[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H878-H886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5349, PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007 
                               EXTENSION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the intent of the original 1978 FISA law was to enhance 
Americans' security while at the same time protecting Americans' 
privacy. Recognizing that no responsibility of the Federal Government 
is more important than providing for the defense and security of the 
American people, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure that 
FISA continues to reflect the intent of the original law.
  In the nearly 30 years since FISA became law, we have seen tremendous 
advances in communications technology, such as the Internet, cell 
phones, and e-mail. However, under the original FISA law, our 
intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists, Mr. 
Speaker, in foreign countries, without a court order, because of 
advances, as I mentioned, in communications technology.
  Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again: Because of advances in technology, 
our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists 
in foreign countries. It is clear that the law is outdated and must be 
modernized to reflect changes in communications technology over the 
past three decades.
  In August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step 
to close our Nation's intelligence gap. The Protect America Act passed 
only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's 
intelligence professionals the tools and authority they need to protect 
our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked a 
significant step forward in improving our national security. But, 
unfortunately, Democrats forced these needed technology tools to expire 
in 6 months.
  In November, the House Democrat leaders brought legislation to the 
floor that does not go far enough to reform outdated FISA laws. It 
weakens Americans' privacy protection and fails to permanently close 
our Nation's intelligence gap. A bipartisan, permanent solution is 
needed that shows all Americans and our enemies that the United States 
is truly committed to closing our Nation's intelligence gap.
  Yesterday, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner by a vote of 68-29 
to permanently close the terrorist loophole and ensure that 
intelligence officials are able to monitor communications of suspected 
terrorists overseas such as Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. 
This commonsense solution would help keep our country safe from attack 
and should be acted on immediately and sent to the President to be 
signed into law.
  Mr. Speaker, House Democrat leaders need to stop dragging their feet. 
They need to end their delaying tactics, indeed, to let the House vote 
on the Senate-approved measure. Today, I am going to give Members of 
the House an opportunity to support the bipartisan measure that the 
Senate passed just yesterday. If the previous question is defeated, I 
will amend the rule to allow the House an opportunity to concur with 
the Senate amendments. By approving the Senate amendments, the bill can 
become law before the current extension expires in just a few days.
  We don't need to close the terrorist loophole just temporarily, Mr. 
Speaker. We need to close it permanently and update our Nation's 
surveillance laws in order to protect our Nation from another terrorist 
attack.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous 
question so that we can permanently close the loophole.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague from Washington for his insightful history on 
the FISA bill. I would submit that I agree with him that the FISA bill 
is necessary for the security of America. No one questions that. No one 
on our side of the aisle questions that. The question that we do have 
is does the Senate bill actually take away some of the liberty that is 
so necessary to the American people.
  All we are asking for is an extension of 21 days. When you think 
about it in the grand scheme of things, 21 days to make a determination 
whether or not this bill continues to give the American people the 
liberty that they have had for over 200 years, that is not a lot to ask 
for. I would much rather have 21 days, keep the bill in effect but 
extend it for 21 days, knowing full well that the end product is 
something that not only ensures our security but guarantees our 
liberty.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), ranking member 
of the House Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague for yielding.

[[Page H879]]

  I think they are absolutely right, we need to take a look at this in 
the bigger context. We have to set the stage for how we got to this 
point.
  It's September 12, 2001. The President is meeting with his advisers. 
They're trying to identify exactly what this threat is from al Qaeda, 
how serious is this threat, what other activities or attacks might they 
be planning against the United States. And the President says: I need 
my intelligence and military folks to get the answers to these kinds of 
questions. Tell me what the threat is and tell me what the tools are 
that I need to implement to keep America safe.
  They come back with a series of recommendations, saying here's what 
we know, here's what we don't know about the threat. They come back and 
say, here are the different options that are available to us to get the 
information that might be able to answer some of these questions.
  The President and his leadership team consider the various options. 
They say, you know, we need to bring Congress into this to take a look 
at exactly what tools we're going to implement and make sure that we do 
this in a bipartisan basis and we do it in a basis that is consistent 
with American values and American law.
  On October 25, the President and Vice President convene a meeting. 
The President's national security team comes up and they say, here's 
the tool that perhaps can be used. The chairman of the House 
Intelligence Committee is there. The Chair of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee is there. The ranking minority member of HPSCI is at the 
meeting. She's accompanied by the vice chairman of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee. That's right. Back in October of 2001, the 
Speaker of the House was briefed on the various tools that could be 
used to keep America safe.
  November 14, 2\1/2\ weeks later, the chairman of HPSCI, the ranking 
member, yeah, that's right, the current Speaker of the House, was 
briefed on the tools that were available and could be used, the 
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the vice chairman.
  March of 2002, the chairman of HPSCI, the ranking minority member of 
HPSCI, that's right, the current Speaker of the House, was in the 
meeting.
  June of 2002, the chairman of HPSCI, the ranking minority member of 
HPSCI, that's right, again, the current Speaker of the House is brought 
in, is briefed on this program, and said this is the tool that we want 
to use, this is the tool that we need to use to keep America safe.
  Four times in about 9 months, the current Speaker of the House was 
briefed on this program, about what the tool was, the kind of 
information that we were expecting to get and, after a period of time, 
the information that we were collecting that would keep America safe.
  I was not in those meetings. I was not one of the select group of 
people that was informed. You would think that they would say, what are 
the civil liberty implications of this? You know, how are we using 
these tools? Where does it fit within the legal framework of America to 
keep us safe? And who's going to be working on this program? Who do we 
need to partner with? And there might have been certain companies or 
individuals that were identified as saying, these folks are going to 
partner with us and have partnered with us because they can help 
provide us with the information that will keep us safe and do it in a 
legal way.
  Since that time, and since this program became public, there has been 
all kinds of accusations out there. But the bottom line is, there may 
have been people, there may have been companies and corporations that, 
when the President and Congress went to them and said, we need your 
help to keep America safe, they may have stepped up to the plate and 
provided us with the assistance that we knew that on a bipartisan basis 
the executive branch and Congress said, we need to do this, and we need 
to do it in a way that protects civil liberties, and we need to do it 
in a way that is legal and consistent within the law.
  And the bottom line is, this is dealt with in the Senate bill. They 
recognized the help. They don't throw these people under the bus after 
we asked them to help.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion on this 
issue. Certainly it is the type of issue that elicits real passion from 
people. But I think we as a body need to be sure that the steps that we 
take are deliberative and thoughtful. Certainly reacting to an issue 
such as this in a passionate way may deprive us of taking the necessary 
steps that we need to ensure that the liberty of our citizens is kept 
intact.
  Again, I would just point out that this bill is asking for an 
additional 21 days within which Congress can continue to review the 
documents that we have asked for that we have only recently received to 
make a determination, again, a deliberative determination based upon 
facts and reasons and not on passion.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), also a member 
of the Intelligence Committee.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important 
laws that is preventing another terrorist attack in this country will 
expire on Friday. It expires on Friday.
  My colleague from New York says, well, we just need to take enough 
time and be deliberative and so on. My colleague from New York didn't 
vote for the temporary fix that we passed in August. In fact, in an 
exchange with him that I remember so well, he questioned whether we 
should extend the constitutional protections of the fourth amendment to 
people who are foreigners in a foreign country talking to each other.
  The temporary fix that we made in August needs to be made permanent, 
and we need to move forward with a permanent law that allows our 
intelligence agencies to listen to foreigners in foreign countries 
without a warrant while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. 
That's what we passed in August. That's what the Rockefeller-Bond bill 
does from the Senate, and they passed it last night. We passed a 6-
month bill in August. We had 6 months to review this. And then when 
that deadline passed on the 1st of February, they said, well, just give 
us another 15 days. We gave them another 15 days and they said, well, 
we really haven't had the time to look at this paper.
  You've had almost 7 months. The time is now to get serious about our 
national security and giving our intelligence agencies the tools they 
need to prevent the next terrorist attack.
  The Senate passed the Rockefeller-Bond bill last night by a vote of 
68-29. It makes permanent the authorities that we passed in August of 
last year to listen to foreigners in foreign countries without a 
warrant. We spy on our enemies. We try to find out what their plans are 
so that we can stop them from killing Americans.
  That Rockefeller-Bond bill also provides protection from lawsuits for 
the American companies that stepped up to the plate when this country 
was in crisis. In good faith, those American companies partnered with 
the U.S. Government, under instructions from that government, from our 
own government, to move forward and to help us to prevent another 
terrorist attack. And, ironically, they cannot defend themselves 
against lawsuits because the government says to do so would violate 
state secrets. It would give away secrets to our enemies. So they're 
stuck in court not even being able to defend themselves.
  The cooperation that is being protected here in the Rockefeller-Bond 
bill is long established in criminal law and should certainly extend to 
the national security realm.
  Today, I circulated a letter from 21 bipartisan attorneys general 
supporting these lawsuit protection provisions. Our intelligence 
agencies and their partners in private industry need certainty, the 
telecommunications companies whom we depend upon to cooperate need 
certainty, and our intelligence agents need certainty that we're not 
going to keep operating our intelligence community on a month-to-month 
basis.
  In August we closed an intelligence gap, a vital gap that has been 
now closed, and the changes that we made have already provided 
intelligence that the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike 
McConnell, has said

[[Page H880]]

have helped us to disrupt terrorist attacks.
  Intelligence is the first line of defense in protecting this country 
against terrorism. I would urge my colleagues to allow a vote today on 
the Rockefeller-Bond legislation, do not allow this bill to expire, and 
stand up and protect this country.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be asking us to rely 
upon assurances given to us by this administration, this same 
administration that has told us about weapons of mass destruction, the 
same administration that told us that Iran was building a nuclear bomb. 
And then she asks why we are skeptical about taking the word of the 
administration.
  As my colleague knows, the House passed the RESTORE Act last 
November. It was not until last night that the Senate passed a bill 
reauthorizing and reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 
The bill is significantly different than the one we passed in November.
  As is the case when the House and the Senate have differing bills, it 
is appropriate for the two to meet and reconcile their differences. 
That is exactly what we intend to do in a bipartisan and bicameral way.
  However, as my colleagues also know, the President's preferred 
surveillance law is set to expire on Saturday. The underlying bill will 
extend that law for 3 weeks and give the House and Senate Judiciary and 
Intelligence Committees time to work toward a conference agreement. 
Additionally, it will also give our Members, Republican and Democrat, 
time to review reams of highly classified materials which were only 
provided to us by the White House in recent days, despite requests 
dating back all the way to May, 8 months ago. These materials are 
absolutely critical as the House considers the request which has been 
made by the White House to grant what amounts to a blanket 
transactional immunity to telecommunications companies who participated 
in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance plan without any 
explanation of what that immunity is for. While the President has been 
quick to call on Congress to act, it is he who has continued to ignore 
countless congressional requests for information about the actions of 
his administration.
  As a former State attorney, I know firsthand that not even a first-
year prosecutor would even entertain the idea of granting immunity 
without knowing what that immunity is for and who that immunity is 
being granted to.
  From his seat, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee noted last 
night in Rules that he cannot recall a time in his 45 years in the 
House when an administration has asked Congress to provide immunity to 
anyone or anything without telling us why. The House is not opposed to 
granting such immunity, but if we are going to act, then we need to 
know why.
  Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of passing long-term FISA reform, 
but it will take time because there are very real differences between 
the positions of the majority Members of this body and the Senate and 
the White House. Those who come to the floor today to delay this 
extension and engage in a manufactured obstructionism, which has become 
so symbolic of the congressional Republicans, are doing a great 
disservice to this Nation.

                              {time}  1145

  We will overcome this obstructionism, and we will use the next 3 
weeks to reconcile our differences and come to the American people with 
a bill that protects our homeland without sacrificing our civil 
liberties.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the former attorney general of the State of California, Mr. 
Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose 
this rule. Let's think about what we are talking about. The majority is 
asking us to extend for 21 days a bill that they don't support, a bill 
that they overwhelmingly voted against, a bill that they said harmed 
the American people, a bill that they said somehow doesn't protect 
civil liberties. Now, why do they want to extend it for 21 days if it 
is terrible? Perhaps there is some mischief in the air. Perhaps what 
they really want to do is to continue to kick this can down the road so 
that finally in the war of attrition we will give up and say, you know, 
those people who helped us, those companies referred to by Mr. Hoekstra 
that responded to a request by the United States Government to help us 
in our time of need, that is immediately after 9/11, we are not going 
to help them.
  Remember what the greatest criticism of the 9/11 Commission was of 
government in all of its aspects, it was that we fail to connect the 
dots. What does that mean? We failed to put together intelligence 
information or to gather that intelligence information and put it 
together in a way that made sense that would give us a forewarning of 
what was about to take place. And they said it is not good enough to 
rely on the criminal justice system to gather evidence after the fact 
to prosecute somebody. No, in a war on terror what you want to do is to 
prevent the terrorist act in the first place.
  So what we have here is a difference on that side of the aisle and 
this side of the aisle in which we believe a Good Samaritan law makes 
sense, a Good Samaritan law much like what we do to allow people to 
respond to an accident without having to fear that they will be sued 
for medical malpractice. And in some circumstances, does that mean that 
maybe one out of 1,000 times there might be medical malpractice for 
which you can't be sued? Yes. But we do it because the overall good of 
the country is enhanced by giving incentives to people to help their 
neighbor.
  That is what happened here. We have either an incentive or a 
disincentive for companies and individuals to respond to their country 
and act in good faith. That is what is at stake here, whether or not we 
are going to be safer or whether or not we are going to play these 
political games to support a bill that you all voted against.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is engaged in an 
important debate, perhaps the most important debate certainly in recent 
years. Our most solemn obligation to this country is to protect the 
American citizenry.
  In my view our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are playing 
a dangerous political game, and the American people are the pawns in 
this game. I bring to the Congress a unique experience. I worked in the 
Justice Department under the FISA statute. I have worked on national 
security wiretaps, and I can tell you that the statute was never 
intended to cover foreign targets in a foreign country. And if Osama 
bin Laden is on the phone calling into the United States, I think the 
American people want us to pay attention to that and to listen to that 
conversation.
  Intelligence, good intelligence has stopped every threat to this 
country since 9/11. Intelligence is the first line of defense in the 
war on terror. Without that, we cannot prevail in this war on terror, 
and we need to protect the American companies who we ask to protect the 
United States and the American people.
  They stood up to the plate, and it is our time to stand up to the 
plate and now protect them. They were doing their patriotic duty in a 
time of war when America asked them.
  If we do not protect them, then what company, American or otherwise, 
will dare help the United States of America in its greatest time of 
need, in a time of peril, in a time of war.
  Yesterday, the Senate passed the FISA bill, which included this 
immunity and also protects Americans. I say we put that bill on the 
floor, let's pass that bill and let's make the Protect America Act 
permanent. Now is the time, not 21 days from now, not several months 
from now. For the American people, let's pass and protect the American 
people now.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague that the only 
dangerous political game that is being played here is the attempt to 
cast this as a political game. There is no such attempt being made by 
anyone in the Democratic Party. The only attempt we are making is to 
give us time to go through the material that has only recently been 
given to us with the simple objective of ensuring that we get a bill 
which keeps our country safe and guarantees the liberty of our people.

[[Page H881]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to a Member who for 6 years was the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Constitutions of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and 
to the underlying bill before us. Last August, Congress passed and the 
President signed into law a bill that provides our law enforcement and 
intelligence community with the tools needed to protect this country, 
to protect the United States.
  The events of September 11, 2001, exposed gaps in our intelligence-
gathering activities, particularly those occurring outside the United 
States. Since that tragic day, the administration has worked with 
Congress to ensure that every tool in our arsenal is available to those 
who are charged with keeping our country safe, including working with 
telecommunications companies and allowing officials to gather 
intelligence from potential foreign terrorists outside this country.
  These two aspects of the PAA have been critical in protecting the 
United States from actual or potential terrorist attacks or sabotage. 
Oversight by the FISA Court and minimization procedures approved by the 
courts ensure that such activities do not go beyond their scope.
  Last night, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation that would 
maintain these critical features enabling the intelligence and law 
enforcement communities to continue with its critical work.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and immediately take up and 
pass the Senate bill so that law enforcement and the intelligence 
communities continue to have the necessary tools to keep the American 
people safe.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this is really almost going 
beyond the pale of irresponsible and getting into dangerous.
  I used to be an FBI agent, and every day in this country there is an 
FBI agent who goes up to somebody, an average citizen, it may be a 
coworker, it may be a neighbor, it may be somebody who owns a small 
business, it might be somebody who owns a big business, and says, We 
need your cooperation to catch child pornographers, and here is the 
evidence. Will you cooperate with your Nation? And we do it every 
single day, and great Americans stand up every single day and say, Yes, 
I will. I will go after child pornographers with you. I will go after 
crack dealers selling the drugs to our kids with you. I will go after 
murderers who murder our children in the streets of America, and I will 
stand with you and cooperate so we can eliminate the dangers from our 
communities.
  And you know what the government did? It went and said, Hey, to 
whatever business it was, small, big, large, we had people kill 3,000 
people, murdered, on one day. And you know what, they are coming back. 
Will you cooperate with your government to stop the next round of 
murders?
  But we play a very dangerous game. It is about civil liberties. Then 
why did we pass the bill before, and before that? Because there is 
civil liberty protection in this bill. It is a farce.
  What is at risk here is the future certainty by our intelligence 
agencies and every single American who wonders: If I cooperate against 
a criminal of any sort, a terrorist, are they coming to get me next?
  We need to refocus on who the bad guys are. It is not the companies 
who cooperated with their government. If you are a small business 
selling insurance or you are washing windows, it is the terrorists who 
threaten the lives of Americans.
  We ought to be proud of every American who has the courage in a 
dangerous world to stand up and say: I will stand with you, United 
States of America, to get the true enemy, the bad guys, al Qaeda, 
terrorists, crack dealers, child pornographers, and everybody in 
between.
  I urge the strong rejection of this rule, and let's get back to 
business and give them the tools to keep us safe.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, you know, obviously 
raises a good point. As a former FBI agent, he was very concerned, he 
is very concerned, and he continues to be very concerned with doing the 
right thing, getting the people who are breaking the laws, hurting our 
children and who are putting our citizens in jeopardy. But no one in 
this Chamber has the market cornered on that. That is something that I 
think universally throughout this Chamber there is a strong desire to 
fulfill. That is why we are here. We are here to protect and defend our 
citizens and to protect and defend our Constitution, and that is all we 
are asking for today: 21 days to ensure that we are able to look over 
the recommendations, to look over the material that has recently been 
forwarded to us by this administration to ensure that we are not only 
protecting and securing this country, but rather that we are also doing 
it in a way that protects our liberty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), a member of the Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Lungren and others who have spoken are right in one respect, yes, 
most of the House of Representatives voted not for the Protect America 
Act but rather for a substitute that we passed, a very good piece of 
legislation, that would indeed protect Americans, known as the RESTORE 
Act. That passed the House. It should be the law.
  We do not need the Protect America Act to protect Americans, the so-
called Protect America Act. We do not need it to keep from going dark. 
But what we do need is the time and the attention to get this right. 
This is a serious, serious matter about protecting the safety of 
Americans but also about the definition, the relationship between the 
people of this country and their government.
  There has been a fundamental shift under the Protect America Act in 
the relationship between the people of this country and their 
government. It is whether or not the government regards the ordinary 
American with suspicion first. Think about it.
  The reason this country and our liberty has survived so well is 
because the government understands they are subservient to the people. 
The government has understood that they treat the people with respect, 
their bosses, and do not regard them with suspicion first.
  To be able to seize, search, intercept without having to demonstrate 
to an independent judge that you know what you are doing is a sign of 
disrespect. It is a sign of suspicion. It is, in fact, a redefinition 
of the makeup of this country.
  So if we need time to get this right, let's take the time. We don't 
need the Protect America Act to keep us from going dark, and I would 
argue we certainly don't need it, as they argue, to protect Americans 
from those who would do us harm. We have offered that protection in the 
RESTORE Act. Let's get this right.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to another member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think the comments from the last speaker are very enlightening on 
this debate because we have heard for month after month the same 
arguments made time and time again, and the bottom line is there are a 
number of Members who are not for these authorities that allow our 
national security professionals to listen to terrorist communications. 
And there are a number of people who would just as soon let the Protect 
America Act expire and let it go out of effect. As the gentleman who 
just spoke said, we don't need it to protect the country.

                              {time}  1200

  But there are others of us who believe that we do need such 
authorities to protect the country, and a very large number of Members 
of the other body have just voted on a proposal that would do that.
  And so my position, Mr. Speaker, is give us a chance to vote on it. 
We hear

[[Page H882]]

excuse after excuse. We need more documents, we need more information, 
we need more legal opinions, we need 14 days, we need 21 days. But we 
have been debating the same issues month after month. Nothing has 
changed. No more information, no document is going to change the basic 
position the country stands in today and, that is, a law expires on 
Friday, and if the people for whom we have given the responsibility to 
protect the country are to do their job, that law is going to have to 
be made permanent so they can count on it, not dribbling it out a few 
weeks at a time, not treating them the way we treat soldiers in Iraq 
and Afghanistan by giving them funding just a few months at a time, but 
giving them the authority they need to do their job.
  I suggest the best way to do that is to bring up the bill that has 
already passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and 
give us a chance to vote on it. There will be some Members who vote 
``no.'' They think we don't need that authority. They think the Protect 
America Act is not needed. But I suggest a majority will vote ``yes'' 
and it will pass and the country will be safer.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  You know, kicking the can may be a fun game when there's nothing to 
do and there are no consequences at stake. But when it comes to 
national security and protecting the American people, providing the 
right tools to those on the front lines in the war against terrorism, 
kicking the can could be a fatal bargain.
  Congress continues to kick the can down the road on a key tool that 
has kept this country safe since September 11. The other body closed a 
loophole in FISA that will ensure intelligence services have all the 
tools necessary to track terrorists overseas, terrorists who want to do 
us harm. Our Nation has not been attacked since September 11, in large 
part because of our ability to detect and disrupt terrorist plots 
before they've had a chance to carry out their evil acts. FISA is 
essential to those efforts.
  Why do some ignore history? Why do some ignore the mindset of the 
likes of al Qaeda and others? Why do some want to weaken our ability to 
disrupt a terrorist attack before it occurs? Why do some put our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in harm's way or at risk?
  Last year we modernized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
only after the National Intelligence Director told Congress that we 
were ``missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we 
should be protecting to protect our country.'' What about those 
consequences?
  Preventing the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge is but one example. 
More tragically is the case of Specialist Alex Jiminez of Queens, New 
York. Last May, Specialist Jiminez was taken hostage by al Qaeda in 
Iraq. Information had been secured on one of the possible kidnappers, 
but intelligence experts were hamstrung by the outdated version of 
FISA. It prevented them from conducting surveillance on terrorists in a 
foreign nation without first obtaining a warrant. As the kidnappers 
acted, lawyers sat around a conference table here in Washington for 10 
hours debating and drafting legal briefs to establish probable cause to 
conduct the surveillance. While the lawyers debated, losing precious 
time, Specialist Jiminez most likely was killed. They've yet to find 
the body and that of his colleague.
  Let's stop kicking the can down the road. This is not a game we can 
afford to lose.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my friend and colleague from New York for his 
statements.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the speakers on the other 
side continue to try to couch this argument in a way and frame it in 
such a way that makes it appear that people on our side, the Democrats, 
don't care about the security of this country in the way that they do. 
And it's obvious that nothing could be further from the truth.
  Simply by extending the FISA bill for 21 days to ensure that we have 
all the information that is out there and all the information that is 
available and that we have an opportunity to go through it in a 
thoughtful way doesn't mean that we have less concern for security but, 
rather, an equal amount of concern for security and also for the 
liberty of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from 
New York if he has any more speakers.
  Mr. ARCURI. I have no further speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. And so the gentleman is prepared to close 
after I close?
  Mr. ARCURI. Yes, sir.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 taught us many 
lessons. One of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation 
must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We 
must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm our fellow 
Americans. Now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence 
community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into 
the 21st century is a critical national security priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that several of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle agree with that assessment. On January 28, 
2008, less than 3 weeks ago, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent 
a letter to Speaker Pelosi in support of the Rockefeller-Bond FISA 
legislation. The letter states, and I quote, ``The Rockefeller-Bond 
FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these 
issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the 
House floor without substantial change. We believe these components 
will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart 
terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our 
country.''
  Mr. Speaker, that was a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi less than 2 
weeks ago by the members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, January 28, 2008.
       Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being 
     considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a 
     FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly 
     consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President 
     before the Protect America Act expires in February.
       It is our belief that such legislation should include the 
     following provisions: Require individualized warrants for 
     surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad; 
     Clarify that no court order is required to conduct 
     surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are 
     routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight 
     by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel 
     compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court 
     of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers 
     that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.
       The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory 
     language addressing all these issues and we would fully 
     support that measure should it reach the House floor without 
     substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a 
     strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism 
     across the globe and save American lives here in our country.
       It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a 
     timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect 
     America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a 
     limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical 
     surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace 
     the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong, 
     bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed 
     into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing 
     such a measure could place our national security at undue 
     risk.
           Sincerely,
         Leonard L. Boswell, ------, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, Heath 
           Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Lincoln 
           Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa 
           L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe Baca, John Tanner, Jim 
           Cooper, Zachary T. Space, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie 
           Melancon, Christopher P. Carney.

  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that House Democrat leaders chose to 
bring a 21-day extension bill to the floor instead of the bipartisan 
measure that passed the Senate by a vote of 68-29. I

[[Page H883]]

might add, Mr. Speaker, those Senators had the information that has 
been alluded to several times on the floor today.
  To make our country safer, Congress needs to act. The House should 
vote on the Senate measure, but the Democrat leaders have chosen 
instead to use delay tactics. The only reason I can see, Mr. Speaker, 
that we are not voting on the Senate measure is the fear of the leaders 
on the other side of the aisle that this bipartisan bill will pass.
  But today, I will attempt to give all Members of the House an 
opportunity to vote on this bipartisan, long-term modernization of 
FISA. I call on all my colleagues, including members of the 
aforementioned Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to Speaker 
Pelosi on January 28, to join with me in defeating the previous 
question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate 
amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law. We 
need to do that before the current law expires, making our Nation at 
greater risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question and give us an opportunity to vote on a 
bipartisan, permanent solution that closes this terrorist loophole in 
the FISA Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my colleague from Washington for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything since the terrorist attacks 
of September 11, it is that the balance between security and civil 
liberties is not only difficult, it's absolutely critical. Providing 
this 3-week extension will do nothing to block or hinder the efforts of 
our intelligence community. Quite the contrary, it enhances their 
ability to do their jobs effectively and ensures the integrity of their 
efforts because it gives us time to get these reforms right.
  I want to remind my colleagues that voting to defeat the previous 
question is a vote to deny the administration the ability to utilize 
its existing authority under law to assess threats, gather intelligence 
and protect the freedom and security of every American.
  Twenty-one days isn't a long time. And based on the sensitivity and 
public interest in this issue, we owe that to the American people and 
the framers of the Constitution to strike a fair balance that allows us 
to protect the civil liberties of Americans and to provide the 
administration the tools and resources to protect our Nation from 
another terrorist attack. Twenty-one days is a fair request.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 21-day 
extension to FISA. If Congress does not act this week, critical tools 
that allow our intelligence officials to monitor terrorist 
communications overseas will expire. We not let that happen!
  As we all know, yesterday, the Senate approved a comprehensive, long 
term, bipartisan bill by a vote of 68-29 to close the terrorist 
loophole in our intelligence laws. Their bill represents a strong 
compromise between Congress and the Administration. It is a responsible 
plan for protecting our nation against the threats of terrorism.
  The intelligence community needs a long-term fix to gaps in our 
intelligence laws--not a 21-day delay. After 7 months of stalling and a 
15-day extension, passage of another short-term extension is 
irresponsible, when we have a long-term solution ready to be voted on.
  The Senate has passed a strong, bipartisan bill. The House must now 
act quickly to pass the Senate's bill and send it to the President. 
Failing to do so is effectively failing to protect our country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this extension, and instead 
immediately pass the Senate's version of the bill so we can send this 
important bill to the President.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 976 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       (1) Strike ``That upon the adoption of this resolution it'' 
     and insert the following:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before 
     consideration of any order of business other than one motion 
     that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a 
     procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign 
     intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment 
     thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the 
     Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without 
     intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
       ``Sec. 2. It''.
       (2) Redesignate section 2 as section 3.
       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adopting the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210, 
nays 195, not voting 23, as follows:

[[Page H884]]

                             [Roll No. 48]

                               YEAS--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bishop (GA)
     Clay
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Engel
     Gilchrest
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Jones (OH)
     Lowey
     Marchant
     Mitchell
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Pryce (OH)
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Towns
     Waxman
     Wynn

                              {time}  1237

  Messrs. SULLIVAN and DONNELLY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. MELANCON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the 
vote.


                 Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The question is on the motion 
to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 194, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 49]

                               AYES--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page H885]]


     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Gilchrest
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Marchant
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Neugebauer
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Pryce (OH)
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Towns
     Walsh (NY)
     Waxman
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1244

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the Chamber for rollcall 
vote 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 199, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               AYES--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bachus
     Bishop (GA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Engel
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hooley
     Lowey
     McIntyre
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Pryce (OH)
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Towns
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Wynn


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1254

  Mr. SHULER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the 
vote on the resolution.


                 Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 195, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 51]

                               AYES--210

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers

[[Page H886]]


     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bishop (GA)
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Engel
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Lowey
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Towns
     Waxman
     Wynn

                              {time}  1303

  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________