generosity and grace. here where so many innocent lives were suddenly taken, the world saw acts of kindness and heroism that will be remembered forever. >> c-span, powered by cable. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including cox. >> colin devries syndrome is extremely rare but friends don't have to be. >> this is jo. >> when you're connected, you're not alone. >> cox sports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. host: sam is at our table this morning covering cybersecurity

with axios to talk about the renewal of the foreign intelligence act, renewing section 702. remind our viewers why there is a section 702 and what it is. guest: is so section 702, the foreign intelligence surveillance act, has been around for so long. it is here primarily to give the intelligence agencies the ability to surveil non-americans abroad. the intent is to surveil anyone who might be planning a terrorist plot, who might be carrying out cybercrime, ransomware, anything of that nature. however, the history of this program has been a bit fraught. the intention is to clog communications and text messages, emails, things of that nature about those abroad who are non-american. course, i'm an

communicating with someone abroad, for whatever reason targeted by this program, my communications will get sucked into this program. all of this information is put into a database that is then freely available -- maybe not freely available, but available to intelligence agencies for to intelligence agencies for if i'm talking to someone abroa- person who is organizing various terrorist plots or something like that. the idea is if they can get permission they can look through the database and search through it. sometimes this has led to abuses , missteps by the fbi in particular. we have seen democrats surveilled by this program. we have seen republicans surveilled by this program. that usually means, when we say surveilled, that an agent has probably searched at some point for that person's name or has come into their communications in some way, shape, or form.

critics of the program call this a way of bypassing maybe our fourth amendment rights, surveilling people without a warrant, it's caused a lot of controversy on the hill this week in particular. host: speaker johnson wanted to move forward with it, arguing that the reauthorization bill he wanted to put on the floor included reforms, many of them. what kind of reforms? guest: that bill, essentially, that was trying to get on the floor this week, included reforms codifying something the fbi had been processing over the last i want to say year or so. they are rules that basically dictate who at the fbi is able to search the database. that you are not changing the way in which surveillance is conducted, which emails or texts are collected, but they are essentially dictating how the agent is able to get permission to search the database, who is able to even search the

database, and the types of permissions they need to get either from a pfizer court or someone else higher up in the fbi before they are even able to conduct these searches. the fbi says that this has enabled them to use the program within the confines of appropriately 98% of the time, 2% of hundreds of thousands of searches is still a big thing, and that is what some of the critics of the bill are kind of fighting against and angling to see more reforms to close that gap. host: one reform pushed by some republicans, thomas massie, we played his clip from yesterday, required a warrant. what would this do and if that were to get approved, would that secure its passage in the house with republicans?

guest: predicting the house vote, i don't have a magic eight ball, i wish i did, in terms of who's going to do what, but in terms of the warrant, it's being pushed by the judiciary committee and leadership there. the idea is that anytime, anywhere in the intelligence committee, not just the fbi, once they conduct a search they would need to get a warrant from the pfizer court if they want to look up any information about americans. so, there have been reports from the pfizer court that oversee the program, a secret like everything else in the intelligence agency, but there have been reports of inappropriate searches of u.s. senators and state senators. the idea that if for whatever reason during an investigation they would need to get a warrant during an investigation. the intelligence community would tell you this is a lengthy process that will impede their

ability to look up information quickly, you don't always have probable or what meets the merits for probable cause when you are doing an investigation in the early days, and perhaps they are just trying to get confirmation on something they heard and the information might give you that probable cause. if you don't have a warrant, how can you get the probable cause? it has caused some back and forth. it is really unclear if this will ensure the passage through the house floor. i would have to believe that there is a warrant attached that anyone in house intelligence pushing for a non-warrant bill will probably vote against this. it is such a slim majority in the house, it's really changing hour-by-hour in terms of what will and not go for the passage of section 702. host: it expires when? guest: april 19, next friday. host: what does the senate legislation look like? guest: the senate is in a mostly

wait and see mode. a lot of senators have been coming out, and from what i have heard it is mostly a house game. a lot of the back-and-forth is in the house, the majorities are there. when it comes to the senate, we are increasingly seeing leadership over there backing a bill that wouldn't include a warrant. it is really kind of quiet in terms of what would happen if there is a warrant requirement. everyone knows that the program is important, no one wants to see it lapse. there's a real kind of touch and go. i meant is a paid in the senate will pick up a path, but it depends on the amendments that are added, what is included in the bill that gets to the house at some point in the next few days, or even a week or so. host: we want our viewers to join us this morning for the conversation. here is how you can do so. republicans, (202) 748-8001. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us, include your first name, city and state, to (202) 748-8003. what happens if this were to expire? guest: it's a little bit tricky. the pfizer court has already reauthorized the program for a year. every year the pfizer court does this, it re-authorizes the way in which the program can be used. they are dictating if this can be used for terrorism cases, cyber crime, drug trafficking. they are basically doing that and it has already been reauthorized for the next year. depending on who you ask, the program changes a little with procedural things that will happen, but it will probably still be operating in some way, shape, or form, set to expire after the authorization from next year. however, the biden administration really wants to see this reauthorized for the long term. everyone is a bit tired of talking about this.

host: any concern with a legal challenge if a pfizer court can authorize how it's used but congress hasn't even authorized its use legally? guest: yeah, i think there have been lapses before and the program and it really changes who participates, who is willing to engage. it creates some weird legal challenges, since the pfizer court operates in such a secret way, just by the nature of it, it is meant to operate in that way. but there are sincere legal challenges, which is why i think everyone is pushing to see it authorize, even though the court has technically authorized the program for the next year. host: john, in michigan hi -- michigan. hi, john. caller: with the talk of people coming across the border, this and that, i would think there would be a real push to get this

through for potentially any internal terrorism within the united states, which has been so worried about all of these other people coming across the border, as well as any other kind of terrorism, whether it be looks like another january 6 or something like that, being able to find out things ahead of time would probably be a pretty darn good idea before it actually happened. that would be my comment. host: all right, john. sam sabin, people making that argument? guest: you are hearing that argument, particularly in the house intelligence committee , people arguing that we need to be able to investigate, have all of our surveillance power intact. there is no good, they would argue, from impeding the surveillance program. that's exactly the argument that is being made in terms of passing this and keeping it without a warrant in this moment. host: fbi director christopher

wray on capitol hill today, you can bet that he will be asked about the program and will probably bring it up himself. our coverage begins at 2 p.m. eastern time of the fbi director testifying about the agency, and likely this program as well. you can watch on c-span three and on our free mobile video app, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. portland, maine, independent line, darrell. caller: i just wanted to speak about the new act that's coming on. i heard all about president kamala harris and the irs and the vote coming down on this thing. i feel like reagan should be able to do this. [no audio] host: talking about the future of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa, section 702 is the debate here in washington. republicans, 19 of them, blocked the house from moving forward on

debating and voting on this legislation. what happened after that? what is the plan on the house side? guest: great question. there were several, there was at least one closed-door meeting with many republican members of the house last night after the vote. my understanding from my colleagues on the hill is that that meeting was where speaker johnson basically was working really hard to try and get his colleagues on board with the bill that he was trying to get onto the floor yesterday. it's still not clear if that conversation moved the needle at all. it's pretty on par for any bill, where there has been internal strife with the republican party, there's always a conversation where speaker johnson is pushing to get what he needs through to get some sort of cooperation with people buzzing. some of the lawmakers that were there last night walked out of

the meeting unclear on what would even happen today. it's pretty early in the day and i'm sure that by 5:00 this afternoon, the conversation will be completely different. it is still pretty white and see with meetings and calls, it's really kind of up in the air as we head through today. host: there was also a classified briefing with intelligence community officials after the vote failed. one member of congress said that the 19 republicans who voted against the rules were not at the briefing. guest: yes. host: so, why hold the briefing? what is the point? you can't tell us about the classified briefing, but what is the point of holding them? guest: it was scheduled before yesterday's vote, so i have to imagine the intent would be that the colleagues who voted against the bill, hopefully it's to educate lawmakers about the use of the program.

part of the challenge that the intelligence community has had so far is that what they do cannot be public all the time. so, they would argue that there is a lot of misinformation about the program and misunderstandings about how it's used and these classified briefings are able to go into more detail about the types of investigations that 702 has helped with and really just help members understand the program, ask questions in a way that maybe they cannot ask during a public hearing. that was the hope. it had been scheduled before hand. i think that the intention was to have people think, but of course the floor vote went out. host: independent line, alan. caller: hi, greta. hi, sam. i thought i would call in. it's in verse -- interesting, i had a conversation with someone a few days ago, asking if -- i have been hearing about the fisa

, they were telling me kind of what sam is saying, this congress hasn't really bought in. but you know, as far as things that are like happening, from my understanding, obviously a huge amount of platforms are being utilized. fisa only controls a certain realm of it, listening to phone calls with americans. and i have heard stories, which i even recounted once on the phone with you guys, when you had another journalist about it, a person who objected to the phone call because they knew the conversation was going to maybe be heard in hawaii and they terminated the call, even though the person asking them to transcribe it said please transcribe the call and they said no way, because this is,

this is that, these are obviously americans, or at least one person is american, because they are in hawaii. but i am curious about -- will there be legislation that will actually affect the other types of things that edward snowden released, prism, just a huge amount of differences that are available to engage bulk handling of data, of people's data, and also, of course, you know, what happened with carter page is indicative of -- he couldn't sue, because he couldn't find the person to basically -- basically turn to the investigation on him. he was suing the government but the government said no, you can only sue one person and if you don't know who the person is, you can't sue. there are a lot of things to discuss and i know it's not an easy topic. host: thanks, alan.

sam sabin? guest: you are hitting at the crux of the situation right now. the program on the table right now is intended to mostly just surveilled foreigners not u.s., right? but faiz of course includes programs that allows for surveillance of americans. there has been constant back-and-forth, constant debate. part of that is passing short-term extension, causing division, because anytime you talk about fisa, the act overall, questions on how we surveilled and collect information for intelligence purposes while balancing the need for privacy, right, i wish i had an answer for you. it's an existential question constantly on the mind of lawmakers and really fueling division right now. host:eris a post from one of

our viewers on x, "is there a provision regarding fisa, section 702, regarding collecting relevant intelligence data under the act?" guest: interesting question that i haven't even been asked yet, kudos to whoever sent that in. i'm not aware of any provision that touches on ai and general, of course it has been mentioned that intelligence agencies are looking into how to use ai, it is fair to assume that maybe they are looking into it for various programs. i cannot speak to 702 in particular and i don't want to misinform the audience, but it is an interesting question to think about and if anything, i think that the intent would be to use ai mostly to assess the data that's in there, right, and model things of that nature, rather than ai surveilling people or anything like that. host: christopher wray, fbi

director, might get -- mike asked about that today, and you can watch that on c-span.org, c-span, and c-span now, our mobile video at. joe, you are next. caller: good morning, ladies. was it hillary clinton who was an expert on this, pfizer, -- fisa, and the fbi signed off that all of this was actually true information? i'm a little lost on this fisa thing, how the democrats can use it to their advantage. someone could explain that to me better, i would appreciate it. have a great day. host: sam sabin, any thoughts on that? guest: my understanding of fisa, i don't have it -- have a recollection of it being used that -- by a presidential candidate, unless i'm mistaken.

my understanding is that it is ruled by the court, dictating how it can be used. it is data that is intended to be used for intelligence investigations assisting in drug trafficking cases, crime, or terrorism, from what we know. i'm not entirely sure if that's the data you are referring to. yes, this is mostly -- speaking of things that maybe the nsa and other agencies are up to, yeah. guest: -- host: what do we know about the fisa court, who is on it, how it operates, cetera? guest: not a lot. [laughter] the intelligence agencies probably know. it's very classified. i don't want to to seem like we are operating in the dark for no good reason. it would be a threat to national security if our adversaries new

that the cia was looking into fbi, etc., i don't wanted to seem like they are operating in the dark for nefarious reasons. it's a court with the judge basically overseeing the way the program is authorized, right? if there were to be a warrant requirement, it would also dictate whether or not agents would be able to search a database for various reasons. the court also reviews how the program is used every year and are the ones releasing report dictating abuses or missteps in terms of search queries in the database. so, if someone missteps or overly searches the database, the court is the one usually keeping the program in check. host: and who are these judges? guest: great question. they haven't appointed, they are like a typical judge with

ri