[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H901-H907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007 EXTENSION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution
976, proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the
Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed earlier
today, 13\1/2\ minutes remained in debate.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 7 minutes remaining,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would begin by yielding myself as much
time as I may consume.
Members of the House, after delaying consideration of the House-
passed RESTORE Act for months, just last night the other body has
passed a very troubling FISA bill. Their action comes only 3 days
before the expiration of the temporary bill which expires this
Saturday, and we have a number of problems with the legislation coming
from the other side.
First, it provides blanket retroactive amnesty for telecom companies
that took part in warrantless surveillance programs. Now I have never
heard, in my legal experience, that retroactive immunity, or immunity
of any kind, can be given when you don't know what it is being given
for, and that presents quite a large problem. Then there is no FISA
Court review of certain authorizations generally referred to as
``basket warrants'' until after the wiretapping starts. It creates a
problem that we would use the additional 21 days that we are asking
for, I think that would come under very close examination.
And then there are much weaker provisions on stopping other
warrantless wiretapping, for example, reverse targeting of U.S.
citizens and the question of sufficient congressional oversight.
So based on the documents that have been provided so far, and they
are far from complete, I have letters of requests in great detail, the
case for amnesty has really not been made.
The administration's bluster and fear-mongering don't do any of us
very well. That doesn't serve the purpose of our legislative function
and our relationship with the several branches of government. And it
should be understood as perhaps another attempt to use national
security for partisan ends.
The administration's view is that the President, as Commander in
Chief, can spy on Americans in the United States without a warrant, a
proposition that is very seriously contested by many of our
constitutional and civil liberties authorities. Congress is committed
to providing the executive branch the tools it needs. But we need to do
so to make sure that the power to spy on Americans is not subject to
abuse or misuse. All of us in this body think that that is of paramount
concern.
The administration has requested that the Congress rubber-stamp its
proposed legislation but has refused to provide Congress the
information that would even purport to support the legislation. It is
the administration that has unfortunately played politics with this
issue. The administration still hasn't provided us with all of our
requested documents.
Just yesterday, another letter was sent requesting the same
information we have been asking for for so long. The House can't simply
be stonewalled or ignored. And it cannot exercise its constitutional
responsibility and then be bullied to rubber-stamp complicated and
important legislation that impacts on national security.
We hope that the measure before us today will be passed resoundingly
in a bipartisan way.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Madam Speaker, this extension does nothing more than contribute
uncertainty to our intelligence community and put our foreign
surveillance activities at risk. We have a bill we can pass right now.
Yesterday, the Senate approved its bipartisan FISA bill by an
overwhelming majority of 68-29. The Senate bill addresses the concerns
of our intelligence community and has strong bipartisan support.
The intelligence community needs a long-term fix to gaps in our
intelligence laws now, not 21 days from now. What message does it send
that we lack confidence in our intelligence community? Why are we
making ourselves vulnerable to those who want to hurt us? Spies and
terrorists don't operate by deadlines and sunsets. Neither should our
intelligence laws.
We cannot allow the Protect America Act to expire and return to the
status quo, unable to begin any new foreign surveillance. The time to
act is now. Another extension represents a failure by the House
Democratic majority to protect the American people.
We should reject this extension and urge the Democratic leadership to
allow the House to consider the Senate bill, which has majority support
in the House.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.
{time} 1515
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, what we try to do in the Intelligence Committee is to
define the threat that is out there. We know that radical jihadists, al
Qaeda, that it is a real threat. We attempt to provide our intelligence
community with the tools that are necessary to give us, as
policymakers, and others the information that is necessary to keep
America safe. And at least some of us are in the business of
prevention, making sure that there is not another successful attack
against the United States; others are in the mode of, well, let another
attack, if it happens, we want to be in a position to prosecute.
When we get down to FISA, I went through this earlier, October 25,
2001; November 14, 2001; March 5, 2002; June 12, 2002, Members of the
House of Representatives were briefed on this program. Our Speaker of
the House was briefed on this program, understanding what the program
was, or hopefully understanding or at least asking the questions to get
understanding about what the program was, what it intended to do, and
the kind of information it was going to get, and the legal boundaries,
the legal ramifications, and who was participating in these programs.
Now what they want to do and some want to do is throw these companies
that were the Good Samaritans that decided they were going to help us,
just throw them under the bus, even though, on a bipartisan basis, the
legislative branch and the executive branch asked these folks and
decided that these were the things that needed to be done.
The impact of this is this is having a chilling effect on all of
those individuals and corporations that, from time to time, are being
asked to help to keep us safe. It is like saying we saw what you did to
these other folks. We are not going to be next. We are going to have to
wield a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders.
[[Page H902]]
Again, it is the tradition and the experience and background of what
some want to do to the intelligence community. Under President Clinton,
there were massive cuts in the intelligence community. We devastated
the community through the Deutch doctrine, where we cut back on human
assets. And now we are doing it again. We won't give the intelligence
community the tools that they need. We focus on global warming and we
focus on partisan investigations. That will not keep America safe.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the
time. I thank him as well for his leadership. I thank Mr. Reyes for his
leadership. And, yes, I thank Mr. Hoekstra for his leadership as well,
as well as Mr. Smith.
This is a very serious issue we confront today. This bill passed the
Senate less than 24 hours ago; yet this coequal branch of the
government of the United States is asked to do what the minority when
it was in the majority would never have done, to take exactly what the
Senate tells us to take, or, frankly, what the President tells us to
take.
Now, let me say that we passed a bill November 15, 3 months ago,
which gave the FISA Court and which gave the intelligence community
everything they needed, given the technological changes and given the
demands of keeping America safe. Everything. The Senate passed a bill
out of their committee at about the same time.
But I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the
Senate you have been slow-walking this bill. You have been slow-walking
this bill to put us in the position we find ourselves in today. And you
did it because the issue here is not the intelligence community, as Mr.
Hoekstra talked about. It is the telecommunications companies. That is
what the issue is here. Because title I would have been conferenced
months ago. But, no, we do not want to apparently look very closely at
what happened between the administration and the telecommunications
companies.
Now, we passed a statute which said to the telecommunications
companies, look, when we make phone calls, they need to be private and
you can't disclose those to people, including the government, without a
court order. We passed the FISA Court bill specifically to provide for
the ability of our intelligence community to intercept communications,
but to do so under the aegis of a court. That is what we do in America.
It makes us a little different. Some governments, of course, do willy-
nilly whatever they want to do.
This is not just about FISA. We incarcerate people without hearings,
without lawyers. We torture people, contrary to the edicts of the
international law, rationalized by an Attorney General of the United
States in a memo to the President of the United States.
But I tell my friends that nobody in this institution ought to have
any self-respect if what you are saying is we ought not to go to
conference on this important issue, which is what you say by voting
against this extension. This extension is caused almost solely by the
members of the President's party in the United States Senate who would
not allow this legislation to move more quickly in the Senate.
Madam Speaker, I believe our friends on the other side of the aisle
and the President of the United States are taking an untenable
position. And what is that position? On the one hand, if the Protect
America Act expires, America will be at risk. On the other hand, if we
extend and keep in force the Protect America Act, the President says he
will veto it. Now, I don't know what kind of Lewis Carroll logic that
is, but it certainly escapes me. If in fact, and I don't agree with the
President, but if in fact it is important to keep the Protect America
Act in place, then passing this extension is the best way to do so.
Now, I think there are some things that we can discuss in conference.
I, frankly, have told the White House as late as just a few hours ago
that I think we can discuss possible ways to move forward on this,
because there is not a person on this floor that doesn't want to
protect America, that doesn't want to facilitate the interception of
communications valuable to that objective of protecting America and
Americans.
I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this
extension, just as we did by unanimous consent essentially without a
vote just a few weeks ago. The contemplation then was that the Senate
would act. But the Senate did not act. It did not act until less than
24 hours ago, last night, late afternoon, and now we are confronted
with take it or leave it.
Do we have no self-respect in this institution? Do we have no sense
of responsibility to oversee that which has been passed, to go to
conference and discuss our differences? There are differences, as you
know. I would hope that every Member would say to themselves, yes, we
have that kind of self-respect, and we understand our responsibility as
an independent House of the Congress of the United States.
The logic of the opponents of this legislation, as I said, escapes
me. The Protect America Act is imperative, they say, but they oppose
its extension, as I said.
Madam Speaker, I support this 21-day extension. I want everybody on
this House floor to understand that if we have a 21-day extension, I am
hopeful that we will go to conference, I am hopeful the Senate will
agree to a conference, and I am hopeful that we can engage Republicans
and Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, on the Judiciary
Committee, in an honest conference trying to resolve our differences
and pass legislation that helps protect America. I want to remind my
colleagues that this body has already passed reauthorization, so there
is no need to do that. We are ready for conference right now.
So, Madam Speaker, in closing, let me urge every Member of this
House, whether you are for or against the Protect America Act, whether
you are for or against immunity, whether you are for or against title I
of this bill, vote for this extension, just as you would vote for a CR
and not shut down the government in order to give us time to pass
appropriation bills fully. That is what this is, simply to give us 3
weeks, 10 days of which we won't be here, to address this very thorny
issue on which there are legitimate differences of opinion.
The only other thing one could conclude is simply we are taking the
position of ``Take it or leave it, House. Don't exercise your judgment,
House. Don't meet your responsibilities to the American people,
House.''
That is not what our constituents expect us to do. Vote for this
extension.
Madam Speaker, I believe our friends on the other side of the aisle
and the President of the United States are taking an untenable position
on this legislation to provide a 21-day extension of the Protect
America Act. On one hand, they argue that the extension of the PAA is
vital to our national security. Yet, on the other hand, they come to
this floor and oppose--and the President is threatening to veto--the
21-day extension of the PAA.
The logic of the opponents of this legislation escapes me. The PAA is
imperative, they say. But they oppose its extension?
Madam Speaker, I support this 21-day extension. Here's why: it
represents progress toward a final measure to modernize the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
I want to remind my colleagues that this body has already passed
legislation to reauthorize FISA. On November 15--3 months ago this
Friday--the House passed the Restore Act, a bill that modernizes the
technologically outdated FISA statute, gives the intelligence community
the authority to intercept critical foreign communications, and honors
our constitutional principles.
As we all know, this is a complicated issue. That is precisely why
we're doing this extension today. With this vote, we are declaring that
we will not just take whatever legislation the Senate sends us and
rubber-stamp it. We are declaring that this body has a prerogative and
a role in making law.
The bottom line is: responsible people in both Chambers want an
opportunity to work out the differences between the House and Senate
bills.
Let me close by saying, I do not agree with those who contend that
the expiration of the PAA will jeopardize our national security. And, I
am not alone in this view.
For example, Richard Clarke, the former chief National Security
Council counterterrorism advisor to Presidents Clinton and George W.
Bush, has stated (and I quote):
Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would
not cease should the Protect
[[Page H903]]
America Act expire. If this were true, the President would
not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his
veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue
even after legislative provisions lapsed because
authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a
full year.
And, Kenneth Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General for National
Security, recently said in an interview--according to the New York
Times--that if the PAA expires, intelligence officials would still be
able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another
year under the law.
We must not fall prey to fearmongers who claim that our intelligence
community could ``go dark.'' That is simply not true.
I urge my colleagues: pass this 21-day extension of the PAA so that
we may try to work out our differences with the Senate-passed
legislation, and enact legislation that protects our national security
and the constitutional rights of the American people.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, 3
minutes, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who
has some instructive math to share with us.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I listened
closely to the words of my friend from Maryland just a moment ago, and
I want to assure him that I do have self-respect and I have respect for
this institution. I would not have returned here after a 16-year
absence if I had any other feeling. But I returned to this place
because of the aftermath of 9/11, feeling that those of us who thought
we might make a contribution to the defense of this Nation in whatever
way we could ought to do that. And based on that, I will have to tell
you, this issue is probably one of the two or three most important
issues that I have dealt with since I returned to this institution.
We cannot and we will not continue to protect the American people if
we are absent that kind of quality intelligence that is necessary for
us to be able to figure out what the threat is and to figure out what
the threat is before that threat is acted upon by the enemy. That is
why this is so important. And integral to our being successful in doing
that is being able to ask for assistance by those who have in their
power to give assistance.
That is why it is so important, the matter the gentleman from
Maryland referred to, the question of whether or not we would grant
immunity to those companies who said yes when the American Government
came to them in the aftermath of 9/11 and said we need your help.
Without your help, it is impossible for us to get that kind of
information that we will be able to utilize to be able to prevent
another 9/11.
Now, the gentleman from Maryland said we haven't had enough time. I
would suggest as one of the 19 members of the Judiciary Committee, I
was given the opportunity, as were Members on your side of the aisle,
to review that material that you say we haven't had for a long enough
period of time. Interestingly enough, we have had 1 day short of 3
weeks to look at that material. So what makes anybody think if we are
given 3 more weeks, 3 more weeks, that the majority side will say that
is enough?
The gentleman from Maryland says he doesn't support the Protect
America Act, but we are being asked on the floor to extend it for 3
more weeks. The gentleman from Maryland says just 3 more weeks. The
vast majority of Members on your side of the aisle voted against it.
So how do we get to a majority position in this House dealing with
that necessity of gaining this information while protecting the civil
liberties of our fellow citizens? Maybe it is instructive to look at
the letter dated January 28 signed by 21 Members of your side of the
aisle asking the Speaker of the House to allow us to vote on, what, the
very bill passed by the Senate yesterday. The very bill passed by the
Senate yesterday was the subject of the letter by 21 Members of your
side of the aisle. If you add those Members to our side of the aisle,
that is a majority.
Allow us to vote on that up or down. Allow the majority will of this
House to be done.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, we have the right to close. Are there any
more speakers?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has
expired.
{time} 1530
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker and Members of the House, what we have
discussed this afternoon is far too important to rush the legislative
process. I hope we will rise above partisanship today and act
responsibly to defend the Constitution as we have all taken an oath to
do. And so I urge the bipartisan passage of the measure that has been
debated.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days. Let
me be clear that while I do not support legislation that grants legal
immunity to telecommunications companies that provide information to
Federal investigators without a warrant, I recognize that the current
legislation is set to expire this Saturday, February 16th. Although I
do not support the Protect America Act, we need more time to work with
our colleagues in the Senate on the substance of this legislation in
order to ensure that we reconcile the Senate language with the RESTORE
Act (H.R. 3773), which we passed in the House on November 15, 2007.
I would like to thank my Senate colleague Senator Feingold, from
Wisconsin, for his diligent work in trying to amend this legislation to
protect American civil liberties, both at home and abroad.
Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is
not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of
us.
The original legislation offered by the House Majority gave the
Administration everything that they needed, but what the Senate is
proposing virtually throws our Bill of Rights out the window, because
they are telling Americans that no matter what your business is, you
are subject to the unchecked scrutiny of the Attorney General without
judicial intervention.
I am disheartened by the other body for their failure to recognize
that we can secure America by passing responsible electronic
surveillance legislation that does not compromise our civil liberties.
Madam Speaker, in August of this year, I strongly opposed S. 1927,
the so-called ``Protect America Act'' (PAA) when it came to a vote on
the House floor. Had the Bush administration and the Republican-
dominated 109th Congress acted more responsibly in the 2 preceding
years, we would not have been in the position of debating legislation
that had such a profoundly negative impact on the national security and
on American values and civil liberties in the crush of exigent
circumstances. As that regrettable episode clearly showed, it is true
as the saying goes that haste makes waste.
The PAA was stampeded through the Congress in the midnight hour of
the last day before the long August recess on the dubious claim that it
was necessary to fill a gap in the Nation's intelligence gathering
capabilities identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell. But in reality it would have eviscerated the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution and represented an unwarranted transfer
of power from the courts to the Executive Branch and a Justice
Department led at that time by an Attorney General whose reputation for
candor and integrity was, to put it charitably, subject to considerable
doubt.
The RESTORE Act, H.R. 3773, is superior to the PAA by orders of
magnitude. This is due in no small measure, Madam Speaker, to the
willingness of the leadership to reach out to and work with all members
of the House. The result shows. The RESTORE Act does not weaken our
Nation's commitment to its democratic traditions. Rather, it represents
a sound policy proposal for achieving the only legitimate goals of a
terrorist surveillance program, which is to ensure that American
citizens and persons in America are secure in their persons, papers,
and effects, but terrorists throughout the world are made insecure. Let
me direct the attention of all members to several of the more important
aspects of this salutary legislation.
First, H.R. 3773 explicitly affirms that the exclusive law to follow
with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil
is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As initially
enacted by Congress in 1978, the exclusivity of FISA was undisputed and
unambiguous. I hasten to add, however, that while FISA remains the
exclusive source of law, H.R. 3773 recognizes that the law as enacted
in 1978 can and should be adapted to modem circumstances and to
accommodate new technologies. And it does so by making clear that
foreign-to-foreign communications are not subject to the FISA, even
though modern technology enables that communication to be routed
through the United States.
Second, under H.R. 3773, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) is indispensable and is accorded a meaningful role in ensuring
compliance with the law. The bill ensures that the FISC is empowered to
act as an Article III court should act, which means the court shall
operate neither as a rubber-
[[Page H904]]
stamp nor a bottleneck. Rather, the function of the court is to
validate the lawful exercise of executive power on the one hand, and to
act as the guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other.
Third, the bill does not grant amnesty to any telecommunications
company or to any other entity or individual that helped federal
intelligence agencies spy illegally on innocent Americans. I strongly
support this provision because granting such blanket amnesty for past
misconduct will have the unintended consequence of encouraging
telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than contest,
illegal requests to spy on Americans. The only permissible path to
legalization of conduct in this area is full compliance with the
requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Moreover, Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that the
loudest demands for blanket immunity come not from the
telecommunications companies but from the Administration, which raises
the interesting question of whether the Administration's real
motivation is to shield from public disclosure the ways and means by
which government officials may have ``persuaded'' telecommunications
companies to assist in its warrantless surveillance programs. I call my
colleagues' attention to an article published in the Washington Post in
which it is reported that Joseph Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest,
alleges that his company was denied NSA contracts after he declined in
a February 27, 2001 meeting at Fort Meade with National Security Agency
(NSA) representatives to give the NSA customer calling records.
Madam Speaker, the authorization to conduct foreign surveillance on
U.S. soil provided by H.R. 3773 is temporary and will expire in 2 years
if not renewed by the Congress. This is perhaps the single most
important limitation on the authority conferred on the Executive Branch
by this legislation. The good and sufficient reason for imposing this
limitation is because the threats to America's security and the
liberties of its people will change over time and thus require constant
vigilance by the people's representatives in Congress.
To give a detailed illustration of just how superior the RESTORE Act
is to the ill-considered and hastily enacted Protect America Act, I
wish to take a few moments to discuss an important improvement in the
bill that was adopted in the full Judiciary Committee markup.
The Jackson Lee amendment added during the markup made a constructive
contribution to the RESTORE Act by laying down a clear, objective
criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to
enforce in preventing reverse targeting.
``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this
Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the
arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government
targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to
collect information on certain U.S. persons.
One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical
conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties
organizations, have with the PAA is that the understandable temptation
of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be
difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards in the PAA to
prevent it.
My amendment reduces even further any such temptation to resort to
reverse targeting by requiring the administration to obtain a regular,
individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the
surveillance is a person in the United States.
The amendment achieves this objective by requiring the Administration
to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an
acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person
reasonably believed to be located in the United States.'' The current
language in the bill provides that a warrant be obtained only when the
Government ``seeks to conduct electronic surveillance'' of a person
reasonably believed to be located in the United States.
It was far from clear how the operative language ``seeks to'' is to
be interpreted. In contrast, the language used in my amendment,
``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that has long been a staple
of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by the
agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson
Lee amendment provides a clearer, more objective, criterion for the
Administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the
practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can
agree should not be permitted.
Let us be clear, Madam Speaker, that nothing in the bill or in my
amendment requires the Government to obtain a FISA order for every
overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into
or from the United States. Rather, the bill requires, as our amendment
makes clear, a FISA order only where there is a particular, known
person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's
calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a
significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that
person's communications.
This will usually happen over time and the Government will have the
time to get an order while continuing its surveillance. And it is the
national security interest to require it to obtain an order at that
point, so that it can lawfully acquire all of the target person's
communications rather than continuing to listen to only some of them.
The Jackson Lee amendment gives the Government precisely what
Director of National Intelligence McConnell asked for when he testified
before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
It is very important to me; it is very important to members
of this Committee. We should be required--we should be
required in all cases to have a warrant anytime there is
surveillance of a U.S. [sic] person located in the United
States.
In short, the Jackson Lee amendment makes a good bill even better.
For this reason alone, civil libertarians should enthusiastically
embrace the RESTORE Act.
Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, who remains the most
astute student of American democracy, observed that the reason
democracies invariably prevail in any martial conflict is because
democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages
those traits that are indispensable to martial success: initiative,
innovation, resourcefulness, and courage.
As I wrote in the Politico, ``the best way to win the war on terror
is to remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its
democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of
international villains will defeat the United States in the pursuit of
its vital interests.''
Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is for the
United States country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights
and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her
life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these
cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free,
the land of the brave, and the country we love.
I would ask my colleagues to support this 21-day extension so that we
may work together as a body, Members of both the House and the Senate
to provide our citizens with the protections they so richly deserve. We
need to have time to reconcile the differences between the House and
the Senate in order to ensure that the important provisions of the
RESTORE Act protecting the constitutional rights of Americans is
preserved. I ask my colleagues to support the Bill of Rights and
national security by supporting the 21-day extension in H.R. 5349.
Madam Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years,
placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign
intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes on a sound legal
footing, and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned.
First, I was prepared to accept temporarily obviating the need to
obtain a court order for foreign-to-foreign communications that pass
through the United States. However, I continue to insist upon
individual warrants, based on probable cause, when surveillance is
directed at people in the United States. This can be negotiated during
this 21-day extension period.
The Attorney General must still be required to submit procedures for
international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court for approval, but the FISA Court should not be allowed to issue a
``basket warrant'' without making individual determinations about
foreign surveillance.
In all candor, Madam Speaker, I must restate my firm conviction that
when it comes to the track record of this President's warrantless
surveillance programs, there is still not enough on the public record
about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the
trustworthiness of this administration, to indicate that they require a
blank check from Congress.
The Bush administration did not comply with its legal obligation
under the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the Intelligence
Committees ``fully and currently informed'' of U.S. intelligence
activities. Congress cannot continue to rely on incomplete information
from the Bush administration or revelations in the media. It must
conduct a full and complete inquiry into electronic surveillance in the
United States and related domestic activities of the NSA, both those
that occur within FISA and those that occur outside FISA.
The inquiry must not be limited to the legal questions. It must
include the operational details of each program of intelligence
surveillance within the United States, including: (1) Who the NSA is
targeting; (2) how it identifies its targets; (3) the information the
program collects and disseminates; and most important, (4) whether the
program advances national security interests without unduly
compromising the privacy rights of the American people.
[[Page H905]]
Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit
electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing
information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the
communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring
more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms
for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted
communications.
Madam Speaker, the legislation before us is only necessary to give
this body time to work with our colleagues in the Senate. The 21-day
extension will give us time to impress upon the Senate, how important
it is to protect the civil rights of all Americans.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in a vote of support of this 21-
day extension. H.R. 5349 gives us time to amend the unwise and ill-
considered reauthorization of the Protect America Act of 2007.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5349,
a twenty one day extension of the Protect America Act. I believe that
this short term extension is necessary to achieve a long term solution
to update our foreign surveillance laws in a manner that will protect
the civil liberties of Americans.
I voted against the Protect America Act last August because I believe
that it seriously compromises the civil liberties of Americans. I am
still opposed to it as a permanent solution to our need to conform our
surveillance laws to changes in telecommunication technology.
Fortunately, it was scheduled to sunset in 6 months to provide
additional time to correct our foreign surveillance law in a balanced
manner.
The House passed such a balanced bill, H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act, in
November. I voted for this bill because I believe that it establishes
the proper balance between the protection of civil liberties and the
needs of our intelligence agencies to have access to critical
information. Unfortunately, the Senate passed their bill yesterday
giving us no time to reconcile the differences between the respective
bills. Moreover, I have serious objections to the Senate bill which is
dramatically different than its House counterpart.
Significant work must be done to harmonize these bills in a manner
that will be acceptable to me. Consequently, it is necessary to provide
additional time for the committees of jurisdiction to craft a balanced
bicameral solution.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my
opposition to H.R. 5349, which extends the Protect America Act. Last
August, I joined 182 of my colleagues in opposing the Protect America
Act. I opposed the PAA then because I felt it did not adequately
protect our civil liberties from a continually over-reaching executive
branch. The Bush administration has repeatedly tried, and with some
degree of success, to extend its powers in ways that I believe encroach
on our civil liberties. This legislation continues to allow these
surveillance activities without providing adequate safeguards to
protect Americans from this encroachment on their civil liberties.
The passage of the PAA was hasty and ill-conceived. Our intelligence
community will not stop its activities should this bill expire. In
fact, the PAA explicitly states that authorizations issued prior to its
expiration would remain in effect until their expiration. Knowing that
our Nation can continue to protect itself until more balanced
legislation is passed, I can not support this extension.
Last November, the House took a stand and passed the RESTORE Act, a
strong bill that gives our intelligence community the resources it
needs to do its job, but also ensures that our Constitutionally
guaranteed rights remain intact. Because the RESTORE Act was able to
achieve all these purposes, I was able to support its passage. Because
the PAA does not achieve this balance, I cannot agree to let it remain
our rule of law. I continue to believe that we must have the best
possible intelligence to protect our nation, but that it can be done in
a manner that does not uproot the basic rights and principles
guaranteed to us by our Founding Fathers. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to build on the RESTORE Act.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 976, the bill is considered read and the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Smith of Texas
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5349,
to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of
the bill H.R. 3773 as passed by the Senate on February 12,
2008.
Point of Order
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. CONYERS. The motion to recommit is not germane to the bill under
consideration and therefore should not be considered.
H.R. 5349 seeks a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act as
previously amended, thus amending the act so that it would expire not
195 days but 216 days after enactment.
The motion to recommit goes beyond the scope of the bill, and beyond
the scope of the Protect America Act the bill temporarily extends, to
make permanent changes to the FISA law, including retroactive legal
amnesty for telecom companies who may have broken the law in
cooperating with earlier surveillance activities. Because it goes
beyond the scope of the bill and deals with a different purpose, it is
not germane.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the
Democratic majority is insisting on a procedural objection to block
consideration of this motion to recommit. This motion substitutes the
bipartisan bill passed yesterday by the Senate 68-29 to improve FISA, a
bill that would dramatically improve our national security. It is sad
to see the Democratic majority put procedure over substance when it
comes to protecting Americans from terrorists.
There is nothing more germane to the security of the American people
than to take up the Senate bill as quickly as possible. Therefore, I
would ask the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, to withdraw his point of order and allow for an up or down
vote on the bipartisan Senate reform bill. I hope the gentleman will
withdraw his point of order and allow us to take a vote on a bill
supported by both parties in the Senate, the administration, and many
Democrats in the House.
Again, I would like to reiterate my disappointment that the majority
has raised a point of order against this motion to recommit. We need to
stop playing procedural games with our national security and take a
vote now on the Senate-passed bill to improve FISA.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I have never violated parliamentary
procedure, and I would insist upon the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order that the motion to
recommit offered by the gentleman from Texas proposes an amendment that
is not germane to the bill.
Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no proposition on a subject
different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color
of amendment.
The bill, H.R. 5349, extends the Protect America Act of 2007 for a
limited time.
The instructions contained in the motion to recommit propose
permanent changes in law.
A general principle of the germaneness rule is that where a bill is
composed only of a temporary extension of existing programs, an
amendment making permanent changes in law relating to such programs is
not germane.
The Chair will note a relevant precedent. On December 2, 1982, the
Chair ruled that an amendment permanently changing the organic law
governing an agency's operation was not germane to a bill that merely
provided a temporary authorization for the agency. This precedent is
recorded on page 722 of the House Rules and Manual.
[[Page H906]]
Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, the instructions contained in
the motion to recommit are not germane. The point of order is
sustained.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to appeal the Speaker's
ruling.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: ``Will the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?''
Motion to Table Offered By Mr. Conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table the
appeal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-minute
votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and if arising without
further debate or proceedings in recommital; and motions to suspend the
rules with regard to House Resolution 960 and House Resolution 917.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 196, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 53]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
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
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
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
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
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)
Kucinich
Lampson
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
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
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
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
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--196
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
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.
Doolittle
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 (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
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)
Pryce (OH)
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--10
Gilchrest
Hinojosa
Honda
Lowey
McGovern
Ortiz
Pickering
Renzi
Ruppersberger
Towns
{time} 1602
Messrs. ADERHOLT, KINGSTON, INGLIS of South Carolina and CARNEY
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on the motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 960. The
vote on the motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 917 will be
taken later.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 229, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 54]
AYES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Hooley
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)
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
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)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pastor
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
[[Page H907]]
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
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)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--229
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
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
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Gilchrest
Hinojosa
Honda
Lowey
Ortiz
Pickering
Renzi
Ruppersberger
Towns
{time} 1611
So the bill was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________