[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 177 (Thursday, November 15, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13969-H13976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3773, RESTORE ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 824 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 824

       Resolved, That during further consideration of 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, 
     as amended, pursuant to House Resolution 746, the further 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     Time for debate on the bill pursuant to House Resolution 746 
     shall be considered as expired. The bill, as amended, shall 
     be debatable for one hour, with 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. For the purpose of debate only, Mr. Speaker, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my good friend from 
Washington, Representative Hastings. All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 824 provides for further consideration 
of H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007, under a closed rule.
  The rule provides 60 minutes of debate. Thirty minutes will be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairperson and ranking 
Republican of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 30 minutes will be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairperson and ranking 
Republican of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  The rule considers as adopted another amendment printed in the Rules 
Committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, with the resurgence of al Qaeda and an increasing global 
threat from weapons of mass destruction in places such as Iran, every 
single person in this body wants to ensure that our intelligence 
professionals have the proper resources they need to protect our 
Nation.
  As vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I assure you 
that each and every one of us on that panel and others, Republican or 
Democrat, are working tirelessly, and often together, to do just that.
  But the government is not exempt from the rule of law, as the 
Constitution confers certain unalienable rights and civil liberties to 
each of us.
  After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Bush administration 
upset that balance by ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act law, establishing a secret wiretapping program, and refusing to 
work with Congress to make the program lawful.
  Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee have been trying to 
learn about the Bush administration's FISA programs for years. But the 
administration, which has been anything but forthcoming, has sought to 
block our oversight efforts nearly every step of the way.
  When the administration finally came to Congress to modify the law 
this summer, it came with a flawed proposal to allow sweeping authority 
to eavesdrop on Americans' communications while doing almost nothing to 
protect their rights.
  The RESTORE Act, true to its name, restores the checks and balances 
on the executive branch, enhancing our security and preserving our 
liberty. It rejects the false statement that we must sacrifice liberty 
to be secure. The legislation provides our intelligence community with 
the tools it needs to identify and disrupt terrorist networks with 
speed and agility. It provides additional resources to the Department 
of Justice, National Security Agency, and the FISA Court to assist in 
auditing and streamlining the FISA application process while preventing 
the backlog of critical intelligence gathering.
  The RESTORE Act prohibits the warrantless electronic surveillance of 
Americans in the United States, including their medical records, homes 
and offices. And it requires the government to establish a record-
keeping system to track instances where information identifying U.S. 
citizens is disseminated.
  This bill preserves the role of the FISA Court as an independent 
check of the government to prevent it from infringing on the rights of 
Americans. It rejects the administration's belief that the court should 
simply be a rubber stamp.
  Finally, the bill sunsets in 2009. This is a critical provision 
because it requires the constant oversight and regular evaluation of 
our FISA laws, actions which were largely neglected during the last 6 
years of Republican control.
  In so many ways, the underlying legislation is more efficient and 
effective than the administration's proposal which passed in August.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, last month, we came to the floor 
on this bill, but when it became clear that Republicans were intent on 
playing

[[Page H13970]]

politics with the security of the American people, we refused to take 
the bait.

                              {time}  1015

  At that time, Republicans announced that they intended to offer a 
motion to recommit the bill that had no substantive base, was already 
addressed in the bill and in current law, and was designed to delay 
consideration of this important intelligence tool. Their reasoning was 
disingenuous; their motives were absolutely political. As a result, 
Democrats refused to partake in their game of political theater.
  If the House does not pass this bill today because of Republican 
obstructionism, then it will be abundantly clear that the minority and 
the administration are willing to put politics in front of the safety 
of the American people. We are back today, and we will continue to come 
back to the House floor, however many times it takes, to give our men 
and women in the intelligence community the tools that they need to do 
their jobs and keep America safe, while also preserving our civil 
liberties. This is a balance that is not only difficult but absolutely 
critical.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman and my namesake 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules 
Committee held a second hearing to consider a second rule to provide 
for consideration of H.R. 3773, the Responsible Electronic Surveillance 
That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective, or the RESTORE Act. As you 
may recall, a month ago the House considered and approved a closed rule 
for the RESTORE Act. Not only was it a closed rule, prohibiting any 
debate on amendments, but it also denied Members the opportunity to 
cast a separate vote on a manager's amendment and changes to the 
amendment which became part of the base bill once the rule was adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The result a month ago was that the 
Democrat majority recognized the RESTORE Act was insufficient and 
decided to pull the bill from the House floor without a vote. Rather 
than spending a month working in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the 
bill, yesterday the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee was at it 
again, rewriting and denying Republican Members the chance to even 
offer input or suggestions and prohibiting every single Member of the 
House from offering amendments and alternatives. The Democrat 
majority's take-it-or-leave-it strategy on this bill is dangerous and 
is destined to fail, Mr. Speaker. It will not close our Nation's 
intelligence gap. In fact, it could widen it.
  In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
or FISA, to establish a procedure for electronic surveillance of 
international communications. As enacted into law, FISA had two 
principles: first, to protect the civil liberties of Americans by 
requiring the government to first obtain a court order before 
collecting electronic intelligence on U.S. citizens in our country; 
second, the law specified how intelligence officials working to perfect 
our national security could collect information on foreign persons in 
foreign places without having to get a warrant.
  The intent of the original FISA law was to enhance American security, 
while at the same time protecting American 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 August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step 
forward 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 the authority they needed to 
protect our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked 
a significant step forward in improving our national security. The 
Democrats forced the security tools that we passed in August to expire 
after 6 months.
  Now Congress must act again to renew this law by early next year 
before the Democrat expiration date arrives and our national security 
once again will be at serious risk. Unfortunately, the legislation 
before us today does not provide the security we need to protect our 
Nation from a potential future terrorist attack. It is a retreat, Mr. 
Speaker, from a law enacted in August, and jeopardizes the safety and 
security of Americans from foreign terrorist threats.
  I am concerned that not only were final changes to the bill given to 
the minority just yesterday afternoon, but it was stated in our hearing 
that the Democrat chairman of the Judiciary Committee got the revised 
text just moments before we did. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize 
Mr. Conyers' willingness expressed in his testimony before the Rules 
Committee to work with Republicans and perhaps even postpone 
consideration of a rule until the bill could be properly reviewed and 
Republicans had a chance to offer a substitute or changes to the bill. 
Sadly, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee overruled Mr. Conyers and 
expressed her intention to move this bill without any alternatives, 
amendments, or possible improvements being considered.
  The action of the Rules Committee in October and again yesterday to 
completely shut down the legislative process shatters the promises made 
by Democrat leaders a year ago. The distinguished chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee on December 27, 2006, was quoted in the New York Times, 
Mr. Speaker: ``We are going to give people an honest and contemplative 
body they can be proud of once more. We are going to have a much more 
open process.''
  House Majority Leader Hoyer, on December 5, 2006, was quoted in 
Congress Daily PM as saying, Mr. Speaker: ``We intend to have a Rules 
Committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals an 
ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''
  Mr. Speaker, actions obviously speak louder than words. The 
modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st 
century is a critical national security priority. It is alarming that 
the Democrat majority wants to move full speed ahead on a bill that 
weakens Americans' privacy protections, while at the same time 
strengthening protections for our enemies in the war on terror. I must 
therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule so that 
we can make absolutely certain that we are making our laws more, not 
less, effective in our constant battle to prevent a future terrorist 
attack against our Nation.
  If this rule is adopted, Members will only have the choice to vote 
for or against a seriously flawed bill that threatens, not strengthens, 
our national security. The Democrat take-it-or-leave-it strategy shuts 
down all voices from being heard, and ultimately every American can 
suffer the consequences if this bill and the rule are adopted.
  Enacting the Protect Act last August, which was a major 
accomplishment of this Congress, which has chosen to spend, frankly, 
more time debating and enacting legislation naming post offices and 
Federal buildings than real policy, it is ironic that the Democrat 
majority now wants to pull the rug out from under this successful 
accomplishment.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 
my colleague and good friend from the Rules Committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. 
Reliable intelligence is crucial for the defense of our Nation. Without 
it, we would not be safe. At the same time, civil liberties are a vital 
part of our national identity. Without them, we would not be free.

[[Page H13971]]

  Our Founding Fathers understood that liberty and security complement 
each other. Unfortunately, this core premise has been muddled as we 
have debated FISA legislation. This legislation protects the people and 
the principles that we hold so dear in this country and it modernizes 
our Nation's intelligence laws to meet the technological demands of the 
21st century.
  I am especially pleased that the bill before us today provides such 
strong legal clarity. Without clear boundaries, intelligence officers 
will err on the side of caution. Strong legal footing not only protects 
our civil liberties; it also ensures that prosecutions will not be 
jeopardized.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people also deserve disclosure of the data 
that has been surrendered to the government by the telecommunications 
industry. It is critical for Congress to be fully informed before 
making such an important decision as granting retroactive immunity. 
Brave men and women have sacrificed to protect the civil liberties and 
values that we hold most dear. We cannot and should not lightly brush 
their contributions aside. Instead, we must honor their memories by 
taking responsible action to protect two of the things that our 
constituents hold most dear, our freedom and our national security. 
Neither of these basic American values can exist without the other.
  I will continue to support bills like the RESTORE Act that recognize 
this essential truth. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking 
member of the Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the importance, as we have just 
heard, we have just heard about clear legal authorities; we have talked 
about the protection of U.S. persons, the need to study this issue in a 
very important, judicious manner. It's not what happened over the last 
4 weeks. Over the last 4 weeks, our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle were trying to figure out exactly how to bring this vote forward 
to get the votes necessary to pass it.
  As we went to Rules yesterday, it was about a half hour before we saw 
the manager's amendment. As I read through the manager's amendment, 
this is interesting, and as with much else on FISA, I wonder what this 
really means and how it really works. Does it really provide us with 
the clear legal authorities? Are the statements that it makes clear? 
Will it help our intelligence communities?
  And while there's a lot of problems in the rest of the bill, I just 
want to focus on one part of the manager's amendment that is self-
enacting today, and that is why I rise in opposition to this 
unnecessary second rule. It places unnecessary, burdensome restrictions 
on the intelligence community through a self-executing amendment.
  More importantly, however, I would like to highlight my concern with 
a provision of the manager's amendment in this rule that appears to 
give extremely broad and vague authorities to the executive branch to 
conduct surveillance on undocumented aliens within the United States. 
Section 18 of the manager's amendment is bluntly titled: ``No Rights 
Under the RESTORE Act for Undocumented Aliens.'' No rights under the 
RESTORE Act for undocumented aliens. Then it goes on to say: ``This act 
and the amendments made by this act,'' and by ``this act,'' it's 
talking about FISA, not this bill, at least that is how I would 
interpret it, ``shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or 
grant any rights to an alien not permitted to be in or remain in the 
United States.''
  This poorly conceived and ill-advised provision appears to provide an 
extremely broad and completely blank check to the executive branch to 
conduct wholly unregulated surveillance on an undocumented alien in the 
United States. The scope of this is unprecedented. We have never before 
extended such blanket authority to the intelligence community to 
collect information on any person within the country, legal or illegal.
  The language is also as vague as it is broad. My counsel says he 
doesn't know what the effect of an alien not permitted to be in or 
remain in the United States means, since it doesn't define those terms 
by reference to other laws. The overall effect of this provision could 
be breathtaking in its scope.
  One of the issues that was supposed to be definitively clarified in 
this bill is whether or not the enhanced authorities of the Protect 
America Act or this bill would allow physical searches to be conducted 
of the homes and businesses of innocent Americans. Since that 
clarification is supposed to be made in the RESTORE Act, it seems that 
this provision must be read to permit physical searches of the homes 
and offices of undocumented aliens.

                              {time}  1030

  I've got a few questions for the other side that I hope they would 
take the time to answer when time is yielded back to them. I would like 
to obtain clarification with respect to a number of ambiguities in the 
manager's amendment. Would you clarify under which specific laws an 
alien could be ``permitted to be in or remain in the United States'' 
under this manager's amendment? Since it does not refer to specific 
laws, would the President denying someone permission to remain in the 
United States under this executive authority trigger this provision?
  The amendment also says that it does not prohibit surveillance of 
undocumented aliens. Would you further clarify what types of 
surveillance of undocumented aliens are authorized under this 
provision?
  The amendment does not define the term ``surveillance.'' Would it 
allow surveillance against possible illegal aliens for law enforcement 
purposes? Would it allow foreign intelligence surveillance to be 
conducted against transnational smuggling rings? Would it allow 
surveillance to determine whether someone is an alien not permitted to 
be in or remain in the United States? Would the amendment exempt 
undocumented aliens from the physical search requirements of FISA?
  One final clarification. Does the term ``this Act,'' as I said, I 
believe it refers to all of FISA, or is it just some section? Could you 
clarify how that is different than ``the amendments made by this Act''?
  This is unprecedented in its breadth and its scope, potentially 
unleashing the intelligence community on people in the United States. 
The practice in the community today is that when someone is in the 
United States, they are provided the protections of U.S. law. This 
takes it and shreds it for illegal aliens, or people who may be 
suspected of being illegal aliens.
  And talk about protecting rights, this bill shreds the rights of 
people who are in this country. It is a significant problem, and this 
is what happens when you go through a process on this type of technical 
legislation and do not go through a process that allows the minority or 
hearings to take place.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good 
friend from California, the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member 
of the Intelligence Committee raised a plethora of questions. I would 
say to him that he can expect his answers in the general debate, and I 
am sure that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) will enlighten him as to the scope of 
questions that he put. I would like to, for I feel that he knows the 
answer to every one of them, but I won't take the time.
  I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California, the Chair of the Intelligence, Information Sharing and 
Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland 
Security, and if you can say all of that, then you must be somebody, 
Jane Harman.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I commend his service 
on the Rules Committee and his long service, much of which I shared, on 
the House Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying 
bill. Many in this House, including me, have worked over years to get 
surveillance right. This bill does a good job, a far better job than 
the bill reported last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  Protecting America from the real threat of additional attacks 
requires

[[Page H13972]]

the strongest possible tools. It also requires a flexible, agile and 
constitutional set of authorities to guarantee that those who do the 
surveillance clearly know the rules and obey them and that Americans 
who may be targeted have appropriate safeguards.
  This legislation arms our intelligence professionals with the ability 
to listen to foreign targets, without a warrant, to uncover plots that 
threaten U.S. national security.
  The bill also protects the constitutional rights of Americans by 
requiring the FISA Court, an article III court, to approve procedures 
to ensure that Americans are not targeted for warrantless surveillance.
  I have reviewed the changes to this legislation made by the manager's 
amendment. This amendment makes the bill stronger in two important 
ways: First, it clarifies that nothing in the bill--repeat, nothing--
inhibits the ability to monitor Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, 
proliferators of weapons of mass destruction or any terror group or 
individual who threatens our national security. Second, and this is a 
point that was just addressed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra), it clarifies that nothing, nothing, in the bill extends any 
rights to people who are not in the United States legally. Undocumented 
aliens, people who aren't citizens or have overstayed their visas 
receive no rights under this bill. Some may try to scare us into 
thinking otherwise, but they're just wrong.
  The bill does not change current law, and this is a point that may 
have been overlooked by the gentleman from Michigan. It does not change 
current law regarding the surveillance of undocumented aliens. Since 
1978, FISA, which was enacted in that year, has extended fourth 
amendment protections to persons legally in the United States. The 
Protect America Act, which the Republican minority in this body 
supported in August and which was enacted into law that month, 
continues that same definition. The Protect America Act defines the 
coverage of the bill just the way this legislation does. We're not 
changing the coverage of U.S. persons as defined in 1978 and since 
under the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  Mr. Speaker, terrorists won't check our party registration before 
they blow us up. Security and liberty are not a zero sum game. The 
RESTORE America Act will protect the American people and defend the 
Constitution. Vote ``aye.''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend for yielding.
  When we see significant changes in law included in the rule as we see 
this morning, in other words, self-executed in the rule, it's important 
that these questions be asked during the debate on the rule, because 
after this rule is passed, changes in the law will already have been 
made. The changes in the law are included in the rule.
  I have some serious questions. Some of them were already brought out 
by the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. For example, there 
is this section, section 18 in the legislation being brought to us 
today. Basically it says, warrantless surveillance is authorized by 
this legislation on any undocumented person in the United States. Now, 
that's in the law. And I would ask any colleague listening to this, 
it's in the self-executing part of this rule, section 18, ``This act 
shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of any alien not 
permitted to be in or remain in the United States.''
  Now, how do you know, Mr. Speaker, if they're undocumented or not? 
Thus, now, this will give the right to surveillance, warrantless 
surveillance with regard to any household where there may be an 
undocumented worker? This is extremely serious. The question needs to 
be asked.
  The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee pointed out, that's 
why this needs to be vetted, to be discussed, and not to be included in 
a rule where we find out about this the morning that the rule is on the 
floor and the rule makes it law, because it includes in the rule 
changes in the law that we hadn't even been able to see before.
  Now, other questions. There is a prior section in the legislation, 
section 3, that creates what they call basket warrants for terrorists 
throughout the world. But wait a minute. Section 18 says that if you 
are someone not permitted to be in the United States, it should not be 
construed to prohibit surveillance. My question is, does that section 
void the prior basket warrant section? I don't know. What I know is 
that it's in the rule.
  When we vote on the rule in a few minutes, we will be self-executing 
legislation, because these changes in the law are in the rule to be 
self-executed, to be made already part of the law. So these are serious 
questions. I wish that there would have been an opportunity for the 
gentleman from Michigan, along with the chairman, to be vetting these 
issues, because they're serious issues, serious questions, like the one 
I asked before.
  Now, unlimited, warrantless surveillance for the undocumented. And 
those who live with the undocumented, I would ask? Those who share a 
residence with the undocumented? Those who share a workplace with the 
undocumented and who are citizens, are legal immigrants in the United 
States? These are serious questions. And now we can ask them on the 
morning that the legislation is on the floor. And, by the way, it's 
being included in the rule, so that as soon as we vote on the rule, we 
will already have voted on this legislation.
  No, this is not the way to run this place, Mr. Speaker. It's another 
example of an excessively exclusivist process keeping out debate 
affecting legislation, including extremely serious legislation, like 
this legislation that should be protecting the American people, and 
that's why this is most unfortunate, this process today, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from 
Florida that this rule doesn't change the law. Members will still have 
an opportunity to vote on the base text of this bill. It doesn't change 
the law of FISA.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my good friend and 
classmate, Mr. Doggett.
  Mr. DOGGETT. But there is an ``alien'' issue in this bill and only 
one alien issue--those who have been so alien to the freedoms we hold 
dear as Americans.
  This is an Administration that has desecrated our Constitution, 
debased our values and repeatedly undermined our freedoms. For a party 
that purports to hate Big Government, these Republicans sure do seem to 
love Big Brother. They demand unlimited Executive power and 
unrestrained authority to intrude into our everyday lives. Today, we 
dare to impose some limitations on one of so many examples of their 
callous disregard of our liberties.
  If even former Attorney General John Ashcroft, sitting there in his 
hospital bed in intensive care, if even he could recognize the 
illegality of the surveillance that Dick Cheney demanded, why shouldn't 
we in Congress be able to do the same? And if one telecommunications 
company had the courage to say ``no'' to this Administration's 
wrongdoing, why not the others? And why would we want to protect these 
corporate accomplices in the surreptitious destruction of our freedom 
from any accountability whatsoever?

                              {time}  1045

  Yesterday, we told this President ``no more blank checks for Iraq.'' 
And today we say no more unauthorized blanket surveillance of American 
citizens. Those of us who love liberty must stand up to this 
Administration's fear-mongering, to its continued leveraging of fear 
for its own political purposes.
  As Mr. Cheney's current chief of staff once said and what many 
Americans now recognize is an irresponsible and unconstitutional 
expansion of Presidential power: ``We're going to push and push and 
push until some larger force makes us stop.''
  Well, today we must be that force. This Congress must stay ``stop.''
  Liberty is our strength. Fear is our enemy. This legislation strikes 
an appropriate balance to keep our families safe and ensure they remain 
free.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. First I've got to comment on some things we heard 
previously. We heard the right honorable

[[Page H13973]]

chairman indicate that the last motion to recommit was designed to 
delay. If it was merely designed to delay, then why in the world was 
the bill pulled from the floor and sat on for 4 weeks? The answer: it 
was not for delay. We had some serious considerations and questions and 
points to be made about the risk that this was raising.
  When I hear my friend from Texas talk about those who love liberty, 
listen, some of us love liberty enough that we believe the Constitution 
should not be extended on the battlefield to those who are trying to 
destroy what our forefathers and foremothers have fought and died to 
give us.
  Now, unless the Democrats believe that they have improved this bill, 
then there was no reason for a month delay. So either you improved it, 
Mr. Speaker, either the Democrats improved it or there was no reason to 
sit on it for a month. And if they did improve it, then the motion to 
recommit was not political, but apparently helpful.
  The problem is this doesn't fix the problems. And unless one party in 
this body has 100 percent on God's truth all the time, they ought to 
allow some input from the other side. We were told that was going to 
happen. It hasn't happened here. We went to the Rules Committee the 
last time and were shut out. Before the hearing started we were told, 
put on your evidence but no amendments will be allowed. This time, once 
again, no amendments are allowed. There is some expertise in this body 
outside the Democratic Party. I would think it would be helpful to hear 
some of that.
  Anyway, let's look at the bill itself. We are told, well, we can't 
get into it, we have limited time. Who did that? The Rules Committee 
did that. The Rules Committee did that.
  I would say to everyone, Mr. Speaker, that we have some smart people 
on both sides of the aisle on the Rules Committee, but their talents 
are being wasted when they keep having Rules Committee meetings that 
come back over and over, no amendments. They are wasting their time. 
They ought to ask for different committees because there is too much 
intelligence and talent on that committee to waste it like that.
  Now, in this new bill that we've got, we had to make amendments 
without even seeing the new bill. How outrageous is that? But still, we 
have the requirement that the Director of National Intelligence, and I 
realize some people think he is suspect on the Democratic side because 
he worked for the Clinton administration for 6 years. I think he is a 
brilliant, sharp fellow.
  But anyway, he testified before our Judiciary Committee that he 
cannot swear, nobody can honestly swear that they reasonably believe 
that a terrorist on foreign soil will never call the United States. 
Therefore, since he can't testify to that, they can't use this 
provision.
  We are told this is protective because in the emergency provision 
that is allowed, all you have to do is get that emergency relief, and 
you can get that in 7 days instead of 15. Even under the emergency 
relief, you have to reasonably believe there will never be a call into 
the United States, and we had testimony that can never be done.
  This guts our foreign intelligence capability. I think the easier 
thing to do is just have everybody tell their U.S. friends that if you 
are getting calls from foreign terrorists, tell them not to call, use 
some other means of communication. That's the point.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to 
inform each side as to the amount of time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 15\1/2\ 
minutes and the gentleman from Washington has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence, Mr. Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an incredible turn of events from our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle who are now arguing for undocumented 
people within the confines of this country.
  Let me start out by making a flat statement. The RESTORE Act confers 
no additional rights on undocumented aliens beyond those that they 
already have under the Constitution or current U.S. law.
  You know, there is an old lawyer's adage, and I am not a lawyer but I 
am told by my friends who are, when the facts are not on your side, you 
are taught to argue the law. When the law is not on your side, you are 
taught to argue the facts.
  Well, here on the floor like we have in the past, we have our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are so conflicted as to 
be humorous if this wasn't such a serious, serious issue for our 
country and for our national security.
  When they complain about not having any input, let me just clear the 
record and for the record state that they filed 12 amendments with our 
committee, the Intelligence Committee. Yet, when it came time to offer 
and proffer those amendments, they only had two. One was on immunity 
which, by the way, we have never been given the documents to review, so 
we would not have known what we were granting immunity to the telecom 
companies for. But that one was of their amendments. The second 
amendment was to substitute the Protect America Act for the RESTORE 
Act.
  That gives you a clear indication that, today just as in the previous 
Congresses, the Congressional Republicans were and are in a rush to 
rubber-stamp every single thing that the administration wanted. And so 
now when things have changed and we have checks and balances, we have 
our colleagues who formerly rushed, rubber-stamped anything and 
everything that the administration wanted to do, now they are using 
delaying tactics. And so when it is convenient, they argue the law. 
When it is convenient, they argue the facts.
  What is clear, crystal clear, here is that we have to have checks and 
balances. In order to protect this country, in order to protect our 
national security, there have to be checks and balances. That's what 
the RESTORE Act does.
  And when they complain about the rule, it is a sham argument. When 
they complain about not having enough input, it is a sham argument. 
When they argue the facts, it is because the law is not on their side. 
When they argue the law, it is because the facts are not on their side. 
So it is not about truth; it is not even about justice. It is about 
scoring political victories.
  There is a publication here on the Hill that said FISA is coming back 
up on the floor and it will determine who can maneuver best. You know 
what, as an American, I am sick and tired of maneuvering. I am sick and 
tired of people saying we need to work in a bipartisan manner when they 
work to undermine the process of checks and balances. The American 
people are sick and tired.
  I support this rule. I think we have a great bill here in the RESTORE 
Act. I think this is something that we need to pass today, take it to 
conference and start being serious about balancing the tools that our 
agencies need to protect us with a careful balance of protecting 
Americans' rights under the Constitution. Vote for this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition as ranking member of the 
Foreign Affairs Terrorism Subcommittee. And I can share this: there has 
not been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and that is due in 
part to the improved surveillance in real-time that we are able to 
conduct against foreign terrorists. There is no disputing that.
  I cannot help but feel that many of my colleagues have become so 
blinded by their hatred of this administration that they have put the 
threat from radical jihadists in the back of their mind. But given the 
threat, it is unfathomable that we would weaken our most effective 
preventive tool, and that is exactly what this bill does.
  Before we unilaterally disarm, before we hobble our ability to listen 
in real-time to the very real terrorists who are plotting against our 
country around this globe, shouldn't we have something of an accounting 
of the supposed civil liberties price we are paying?
  I asked the Congressional Research Service for such an accounting. 
They reported there is no available evidence of the type of privacy 
violations critics

[[Page H13974]]

are pointing at. The case can't be proven.
  But under this bill, for the first time this bill would stop 
intelligence professionals from conducting surveillance of foreign 
persons in foreign countries unless they can read the mind of their 
terrorist targets and guarantee that they would not call into the 
United States, that they would not call one of their people here.
  This is more protection than Americans get under court-ordered 
warrants in Mob and other criminal cases here in the United States that 
we are now granting these terrorists under this act.
  We are, frankly, confronting a virtual caliphate. Radical jihadists 
are physically dispersed, but they are united through the Internet; and 
they use that tool to recruit and plot their terrorist attacks. They 
use electronic communications for just such a purpose. They are very 
sophisticated in that.
  So how has the West attempted to confront that? Well, the British use 
electronic surveillance in real-time. They used it last year to stop 
the attack on 10 transatlantic flights, and they prevented that attack 
in August of last year by wiretapping. The French authorities used 
wiretaps to lure jihadists basically into custody; and, thereby, they 
prevented a bomb attack.
  Given this threat, it is unfathomable that we would weakened our most 
effective preventive tool, and that is exactly what this bill does.
  Before we passed the Protect America Act in August, the Director of 
National Intelligence told this Congress we are losing up to two-thirds 
of our intelligence on terrorist targets.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), 
who is a member of the Select Intelligence Committee and had 
substantial input with reference to this provision.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Florida, and I 
rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  When Congress made the error of passing in haste and in fear the 
unconstitutional Protect America Act this past August, some of us could 
take a bit of comfort from this sorry episode in that it would expire. 
That meant we would get another chance to get things right, to actually 
pass a bill that would protect our country from terrorists and also 
from those in government who would turn the fearsome powers of our 
Federal intelligence and enforcement communities against the American 
people. I am pleased to say that after some intense work, we have a 
bill that does that.
  The RESTORE Act now includes provisions via the manager's amendment 
that will ensure that it is the courts, not an executive branch 
political appointee, who decides whether or not the communications of 
American citizens are to be seized and searched, and that such seizures 
and searches must be done pursuant to a court order that meets the 
standard of probable cause.
  This bill now gives our citizens the best protection we can provide 
them: good intelligence and the review of the executive branch's 
actions by a court. We, everyone here, can tell each of our 
constituents, Muslim Americans, soldiers in uniform, international 
businessmen, college students: you have the protection of the courts.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank both chairmen of the Intelligence and Judiciary 
Committees for working so diligently to get this right. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the RESTORE Act 
later today.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a member 
of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to this rule.
  People should understand that this is one of the single-most 
important issues we will deal with this year or this Congress, and yet 
it has been trivialized by the way it has been handled by the Rules 
Committee.
  We were shown what purported to be the bill that we would be working 
on today 45 minutes before the Rules Committee convened, at which time 
we were supposed to present our amendments to this bill, draft our 
amendments to this bill. Maybe it made no difference because they had 
no intention whatsoever of allowing us any input by way of amendment.
  This was startling to me because, having done two 1-hour Special 
Orders on this subject, I had a distinguished Member from their side of 
the aisle come to me and say: You know that provision you pointed out, 
that was placed into this bill as a result of a self-execution rule 
that actually grants greater protection to Osama bin Laden or anybody 
else than it would to an American citizen charged with a crime in 
America. You were right on that. We made a mistake, and we are going to 
change it.
  So I look at this bill and it is still there.
  What provision am I talking about? It is the provision that talks 
about treatment of inadvertent interceptions. If we have an electronic 
communication which we believed in the first instance was foreign to 
foreign but we find that it actually is foreign to someone in the 
United States, what happens? If we inadvertently collect a 
communication in which at least one party to the communication is 
located inside the United States or is a United States person, the 
contents of such communication shall be handled in accordance with 
minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General. And that is 
fine. But then it goes on to say: that require that no contents of any 
communication to which the United States person is a party shall be 
disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose, or retained for 
longer than 7 days unless a court order under section 105 is obtained, 
or unless the Attorney General determines that the information 
indicates the threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
  Now, if Osama bin Laden in a conversation or communication with 
someone in the United States, which we inadvertently pick up because we 
thought we were listening to foreign to foreign and we hear this, and 
in that Osama bin Laden indicates where he is, we are prohibited by 
this provision in this section of the bill from being able to 
disseminate it to anybody, FBI or anybody else, or using it for any 
purpose unless we go to a court. That is absolutely absurd. So absurd 
that a Member of that side of the aisle, the chairman of the 
Constitutional Law Subcommittee of Judiciary said: You are right, we 
will take it out. It is not taken out.
  That is just one of the problems when you have a rule that doesn't 
allow people to look at the bill you are going to present to them nor 
does it allow any amendments to be brought forward.
  This not only points out the seriousness of this issue, but it shows 
that, when you play political games with bringing it to the floor, you 
might have unintended consequences.
  Do I believe that side wants to give greater protection to Osama bin 
Laden than an American citizen charged with a crime in America? I hope 
not. But it is in this bill. I was told it was going to be taken out. 
It has not been taken out. We ought to defeat this rule for that reason 
whatsoever and defeat the bill if it remains in.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, our purpose is to defend America and American interests, 
American citizens. And this bill is a good bill. I speak for this rule. 
I speak for it because this is a balanced rule. On the one hand, it 
helps protect Americans; on the other hand, it is a balance in favor of 
the Constitution. We have to keep, of course, those two goals in mind, 
but keeping in mind the fact that we need good intelligence, and this 
is a means and the law to allow us to get good intelligence and protect 
America and American interests.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The gentleman is recognized for 
3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about

[[Page H13975]]

process here on this very, very important issue. Everybody on both 
sides of the aisle has talked about the need to make sure that we have 
the right intelligence, and yet through this process there are a number 
of questions, I think very legitimate questions, that were raised; 
because if this rule is adopted, then we will have no opportunity to 
even vote on the manager's amendment. It will be self-executing.
  It seems to me like it is a process by which, because we all know 
pretty much that rule votes are party votes. So it is like denying 
anybody an opportunity. If somebody on the other side has some 
questions about the questions that were raised here, they will be 
denied the opportunity because you have got to stay with the party and 
support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I just simply say that is a very, very 
bad process.
  Mr. Speaker, we also need to pass the stand-alone veterans funding 
bill. It has now been over 150 days since the veterans funding bill was 
approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill and appointed 
its conferees 2 months ago. Sadly, Democrat leadership in the House has 
refused to name conferees and instead has chosen to put politics and 
partisanship ahead of ensuring that our veterans' needs are met.
  Once the Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move 
forward and pass the stand-alone veterans bill. Mr. Boehner took a 
positive historic step in that direction; now Speaker Pelosi must 
follow. Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to 
immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Funding Bill and appoint 
conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
previous question and the 42nd, Mr. Speaker, closed rule that we are 
debating here today.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for a year and a half, the 
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have been working with the 
administration to craft a bill that will ensure our Nation is 
protected, without sacrificing American constitutional liberties. Let 
me just talk about some of the people that have had input into that 
particular measure. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John 
Conyers; the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, 
Silvestre Reyes; the ranking members of both of those committees, 
including Mr. Hoekstra; all of the members of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence, including myself; Ms. Harman, who serves on Homeland 
Security.
  Countless testimonies during that year and a half, hundreds of 
discussions and negotiations between the staffs of the respective 
committees, and a markup of this particular provision that the 
Republicans brought only two amendments to in the markup in the Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  We negotiated. We compromised. We reached an agreement. Then the 
administration backed out of the agreement. So we negotiated some more. 
We compromised some more. We reached another agreement. We reached 
agreements until we were blue in the face here in August. Everybody was 
so tired, and the administration continued to back out of the 
agreement. Then, less than 24 hours before the bill was supposed to 
come to the floor in August, the administration reneged on the 
agreement and refused to work with us to protect the American people.
  Last month, Democrats again brought this bill to the floor, and yet 
again Republicans tried to play politics with the safety of the 
American people. Just as they did this past summer, Republicans and the 
administration now seem content on letting the clock run out on the 
current FISA law rather than working with us to get something done. 
They choose and chose obstructionism rather than bipartisan 
cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public needs to know that there are no 
persons in the United States Congress that do not want to protect the 
security and liberty of the United States.
  So I do not cast aspersions on my colleagues for having a different 
view as to how administratively we should proceed to protect those 
securities and liberties, but everybody here is mindful of all of our 
responsibilities. So the hyperbole is off the chain sometimes when I 
hear people talk and it is as if we didn't really do substantively what 
was required of us as individuals on behalf of the American people.
  None of us should be ashamed of any of the work that was done with 
reference to the RESTORE Act. We made a bad bill better. And it is not 
as good, for example, as I would like for it to be, but it is as good 
as we are going to get with this administration at this time.
  The esteemed chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, 
Representative Reyes, has noted on more than one occasion: You can have 
your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.
  Mr. Speaker, those are the well-documented facts that I just got 
through dealing with. The RESTORE Act protects the American people. It 
protects them at home and on the streets. It protects their safety and 
the constitutional rights, which have been intact more than 225 years, 
and no one need fear when the fearmongers come here and try to divide 
people by having somebody think that undocumented aliens are going to 
be put in some category. I personally am just tired of the smearing 
that is being done with reference to immigration in this country. We 
need a solid immigration policy, and we need a policy that contemplates 
all of the particulars of that immigration set of circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, this body has the responsibility today to pass this rule 
and the underlying legislation today. The security of this Nation 
requires it of all of us, and I believe all of us want that security 
and liberty. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the 
rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 824 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
       (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

[[Page H13976]]

     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. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time and 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 ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________