[Congressional Record: February 13, 2008 (House)]
[Page H878-H886]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5349, PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007
EXTENSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the intent of the original 1978 FISA law was to enhance
Americans' security while at the same time protecting Americans'
privacy. Recognizing that no responsibility of the Federal Government
is more important than providing for the defense and security of the
American people, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure that
FISA continues to reflect the intent of the original law.
In the nearly 30 years since FISA became law, we have seen tremendous
advances in communications technology, such as the Internet, cell
phones, and e-mail. However, under the original FISA law, our
intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists, Mr.
Speaker, in foreign countries, without a court order, because of
advances, as I mentioned, in communications technology.
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again: Because of advances in technology,
our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists
in foreign countries. It is clear that the law is outdated and must be
modernized to reflect changes in communications technology over the
past three decades.
In August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step
to close our Nation's intelligence gap. The Protect America Act passed
only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's
intelligence professionals the tools and authority they need to protect
our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked a
significant step forward in improving our national security. But,
unfortunately, Democrats forced these needed technology tools to expire
in 6 months.
In November, the House Democrat leaders brought legislation to the
floor that does not go far enough to reform outdated FISA laws. It
weakens Americans' privacy protection and fails to permanently close
our Nation's intelligence gap. A bipartisan, permanent solution is
needed that shows all Americans and our enemies that the United States
is truly committed to closing our Nation's intelligence gap.
Yesterday, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner by a vote of 68-29
to permanently close the terrorist loophole and ensure that
intelligence officials are able to monitor communications of suspected
terrorists overseas such as Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.
This commonsense solution would help keep our country safe from attack
and should be acted on immediately and sent to the President to be
signed into law.
Mr. Speaker, House Democrat leaders need to stop dragging their feet.
They need to end their delaying tactics, indeed, to let the House vote
on the Senate-approved measure. Today, I am going to give Members of
the House an opportunity to support the bipartisan measure that the
Senate passed just yesterday. If the previous question is defeated, I
will amend the rule to allow the House an opportunity to concur with
the Senate amendments. By approving the Senate amendments, the bill can
become law before the current extension expires in just a few days.
We don't need to close the terrorist loophole just temporarily, Mr.
Speaker. We need to close it permanently and update our Nation's
surveillance laws in order to protect our Nation from another terrorist
attack.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so that we can permanently close the loophole.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my colleague from Washington for his insightful history on
the FISA bill. I would submit that I agree with him that the FISA bill
is necessary for the security of America. No one questions that. No one
on our side of the aisle questions that. The question that we do have
is does the Senate bill actually take away some of the liberty that is
so necessary to the American people.
All we are asking for is an extension of 21 days. When you think
about it in the grand scheme of things, 21 days to make a determination
whether or not this bill continues to give the American people the
liberty that they have had for over 200 years, that is not a lot to ask
for. I would much rather have 21 days, keep the bill in effect but
extend it for 21 days, knowing full well that the end product is
something that not only ensures our security but guarantees our
liberty.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), ranking member
of the House Intelligence Committee.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding.
[[Page H879]]
I think they are absolutely right, we need to take a look at this in
the bigger context. We have to set the stage for how we got to this
point.
It's September 12, 2001. The President is meeting with his advisers.
They're trying to identify exactly what this threat is from al Qaeda,
how serious is this threat, what other activities or attacks might they
be planning against the United States. And the President says: I need
my intelligence and military folks to get the answers to these kinds of
questions. Tell me what the threat is and tell me what the tools are
that I need to implement to keep America safe.
They come back with a series of recommendations, saying here's what
we know, here's what we don't know about the threat. They come back and
say, here are the different options that are available to us to get the
information that might be able to answer some of these questions.
The President and his leadership team consider the various options.
They say, you know, we need to bring Congress into this to take a look
at exactly what tools we're going to implement and make sure that we do
this in a bipartisan basis and we do it in a basis that is consistent
with American values and American law.
On October 25, the President and Vice President convene a meeting.
The President's national security team comes up and they say, here's
the tool that perhaps can be used. The chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee is there. The Chair of the Senate Intelligence
Committee is there. The ranking minority member of HPSCI is at the
meeting. She's accompanied by the vice chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. That's right. Back in October of 2001, the
Speaker of the House was briefed on the various tools that could be
used to keep America safe.
November 14, 2\1/2\ weeks later, the chairman of HPSCI, the ranking
member, yeah, that's right, the current Speaker of the House, was
briefed on the tools that were available and could be used, the
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the vice chairman.
March of 2002, the chairman of HPSCI, the ranking minority member of
HPSCI, that's right, the current Speaker of the House, was in the
meeting.
June of 2002, the chairman of HPSCI, the ranking minority member of
HPSCI, that's right, again, the current Speaker of the House is brought
in, is briefed on this program, and said this is the tool that we want
to use, this is the tool that we need to use to keep America safe.
Four times in about 9 months, the current Speaker of the House was
briefed on this program, about what the tool was, the kind of
information that we were expecting to get and, after a period of time,
the information that we were collecting that would keep America safe.
I was not in those meetings. I was not one of the select group of
people that was informed. You would think that they would say, what are
the civil liberty implications of this? You know, how are we using
these tools? Where does it fit within the legal framework of America to
keep us safe? And who's going to be working on this program? Who do we
need to partner with? And there might have been certain companies or
individuals that were identified as saying, these folks are going to
partner with us and have partnered with us because they can help
provide us with the information that will keep us safe and do it in a
legal way.
Since that time, and since this program became public, there has been
all kinds of accusations out there. But the bottom line is, there may
have been people, there may have been companies and corporations that,
when the President and Congress went to them and said, we need your
help to keep America safe, they may have stepped up to the plate and
provided us with the assistance that we knew that on a bipartisan basis
the executive branch and Congress said, we need to do this, and we need
to do it in a way that protects civil liberties, and we need to do it
in a way that is legal and consistent within the law.
And the bottom line is, this is dealt with in the Senate bill. They
recognized the help. They don't throw these people under the bus after
we asked them to help.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion on this
issue. Certainly it is the type of issue that elicits real passion from
people. But I think we as a body need to be sure that the steps that we
take are deliberative and thoughtful. Certainly reacting to an issue
such as this in a passionate way may deprive us of taking the necessary
steps that we need to ensure that the liberty of our citizens is kept
intact.
Again, I would just point out that this bill is asking for an
additional 21 days within which Congress can continue to review the
documents that we have asked for that we have only recently received to
make a determination, again, a deliberative determination based upon
facts and reasons and not on passion.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), also a member
of the Intelligence Committee.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important
laws that is preventing another terrorist attack in this country will
expire on Friday. It expires on Friday.
My colleague from New York says, well, we just need to take enough
time and be deliberative and so on. My colleague from New York didn't
vote for the temporary fix that we passed in August. In fact, in an
exchange with him that I remember so well, he questioned whether we
should extend the constitutional protections of the fourth amendment to
people who are foreigners in a foreign country talking to each other.
The temporary fix that we made in August needs to be made permanent,
and we need to move forward with a permanent law that allows our
intelligence agencies to listen to foreigners in foreign countries
without a warrant while protecting the civil liberties of Americans.
That's what we passed in August. That's what the Rockefeller-Bond bill
does from the Senate, and they passed it last night. We passed a 6-
month bill in August. We had 6 months to review this. And then when
that deadline passed on the 1st of February, they said, well, just give
us another 15 days. We gave them another 15 days and they said, well,
we really haven't had the time to look at this paper.
You've had almost 7 months. The time is now to get serious about our
national security and giving our intelligence agencies the tools they
need to prevent the next terrorist attack.
The Senate passed the Rockefeller-Bond bill last night by a vote of
68-29. It makes permanent the authorities that we passed in August of
last year to listen to foreigners in foreign countries without a
warrant. We spy on our enemies. We try to find out what their plans are
so that we can stop them from killing Americans.
That Rockefeller-Bond bill also provides protection from lawsuits for
the American companies that stepped up to the plate when this country
was in crisis. In good faith, those American companies partnered with
the U.S. Government, under instructions from that government, from our
own government, to move forward and to help us to prevent another
terrorist attack. And, ironically, they cannot defend themselves
against lawsuits because the government says to do so would violate
state secrets. It would give away secrets to our enemies. So they're
stuck in court not even being able to defend themselves.
The cooperation that is being protected here in the Rockefeller-Bond
bill is long established in criminal law and should certainly extend to
the national security realm.
Today, I circulated a letter from 21 bipartisan attorneys general
supporting these lawsuit protection provisions. Our intelligence
agencies and their partners in private industry need certainty, the
telecommunications companies whom we depend upon to cooperate need
certainty, and our intelligence agents need certainty that we're not
going to keep operating our intelligence community on a month-to-month
basis.
In August we closed an intelligence gap, a vital gap that has been
now closed, and the changes that we made have already provided
intelligence that the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike
McConnell, has said
[[Page H880]]
have helped us to disrupt terrorist attacks.
Intelligence is the first line of defense in protecting this country
against terrorism. I would urge my colleagues to allow a vote today on
the Rockefeller-Bond legislation, do not allow this bill to expire, and
stand up and protect this country.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be asking us to rely
upon assurances given to us by this administration, this same
administration that has told us about weapons of mass destruction, the
same administration that told us that Iran was building a nuclear bomb.
And then she asks why we are skeptical about taking the word of the
administration.
As my colleague knows, the House passed the RESTORE Act last
November. It was not until last night that the Senate passed a bill
reauthorizing and reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The bill is significantly different than the one we passed in November.
As is the case when the House and the Senate have differing bills, it
is appropriate for the two to meet and reconcile their differences.
That is exactly what we intend to do in a bipartisan and bicameral way.
However, as my colleagues also know, the President's preferred
surveillance law is set to expire on Saturday. The underlying bill will
extend that law for 3 weeks and give the House and Senate Judiciary and
Intelligence Committees time to work toward a conference agreement.
Additionally, it will also give our Members, Republican and Democrat,
time to review reams of highly classified materials which were only
provided to us by the White House in recent days, despite requests
dating back all the way to May, 8 months ago. These materials are
absolutely critical as the House considers the request which has been
made by the White House to grant what amounts to a blanket
transactional immunity to telecommunications companies who participated
in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance plan without any
explanation of what that immunity is for. While the President has been
quick to call on Congress to act, it is he who has continued to ignore
countless congressional requests for information about the actions of
his administration.
As a former State attorney, I know firsthand that not even a first-
year prosecutor would even entertain the idea of granting immunity
without knowing what that immunity is for and who that immunity is
being granted to.
From his seat, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee noted last
night in Rules that he cannot recall a time in his 45 years in the
House when an administration has asked Congress to provide immunity to
anyone or anything without telling us why. The House is not opposed to
granting such immunity, but if we are going to act, then we need to
know why.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of passing long-term FISA reform,
but it will take time because there are very real differences between
the positions of the majority Members of this body and the Senate and
the White House. Those who come to the floor today to delay this
extension and engage in a manufactured obstructionism, which has become
so symbolic of the congressional Republicans, are doing a great
disservice to this Nation.
{time} 1145
We will overcome this obstructionism, and we will use the next 3
weeks to reconcile our differences and come to the American people with
a bill that protects our homeland without sacrificing our civil
liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the former attorney general of the State of California, Mr.
Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose
this rule. Let's think about what we are talking about. The majority is
asking us to extend for 21 days a bill that they don't support, a bill
that they overwhelmingly voted against, a bill that they said harmed
the American people, a bill that they said somehow doesn't protect
civil liberties. Now, why do they want to extend it for 21 days if it
is terrible? Perhaps there is some mischief in the air. Perhaps what
they really want to do is to continue to kick this can down the road so
that finally in the war of attrition we will give up and say, you know,
those people who helped us, those companies referred to by Mr. Hoekstra
that responded to a request by the United States Government to help us
in our time of need, that is immediately after 9/11, we are not going
to help them.
Remember what the greatest criticism of the 9/11 Commission was of
government in all of its aspects, it was that we fail to connect the
dots. What does that mean? We failed to put together intelligence
information or to gather that intelligence information and put it
together in a way that made sense that would give us a forewarning of
what was about to take place. And they said it is not good enough to
rely on the criminal justice system to gather evidence after the fact
to prosecute somebody. No, in a war on terror what you want to do is to
prevent the terrorist act in the first place.
So what we have here is a difference on that side of the aisle and
this side of the aisle in which we believe a Good Samaritan law makes
sense, a Good Samaritan law much like what we do to allow people to
respond to an accident without having to fear that they will be sued
for medical malpractice. And in some circumstances, does that mean that
maybe one out of 1,000 times there might be medical malpractice for
which you can't be sued? Yes. But we do it because the overall good of
the country is enhanced by giving incentives to people to help their
neighbor.
That is what happened here. We have either an incentive or a
disincentive for companies and individuals to respond to their country
and act in good faith. That is what is at stake here, whether or not we
are going to be safer or whether or not we are going to play these
political games to support a bill that you all voted against.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is engaged in an
important debate, perhaps the most important debate certainly in recent
years. Our most solemn obligation to this country is to protect the
American citizenry.
In my view our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing
a dangerous political game, and the American people are the pawns in
this game. I bring to the Congress a unique experience. I worked in the
Justice Department under the FISA statute. I have worked on national
security wiretaps, and I can tell you that the statute was never
intended to cover foreign targets in a foreign country. And if Osama
bin Laden is on the phone calling into the United States, I think the
American people want us to pay attention to that and to listen to that
conversation.
Intelligence, good intelligence has stopped every threat to this
country since 9/11. Intelligence is the first line of defense in the
war on terror. Without that, we cannot prevail in this war on terror,
and we need to protect the American companies who we ask to protect the
United States and the American people.
They stood up to the plate, and it is our time to stand up to the
plate and now protect them. They were doing their patriotic duty in a
time of war when America asked them.
If we do not protect them, then what company, American or otherwise,
will dare help the United States of America in its greatest time of
need, in a time of peril, in a time of war.
Yesterday, the Senate passed the FISA bill, which included this
immunity and also protects Americans. I say we put that bill on the
floor, let's pass that bill and let's make the Protect America Act
permanent. Now is the time, not 21 days from now, not several months
from now. For the American people, let's pass and protect the American
people now.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague that the only
dangerous political game that is being played here is the attempt to
cast this as a political game. There is no such attempt being made by
anyone in the Democratic Party. The only attempt we are making is to
give us time to go through the material that has only recently been
given to us with the simple objective of ensuring that we get a bill
which keeps our country safe and guarantees the liberty of our people.
[[Page H881]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to a Member who for 6 years was the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Constitutions of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and
to the underlying bill before us. Last August, Congress passed and the
President signed into law a bill that provides our law enforcement and
intelligence community with the tools needed to protect this country,
to protect the United States.
The events of September 11, 2001, exposed gaps in our intelligence-
gathering activities, particularly those occurring outside the United
States. Since that tragic day, the administration has worked with
Congress to ensure that every tool in our arsenal is available to those
who are charged with keeping our country safe, including working with
telecommunications companies and allowing officials to gather
intelligence from potential foreign terrorists outside this country.
These two aspects of the PAA have been critical in protecting the
United States from actual or potential terrorist attacks or sabotage.
Oversight by the FISA Court and minimization procedures approved by the
courts ensure that such activities do not go beyond their scope.
Last night, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation that would
maintain these critical features enabling the intelligence and law
enforcement communities to continue with its critical work.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and immediately take up and
pass the Senate bill so that law enforcement and the intelligence
communities continue to have the necessary tools to keep the American
people safe.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the
Intelligence Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is really almost going
beyond the pale of irresponsible and getting into dangerous.
I used to be an FBI agent, and every day in this country there is an
FBI agent who goes up to somebody, an average citizen, it may be a
coworker, it may be a neighbor, it may be somebody who owns a small
business, it might be somebody who owns a big business, and says, We
need your cooperation to catch child pornographers, and here is the
evidence. Will you cooperate with your Nation? And we do it every
single day, and great Americans stand up every single day and say, Yes,
I will. I will go after child pornographers with you. I will go after
crack dealers selling the drugs to our kids with you. I will go after
murderers who murder our children in the streets of America, and I will
stand with you and cooperate so we can eliminate the dangers from our
communities.
And you know what the government did? It went and said, Hey, to
whatever business it was, small, big, large, we had people kill 3,000
people, murdered, on one day. And you know what, they are coming back.
Will you cooperate with your government to stop the next round of
murders?
But we play a very dangerous game. It is about civil liberties. Then
why did we pass the bill before, and before that? Because there is
civil liberty protection in this bill. It is a farce.
What is at risk here is the future certainty by our intelligence
agencies and every single American who wonders: If I cooperate against
a criminal of any sort, a terrorist, are they coming to get me next?
We need to refocus on who the bad guys are. It is not the companies
who cooperated with their government. If you are a small business
selling insurance or you are washing windows, it is the terrorists who
threaten the lives of Americans.
We ought to be proud of every American who has the courage in a
dangerous world to stand up and say: I will stand with you, United
States of America, to get the true enemy, the bad guys, al Qaeda,
terrorists, crack dealers, child pornographers, and everybody in
between.
I urge the strong rejection of this rule, and let's get back to
business and give them the tools to keep us safe.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, you know, obviously
raises a good point. As a former FBI agent, he was very concerned, he
is very concerned, and he continues to be very concerned with doing the
right thing, getting the people who are breaking the laws, hurting our
children and who are putting our citizens in jeopardy. But no one in
this Chamber has the market cornered on that. That is something that I
think universally throughout this Chamber there is a strong desire to
fulfill. That is why we are here. We are here to protect and defend our
citizens and to protect and defend our Constitution, and that is all we
are asking for today: 21 days to ensure that we are able to look over
the recommendations, to look over the material that has recently been
forwarded to us by this administration to ensure that we are not only
protecting and securing this country, but rather that we are also doing
it in a way that protects our liberty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt), a member of the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Lungren and others who have spoken are right in one respect, yes,
most of the House of Representatives voted not for the Protect America
Act but rather for a substitute that we passed, a very good piece of
legislation, that would indeed protect Americans, known as the RESTORE
Act. That passed the House. It should be the law.
We do not need the Protect America Act to protect Americans, the so-
called Protect America Act. We do not need it to keep from going dark.
But what we do need is the time and the attention to get this right.
This is a serious, serious matter about protecting the safety of
Americans but also about the definition, the relationship between the
people of this country and their government.
There has been a fundamental shift under the Protect America Act in
the relationship between the people of this country and their
government. It is whether or not the government regards the ordinary
American with suspicion first. Think about it.
The reason this country and our liberty has survived so well is
because the government understands they are subservient to the people.
The government has understood that they treat the people with respect,
their bosses, and do not regard them with suspicion first.
To be able to seize, search, intercept without having to demonstrate
to an independent judge that you know what you are doing is a sign of
disrespect. It is a sign of suspicion. It is, in fact, a redefinition
of the makeup of this country.
So if we need time to get this right, let's take the time. We don't
need the Protect America Act to keep us from going dark, and I would
argue we certainly don't need it, as they argue, to protect Americans
from those who would do us harm. We have offered that protection in the
RESTORE Act. Let's get this right.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to another member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think the comments from the last speaker are very enlightening on
this debate because we have heard for month after month the same
arguments made time and time again, and the bottom line is there are a
number of Members who are not for these authorities that allow our
national security professionals to listen to terrorist communications.
And there are a number of people who would just as soon let the Protect
America Act expire and let it go out of effect. As the gentleman who
just spoke said, we don't need it to protect the country.
{time} 1200
But there are others of us who believe that we do need such
authorities to protect the country, and a very large number of Members
of the other body have just voted on a proposal that would do that.
And so my position, Mr. Speaker, is give us a chance to vote on it.
We hear
[[Page H882]]
excuse after excuse. We need more documents, we need more information,
we need more legal opinions, we need 14 days, we need 21 days. But we
have been debating the same issues month after month. Nothing has
changed. No more information, no document is going to change the basic
position the country stands in today and, that is, a law expires on
Friday, and if the people for whom we have given the responsibility to
protect the country are to do their job, that law is going to have to
be made permanent so they can count on it, not dribbling it out a few
weeks at a time, not treating them the way we treat soldiers in Iraq
and Afghanistan by giving them funding just a few months at a time, but
giving them the authority they need to do their job.
I suggest the best way to do that is to bring up the bill that has
already passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and
give us a chance to vote on it. There will be some Members who vote
``no.'' They think we don't need that authority. They think the Protect
America Act is not needed. But I suggest a majority will vote ``yes''
and it will pass and the country will be safer.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
You know, kicking the can may be a fun game when there's nothing to
do and there are no consequences at stake. But when it comes to
national security and protecting the American people, providing the
right tools to those on the front lines in the war against terrorism,
kicking the can could be a fatal bargain.
Congress continues to kick the can down the road on a key tool that
has kept this country safe since September 11. The other body closed a
loophole in FISA that will ensure intelligence services have all the
tools necessary to track terrorists overseas, terrorists who want to do
us harm. Our Nation has not been attacked since September 11, in large
part because of our ability to detect and disrupt terrorist plots
before they've had a chance to carry out their evil acts. FISA is
essential to those efforts.
Why do some ignore history? Why do some ignore the mindset of the
likes of al Qaeda and others? Why do some want to weaken our ability to
disrupt a terrorist attack before it occurs? Why do some put our
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in harm's way or at risk?
Last year we modernized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
only after the National Intelligence Director told Congress that we
were ``missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we
should be protecting to protect our country.'' What about those
consequences?
Preventing the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge is but one example.
More tragically is the case of Specialist Alex Jiminez of Queens, New
York. Last May, Specialist Jiminez was taken hostage by al Qaeda in
Iraq. Information had been secured on one of the possible kidnappers,
but intelligence experts were hamstrung by the outdated version of
FISA. It prevented them from conducting surveillance on terrorists in a
foreign nation without first obtaining a warrant. As the kidnappers
acted, lawyers sat around a conference table here in Washington for 10
hours debating and drafting legal briefs to establish probable cause to
conduct the surveillance. While the lawyers debated, losing precious
time, Specialist Jiminez most likely was killed. They've yet to find
the body and that of his colleague.
Let's stop kicking the can down the road. This is not a game we can
afford to lose.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend and colleague from New York for his
statements.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the speakers on the other
side continue to try to couch this argument in a way and frame it in
such a way that makes it appear that people on our side, the Democrats,
don't care about the security of this country in the way that they do.
And it's obvious that nothing could be further from the truth.
Simply by extending the FISA bill for 21 days to ensure that we have
all the information that is out there and all the information that is
available and that we have an opportunity to go through it in a
thoughtful way doesn't mean that we have less concern for security but,
rather, an equal amount of concern for security and also for the
liberty of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from
New York if he has any more speakers.
Mr. ARCURI. I have no further speakers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. And so the gentleman is prepared to close
after I close?
Mr. ARCURI. Yes, sir.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 taught us many
lessons. One of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation
must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We
must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm our fellow
Americans. Now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence
community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into
the 21st century is a critical national security priority.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that several of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle agree with that assessment. On January 28,
2008, less than 3 weeks ago, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent
a letter to Speaker Pelosi in support of the Rockefeller-Bond FISA
legislation. The letter states, and I quote, ``The Rockefeller-Bond
FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these
issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the
House floor without substantial change. We believe these components
will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart
terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our
country.''
Mr. Speaker, that was a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi less than 2
weeks ago by the members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, January 28, 2008.
Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being
considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a
FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly
consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President
before the Protect America Act expires in February.
It is our belief that such legislation should include the
following provisions: Require individualized warrants for
surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad;
Clarify that no court order is required to conduct
surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are
routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight
by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel
compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court
of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers
that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.
The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory
language addressing all these issues and we would fully
support that measure should it reach the House floor without
substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a
strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism
across the globe and save American lives here in our country.
It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a
timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect
America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a
limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical
surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace
the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong,
bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed
into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing
such a measure could place our national security at undue
risk.
Sincerely,
Leonard L. Boswell, ------, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, Heath
Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Lincoln
Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa
L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe Baca, John Tanner, Jim
Cooper, Zachary T. Space, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie
Melancon, Christopher P. Carney.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that House Democrat leaders chose to
bring a 21-day extension bill to the floor instead of the bipartisan
measure that passed the Senate by a vote of 68-29. I
[[Page H883]]
might add, Mr. Speaker, those Senators had the information that has
been alluded to several times on the floor today.
To make our country safer, Congress needs to act. The House should
vote on the Senate measure, but the Democrat leaders have chosen
instead to use delay tactics. The only reason I can see, Mr. Speaker,
that we are not voting on the Senate measure is the fear of the leaders
on the other side of the aisle that this bipartisan bill will pass.
But today, I will attempt to give all Members of the House an
opportunity to vote on this bipartisan, long-term modernization of
FISA. I call on all my colleagues, including members of the
aforementioned Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to Speaker
Pelosi on January 28, to join with me in defeating the previous
question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate
amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law. We
need to do that before the current law expires, making our Nation at
greater risk.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the previous question and give us an opportunity to vote on a
bipartisan, permanent solution that closes this terrorist loophole in
the FISA Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank my colleague from Washington for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything since the terrorist attacks
of September 11, it is that the balance between security and civil
liberties is not only difficult, it's absolutely critical. Providing
this 3-week extension will do nothing to block or hinder the efforts of
our intelligence community. Quite the contrary, it enhances their
ability to do their jobs effectively and ensures the integrity of their
efforts because it gives us time to get these reforms right.
I want to remind my colleagues that voting to defeat the previous
question is a vote to deny the administration the ability to utilize
its existing authority under law to assess threats, gather intelligence
and protect the freedom and security of every American.
Twenty-one days isn't a long time. And based on the sensitivity and
public interest in this issue, we owe that to the American people and
the framers of the Constitution to strike a fair balance that allows us
to protect the civil liberties of Americans and to provide the
administration the tools and resources to protect our Nation from
another terrorist attack. Twenty-one days is a fair request.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 21-day
extension to FISA. If Congress does not act this week, critical tools
that allow our intelligence officials to monitor terrorist
communications overseas will expire. We not let that happen!
As we all know, yesterday, the Senate approved a comprehensive, long
term, bipartisan bill by a vote of 68-29 to close the terrorist
loophole in our intelligence laws. Their bill represents a strong
compromise between Congress and the Administration. It is a responsible
plan for protecting our nation against the threats of terrorism.
The intelligence community needs a long-term fix to gaps in our
intelligence laws--not a 21-day delay. After 7 months of stalling and a
15-day extension, passage of another short-term extension is
irresponsible, when we have a long-term solution ready to be voted on.
The Senate has passed a strong, bipartisan bill. The House must now
act quickly to pass the Senate's bill and send it to the President.
Failing to do so is effectively failing to protect our country.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this extension, and instead
immediately pass the Senate's version of the bill so we can send this
important bill to the President.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 976 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
(1) Strike ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it''
and insert the following:
``That upon adoption of this resolution, before
consideration of any order of business other than one motion
that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a
procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign
intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment
thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the
Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate
amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without
intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
``Sec. 2. It''.
(2) Redesignate section 2 as section 3.
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adopting the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 195, not voting 23, as follows:
[[Page H884]]
[Roll No. 48]
YEAS--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Bishop (GA)
Clay
Doolittle
Doyle
Engel
Gilchrest
Herger
Hinojosa
Honda
Jones (OH)
Lowey
Marchant
Mitchell
Ortiz
Pickering
Pryce (OH)
Renzi
Reyes
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Towns
Waxman
Wynn
{time} 1237
Messrs. SULLIVAN and DONNELLY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. MELANCON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the
vote.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The question is on the motion
to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 194, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 49]
AYES--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
[[Page H885]]
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Gilchrest
Herger
Hinojosa
Honda
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Loebsack
Lowey
Marchant
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Neugebauer
Ortiz
Pickering
Pryce (OH)
Renzi
Reyes
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Towns
Walsh (NY)
Waxman
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1244
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the Chamber for rollcall
vote 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 199, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 50]
AYES--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Bachus
Bishop (GA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Engel
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Lowey
McIntyre
Ortiz
Pickering
Pryce (OH)
Renzi
Reyes
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Towns
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1254
Mr. SHULER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the
vote on the resolution.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 195, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 51]
AYES--210
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
[[Page H886]]
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Bishop (GA)
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Engel
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Hinojosa
Honda
Lowey
Ortiz
Pascrell
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pryce (OH)
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Towns
Waxman
Wynn
{time} 1303
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 13, 2008 (House)]
[Page H887-H892]
PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007 EXTENSION
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21
days, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5349
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. 21-DAY EXTENSION OF THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF
2007.
Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law
110-55; 121 Stat. 557; 50 U.S.C. 1803 note) is amended by
striking ``195 days'' and inserting ``216 days''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 976, debate
shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
General Leave
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 5349.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Members of the House, the temporary FISA law we enacted in haste as a
stopgap last August expires Saturday. We want to replace that law with
a well-considered one which appropriately addresses both our security
needs and our constitutional values.
The House passed a version of that well-considered law in my view in
November, the RESTORE Act. We have been waiting for the Senate to pass
its version so that we could compare it with ours and decide together
on the best course of action. We have also been waiting on access to
classified documents regarding what telecom companies may have done in
recent years to assist our government with surveillance on United
States citizens outside the bounds of law at that time.
The 15-day extension we passed 2 weeks ago was intended to give us
time to consider the Senate bill, thought to be on the verge of
passing, and to review the classified documents. Unfortunately, it has
turned out not to be enough time.
The Judiciary Committee members, 38 in number, have not all seen the
documents. We have only had clearance for 19 of those members to gain
that access to the classified documents that we have been asking for
for over 1 year. The review process is unavoidably somewhat cumbersome
and inefficient. Even today, as I stated in my letter to the White
House, we still do not have access to numerous critical legal
documents. In addition, those documents that we have reviewed have left
many of our questions unanswered and, as a matter of fact, raised a
number of new ones.
Moreover, the Senate has just passed its version of a long-term
surveillance law. It differs from the House version in ways that may
have major ramifications on the freedoms that we cherish.
So we need a bit more time. The measure before us will give us 3
weeks, 21 days, not much time in the view of some, but enough, I
believe, to permit us to reach an appropriate resolution on this matter
of utmost importance. Therefore, your Committee on the Judiciary comes
before you to urge support for this short-term extension.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 5349, which extends the Protect
America Act for 21 days. Another extension is unacceptable and
unnecessary.
Last August, Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close a
dangerous loophole in our ability to collect foreign intelligence. The
Democratic majority insisted on an arbitrary 6-month sunset. But
instead of using that time wisely, they ignored the needs of our
intelligence community and passed a partisan, unworkable bill, the
RESTORE Act. Then, 2 weeks ago, the House Democratic majority insisted
on another extension. Again they squandered the last 2 weeks. Now House
Democrats want more time. But their time is up.
We know from Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence,
that before Congress enacted the Protect America Act, the intelligence
community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist
communications, endangering American lives.
Some in Congress are willing to let the Protect America Act expire
because ongoing surveillance under the act can continue for up to a
year. This might be acceptable if the terrorist threat also expired
this weekend, but it doesn't. If the act expires, we will return to the
status quo, unable to begin any new foreign intelligence surveillance
without a court order, again threatening America's counterterrorism
efforts.
Another extension represents a failure by the House Democratic
majority to protect the American people. The Senate understands this.
The intelligence community needs a long-term bill to fix gaps in our
intelligence laws, not a 21-day extension.
The Senate bill addresses the concerns of our intelligence community
and has strong bipartisan support. But House Democrats are at war with
themselves and at odds with the American people. House Democrats
disagree with the Senate Democrats and House Democrats disagree among
themselves. One group wants to approve the bipartisan Senate bill and
another opposes it.
Americans are tired of this kind of partisanship in Washington. Now
we have partisanship within partisanship within the Democratic Party.
House Democrats disagree among themselves, disagree with Democrats in
the Senate, and oppose a bipartisan bill that passed yesterday with
overwhelming support by a vote of 68-29.
The House Democratic leadership is like a clock that runs backwards.
They keep going in counterclockwise circles to the left. Unfortunately,
we can't turn the clock back on terrorists. We must act to gather
intelligence on terrorists and prevent another attack.
Why do we keep delaying our ability to protect American lives?
Another extension represents a failure to act, a failure to lead, and a
failure to protect our country. It doesn't take long to do what is
right. Let's stop the stalling and pass the bipartisan Senate bill.
I urge my colleagues to reject this extension and urge the Democratic
leadership to allow the House to consider the bipartisan Senate bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from
California, Jane Harman, a long-time member of the Intelligence
Committee who now on Homeland Security chairs the subcommittee that
handles that same subject, for 4 minutes.
[[Page H888]]
Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as we discuss a short extension of the Protect America
Act in order to hammer out a bicameral agreement with the Senate which
just passed its bill last night, thousands of intelligence agents are
working hard around the world in undisclosed locations, unaccompanied
by their families, to prevent and disrupt dangerous threats against our
country. Once again, let me say ``thank you'' to them, and let me say
that every Member of this Chamber thanks them for their service and
prays for their safe return.
This debate is not, as some on the other side want to characterize
it, about Democrats wanting to coddle terrorists. We emphatically do
not. We want to capture or kill them. It is beyond cynical to suggest
otherwise. This debate is not about whether we want court orders for
foreign-to-foreign communications between terrorists. We do not. Or
whether we are opposed to responsible changes to FISA. We all support
responsible changes to FISA.
This debate is about whether the careful framework in FISA, which has
lasted three decades while letting us pursue terrorists while
protecting constitutional freedoms, will survive.
The bill the Senate passed late yesterday, in my view, is
unacceptable. I am mindful that there was a substantial bipartisan
majority for it, but some in my party and some in the other party who
voted for it tried mightily to improve it and lost. If we have 21 more
days, we can consider some of their amendments here and, I would hope,
pass them. If we cannot fix the Senate bill, I will oppose it if it
comes up for a vote in the House.
Yes, I was one of a small group of Members briefed on the terrorist
surveillance program between 2003 and 2006. But those briefings, until
the program was publicly disclosed in late 2005, were about operational
details only. I never learned that the administration was not following
FISA, and I think that was wrong. And that is why for 3 years I have
worked my heart out to fashion responsible bipartisan agreement on the
need for the terrorist surveillance program to comply fully with FISA.
This fall, I urged repeatedly for bipartisan negotiations which, sadly,
never happened. It may now be too late, but I am ``go'' for one more
try.
I say to the intelligence officers mentioned at the outset of my
remarks, to my colleagues, and to the American people, we need to
conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists, but we must do it within
the rule of law. With a clear legal framework, they are empowered to do
their job better and from that we will all benefit.
In August, the House was jammed by the Senate into passing ill-
advised legislation. I opposed it, and said we did not want to watch
the same movie again in 6 months. Well, here we are for the sequel. But
this time we must object, and I do object. We can and must do better.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill, and I am extremely concerned
about our national security and deeply troubled that our intelligence
community has been prevented from doing the job they need to do to
protect Americans.
We do not need another delay of much needed FISA improvements. The
Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive FISA bill 68-29. That is the
bill that we should be voting on today, and not this temporary
extension. It is not the bill that I would have written, but it does
give our intelligence community many important tools they need to
protect our Nation. Instead of taking up a perfectly good, well-
thought-out bill, we have another delay tactic by the House Democratic
leadership that insists on catering to special interest groups like the
trial lawyers and the hard left of the Democrat Party.
Mr. Speaker, we have had leaks in the way we collect information on
individuals through electronic conversation; we have had leaks about
how we collect e-mails on terrorist Web sites; we have had leaks that
have caused our allies in Europe to no longer cooperate when it comes
to tracking terrorist financing. Instead of prioritizing arguably the
most important security issue, the majority party has delayed and
failed to focus on how we can help the community in the 21st century
against enemies who utilize the latest technology against our country.
As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
I have been very disturbed this past year to see the anger against our
President cloud the judgments of its members. In an effort to embarrass
the President, they have weakened our intelligence gathering
capabilities and caused long-term damage to the security of this
Nation. We do not monitor phone conversations like we should, we do not
monitor e-mails like we should, or finances like we should. And the
enemy knows it. It is time for us to strengthen and not weaken the
terrorist surveillance program. Enough is enough.
We all know that if we simply pass an extension for 21 days, it
doesn't solve the problem. It is time for us to stand up and force the
Democrat leadership of this House to do their job and bring the FISA
modernization bill before this body, the one that was passed by the
Senate by a wide margin, so that the intelligence community can have
every tool at its disposal to protect the United States.
The Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, the man in
charge of overseeing the intelligence community, has repeatedly told us
of the urgency to modernize the FISA law. He said, ``We must urgently
close the gap in our current ability to effectively collect foreign
intelligence. The current FISA law does not allow us to be effective.
Modernizing this law is essential for the intelligence community to be
able to provide warning of threats to this country.''
Mr. Speaker, what the Senate passed does exactly what Mr. McConnell
talked about. We should bring that vote to the floor and vote it up or
down.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield my time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and ask unanimous consent that he
may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the chairman
of the Constitution Committee on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Jerry Nadler, for 4 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5349, a 21-day extension of
the existing FISA Act to provide Congress the time to work out the
differences between the two Houses on this very important matter. It is
a question of our Nation's security and it is a question of our
Nation's values. We should not be stampeded into action when there is
no need. This administration has the ability to monitor terrorists, and
extending current law for 21 days will not remove that ability.
What this debate is really about is whether national security
wiretapping should be subject to judicial and congressional oversight,
as the bill that we passed last December, the RESTORE Act, provides and
as traditional American values insist on, or whether the
administration, any administration, can be trusted to police itself,
whether American citizens' liberty should be subject to the
unreviewable discretion of the Executive as the Protect America Act and
the Senate-passed bill provide.
Also at stake is the question of so-called telecom immunity. We know
what they are asking. They are asking that the lawsuits against the
telecommunications companies for participating in the warrantless
surveillance program, allegedly in violation of the FISA law, be
foreclosed.
Now there are only two possibilities. There are two narratives:
Either the telecom companies nobly and patriotically assisted the
administration against terrorism. That is one narrative. Or the telecom
companies knowingly and criminally participated in a criminal
conspiracy in violation of the law, aiding and abetting a lawless
administration to violate Americans' liberties and privacy rights
against the Constitution and against the FISA Act. I believe it is the
second. But it's not up to me or up to anybody else here to
[[Page H889]]
decide that. That's why we have courts. Courts determine questions of
law and fact. People are out there who believe their rights were
violated. They've brought a lawsuit. Let the lawsuits continue. Let the
courts decide whether the telecom companies acted properly or acted in
violation of the law. It is not the job of Congress to foreclose that
judgment.
We have been told: If we pass telecom immunity and if we fail to
control abuse of the state secrets privilege that has been abused by
the administration to prevent the courts or the Congress from reviewing
what they have done, there will be no mechanism in the courts or in the
Congress to know, let alone to control, what the Executive is doing.
The separation of powers established by the Constitution to protect our
liberties will have been destroyed. That way lies the slow death of
liberty. It must not be permitted.
We have been told by this administration, Trust us. I'm not in a very
trusting mood these days, nor should we ever trust any administration
without judicial and congressional oversight.
I remind everyone here that there is a bill that passed this House,
the RESTORE Act, last November. The Senate finally got around to
passing a bill yesterday. Now we are being told we should have no time
to work out the differences as we normally try to do, we must take the
Senate bill sight unseen. Frankly, that's an insult to every Member of
this House and to the prerogatives of this House. We passed a bill.
They passed a bill. We should have 21 days to work out the differences.
American liberty is depending on this, and the integrity of this House
depends on this. I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), former chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I
rise in opposition to this legislation.
Yesterday, the other body passed the FISA bill by a vote of 68-29. I
don't understand why House Democrats refuse to bring this bill to the
floor, sponsored by Senator Rockefeller. It makes no sense to block its
consideration for another 21 days. Why do we keep extending the
terrorist loophole? It's imperative that the House pass the Senate bill
today.
The Rules Committee last night rejected a Republican amendment to
vote on the Senate-passed bill, and then the committee refused to allow
the Senate-passed bill as a motion to recommit this afternoon. The
majority knows that the American people support long-term legislation
to keep our country safe. And I guarantee that the Senate bill would
pass the House by a wide margin if the Democratic majority would let
the House vote on it.
Instead of passing the Senate bill, we continue to waste time on
legislation of little consequence. The FISA bill expires on Friday.
There is no more time to waste. We passed a temporary fix last summer
and another extension earlier this year. There has been plenty of time
to review this and to come up with a permanent fix. If we keep on
passing these extensions, we're never going to get a permanent bill,
and Americans are in jeopardy.
This majority's charade of passing short-term extensions has gone on
long enough. President Bush will veto another extension, and the
Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. It's time for the
majority to stop playing political games. We have had plenty of time to
debate this issue. The Senate finally got it right, and it's time that
the House does the same.
Our intelligence community needs the certainty of a long-term bill to
protect the Nation. The Senate bill will continue to give our
intelligence agencies the tools they need to keep us safe. I urge my
colleagues to reject the 21-day extension up now and to pass the
Senate's bipartisan FISA bill today.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the
gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of
the Judiciary Committee and a subcommittee chairman on Homeland
Security, for 3 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, and I want to personally thank him for the
extensive work we have done to secure America and as well to protect
the civil liberties of all Americans.
I hold in my hand the Constitution of the United States embedded in
this book. When you think of the term ``embedded,'' you think of the
concerns regarding the Iraq war. You think of the concerns of
terrorism. You might even think of the concerns of embedded press who
have been able to travel with our soldiers. But in this instance, I am
saying that deeply embedded in the hearts of Americans is a concept of
the Constitution that protects their civil liberties.
{time} 1345
I think it is important to note that in fact a bill has been passed
so many months ago. And I will not argue about the integrity of this
place, for many have raised that question, that we should have the
privilege of reviewing the legislation of the Senate, and that
privilege is necessary.
But I think there is a larger argument, more expanded argument, and
it must be clarified that we have not dillydallied. We have not
delayed. We have, in fact, been meticulous in making sure that we have
balanced a new FISA law, updating it, and also providing that
protection, that firewall for Americans.
How many of you would have known that initially the administration
came to us and suggested that while they are surveilling someone on
foreign soil, if it kicks back to an American, your grandmother, your
aunt, your uncle, yourself, because it kicks back in a sense that we
are talking to someone on foreign soil but you happen to be on the
other side of the phone, that that was okay?
But I offered an amendment, and that amendment is in the bill that
the House passed, that we cannot tolerate reverse targeting; you must
get a warrant. There must be an intervention, and I am glad to say it
is in the Senate bill.
Yet there is a major question that the Senate bill has not addressed,
and it is the fact that many, many people's rights were violated in the
course of the old law when the government went straight to the private
sector and told them you have to do this and so many persons who were
innocent were violated by surveillance. Now these companies, of which I
have great respect, I believe they are part of the economic engine of
this Nation, want us to interfere in the legal system, for many of
these companies are now being sued retroactively, if you will, or being
addressed for the grievance they did against an American citizen.
Who are we to stop the normal legal process? If one of these
corporations has a defensible defense, the judges will rule for them.
If they were following the law or they have a defense or were relying
upon representations made by officials of the Federal Government, I can
assure you that a court of law will give them their relief. Why are we
interfering where citizens of the American society believe that this
Constitution and their rights have been violated?
So to my friends who want to provide a scare tactic, let me say to
you all this legislation does today is to ensure you will be safe by
extending the existing law. Hopefully we put notice on corporations
that they should not be violating the civil liberties of Americans, and
clearly I will tell you, as a member of the Homeland Security
Committee, that none of us stand in this well to jeopardize the safety
and security of the American people. Let us dispense with that myth
altogether.
What is important is that when we finally design a bill that is going
to be entrenched in law, it must be in compliance with the Constitution
that is embedded in this bill. It is not today. I ask my colleagues to
enthusiastically vote for the extension because I believe in security
and the rights of all Americans.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Saxton).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Saxton.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, some years ago as I was working to have a subcommittee
on the Armed Services Committee established on terrorism, I was making
the rounds among my party's leadership. I
[[Page H890]]
made the case about why I thought we needed, and of course this was
before 9/11, a subcommittee on terrorism. And I will never forget, one
of my good friends told me that he thought, he said, Jim, he said, I
think you and your friends see a terrorist behind every bush.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Democratic
majority leadership has adopted that same frame of reference. There is
not a terrorist behind every bush, but they present a clear and present
danger. We were told so as late as today by representatives of the
Intelligence Committee.
Passing a 21-day extension simply continues the uncertainty in the
intelligence community, the uncertainty in the telecommunications
community, and uncertainty among the American public itself.
Just yesterday, as it has been said here several times, the Senate
approved a comprehensive, long-term, bipartisan bill by a vote of 68-29
to close the terrorist loophole in our intelligence laws. Their bill
represents a compromise between Congress and the administration. It
rightly restores the original intent of the FISA by ensuring that
intelligence officials can conduct surveillance on foreign targets
without a court order while still protecting the civil liberties of the
American people. It also grants liability protection to
telecommunications companies that helped the government after September
11. Allowing these companies to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits
threatens their future cooperation, which could cripple America's
counterterrorism efforts.
The Senate bill is a responsible plan for protecting our Nation
against terrorist threats. Many times the Senate sends bills over here
and they are very shortly passed by the House. The House must act
quickly on the Senate's bill, as well, and send it to the President so
he can sign it. Failing to do so is effectively failing to protect our
country and American citizens.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5349 and instead
immediately pass the Senate's version of the bill so we can send this
important bill to the President.
There may not be, Mr. Speaker, a terrorist behind every bush, but
they, today, present a clear and present danger.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise disappointed that the President of the United
States is attempting to short-circuit the legislative process and force
Congress into an impulsive decision by vowing to veto this short-term
extension before us now that would permit us to legislate responsibly.
It is beyond me how the Chief Executive of this country who truly
wants an effective FISA reform, who truly cares about enacting sound
legislation to protect Americans' lives and liberty, who truly respects
the prerogatives of Congress in shaping that legislation, could
seriously threaten us with the prospect of vetoing this legislation.
It is especially disturbing to think that he might refuse to accept a
brief extension of his own surveillance program in order to ramrod a
decision his way on telecom immunity before we can know what it is we
are giving immunity to.
I am also disappointed that some of my friends, Members of the
minority, whom I have always considered to be responsible legislators,
have spoken today in support of the President's attempt to once again
bludgeon us to enact sweeping new wiretapping powers for the executive
branch without giving the legislative branch the time to ensure that
the way it is done holds true to our most cherished American values.
I hope that these few observations do not reflect widely shared
sentiments in the minority, and I would hope that we would not lend
credence to the President's veto threat. I don't think we should have
to legislate under that kind of intimidation. It amounts to a demand
that we abandon and abdicate our sworn constitutional duty.
I hope that we would all agree that we need to consider FISA reform
responsibly with the care it deserves, with the importance that every
American attaches to it, and to preserve the prerogatives of the House
to have our voice heard.
This demand that we act irresponsibly reflects no credit upon the
process. We should instead remind him that we are the legislative
branch and remind him that he must show some patience and allow the
Congress to responsibly work its will.
If the President were to veto this brief extension of his own
surveillance program and if that in any way compromises our national
security, no amount of political blustering would change the fact that
it would be him who has put our Nation at risk by refusing to
participate responsibly in the legislative process.
Now, I can't truly imagine that happening. I hope that with a strong
bipartisan vote for this commonsense, temporary measure, we can
convince our President to help us take this responsible step to ensure
that Americans are appropriately protected against threats to their
liberty as well as threats to their security. I hope that the result of
this discussion will turn into a sound bipartisan vote in support of
this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California, Mr. Lungren, a member of both the Judiciary Committee
and the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of our
committee, for clarifying what this is all about. In his statement he
just said that the President is trying to force us to accept this bill
from the Senate so that there can be immunity granted to those
communications companies that responded in the affirmative when asked
to help this country. So that is what it is. That's what this vote is
all about.
You can talk about a 21-day extension. You can talk about wanting to
work a little harder. You can talk about this and that, but essentially
that is what this vote is. It is the question of whether or not we
believe that we ought to grant to those who responded in the
affirmative when requested by their country to assist in the aftermath
of 9/11, to allow us to collect that kind of intelligence which would
prohibit or prevent another 9/11, whether or not we are going to slap
them in the face and say because you answered yes, you have to, in the
words of the chairman of the Constitutional Law Subcommittee when this
was brought up in the committee, let them do it themselves, they have
millions of dollars of high-priced attorneys. Now, that's the response
we are to tell the American people if asked in the future: Will you
help in gathering information so that we can prevent another attack?
And, oh, by the way, make sure that you have millions of dollars worth
of high-priced attorneys to respond to whatever lawsuit might be out
there.
Now, the question here is whether or not the majority is going to
allow the majority to do its will. Why do I say that? Twenty-one
Members of the Democratic side have sent a letter on January 28 to the
Speaker saying they support the Rockefeller-Bond bill. Twenty-one
Members. Now, I was never great in math, but I do know that 21 Members
on that side of the aisle, added to our Members on this side of the
aisle, are a majority in the House of Representatives.
So the question is: Will you allow the House to work its will? Will
you allow the bill from the Senate, which 21 Members on your side of
the aisle have signed a letter in support of, come to the floor so we
can find out whether or not the majority of this House will support it?
We were denied that in the Rules Committee. We were denied that on
two specific votes in the Rules Committee, and now the only way we can
allow that vote to come up is if we defeat this bill and force those on
the majority side and the leadership to allow the majority to work its
will.
{time} 1400
Interestingly enough, the gentlelady from Texas who just spoke talked
about how we ought to support this bill. I remember in August when she
stood in that very well and tore up a piece of paper and said this is
what we're doing; we're shredding the Constitution by voting for the
bill that was then on the floor. And now we're
[[Page H891]]
supposed to understand that the other side wants us to have 3 weeks
more of a bill which shredded the Constitution.
Let's understand what we're really doing here. Let's vote this down
so we can vote on the bill that the majority of the people in this
House and the majority of Americans support.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would grant myself as much time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the discussion that we're engaging in, but at this point
I rise to make the case that this is not a debate exclusively about
immunity. There are other key differences that we should and, I think,
want to consider.
For example, the Senate bill, which we've just examined, does not
contain sufficient provisions to guard against reverse targeting of
United States citizens. I think that's an important matter that needs
our continued consideration.
The Senate bill permits surveillance to commence without judicial
approval of the essential procedures that will be used to ensure that
there's no surveillance of United States persons without appropriate
individualized warrants. I think that's pretty important.
The Senate bill further does not require the Inspector General or the
Justice Department to investigate the President's warrantless
surveillance program. The House bill requires this investigation.
And so I don't think we need to be stampeded into a vote by threats
from the executive or from the mathematical perfection of the other
side in suggesting where the majorities ally in this body. The 21
signers of the letter are entitled to get some answers to these
questions just as everyone else that didn't sign the letter are.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point from
cnn.com, ``Phone companies cut FBI wiretaps due to unpaid bills.''
[From CNN.com, Feb. 13, 2008]
Phone Companies Cut FBI, Wiretaps Due to Unpaid Bills
Washington.--Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps
used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the
bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.
A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the
lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in
undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program
also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.
In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation ``was halted due
to untimely payment,'' the audit found. FISA wiretaps are
used in the government's most sensitive and secretive
criminal investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected
terrorists or spies.
``We also found that late payments have resulted in
telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone
lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI,
resulting in lost evidence,'' according to the audit by
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.
More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication
surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not
paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid
costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.
The FBI did not have an immediate comment.
The report released Thursday was a highly edited version of
Fine's 87-page audit that the FBI deemed too sensitive to be
viewed publicly. It focused on what the FBI admitted was an
``antiquated'' system to track money sent to its 56 field
offices nationwide for undercover work. Generally, the money
pays for rental cars, leases and surveillance, the audit
noted.
It also found that some field offices paid for expenses on
undercover cases that should have been financed by FBI
headquarters. Out of 130 undercover payments examined,
auditors found 14 cases of at least $6,000 each where field
offices dipped into their own budgets to pay for work that
should have been picked up by headquarters.
The faulty bookkeeping was blamed, in large part, in the
case of an FBI agent who pleaded guilty in June 2006 to
stealing $25,000 for her own use, the audit noted.
``As demonstrated by the FBI employee who stole funds
intended to support undercover activities, procedural
controls by themselves have not ensured proper tracking and
use of confidential case funds,'' it concluded.
Fine's report offered 16 recommendations to improve the
FBI's tracking and management of the funding system,
including its telecommunication costs. The FBI has agreed to
follow 11 of the suggestions but said that four ``would be
either unfeasible or too cost prohibitive.'' The
recommendations were not specifically outlined in the edited
version of the report.
A lot has been said about what some call patriotic phone companies.
Are these the same companies that cut off the FBI FISA wiretaps because
the FBI hadn't paid its phone bill? This is breaking news.
I ask that we examine this issue, and that we include it in the ones
in the 21-day period. After all, we already have a FISA bill that will
continue during the 21 days. Someone may have accidentally
mischaracterized the fact that we will be without FISA protection if we
don't act immediately. I don't think that's the case, and I think many
of our colleagues on the floor at this time know that as well as I do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my
colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the
Intelligence Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for my
fellow colleague and Michigander, Mr. Conyers, for his work and
passionate belief and where he stands.
I do worry about where we're at. And I hear the gentleman talk about
the fact that we just don't have time, and we need more time. You know,
today we're going to spend hours and hours grilling a professional
baseball player about he said/she said activities in professional
baseball. We spent an entire day on this floor this year trying to
figure out how we're going to designate scenic trails in New England;
162 bills commemorating someone or something, 162 on the floor this
year; 62 bills naming post offices.
I think, if we put this in perspective, this isn't about needing more
time. This isn't about that. We've obviously wasted a lot of time.
Our Constitution, as so many people point to, says some pretty clear
things to me. It makes sure that you stand tall and you take an oath to
defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It's one of the most
important things that we do in this body.
If we can find time to put Roger Clemens in a chair and grill him for
hours and make a media circus about professional baseball, you'd think
we could spend a few minutes protecting the United States of America.
Instead what we do is we kind of fool around and wring our hands and
say, I'm for national security but kind of, not really. But, hey, did
you see these jangly keys? Professional baseball could be in trouble.
It maybe works for my kids when they were 3 and in trouble, but it
doesn't work for the American people, and it certainly doesn't work to
keep us safe.
This isn't about the Constitution. Many of your Members came down
here and said, we think this is unconstitutional, but give us 3 more
weeks of unconstitutionality in the United States. If I believed that,
as a former FBI agent, I wouldn't vote for it. It's wrong.
This is about white hats and black hats. It's about good guys and bad
guys. It's about Good Samaritans. You know, there are ads on TV today
where they go into high crime neighborhoods and say, It's okay for you
to tell on criminal behavior. Please call the police. Please call the
FBI. Please make a difference in your community.
Think of the confusing message we are sending today because we're
hooked up on the size of the company. So if I go in as an FBI agent to
find the address that a pizza delivery company has for a fugitive,
should we go after them, too? Should we go after that pizza delivery
guy for, out of the goodness of his heart, telling us where there is a
fugitive who may have committed murder or have committed child
pornography or been selling drugs and is in violation of the safety and
security of his neighborhood, his community? No, of course not. And we
shouldn't punish people who say, listen, I want to help the United
States catch terrorists and murderers, and if you ask me and I'm in
lawful possession of it, I'll share it with you. We do it in banks. We
do it in small businesses. We knock on neighbors' doors every day in
this country and say, Help us help protect your neighborhood, your kids
and your family. Will you tell us what you saw? Will you tell us what
you know? Will you tell us where this information leads us to? It
happens every day.
This is about black hats and white hats, good guys and bad guys.
Let's make sure we stand up today for every courageous American who
stands up for the safety of the community of this United States. I
don't care how big or
[[Page H892]]
how small they are, we ought to stand with them and not make them the
enemy.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a number of things, what this
is or isn't about. We're told it's not about the protections for the
country, but it is about that. And I have great respect and admiration
for our chairman, Mr. Conyers.
But we were told, also, well, gee, the reason we need more time is
the White House has delayed giving us documents. But if you really want
to get to the bottom of this, you go back to August 4 when we took a
vote on FISA being extended for a number of months. There was no
immunity in there. There was no issue about is the President going to
turn over documents. Forty-one Democrats voted for it, nine didn't
vote, and all the rest voted against it. They were against the
protections for this country and FISA.
Now, we need to try to eliminate risk to the country, not political
risk to a party. And I understand sometimes you have Members that see
the dangers to America, gee, that exposes the country to great risk and
if we don't do something and something terrible happens, then we've
exposed our party to terrible political risk. This shouldn't be about
political risk. We need to do what's right for the country.
The chairman had said there are other key differences and there are.
But those are important to note as well.
Our friends across the aisle somehow think it shreds the Constitution
if we tap a terrorist in a foreign country and he calls an American.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The solution to that is not
that we not tap into that known terrorist in a foreign country; it's
that the friends of those concerned about this in America, tell your
friends to have their terrorist buddies not call them at home. That's
real easy. Then they don't have to worry about this bill.
But if terrorists that are known terrorists in foreign countries call
them in this country, then they ought to be at risk for having them
tapped. Once we know that there's somebody here, then they go get the
warrant and that addresses it. But you cannot restrict it otherwise
without doing great harm to our protection in America.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue the reservation of time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5349, a bill to
extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.
Now it's hard for me to come to this floor and oppose an extension of
a bill that I support, and supported in a bipartisan manner, Mr.
Speaker.
It was this summer, I believe last August, that Republicans and
Democrats came together on the Judiciary Committee and worked out a
solution for an extension that came to be known as the Protect America
Act. And we've heard in the course of this debate, eloquently stated on
both sides, what the issues are here. We have antiquated foreign
intelligence surveillance laws. The technology that has exploded across
the globe in the last 25 years has occurred without a significant
updating of those laws that govern the means and the manner and the
technology whereby we can collect intelligence. And so we find
ourselves, essentially, as the hub of communications in the world in
the United States of America. You've heard the percentages, the
enormous amount of communications that pass through the United States
of America. And yet we have this massive loophole in our intelligence
surveillance laws that does not permit us to listen to a terrorist in
one foreign country talking to a terrorist in another foreign country.
When we worked out the compromise this summer, it was built, Mr.
Speaker, I believe, on an understanding between Republicans and
Democrats that that ought not to be, we ought to solve that problem in
an equitable and bipartisan way. And I was pleased to support that
extension and legislation for a period of 6 months.
But what I struggle with today is now, in the aftermath of that, the
contrast between the work in the House and the Senate is rather
startling. Yesterday, the Senate approved a bipartisan bill supported
by nearly 70 percent of the Senate to close the terrorist loophole in
our intelligence laws. It represented a strong bipartisan compromise
between Congress and the administration. And yet here in the House of
Representatives we passed a 6-month extension. A few weeks ago we
passed a 15-day extension. Now I believe we're passing a 21-day
extension. And yet the American people, I believe, know in their heart
of hearts our enemy does not think in the short term and, therefore,
our solutions must occur in the long term. And when it comes to the
ability of our intelligence community during this administration or
whomever will be the next administration charged with protecting this
country, I believe it is imperative that we call the question.
{time} 1415
I believe it is imperative that we rise today, respectfully to my
colleagues on the other side, most especially the chairman whom I
esteem, and say enough is enough. We need to modernize our foreign
intelligence surveillance laws today. We need to find a bipartisan
compromise as we did last summer. We need to find a bipartisan
compromise as the United States Senate did yesterday.
And I say again with a heavy heart, our enemy does not conspire to
harm us in the short term. Our enemy conspires to harm us in the long
term: to harm our people, to harm our families, to harm our children
and our interests around the globe. We must, in this Congress, find a
way beyond politics, as we did last summer, as the Senate did
yesterday, to repair those holes in our foreign intelligence
surveillance laws and give our intelligence community the legal
authority and tools that they will need to protect us in the long term.
I urge my colleagues to reject the bill to extend the Protect America
Act for 21 days and call the question on this floor. We need a long-
term solution to what ails our intelligence laws.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) has 4\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) has 7 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has
2 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution
976, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 13, 2008 (House)]
[Page H901-H907]
PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007 EXTENSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution
976, proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the
Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed earlier
today, 13\1/2\ minutes remained in debate.
The gentle
