[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 29, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H535-H537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to my friend from Maryland, the 
majority leader, for information about the schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The schedule for the week of February 4 is attenuated, to some degree 
obviously, by the 22 States that have a primary on February 5. Both 
Democrats and Republicans obviously will be involved in those to one 
degree or another. Monday and Tuesday the House is not, therefore, in 
session.
  On Wednesday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. 
Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Thursday and Friday, the 
House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider several bills under 
suspension of the rules. A list of those bills will be announced by the 
close of business this week. In addition, we will consider H.R. 4137, 
the College Opportunity and Affordability Act.
  That is the schedule. Of course, I will tell my friend that we 
obviously have a couple of bills that we passed today

[[Page H536]]

that we want to see move as quickly as possible, and if we could move 
those next week, we would certainly try to do so.
  Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that information. I am 
wondering, if those bills don't materialize, is it still an option for 
Friday, if those bills don't materialize, since we don't have any 
scheduled work for Thursday and Friday, are we committed for Friday to 
be a definite day here? Is that still going to be an option as the week 
develops?
  I will yield.
  Mr. HOYER. We only have, as you know, essentially 2 days and the 
evening of Wednesday, because we come in Wednesday at 6:30. So I am 
reluctant to give away Friday, given on this side we have worked so 
hard to get done in a relatively quick fashion, I think quick fashion, 
not relatively, on our stimulus package. So I do not want to speculate 
on giving that day away at this point in time, nor do I want to 
speculate that we will give the day away. If we do not have work to do, 
obviously we will not require Members to be here.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that, and I also appreciate the work we all 
did this week on the stimulus package, to see that it is sent over on 
the timeframe that we have all discussed. As you mentioned in your 
remarks on the floor today, a timely, a targeted, and a temporary bill 
has to meet all of those things. Timely and temporary both have to mean 
that we get this done in a quick way. I am hoping that we can work with 
our friends on the other side of the building and get that done.
  The other thing that we worked together on this week was to get an 
extension until the middle of February on the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act as it is currently in place, and has been since the 
first of August. I am hopeful that we don't run up to the deadline 
again in this 15-day opportunity that we have. I am wondering if the 
gentleman has any thoughts as to what we might be able to do even next 
week on that bill.
  I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  He and I share that concern, of course. As I indicated, and he well 
knows, we passed a bill on November 16 of last year, which means that 
was 2\1/2\ months ago that we passed a bill. We have been waiting for 
the Senate to pass a bill. They have two bills, as you know: one out of 
their Intelligence Committee, one out of the Judiciary Committee. They 
have been unable to reach compromise. Two days ago, they had votes on 
cloture and did not receive that, either for the extension or for 
essentially the Intelligence bill.
  As a result, we are very frankly in, as you well know as well as 
anybody, we are waiting on the Senate to pass a bill so that either our 
bill, we can send that to the President; their bill, send it to 
conference, or whatever option. But we need them to take some action. 
We are hopeful they will take some action soon.
  I met, along with other members of the leadership on our side of the 
aisle, just a short time ago, informed them that we had passed by vote 
an extension of 15 days, urged them to move as quickly as they could. 
The leader indicated to me that he was hopeful that they would be able 
to address that this week. I think he is going to be talking to the 
Republican leader to see what possibly could get 60 votes to move 
something to the floor and through consideration. But I am unable to 
tell you what we are going to do until such time as the Senate acts. As 
you and I have discussed, you have been there.
  Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate that. I do hope we can find a permanent 
solution here. I think that the 2 weeks is important. I also think it's 
important that that law not be allowed to expire, which made this 2 
weeks a significant development. At the same time, the question of 
immunity hasn't been addressed, and I don't think we can continue to 
put that question off.

                              {time}  1845

  I did notice last week when we discussed this, an article that I 
hadn't seen yet, and my good friend the majority leader read from that 
article to me a section that indicated that the work was in progress 
could keep on in progress for a long time. That was in the New York 
Times on January 23.
  There was another paragraph that I surmised at the time might be 
there, but was there, that said ``There is risk,'' according to this 
assistant Attorney General Mr. Weinstein, Weinstein said, ``the 
officials would not be able to use their broadened authority to 
identify and focus on new suspects and would have to revert to the more 
restrictive pre-August standards if they wanted to eavesdrop on 
someone.''
  Those pre-August standards were, in my view, troublesome. I hope we 
don't revert to them, but we can't put the immunity issue off forever, 
and I am going to do everything I can, as I believe the majority leader 
is inclined to do as well, to encourage the Senate to move this process 
along so we can bring it to some conclusion.
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I do want to comment, 
because our perspectives are somewhat different on the risks that would 
be created by failure to act or not have an extension, so we would be 
operating, as you pointed out, under the old FISA statute.
  Very frankly, the good news is that the backlog that confronted the 
court now no longer exists.
  Secondly, as you know, under the old law, the 72-hour period in which 
the Government could take action and then get sanction of the court 
after the fact is in the law.
  So I believe that second paragraph, while I don't disagree with his 
speculation, I disagree with his conclusion in the sense that I think 
that the Government, the NSA or another agency, could in fact act 
within that 72 hours and get approval from the FISA Court for its 
actions. And, as the gentleman knows, the FISA Court rarely, if ever, 
and I don't know of an incident off the top of my head where they have 
disapproved an action that was taken and stopped it at that point in 
time.
  So, I think the risk is minimal, because I think the old law, while, 
yes, they have to go to the court, and very frankly, this is why it was 
created, to be a check and balance on what might be, and I don't allege 
that this is happening, but certainly it was a check on arbitrary and 
capricious action by those in the Government. I happen to think that 
check and balance is an appropriate one; although, under the statute we 
passed, we gave broader authority, blanket authority, as you know.
  But we are hopeful, as you are, that the Senate will act, that we be 
able to go to conference. We need to deal with the immunity issue, 
which is the difference between the two Houses, although they haven't 
passed a bill, but the bill that passed out of the Intelligence 
Committee did give retroactive immunity. That is controversial.
  And we have just got, as I told you, the documentation last Friday 
that we have been asking for an opportunity to review to determine, A, 
the justification for the action of the telecom companies and the 
actions for which immunity is being sought. We think that is 
appropriate for us to know before we act.
  But in any event, I did inform, as I told you, the leader that we had 
acted, and indicated to him I hope that they would act as soon as 
possible so that we could resolve this in conference.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for those views. I know that the 
majority is going to have their planning retreat for the rest of this 
week. Hopefully our staff is already and will continue to go through 
these documents that we were concerned we hadn't had, or the majority 
was concerned we hadn't had earlier, and look at those.
  I would suggest that the penetrating analysis in one paragraph 
probably doesn't totally go away from the individual who was given so 
much credit in the next paragraph.
  The only thing I would say about the FISA Court, I would really say 
two things. I missed some of this debate today, as you might be able to 
tell, because of another commitment I had to be off the floor as we 
were debating this.
  The FISA Court, I believe, in 1978 was created for domestic cases. 
That is maybe an underlying difference here in the way we view this. 
And the backlog I would submit would develop again pretty quickly. It 
might not be a problem for 2 days; it might not even be a

[[Page H537]]

problem for a week. But that backlog of every case from all over the 
world that suddenly wound up going to the FISA Court because of changes 
in technology quickly gets the FISA Court to where a 72-hour problem is 
a big problem because they just can't deal with it.
  I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I would agree with that. I think we solved the 
technological problem in the bill we passed. Very frankly, the only 
problem that I think the administration would have with our bill which 
we passed through the House would be the immunity issue.
  The technological issue I think is addressed by the blanket approval 
by the court. Although the court has to approve certain objects and 
processes, it does not, as you know, need to approve specific instances 
of intercepts or specific targets of intercept.
  So, from that standpoint, I think our bill solved that problem. But 
our bill has not been enacted so the technological issue of where the 
communication now goes through a U.S. switch, that is the technological 
difference now, and then goes back out, that needs to be addressed. It 
was addressed in our legislation, but the legislation needs to pass.
  Mr. BLUNT. Well, I agree, and I intend to work to see that it passes 
so this works in the best possible way. I hope we take maximum 
advantage of this 15 or 16 days that we have now given ourselves to 
look at the information to try to do what we can to see that we come up 
with a permanent solution that deals with both the technological 
questions and the question of immunity for people who may have helped 
the government in a way that they now somehow could be held in legal 
limbo for until we have addressed this. I hope we do, and I pledge 
myself to work with you and others to see that we get that done.

                          ____________________