[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H887-H892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007 EXTENSION

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 
days, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5349

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. 21-DAY EXTENSION OF THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 
                   2007.

       Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 
     110-55; 121 Stat. 557; 50 U.S.C. 1803 note) is amended by 
     striking ``195 days'' and inserting ``216 days''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 976, debate 
shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 5349.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Members of the House, the temporary FISA law we enacted in haste as a 
stopgap last August expires Saturday. We want to replace that law with 
a well-considered one which appropriately addresses both our security 
needs and our constitutional values.
  The House passed a version of that well-considered law in my view in 
November, the RESTORE Act. We have been waiting for the Senate to pass 
its version so that we could compare it with ours and decide together 
on the best course of action. We have also been waiting on access to 
classified documents regarding what telecom companies may have done in 
recent years to assist our government with surveillance on United 
States citizens outside the bounds of law at that time.
  The 15-day extension we passed 2 weeks ago was intended to give us 
time to consider the Senate bill, thought to be on the verge of 
passing, and to review the classified documents. Unfortunately, it has 
turned out not to be enough time.
  The Judiciary Committee members, 38 in number, have not all seen the 
documents. We have only had clearance for 19 of those members to gain 
that access to the classified documents that we have been asking for 
for over 1 year. The review process is unavoidably somewhat cumbersome 
and inefficient. Even today, as I stated in my letter to the White 
House, we still do not have access to numerous critical legal 
documents. In addition, those documents that we have reviewed have left 
many of our questions unanswered and, as a matter of fact, raised a 
number of new ones.
  Moreover, the Senate has just passed its version of a long-term 
surveillance law. It differs from the House version in ways that may 
have major ramifications on the freedoms that we cherish.
  So we need a bit more time. The measure before us will give us 3 
weeks, 21 days, not much time in the view of some, but enough, I 
believe, to permit us to reach an appropriate resolution on this matter 
of utmost importance. Therefore, your Committee on the Judiciary comes 
before you to urge support for this short-term extension.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 5349, which extends the Protect 
America Act for 21 days. Another extension is unacceptable and 
unnecessary.
  Last August, Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close a 
dangerous loophole in our ability to collect foreign intelligence. The 
Democratic majority insisted on an arbitrary 6-month sunset. But 
instead of using that time wisely, they ignored the needs of our 
intelligence community and passed a partisan, unworkable bill, the 
RESTORE Act. Then, 2 weeks ago, the House Democratic majority insisted 
on another extension. Again they squandered the last 2 weeks. Now House 
Democrats want more time. But their time is up.
  We know from Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, 
that before Congress enacted the Protect America Act, the intelligence 
community was missing two-thirds of all overseas terrorist 
communications, endangering American lives.
  Some in Congress are willing to let the Protect America Act expire 
because ongoing surveillance under the act can continue for up to a 
year. This might be acceptable if the terrorist threat also expired 
this weekend, but it doesn't. If the act expires, we will return to the 
status quo, unable to begin any new foreign intelligence surveillance 
without a court order, again threatening America's counterterrorism 
efforts.
  Another extension represents a failure by the House Democratic 
majority to protect the American people. The Senate understands this. 
The intelligence community needs a long-term bill to fix gaps in our 
intelligence laws, not a 21-day extension.
  The Senate bill addresses the concerns of our intelligence community 
and has strong bipartisan support. But House Democrats are at war with 
themselves and at odds with the American people. House Democrats 
disagree with the Senate Democrats and House Democrats disagree among 
themselves. One group wants to approve the bipartisan Senate bill and 
another opposes it.
  Americans are tired of this kind of partisanship in Washington. Now 
we have partisanship within partisanship within the Democratic Party. 
House Democrats disagree among themselves, disagree with Democrats in 
the Senate, and oppose a bipartisan bill that passed yesterday with 
overwhelming support by a vote of 68-29.
  The House Democratic leadership is like a clock that runs backwards. 
They keep going in counterclockwise circles to the left. Unfortunately, 
we can't turn the clock back on terrorists. We must act to gather 
intelligence on terrorists and prevent another attack.
  Why do we keep delaying our ability to protect American lives? 
Another extension represents a failure to act, a failure to lead, and a 
failure to protect our country. It doesn't take long to do what is 
right. Let's stop the stalling and pass the bipartisan Senate bill.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this extension and urge the Democratic 
leadership to allow the House to consider the bipartisan Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from 
California, Jane Harman, a long-time member of the Intelligence 
Committee who now on Homeland Security chairs the subcommittee that 
handles that same subject, for 4 minutes.

[[Page H888]]

  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we discuss a short extension of the Protect America 
Act in order to hammer out a bicameral agreement with the Senate which 
just passed its bill last night, thousands of intelligence agents are 
working hard around the world in undisclosed locations, unaccompanied 
by their families, to prevent and disrupt dangerous threats against our 
country. Once again, let me say ``thank you'' to them, and let me say 
that every Member of this Chamber thanks them for their service and 
prays for their safe return.
  This debate is not, as some on the other side want to characterize 
it, about Democrats wanting to coddle terrorists. We emphatically do 
not. We want to capture or kill them. It is beyond cynical to suggest 
otherwise. This debate is not about whether we want court orders for 
foreign-to-foreign communications between terrorists. We do not. Or 
whether we are opposed to responsible changes to FISA. We all support 
responsible changes to FISA.
  This debate is about whether the careful framework in FISA, which has 
lasted three decades while letting us pursue terrorists while 
protecting constitutional freedoms, will survive.
  The bill the Senate passed late yesterday, in my view, is 
unacceptable. I am mindful that there was a substantial bipartisan 
majority for it, but some in my party and some in the other party who 
voted for it tried mightily to improve it and lost. If we have 21 more 
days, we can consider some of their amendments here and, I would hope, 
pass them. If we cannot fix the Senate bill, I will oppose it if it 
comes up for a vote in the House.
  Yes, I was one of a small group of Members briefed on the terrorist 
surveillance program between 2003 and 2006. But those briefings, until 
the program was publicly disclosed in late 2005, were about operational 
details only. I never learned that the administration was not following 
FISA, and I think that was wrong. And that is why for 3 years I have 
worked my heart out to fashion responsible bipartisan agreement on the 
need for the terrorist surveillance program to comply fully with FISA. 
This fall, I urged repeatedly for bipartisan negotiations which, sadly, 
never happened. It may now be too late, but I am ``go'' for one more 
try.
  I say to the intelligence officers mentioned at the outset of my 
remarks, to my colleagues, and to the American people, we need to 
conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists, but we must do it within 
the rule of law. With a clear legal framework, they are empowered to do 
their job better and from that we will all benefit.
  In August, the House was jammed by the Senate into passing ill-
advised legislation. I opposed it, and said we did not want to watch 
the same movie again in 6 months. Well, here we are for the sequel. But 
this time we must object, and I do object. We can and must do better.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill, and I am extremely concerned 
about our national security and deeply troubled that our intelligence 
community has been prevented from doing the job they need to do to 
protect Americans.
  We do not need another delay of much needed FISA improvements. The 
Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive FISA bill 68-29. That is the 
bill that we should be voting on today, and not this temporary 
extension. It is not the bill that I would have written, but it does 
give our intelligence community many important tools they need to 
protect our Nation. Instead of taking up a perfectly good, well-
thought-out bill, we have another delay tactic by the House Democratic 
leadership that insists on catering to special interest groups like the 
trial lawyers and the hard left of the Democrat Party.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had leaks in the way we collect information on 
individuals through electronic conversation; we have had leaks about 
how we collect e-mails on terrorist Web sites; we have had leaks that 
have caused our allies in Europe to no longer cooperate when it comes 
to tracking terrorist financing. Instead of prioritizing arguably the 
most important security issue, the majority party has delayed and 
failed to focus on how we can help the community in the 21st century 
against enemies who utilize the latest technology against our country.
  As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
I have been very disturbed this past year to see the anger against our 
President cloud the judgments of its members. In an effort to embarrass 
the President, they have weakened our intelligence gathering 
capabilities and caused long-term damage to the security of this 
Nation. We do not monitor phone conversations like we should, we do not 
monitor e-mails like we should, or finances like we should. And the 
enemy knows it. It is time for us to strengthen and not weaken the 
terrorist surveillance program. Enough is enough.
  We all know that if we simply pass an extension for 21 days, it 
doesn't solve the problem. It is time for us to stand up and force the 
Democrat leadership of this House to do their job and bring the FISA 
modernization bill before this body, the one that was passed by the 
Senate by a wide margin, so that the intelligence community can have 
every tool at its disposal to protect the United States.
  The Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, the man in 
charge of overseeing the intelligence community, has repeatedly told us 
of the urgency to modernize the FISA law. He said, ``We must urgently 
close the gap in our current ability to effectively collect foreign 
intelligence. The current FISA law does not allow us to be effective. 
Modernizing this law is essential for the intelligence community to be 
able to provide warning of threats to this country.''
  Mr. Speaker, what the Senate passed does exactly what Mr. McConnell 
talked about. We should bring that vote to the floor and vote it up or 
down.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and ask unanimous consent that he 
may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the chairman 
of the Constitution Committee on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Jerry Nadler, for 4 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5349, a 21-day extension of 
the existing FISA Act to provide Congress the time to work out the 
differences between the two Houses on this very important matter. It is 
a question of our Nation's security and it is a question of our 
Nation's values. We should not be stampeded into action when there is 
no need. This administration has the ability to monitor terrorists, and 
extending current law for 21 days will not remove that ability.
  What this debate is really about is whether national security 
wiretapping should be subject to judicial and congressional oversight, 
as the bill that we passed last November, the RESTORE Act, provides and 
as traditional American values insist on, or whether the 
administration, any administration, can be trusted to police itself, 
whether American citizens' liberty should be subject to the 
unreviewable discretion of the Executive as the Protect America Act and 
the Senate-passed bill provide.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  February 13, 2008--On Page H888 the following appeared: passed 
last December, the RESTORE
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: passed last 
November, the RESTORE


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Also at stake is the question of so-called telecom immunity. We know 
what they are asking. They are asking that the lawsuits against the 
telecommunications companies for participating in the warrantless 
surveillance program, allegedly in violation of the FISA law, be 
foreclosed.
  Now there are only two possibilities. There are two narratives: 
Either the telecom companies nobly and patriotically assisted the 
administration against terrorism. That is one narrative. Or the telecom 
companies knowingly and criminally participated in a criminal 
conspiracy in violation of the law, aiding and abetting a lawless 
administration to violate Americans' liberties and privacy rights 
against the Constitution and against the FISA Act. I believe it is the 
second. But it's not up to me or up to anybody else here to

[[Page H889]]

decide that. That's why we have courts. Courts determine questions of 
law and fact. People are out there who believe their rights were 
violated. They've brought a lawsuit. Let the lawsuits continue. Let the 
courts decide whether the telecom companies acted properly or acted in 
violation of the law. It is not the job of Congress to foreclose that 
judgment.
  We have been told: If we pass telecom immunity and if we fail to 
control abuse of the state secrets privilege that has been abused by 
the administration to prevent the courts or the Congress from reviewing 
what they have done, there will be no mechanism in the courts or in the 
Congress to know, let alone to control, what the Executive is doing. 
The separation of powers established by the Constitution to protect our 
liberties will have been destroyed. That way lies the slow death of 
liberty. It must not be permitted.
  We have been told by this administration, Trust us. I'm not in a very 
trusting mood these days, nor should we ever trust any administration 
without judicial and congressional oversight.
  I remind everyone here that there is a bill that passed this House, 
the RESTORE Act, last November. The Senate finally got around to 
passing a bill yesterday. Now we are being told we should have no time 
to work out the differences as we normally try to do, we must take the 
Senate bill sight unseen. Frankly, that's an insult to every Member of 
this House and to the prerogatives of this House. We passed a bill. 
They passed a bill. We should have 21 days to work out the differences. 
American liberty is depending on this, and the integrity of this House 
depends on this. I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), former chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 
rise in opposition to this legislation.
  Yesterday, the other body passed the FISA bill by a vote of 68-29. I 
don't understand why House Democrats refuse to bring this bill to the 
floor, sponsored by Senator Rockefeller. It makes no sense to block its 
consideration for another 21 days. Why do we keep extending the 
terrorist loophole? It's imperative that the House pass the Senate bill 
today.
  The Rules Committee last night rejected a Republican amendment to 
vote on the Senate-passed bill, and then the committee refused to allow 
the Senate-passed bill as a motion to recommit this afternoon. The 
majority knows that the American people support long-term legislation 
to keep our country safe. And I guarantee that the Senate bill would 
pass the House by a wide margin if the Democratic majority would let 
the House vote on it.
  Instead of passing the Senate bill, we continue to waste time on 
legislation of little consequence. The FISA bill expires on Friday. 
There is no more time to waste. We passed a temporary fix last summer 
and another extension earlier this year. There has been plenty of time 
to review this and to come up with a permanent fix. If we keep on 
passing these extensions, we're never going to get a permanent bill, 
and Americans are in jeopardy.
  This majority's charade of passing short-term extensions has gone on 
long enough. President Bush will veto another extension, and the 
Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. It's time for the 
majority to stop playing political games. We have had plenty of time to 
debate this issue. The Senate finally got it right, and it's time that 
the House does the same.
  Our intelligence community needs the certainty of a long-term bill to 
protect the Nation. The Senate bill will continue to give our 
intelligence agencies the tools they need to keep us safe. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the 21-day extension up now and to pass the 
Senate's bipartisan FISA bill today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of 
the Judiciary Committee and a subcommittee chairman on Homeland 
Security, for 3 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, and I want to personally thank him for the 
extensive work we have done to secure America and as well to protect 
the civil liberties of all Americans.
  I hold in my hand the Constitution of the United States embedded in 
this book. When you think of the term ``embedded,'' you think of the 
concerns regarding the Iraq war. You think of the concerns of 
terrorism. You might even think of the concerns of embedded press who 
have been able to travel with our soldiers. But in this instance, I am 
saying that deeply embedded in the hearts of Americans is a concept of 
the Constitution that protects their civil liberties.

                              {time}  1345

  I think it is important to note that in fact a bill has been passed 
so many months ago. And I will not argue about the integrity of this 
place, for many have raised that question, that we should have the 
privilege of reviewing the legislation of the Senate, and that 
privilege is necessary.
  But I think there is a larger argument, more expanded argument, and 
it must be clarified that we have not dillydallied. We have not 
delayed. We have, in fact, been meticulous in making sure that we have 
balanced a new FISA law, updating it, and also providing that 
protection, that firewall for Americans.
  How many of you would have known that initially the administration 
came to us and suggested that while they are surveilling someone on 
foreign soil, if it kicks back to an American, your grandmother, your 
aunt, your uncle, yourself, because it kicks back in a sense that we 
are talking to someone on foreign soil but you happen to be on the 
other side of the phone, that that was okay?
  But I offered an amendment, and that amendment is in the bill that 
the House passed, that we cannot tolerate reverse targeting; you must 
get a warrant. There must be an intervention, and I am glad to say it 
is in the Senate bill.
  Yet there is a major question that the Senate bill has not addressed, 
and it is the fact that many, many people's rights were violated in the 
course of the old law when the government went straight to the private 
sector and told them you have to do this and so many persons who were 
innocent were violated by surveillance. Now these companies, of which I 
have great respect, I believe they are part of the economic engine of 
this Nation, want us to interfere in the legal system, for many of 
these companies are now being sued retroactively, if you will, or being 
addressed for the grievance they did against an American citizen.
  Who are we to stop the normal legal process? If one of these 
corporations has a defensible defense, the judges will rule for them. 
If they were following the law or they have a defense or were relying 
upon representations made by officials of the Federal Government, I can 
assure you that a court of law will give them their relief. Why are we 
interfering where citizens of the American society believe that this 
Constitution and their rights have been violated?
  So to my friends who want to provide a scare tactic, let me say to 
you all this legislation does today is to ensure you will be safe by 
extending the existing law. Hopefully we put notice on corporations 
that they should not be violating the civil liberties of Americans, and 
clearly I will tell you, as a member of the Homeland Security 
Committee, that none of us stand in this well to jeopardize the safety 
and security of the American people. Let us dispense with that myth 
altogether.
  What is important is that when we finally design a bill that is going 
to be entrenched in law, it must be in compliance with the Constitution 
that is embedded in this bill. It is not today. I ask my colleagues to 
enthusiastically vote for the extension because I believe in security 
and the rights of all Americans.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Saxton.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, some years ago as I was working to have a subcommittee 
on the Armed Services Committee established on terrorism, I was making 
the rounds among my party's leadership. I

[[Page H890]]

made the case about why I thought we needed, and of course this was 
before 9/11, a subcommittee on terrorism. And I will never forget, one 
of my good friends told me that he thought, he said, Jim, he said, I 
think you and your friends see a terrorist behind every bush.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Democratic 
majority leadership has adopted that same frame of reference. There is 
not a terrorist behind every bush, but they present a clear and present 
danger. We were told so as late as today by representatives of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Passing a 21-day extension simply continues the uncertainty in the 
intelligence community, the uncertainty in the telecommunications 
community, and uncertainty among the American public itself.
  Just yesterday, as it has been said here several times, 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 compromise between Congress and the administration. It 
rightly restores the original intent of the FISA by ensuring that 
intelligence officials can conduct surveillance on foreign targets 
without a court order while still protecting the civil liberties of the 
American people. It also grants liability protection to 
telecommunications companies that helped the government after September 
11. Allowing these companies to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits 
threatens their future cooperation, which could cripple America's 
counterterrorism efforts.
  The Senate bill is a responsible plan for protecting our Nation 
against terrorist threats. Many times the Senate sends bills over here 
and they are very shortly passed by the House. The House must act 
quickly on the Senate's bill, as well, and send it to the President so 
he can sign it. Failing to do so is effectively failing to protect our 
country and American citizens.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5349 and instead 
immediately pass the Senate's version of the bill so we can send this 
important bill to the President.
  There may not be, Mr. Speaker, a terrorist behind every bush, but 
they, today, present a clear and present danger.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise disappointed that the President of the United 
States is attempting to short-circuit the legislative process and force 
Congress into an impulsive decision by vowing to veto this short-term 
extension before us now that would permit us to legislate responsibly.
  It is beyond me how the Chief Executive of this country who truly 
wants an effective FISA reform, who truly cares about enacting sound 
legislation to protect Americans' lives and liberty, who truly respects 
the prerogatives of Congress in shaping that legislation, could 
seriously threaten us with the prospect of vetoing this legislation.
  It is especially disturbing to think that he might refuse to accept a 
brief extension of his own surveillance program in order to ramrod a 
decision his way on telecom immunity before we can know what it is we 
are giving immunity to.
  I am also disappointed that some of my friends, Members of the 
minority, whom I have always considered to be responsible legislators, 
have spoken today in support of the President's attempt to once again 
bludgeon us to enact sweeping new wiretapping powers for the executive 
branch without giving the legislative branch the time to ensure that 
the way it is done holds true to our most cherished American values.
  I hope that these few observations do not reflect widely shared 
sentiments in the minority, and I would hope that we would not lend 
credence to the President's veto threat. I don't think we should have 
to legislate under that kind of intimidation. It amounts to a demand 
that we abandon and abdicate our sworn constitutional duty.
  I hope that we would all agree that we need to consider FISA reform 
responsibly with the care it deserves, with the importance that every 
American attaches to it, and to preserve the prerogatives of the House 
to have our voice heard.
  This demand that we act irresponsibly reflects no credit upon the 
process. We should instead remind him that we are the legislative 
branch and remind him that he must show some patience and allow the 
Congress to responsibly work its will.
  If the President were to veto this brief extension of his own 
surveillance program and if that in any way compromises our national 
security, no amount of political blustering would change the fact that 
it would be him who has put our Nation at risk by refusing to 
participate responsibly in the legislative process.
  Now, I can't truly imagine that happening. I hope that with a strong 
bipartisan vote for this commonsense, temporary measure, we can 
convince our President to help us take this responsible step to ensure 
that Americans are appropriately protected against threats to their 
liberty as well as threats to their security. I hope that the result of 
this discussion will turn into a sound bipartisan vote in support of 
this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Lungren, a member of both the Judiciary Committee 
and the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of our 
committee, for clarifying what this is all about. In his statement he 
just said that the President is trying to force us to accept this bill 
from the Senate so that there can be immunity granted to those 
communications companies that responded in the affirmative when asked 
to help this country. So that is what it is. That's what this vote is 
all about.
  You can talk about a 21-day extension. You can talk about wanting to 
work a little harder. You can talk about this and that, but essentially 
that is what this vote is. It is the question of whether or not we 
believe that we ought to grant to those who responded in the 
affirmative when requested by their country to assist in the aftermath 
of 9/11, to allow us to collect that kind of intelligence which would 
prohibit or prevent another 9/11, whether or not we are going to slap 
them in the face and say because you answered yes, you have to, in the 
words of the chairman of the Constitutional Law Subcommittee when this 
was brought up in the committee, let them do it themselves, they have 
millions of dollars of high-priced attorneys. Now, that's the response 
we are to tell the American people if asked in the future: Will you 
help in gathering information so that we can prevent another attack? 
And, oh, by the way, make sure that you have millions of dollars worth 
of high-priced attorneys to respond to whatever lawsuit might be out 
there.
  Now, the question here is whether or not the majority is going to 
allow the majority to do its will. Why do I say that? Twenty-one 
Members of the Democratic side have sent a letter on January 28 to the 
Speaker saying they support the Rockefeller-Bond bill. Twenty-one 
Members. Now, I was never great in math, but I do know that 21 Members 
on that side of the aisle, added to our Members on this side of the 
aisle, are a majority in the House of Representatives.
  So the question is: Will you allow the House to work its will? Will 
you allow the bill from the Senate, which 21 Members on your side of 
the aisle have signed a letter in support of, come to the floor so we 
can find out whether or not the majority of this House will support it?
  We were denied that in the Rules Committee. We were denied that on 
two specific votes in the Rules Committee, and now the only way we can 
allow that vote to come up is if we defeat this bill and force those on 
the majority side and the leadership to allow the majority to work its 
will.

                              {time}  1400

  Interestingly enough, the gentlelady from Texas who just spoke talked 
about how we ought to support this bill. I remember in August when she 
stood in that very well and tore up a piece of paper and said this is 
what we're doing; we're shredding the Constitution by voting for the 
bill that was then on the floor. And now we're

[[Page H891]]

supposed to understand that the other side wants us to have 3 weeks 
more of a bill which shredded the Constitution.
  Let's understand what we're really doing here. Let's vote this down 
so we can vote on the bill that the majority of the people in this 
House and the majority of Americans support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would grant myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the discussion that we're engaging in, but at this point 
I rise to make the case that this is not a debate exclusively about 
immunity. There are other key differences that we should and, I think, 
want to consider.
  For example, the Senate bill, which we've just examined, does not 
contain sufficient provisions to guard against reverse targeting of 
United States citizens. I think that's an important matter that needs 
our continued consideration.
  The Senate bill permits surveillance to commence without judicial 
approval of the essential procedures that will be used to ensure that 
there's no surveillance of United States persons without appropriate 
individualized warrants. I think that's pretty important.
  The Senate bill further does not require the Inspector General or the 
Justice Department to investigate the President's warrantless 
surveillance program. The House bill requires this investigation.
  And so I don't think we need to be stampeded into a vote by threats 
from the executive or from the mathematical perfection of the other 
side in suggesting where the majorities ally in this body. The 21 
signers of the letter are entitled to get some answers to these 
questions just as everyone else that didn't sign the letter are.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point from 
cnn.com, ``Phone companies cut FBI wiretaps due to unpaid bills.''

                     [From CNN.com, Feb. 13, 2008]

         Phone Companies Cut FBI, Wiretaps Due to Unpaid Bills

       Washington.--Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps 
     used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the 
     bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.
       A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the 
     lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in 
     undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program 
     also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.
       In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation ``was halted due 
     to untimely payment,'' the audit found. FISA wiretaps are 
     used in the government's most sensitive and secretive 
     criminal investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected 
     terrorists or spies.
        ``We also found that late payments have resulted in 
     telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone 
     lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, 
     resulting in lost evidence,'' according to the audit by 
     Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.
       More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication 
     surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not 
     paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid 
     costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.
       The FBI did not have an immediate comment.
       The report released Thursday was a highly edited version of 
     Fine's 87-page audit that the FBI deemed too sensitive to be 
     viewed publicly. It focused on what the FBI admitted was an 
     ``antiquated'' system to track money sent to its 56 field 
     offices nationwide for undercover work. Generally, the money 
     pays for rental cars, leases and surveillance, the audit 
     noted.
       It also found that some field offices paid for expenses on 
     undercover cases that should have been financed by FBI 
     headquarters. Out of 130 undercover payments examined, 
     auditors found 14 cases of at least $6,000 each where field 
     offices dipped into their own budgets to pay for work that 
     should have been picked up by headquarters.
       The faulty bookkeeping was blamed, in large part, in the 
     case of an FBI agent who pleaded guilty in June 2006 to 
     stealing $25,000 for her own use, the audit noted.
        ``As demonstrated by the FBI employee who stole funds 
     intended to support undercover activities, procedural 
     controls by themselves have not ensured proper tracking and 
     use of confidential case funds,'' it concluded.
       Fine's report offered 16 recommendations to improve the 
     FBI's tracking and management of the funding system, 
     including its telecommunication costs. The FBI has agreed to 
     follow 11 of the suggestions but said that four ``would be 
     either unfeasible or too cost prohibitive.'' The 
     recommendations were not specifically outlined in the edited 
     version of the report.

  A lot has been said about what some call patriotic phone companies. 
Are these the same companies that cut off the FBI FISA wiretaps because 
the FBI hadn't paid its phone bill? This is breaking news.
  I ask that we examine this issue, and that we include it in the ones 
in the 21-day period. After all, we already have a FISA bill that will 
continue during the 21 days. Someone may have accidentally 
mischaracterized the fact that we will be without FISA protection if we 
don't act immediately. I don't think that's the case, and I think many 
of our colleagues on the floor at this time know that as well as I do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague from the State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for my 
fellow colleague and Michigander, Mr. Conyers, for his work and 
passionate belief and where he stands.
  I do worry about where we're at. And I hear the gentleman talk about 
the fact that we just don't have time, and we need more time. You know, 
today we're going to spend hours and hours grilling a professional 
baseball player about he said/she said activities in professional 
baseball. We spent an entire day on this floor this year trying to 
figure out how we're going to designate scenic trails in New England; 
162 bills commemorating someone or something, 162 on the floor this 
year; 62 bills naming post offices.
  I think, if we put this in perspective, this isn't about needing more 
time. This isn't about that. We've obviously wasted a lot of time.
  Our Constitution, as so many people point to, says some pretty clear 
things to me. It makes sure that you stand tall and you take an oath to 
defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It's one of the most 
important things that we do in this body.
  If we can find time to put Roger Clemens in a chair and grill him for 
hours and make a media circus about professional baseball, you'd think 
we could spend a few minutes protecting the United States of America. 
Instead what we do is we kind of fool around and wring our hands and 
say, I'm for national security but kind of, not really. But, hey, did 
you see these jangly keys? Professional baseball could be in trouble. 
It maybe works for my kids when they were 3 and in trouble, but it 
doesn't work for the American people, and it certainly doesn't work to 
keep us safe.
  This isn't about the Constitution. Many of your Members came down 
here and said, we think this is unconstitutional, but give us 3 more 
weeks of unconstitutionality in the United States. If I believed that, 
as a former FBI agent, I wouldn't vote for it. It's wrong.
  This is about white hats and black hats. It's about good guys and bad 
guys. It's about Good Samaritans. You know, there are ads on TV today 
where they go into high crime neighborhoods and say, It's okay for you 
to tell on criminal behavior. Please call the police. Please call the 
FBI. Please make a difference in your community.
  Think of the confusing message we are sending today because we're 
hooked up on the size of the company. So if I go in as an FBI agent to 
find the address that a pizza delivery company has for a fugitive, 
should we go after them, too? Should we go after that pizza delivery 
guy for, out of the goodness of his heart, telling us where there is a 
fugitive who may have committed murder or have committed child 
pornography or been selling drugs and is in violation of the safety and 
security of his neighborhood, his community? No, of course not. And we 
shouldn't punish people who say, listen, I want to help the United 
States catch terrorists and murderers, and if you ask me and I'm in 
lawful possession of it, I'll share it with you. We do it in banks. We 
do it in small businesses. We knock on neighbors' doors every day in 
this country and say, Help us help protect your neighborhood, your kids 
and your family. Will you tell us what you saw? Will you tell us what 
you know? Will you tell us where this information leads us to? It 
happens every day.
  This is about black hats and white hats, good guys and bad guys. 
Let's make sure we stand up today for every courageous American who 
stands up for the safety of the community of this United States. I 
don't care how big or

[[Page H892]]

how small they are, we ought to stand with them and not make them the 
enemy.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a number of things, what this 
is or isn't about. We're told it's not about the protections for the 
country, but it is about that. And I have great respect and admiration 
for our chairman, Mr. Conyers.
  But we were told, also, well, gee, the reason we need more time is 
the White House has delayed giving us documents. But if you really want 
to get to the bottom of this, you go back to August 4 when we took a 
vote on FISA being extended for a number of months. There was no 
immunity in there. There was no issue about is the President going to 
turn over documents. Forty-one Democrats voted for it, nine didn't 
vote, and all the rest voted against it. They were against the 
protections for this country and FISA.
  Now, we need to try to eliminate risk to the country, not political 
risk to a party. And I understand sometimes you have Members that see 
the dangers to America, gee, that exposes the country to great risk and 
if we don't do something and something terrible happens, then we've 
exposed our party to terrible political risk. This shouldn't be about 
political risk. We need to do what's right for the country.
  The chairman had said there are other key differences and there are. 
But those are important to note as well.
  Our friends across the aisle somehow think it shreds the Constitution 
if we tap a terrorist in a foreign country and he calls an American. 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The solution to that is not 
that we not tap into that known terrorist in a foreign country; it's 
that the friends of those concerned about this in America, tell your 
friends to have their terrorist buddies not call them at home. That's 
real easy. Then they don't have to worry about this bill.
  But if terrorists that are known terrorists in foreign countries call 
them in this country, then they ought to be at risk for having them 
tapped. Once we know that there's somebody here, then they go get the 
warrant and that addresses it. But you cannot restrict it otherwise 
without doing great harm to our protection in America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue the reservation of time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5349, a bill to 
extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.
  Now it's hard for me to come to this floor and oppose an extension of 
a bill that I support, and supported in a bipartisan manner, Mr. 
Speaker.
  It was this summer, I believe last August, that Republicans and 
Democrats came together on the Judiciary Committee and worked out a 
solution for an extension that came to be known as the Protect America 
Act. And we've heard in the course of this debate, eloquently stated on 
both sides, what the issues are here. We have antiquated foreign 
intelligence surveillance laws. The technology that has exploded across 
the globe in the last 25 years has occurred without a significant 
updating of those laws that govern the means and the manner and the 
technology whereby we can collect intelligence. And so we find 
ourselves, essentially, as the hub of communications in the world in 
the United States of America. You've heard the percentages, the 
enormous amount of communications that pass through the United States 
of America. And yet we have this massive loophole in our intelligence 
surveillance laws that does not permit us to listen to a terrorist in 
one foreign country talking to a terrorist in another foreign country.
  When we worked out the compromise this summer, it was built, Mr. 
Speaker, I believe, on an understanding between Republicans and 
Democrats that that ought not to be, we ought to solve that problem in 
an equitable and bipartisan way. And I was pleased to support that 
extension and legislation for a period of 6 months.
  But what I struggle with today is now, in the aftermath of that, the 
contrast between the work in the House and the Senate is rather 
startling. Yesterday, the Senate approved a bipartisan bill supported 
by nearly 70 percent of the Senate to close the terrorist loophole in 
our intelligence laws. It represented a strong bipartisan compromise 
between Congress and the administration. And yet here in the House of 
Representatives we passed a 6-month extension. A few weeks ago we 
passed a 15-day extension. Now I believe we're passing a 21-day 
extension. And yet the American people, I believe, know in their heart 
of hearts our enemy does not think in the short term and, therefore, 
our solutions must occur in the long term. And when it comes to the 
ability of our intelligence community during this administration or 
whomever will be the next administration charged with protecting this 
country, I believe it is imperative that we call the question.

                              {time}  1415

  I believe it is imperative that we rise today, respectfully to my 
colleagues on the other side, most especially the chairman whom I 
esteem, and say enough is enough. We need to modernize our foreign 
intelligence surveillance laws today. We need to find a bipartisan 
compromise as we did last summer. We need to find a bipartisan 
compromise as the United States Senate did yesterday.
  And I say again with a heavy heart, our enemy does not conspire to 
harm us in the short term. Our enemy conspires to harm us in the long 
term: to harm our people, to harm our families, to harm our children 
and our interests around the globe. We must, in this Congress, find a 
way beyond politics, as we did last summer, as the Senate did 
yesterday, to repair those holes in our foreign intelligence 
surveillance laws and give our intelligence community the legal 
authority and tools that they will need to protect us in the long term.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the bill to extend the Protect America 
Act for 21 days and call the question on this floor. We need a long-
term solution to what ails our intelligence laws.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) has 4\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) has 7 minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 
2 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 
976, further proceedings on the bill are postponed.

                          ____________________