefit from such emails. When you say what you are proposing, i mean, how have you been proposing it . We have had ongoing discussions with members of congress about these issues for the last couple of years. Okay. Well, because, you know, from my perspective, it seems like you have been altering your behavior for the last few years in response to this opinion rather than coming to a committee of jurisdiction, at least from my perspective. I know that when i know that when fbi has a problem, they come and let us know what it is and how we can fix it. We have been having ongoing discussions with the staff of both judiciary, senate and house judiciary in this period, certainly since i have been at the s. E. C. , which has been paraphrasing a little bit, mr. Salgado, but you seem to be saying this hr 699 is really just a codification of the status quo under the rorschach, is that right . Thats accurate, yes. Oh you dont think that hr 699 goes beyond the holding in rorschach . I dont think it does. Happy to hear suggestions but my review of rorschach and the bill suggests they are very consistent. Mr. Calabrese, you agree with that . I do. Mr. Rosen white . I think i do. I havent done i havent checked precisely though. All right. With im going to yield my time is about to expire, yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself for questions. Emergency of provisions, emergency disclosure mechanisms and mr. Little hail in his written testimony that the primary mechanism currently law voluntary and mentions that companies are often, in his words, unable or unwilling to respond to Law Enforcements demand in a timely american. I think we all would agree true emergency is there and son of a Georgia State trooper not going to be anybody that would deny the need from a Law Enforcement perspective, however, seems to be something implying missing here. Did research with ourselves and others and based on the concerns that we saw that the publishing transparency report, base olden that report, with i we have looked at, google received 171 emergency disclosure requests and provided the least some data in response to 80 of the emergency disclosure requests. Can you explain why google responded to only 80 of these requests, break down those numbers for us and why couldnt the Response Rate be 100 , given whats been said by mr. Little hail here . I think the statistic you are referring to in our transparency report, publishing that number for a while here so that policymakers and others could get an idea of what this work is like. The number is actually relatively low, 171 compared to the type of Legal Process we get. The 80 represents lots of different situations where the where the emergency doesnt justify the disclosure. Often, the case is that the identifier thats given to us in the emergency request doesnt actually go back to any real account. So there are some services out there where you can create an account using a google or any email address and its not verified that there is such an address, they may use that request to threaten a School Shooting or engage in other some violent activity. The authorities quite legitimately will come to google and ask us for information about this account that was used to create the account that made the threat. We look at our system and there is no such account, so the response back is we have no data to produce in response to this, otherwise legitimate emergency request. That gets counted as a nondisclosure and adds into the 20 where there was not a disclosure, there was no responsive data. Thats probably the most common situation in that 20 . There may be other situations where the request is coming in and the emergency is over, that the investigation is now actually about a historical crime. There is no ongoing threat he to loss of life or serious physical injury which means its inappropriate to be using that authority to get the information. And we are able to say at this point, doesnt look like an ongoing emergency, we can preserve the information and you come back to us with a Legal Process, we can promptly disclose. Okay. Just real quickly, but you went on with your answer long enough to bring up a question. Are you making that determination if the emergency situation is still ongoing . Thats right. Not the Law Enforcement agency offering . The statute says we are allowed to disglows we have a good faith belief that there is an emergency. Mr. Little hail, when you testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2013, you said some providers make a decision never to provide records in the absence of Legal Process no matter the circumstance. Can you identify the Service Providers that have a policy of categorically rejecting emergency in the absence of compulsory Legal Process if not, why . Congressman, as i stated in response as i stated in response to the question at the time, i have made a decision not to identify any examples that i give specific providers because i dont want to highlight a you will haver in ran bullet in a public forum there may come a time i tell you what, i will make a request you can submit that in a nonpublic forum, but im really concerned here that we are making a categorical statement without categorical proof. I can certainly say anecdotally no i want to know having been told that by providers. Mr. Limb hattle hail, you ma statement, wasnt anecdotally. You said in your testimony, providers make a decision never to provide records in the absence of Legal Process no matter the circumstance and thats a very direct statement against the Business Practices of internet providers a ers arp . Is it true or not true . Do you have evidence . I have been toed that by providers . You made a statement not grounded exseptember anything except anecdotally . I would suggest i have evidence, i have been told that by providers. I was told there was a santa claus but found out real quickly there wasnt. [ laughter ] well, congressman i would suggest that thats evidence if you choose not to believe me, i suppose i cant help with you that. But i have been told and agents that work with me have been told that in some cases. I will just let that one sit. Exchange with senator leahy Senate Hearing in this topic regard to phone calls not seeking authority, criminal authority, that criminal authorities have that civil agencies do not, seeking in get access to emails without a warrant, essentially seeking something more than the criminal authorities have, isnt that contradictory . I dont think we are seeking more authority than the criminal authorities have. What are you seeking . Im sorry . Then what are you seeking . I will give you a chance to clarify that sure, what we are seeking is the ability to obtain emails after we tried to obtain them from an individual subscriber by going to a court and obtaining the court order with notice to the subscriber and allowing you the subscriber to raise whatever objections they have before the court. I think, like i said, interesting that some of the testimony thats been given here and i think, you know, very concerning from some issues of anecdotal evidence and real evidence, especially the s. E. C. Side when youre giving the you know, your own report saying youre doing more than youve ever done about here yet without this by choice or decision, however you want to do it, mr. Calabrese, one last question for, my time is now over, but in dissent from the civil agency carveout, commissioner brill wrote im not convinced this is necessary to maintain the commission e [ unintelligible ] i do worry we will create an unconstitutional or incredibly reckless carveout for agencies and my hope is that we continue to push hr 699 forward as is to a markup and we can proet vote and get it to the floor. Thank you. I appreciate it looking around, seeing how it is me and the distinguished Ranking Member this concludes todays hearings. Without objections, all members have five legislative days to commit additional questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record and with that, this hearing is adjourned. Your recent story is titled impasse over riders in omnibus continues as deadline looms. What are some of the key issues involved now in the spending bill discussions . Well, at this point, it sounds like the money stuff has been pretty much worked out and so during the last few days, its been riders that have been kicked up to the leadership level. And democrats were very unhappy, they said to see that almost all the thing were back on the table, some of them they knew were going to be there, some they didnt expect, but some of the issues include reproductive rights, the treatment of Syrian Refugees, environmental riders, things to go after Obama Administration regulations dealing with clean air and water. Those are some of them. Also maybe something on campaign finance, lifting some of the restrictions on political contributions, something that Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell has supposedly proposed. And also, some changes to the dodd frank law that was passed a few years back to try to rein in the banks. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying that this is the first big test for Speaker Paul Ryan. How involved in the negotiations has the speaker been . I think he has been pretty involved in the talks that happened before the thanksgiving break with the House Freedom caucus, calling for listening sessions, appropriators were supposed to set up to allow nonappropriations members to weigh in on the riders that they wanted to see attached to the bills, especially the bills that were not on the house floor this summer. The bills that they didnt have a chance to amend. So i think hes been very involve there had in spearing the development and the discussions, now at the leadership level, now that they are going to be negotiating the riders, he and mcconnell have been very much involved in that, yet the appropriators still say that they are very much involved in that also. What are the Republican Leaders saying about the possibility of another shortterm funding measure if they cant get this done by the deadline . Well, Mitch Mcconnell hasnt said anything about another shortterm bill and he has been consistent throughout the year that he did not want to miss the december 11th deadline and he is very serious about that. In the house, House Majority mccarthy a couple of times in the last week has said, well, maybe, you know, we want to get it done boy december 11, but if we need a couple more days, maybe we look at a shortterm bill. The white house, which has said obama will not sign another cr for a number of weeks, like we saw this fall, said maybe one or two days, but thats all, just to allow the political machinery to work. But they want them to wrap this up and that would bring fiscal year 2016 Appropriations Bills to a close and then set the stage for appropriators to turn to next years bills next february. Work begins on the bills just mentioned tomorrow in the house and senate. The house begins legislative work in about 45 minutes with a bill on improper government payments. No votes today. And the senate is also back at 2 p. M. With a confirmation vote on a judicial nomination set for 5 30 p. M. Live coverage of the house on cspan and the senate on csp 2 cspan2. And more on congress this morning from politico. House Speaker Paul Ryan expressed doubt that congress can finish its business this week saying work on renewing expiring tax breaks and funding the government might stretch later into december. He made the comments this morning to his home Radio Station in janesville, wisconsin, saying it might take us more than just this week to get these issues put together correctly. The government runs out of Spending Authority on friday. The issue still is language to stem the flow of migrants from syria and additional gop attempts to roll back environmental and federal regulation. Read more at politico. Com. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention. [ gavel bangs ] tonight on cspans landmark cases, we will look at the case of baker versus carr, the 1962 decision that ruled federal courts could proceed in election districts. Chief Justice Earl Warren called it the most important case of the ten your on the court. Here is a portion of the actual oral argument. These 11 tennessee voters live in five of the largest cities of tennessee. They are the intended and actual victims of a statutory scheme which devalues, reduces their right to vote to about 1 20th of the value of the votes given to certain rural residents. By the early 20th century, population shifts in states like tennessee had a majority of the voters from rural areas move into the city, yet those rural district with now smaller populations held voting power equal to the larger urban districts so a group of voters from nashville, memphis and knoxville challenged the disparity and took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. The case of baker v carr became a major milestone in Supreme Court activism and has continuing relevance today as the term one person, one vote is still being debated. Joining us in the discussion, theodore olson, former u. S. Solicitor general and douglas smith, author of on democracys doorstep, the inside story of how the Supreme Court brought one person one vote to the United States. Thats live tonight at 9 eastern on cspan, cspan3 and cspan radio. For background on each case while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book, available for 8. 95 plus shipping