[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 127 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9663-H9666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 600

       Resolved,  That it shall be in order at any time through 
     the legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to the following measures:
       (1) The bill (H.R. 3087) to require the President, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military 
     leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive 
     strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces 
     in Iraq.
       (2) A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain 
     electronic surveillance.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, additionally, I ask unanimous 
consent that our colleagues be given 5 legislative days in which to 
revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 600.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 600 authorizes 
the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at 
any time through the legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, on the 
following measures:

[[Page H9664]]

  First, H.R. 3087, a bill to require the President, in coordination 
with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, and other military leaders, to develop and transmit to 
Congress a comprehensive strategy for redeployment of United States 
Armed Forces in Iraq; and, second, a bill to amend the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for 
authorizing certain electronic surveillance.
  Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important at this juncture in my 
remarks that I make it very clear that we have heard a lot of talk from 
the other side of the aisle about the need to reform FISA. The Director 
of National Intelligence has identified a specific intelligence 
collection gap and spoken of ``a backlog for things requiring a 
warrant,'' and I quote him. He claims that this is hindering our 
efforts to prevent terrorist attacks.
  Congress, Mr. Speaker, takes its responsibilities to protect the 
Nation seriously. None of us on either side of the aisle want to leave 
our intelligence professionals short. The Intelligence Committee, the 
Judiciary Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and the 
leadership have been working around the clock to come up with a 
solution that addresses this particular problem. However, again and 
again, the administration has overplayed their hand. Each time we get 
close to an agreement, they ask for more, and I might add the 
negotiations on this have been going on for over a year.
  First they said Congress needed to clarify that the government 
shouldn't need a warrant to collect foreign communications. There was 
never ever any disagreement about that.
  Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic 
surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that.
  Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications 
carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and would 
consider retrospective immunity when we get back.
  But we insist on a couple of things. We want to preserve the role of 
the FISA Court as an independent check on the government to prevent 
them from infringing on the rights of Americans, and we insist that 
this legislation have a sunset. In this rushed environment before 
recess, we should not make permanent changes to FISA.
  Last night, the congressional leadership was willing to make further 
changes for Director McConnell. He said with those changes he would 
support the bill because it would ``significantly enhance America's 
security.'' And I am quoting him again. But after this agreement was 
reached, congressional Republicans insisted on a much broader, 
permanent bill, giving the Attorney General, this Attorney General, not 
the Court, the discretion to make decisions about surveillance 
involving Americans. Clearly, in my judgment, they are not negotiating 
in good faith.
  If they reject this bill, the other side is saying, in the face of a 
resurgent al Qaeda, they don't want to plug the collection gap 
identified by the Director of National Intelligence immediately. They 
are rejecting ``significantly enhancing America's security.''
  Now, if the other side insists on manufacturing obstructionist delays 
and rejecting agreements that will enhance our security, we can stay 
here all August and September and December until we get this done. The 
security of this Nation deserves no less.
  This rule is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because under clause 1(a), rule 
XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on 
Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to 
be considered on other days, as my colleagues well know, the Rules 
Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.
  This is not an unusual procedure, as some on the other side may 
suggest. In fact, in the 109th Congress, alone, my friends on the other 
side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for 
additional suspension days.
  This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these two bills and 
will help us move important legislation before we leave for the August 
recess. Time is, indeed, of the essence. Not because many in this body 
wish to go home this weekend but, rather, because of the gravity of 
these situations both here at home and abroad.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this rule and 
the underlying piece of legislation.
  I do wish to put my colleagues on notice that, following the 
conclusion of debate on this rule, I intend to offer an amendment to 
the rule. My amendment will permit the House to consider emergency 
legislation today appropriating $250 million to begin the 
reconstruction of the I-35 bridge, which collapsed this week in 
Minnesota. We have properly given our condolences and continue those to 
those who have lost loved ones and those who are awaiting word 
regarding those who are still missing and those who have been injured. 
All of us grieve with all of them.
  Without this amendment and this rule, this legislation will not be 
permitted to proceed; and these emergency funds would be delayed. 
Realize a vote against this rule and my amendment to the rule will be a 
vote against providing this emergency assistance to the people of 
Minnesota, specifically Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida 
yielding me time, and I do know that we are here today, among other 
things, to seek immediate resolution from the United States Congress to 
help the wonderful people of Minnesota in their time of grief by 
authorizing money that will be spent to immediately rebuild the bridge 
that collapsed over the Mississippi.
  All Members of this body watched the horror the other night as we saw 
not only the collapse but also the heroism of men and women, first 
responders and others, as they joined in to help the people of 
Minneapolis-St. Paul as they struggled with this.
  I would note that the committee action, regular order, has taken 
place to make sure that this bill would be before not only the Democrat 
majority but also we as Republicans participated in each of these 
activities.

                              {time}  1330

  The gentleman stood up and talked about how great and wonderful and 
what normal and regular things happen around here, but these are not 
normal times.
  Once again today, here we are on the floor of the House of 
Representatives almost as a new low, I would say, Mr. Speaker, being 
asked to debate a rule on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
and we don't even have a copy of the bill. So I would like to ask the 
gentleman from Florida, can we please see a copy of the bill?
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. This matter is under suspension. My friend 
on the Rules Committee and I were there when it passed out of the Rules 
Committee on suspension, and that requirement is met.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand 
this. This new Democrat majority that comes to town, talks about open 
and honesty, ethics above reproach, all the things that they would do 
differently than what the Republicans have done, and they have not 
lived up to that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman if he will answer the 
question: Where is the copy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act that we're doing the rule on today that we're expected to vote on 
today?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you for yielding. It is in the hopper. 
The minority members of the Intelligence Committee have the measure.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I see we're joined 
here by a very distinguished member of the House Committee on 
Intelligence. I think we have been, for literally months, trying to 
make in order the legislation that has been introduced by our friend 
from Albuquerque (Mrs. Wilson), and we believe that that, in fact, is 
the answer to this problem.
  The President of the United States, in the news conference that he 
held with Mike McConnell about an hour ago, made it crystal clear that 
he is going to ask the Director one question: If he gets legislation 
that emerges from this body, will it, in fact, enhance our ability to 
make sure that foreigners on

[[Page H9665]]

foreign soil who are trying kill us, if the legislation provides them 
with the tools to intercept those conversations and prevent them from 
having the ability to attack the United States of America?
  Now, my friend from Dallas has just very correctly said, can we see 
the legislation that we're expected to vote upon today if this 
suspension rule is made in order that will do exactly what the 
President has said is necessary to ensure the safety and the security 
of the American people?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from California for his words.
  Mr. Speaker, this Democrat majority has simply not lived up to the 
words that it spoke when it became the new majority. And it was a 
campaign promise that is reiterated on a regular basis all through this 
Chamber and all the committees. Most disappointing among these is the 
forgotten promise that Democrats promised to be the most open, honest 
and ethical Congress in history.
  And I will now quote Speaker Pelosi from page 24 of A New Direction 
for America, and I quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor 
under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of 
a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer 
its alternatives, including a substitute.''
  I further quote the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Louise Slaughter, on November 12, 2006, just a week after election. She 
said, ``My fellow Democrats and I have long felt that the Rules 
Committee was failing its major obligations. We publically argued that 
it was being used to shut down the legislative process for partisan 
purposes. But now that the Democrats will control the committee we will 
have a chance to change all that.''
  Mr. Speaker, they have not changed it. They've made it worse.
  We do understand right now, as we speak, we have a copy of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that evidently has only now been 
given to the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I am very pleased to yield to 
my colleague, with whom I've served 7 years on the Select Committee on 
Intelligence. She was the ranking member and is now the chairman of the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Before yielding to Ms. Harman, who has gone down this road for well 
over a year to get us to this point, I would like to say to my friend 
from Texas that perhaps it would be helpful if he would ask the 
minority members of the Intelligence Committee about the bill.
  Secondly, the measure that we are dealing with is a rule providing 
for suspension, not consideration.
  That said, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Ms. 
Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for 
his long service, both on the Intelligence and Rules Committees.
  I am now the Chair of an Intelligence Subcommittee of Homeland 
Security. As no one in this Chamber would miss, security is my passion, 
and I think it is our primary obligation as Members of Congress.
  I was sitting here listening to the discussion about where is the 
bill and why aren't we acting on FISA? It seems a little disingenuous, 
given the fact that the current ranking member on the Intelligence 
Committee and former chairman, has an article in USA Today in which he 
says that this move to get the administration to put its surveillance 
program under FISA ``gives legal protections to foreign enemies who 
would do us harm.''
  Excuse me? FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed by 
a large bipartisan majority in 1978. FISA was passed to assure that 
Americans, not foreigners, would have their constitutional rights 
protected when the U.S. engages, as it must, in foreign intelligence 
surveillance.
  I don't think there is anyone here, not that I know of, who is 
against foreign intelligence surveillance. There is no one in this 
body, I haven't heard one person say that we think that when the U.S. 
engages in foreign intelligence surveillance, in foreign countries 
involving communications between foreigners in different foreign 
countries, that FISA applies. But FISA can and must apply when 
Americans' constitutional rights are at issue, and that is the issue we 
will debate a little bit later.
  I want to say that it surprises me again that all of a sudden no one 
knows what we might be talking about. There have been intense 
negotiations, I have been a part of some of them, for months over what 
we might do to make FISA work better. In the 109th Congress, all nine 
Democrats on the Intelligence Committee authored legislation to help 
FISA work better; and in this Congress I'm aware of both closed and 
open hearings by the Intelligence Committee to carefully consider these 
issues.
  So it seems to me quite surprising and disingenuous to hear that, for 
example, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee doesn't even 
feel that FISA protects Americans; he thinks that it coddles 
foreigners.
  I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I thank the gentlelady because I have some 
confusion over here, and you may be able to help me.
  As I look at this, I think this is the bill that was rejected by the 
Director of National Intelligence 36 hours ago as insufficient. And it 
is not the bill that, as I understand it, was going to be accepted by 
the Senate this morning that the DNI proposed.
  Is the House offering a different bill than has been accepted by the 
Senate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute 
to respond.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Reclaiming my time, I don't have a copy of the latest draft. It may 
be one I've seen, but I'm not absolutely positive. My understanding is 
that negotiations have been going on for quite a long time and that the 
requirements of the DNI have been met.
  What is happening, and I think it's a real tragedy for the American 
people, is that the goalposts keep moving. I just wonder whether the 
other side wants this to be a wedge issue or wants to solve the 
problem.
  As one Member here who has worked on this for years, I want to solve 
the problem; and we will attempt to do that under the suspension rules 
later today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You know, Mr. Speaker, we talk about this genuine 
desire to solve the problem, but the fact of the matter is we're about 
as close as midnight and noon in our thoughts and beliefs as parties 
for doing that.
  I hearken back to just a few days ago in the Rules Committee, where 
some of the questions from my good friends on the Democrat side are: 
Well, what about the constitutional rights of some of these people who 
live in other countries who are known terrorists, what about their 
constitutional rights? And we need to take those into account.
  Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how we're sitting here debating something 
that's in the best interests of this country, and some people are more 
concerned about the terrorists' rights than they are about protecting 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I have the highest regard 
for my California colleague (Ms. Harman). She knows that very well. We 
share representing Los Angeles County here. And I know that she has 
worked very hard on intelligence issues.
  But I will say that I am very troubled with the exchange that I just 
saw take place between my friend from Albuquerque here, who has worked 
on this. She talked about the fact that we have legislation that was 
just rejected 36 hours ago by the Director of National Intelligence, 
Mr. McConnell. And my friend from California has just said something to 
the effect that she's not sure exactly what bill it is that we're 
looking at. I'm not an expert on this myself.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend if she wants to respond at all 
on this.
  Ms. HARMAN. Well, what I meant was that I'm aware that there were 
negotiations going on with the DNI last

[[Page H9666]]

evening. So drafts have been shared back and forth. All I said was that 
I came over to the floor to support the rule to permit this issue to be 
addressed under suspension, and I don't have in my hand what may be the 
latest version.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I know my colleague would certainly 
share this concern to support the rule, but we like the idea of seeing 
what it is that we're about to vote upon before we do that. I know that 
may be an unusual request under this majority, but I think that is 
definitely fair. And I will say that I think that it's right and 
correct that Members have a chance to see what it is that they're 
voting upon, rather than having something thrown upon them.
  And we have Mrs. Wilson, who has legislation that we've offered 
probably a dozen times on our quest to defeat the previous question on 
rules so that we could at least allow consideration of this. And so 
that has led us, I believe, to this point.
  But I think it is just absolute lunacy to believe that we are, at 
this moment, in a position to go ahead and vote upon something that we 
don't know what it consists of. And I know my friend would agree with 
that, that we really shouldn't have a pattern like that.
  Ms. HARMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield 30 seconds to Ms. Harman.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, just to respond to that, I'm not interested 
in lunacy, and I know that Mr. Dreier is not, and I'm sure that Ms. 
Wilson and Mr. Hoekstra are not either.
  There is a way to solve this problem correctly. I believe that the 
draft, which I'm certain will be circulated to everybody imminently, I 
believe that you will see that it is a very careful and balanced effort 
to address this problem, and it has been shared.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think I've got it in my 
hands right now.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The gentleman says he has a copy of the bill 
in his hand. I would remind the distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, who is my good friend, that this rule is to make in 
order a suspension day.
  Mr. DREIER. I understand that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I'm glad you do understand it.
  I would ask the gentleman from Texas to ask his Republican colleagues 
on the Intelligence Committee why they didn't share the bill with the 
Rules Committee Republicans. We cannot control what you do or do not 
do.
  And under the circumstances, Ms. Harman just made it very clear to 
you that the goalposts keep moving. You try to act as if you don't know 
that for a year and a half that this has been going on here in this 
intelligence community, working with this administration, trying to 
take care of this matter.
  Now understand this. First, you said on that side that Congress 
needed to clarify that the government shouldn't need a warrant to 
collect foreign-to-foreign communications. There was never any 
disagreement about that, and stop saying it to the American public.
  Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic 
surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that.
  Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications 
carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and consider 
retrospective immunity when we get back.
  Last night, not yesterday, not midnight to noon, and some people have 
gotten caught in the dark, last night, the congressional leadership was 
willing to make further changes for Director McConnell. He said that 
with those changes he would support the bill because it would, in his 
word, ``significantly'' enhance America's security.
  But after this agreement was reached, congressional Republicans 
insisted on a much broader bill giving the Attorney General, not the 
Court, the discretion to make decisions about surveillance involving 
Americans. Clearly, in my judgment, as I said previously, you're not 
negotiating in good faith.
  I remind you once again that this rule is to make in order a 
suspension day. You will have all the time you need to do all the 
reading you need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time 
remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 21\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Florida has 13\1/2\ minutes.

                          ____________________