Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 24 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)

[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 It is clear that the law is outdated and must be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floor that does not go far enough to reform outdated FISA laws.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

[[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

[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

[Roll No. 51]

AYES--210

[[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.

____________________