[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.

                          ____________________