[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 11, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1502-H1503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)1 of rule
IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as
a question of the privileges of the House.
The form of my resolution is as follows:
H. Res.--
Whereas in an interview published by National Journal
Magazine on March 7, 2008, John Brennan, a foreign policy
adviser to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and former CIA official
who once served as head of the National Counterterrorism
Center, stated, ``There is this great debate over whether or
not the telecom companies should in fact be given immunity
for their agreement to provide support and cooperate with the
government after 9/11 . . . I do believe strongly that they
should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do
so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a
legal context, and so I think that's important . . . And I
know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that's
the right thing to do . . . I do believe the Senate version
of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately;'';
Whereas a bipartisan group of 25 state attorneys general
recently wrote a letter to House of Representatives leaders
in support of the Senate bill's passage, stating in part ``A
bipartisan majority of the United States Senate recently
approved S. 2248 . . . But until it is also passed by the
House of Representatives, intelligence officials must obtain
FISA warrants every time they attempt to monitor suspected
terrorists in overseas countries. Passing S. 2248 would
ensure our intelligence experts are once again able to
conduct real-time surveillance. . . . With S. 2248 still
pending in the House of Representatives, our national
security is in jeopardy;'';
Whereas Ret. Admiral Bobby R. Inman, former director of the
National Security Agency and deputy director of the CIA told
the Austin-American Statesman last month that Americans are
more vulnerable without the Protect America Act and ``the
only way for the country to prevent future terrorists attacks
is to increase its ability to eavesdrop on their
communication;'';
Whereas Glenn Sulmasy, a Harvard national security expert,
wrote in the February 15 edition of The Tampa Tribune that
``the global technologies of cell phones, computers, the
internet, and other such means of communication--which were
not, and could not have been, envisioned by the drafters of
FISA in the 1970s--have changed the way information moves
around the world. . . . Herein lie the gaps meant to be
filled'' by the Protect America Act of 2007;
Whereas in its bipartisan findings the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence concluded in Oct. 2007 that
``electronic communication service providers acted on a good
faith belief that the President's program, and their
assistance, was lawful;'';
Whereas 20 Senate Democrats supported final passage of S.
2248, including Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller
(D-WV) and Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee;
Whereas on February 12, 2008, after passage of S. 2248, the
Senate amended the bill H.R. 3773 with the text of S. 2248
and sent the amended bill back to the House of
Representatives for its consideration;
Whereas Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) wrote in a Feb. 28 letter
to the editor of The Fargo Forum, ``The FISA law needed
reform to account for modern information technology, current
patterns of communication and the nature of the threats
facing our country. . . . [The bipartisan Senate bill] does
include strong privacy safeguards and considerable judicial
oversight to ensure that our fundamental freedoms are
protected. . . . Leaving [telecommunications companies]
completely subject to civil litigation could cause problems
in vital intelligence collection in the future;'';
Whereas 21 House of Representatives Democrats expressed
support for the bipartisan Senate FISA bill in a Jan. 28
letter to Speaker Pelosi stating that, ``we have it within
our ability to replace the expiring Protect America Act by
passing strong, bipartisan FISA modernization legislation
that can be signed into law and we should do so--the
consequences of not passing such a measure could place our
national security at undue risk;'';
Whereas in an editorial published by the Charleston Post
and Courier on February 29, 2008, House of Representatives
Democrat leadership was described as ``indeed causing a
potentially dangerous gap in the nation's defenses'' and
``creating an unnecessary cloud of uncertainty in a critical
area of intelligence operations where there should be great
clarity.''; and
Whereas the failure of the House of Representatives to
expeditiously consider the bipartisan Senate-passed Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008
has brought discredit to the House of Representatives: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives should
immediately consider a motion to concur in the Senate
amendment to the bill, H.R. 3773.
{time} 1645
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may offer his resolution.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the
privileges of the House and offer the resolution just noticed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res.--
Whereas in an interview published by National Journal
Magazine on March 7, 2008, John Brennan, a foreign policy
adviser to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and former CIA official
who once served as head of the National Counterterrorism
Center, stated, ``There is this great debate over whether or
not the telecom companies should in fact be given immunity
for their agreement to provide support and cooperate with the
government after 9/11 . . . I do believe strongly that they
should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do
so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a
legal context, and so I think that's important . . . And I
know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that's
the right thing to do . . . I do believe the Senate version
of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately;'';
Whereas a bipartisan group of 25 state attorneys general
recently wrote a letter to House of Representatives leaders
in support of the Senate bill's passage, stating in part ``A
bipartisan majority of the United States Senate recently
approved S. 2248 . . . But until it is also passed by the
House of Representatives, intelligence officials must obtain
FISA warrants every time they attempt to monitor suspected
terrorists in overseas countries. Passing S. 2248 would
ensure our intelligence experts are once again able to
conduct real-time surveillance. . . . With S. 2248 still
pending in the House of Representatives, our national
security is in jeopardy;'';
Whereas Ret. Admiral Bobby R. Inman, former director of the
National Security Agency and deputy director of the CIA told
the Austin-American Statesman last month that Americans are
more vulnerable without the Protect America Act and ``the
only way for the country to prevent future terrorists attacks
is to increase its ability to eavesdrop on their
communication;'';
Whereas Glenn Sulmasy, a Harvard national security expert,
wrote in the February 15 edition of The Tampa Tribune that
``the global technologies of cell phones, computers, the
internet, and other such means of communication--which were
not, and could not have been, envisioned by the drafters of
FISA in the 1970s--have changed the way information moves
around the world. . . . Herein lie the gaps meant to be
filled'' by the Protect America Act of 2007;
Whereas in its bipartisan findings the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence concluded in Oct. 2007 that
``electronic communication service providers acted on a good
faith belief that the President's program, and their
assistance, was lawful;'';
Whereas 20 Senate Democrats supported final passage of S.
2248, including Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller
(D-WV) and Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee;
Whereas on February 12, 2008, after passage of S. 2248, the
Senate amended the bill H.R. 3773 with the text of S. 2248
and sent the amended bill back to the House of
Representatives for its consideration;
Whereas Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) wrote in a Feb. 28 letter
to the editor of The Fargo Forum, ``The FISA law needed
reform to account for modern information technology, current
patterns of communication and the nature of the threats
facing our country. . . . [The bipartisan Senate bill] does
include strong privacy safeguards and considerable judicial
oversight to ensure that our fundamental freedoms are
protected. . . . Leaving [telecommunications companies]
completely subject to civil litigation could cause problems
in vital intelligence collection in the future;'';
Whereas 21 House of Representatives Democrats expressed
support for the bipartisan Senate FISA bill in a Jan. 28
letter to Speaker Pelosi stating that, ``we have it within
our ability to replace the expiring Protect America Act by
passing strong, bipartisan FISA modernization legislation
that can be signed into law and we should do so--the
consequences of not passing such a measure could place our
national security at undue risk;'';
Whereas in an editorial published by the Charleston Post
and Courier on February 29, 2008, House of Representatives
Democrat leadership was described as ``indeed causing a
potentially dangerous gap in the nation's defenses'' and
``creating an unnecessary cloud of uncertainty in a critical
area of intelligence operations where there should be great
clarity.''; and
Whereas the failure of the House of Representatives to
expeditiously consider the bipartisan Senate-passed Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of
[[Page H1503]]
2008 has brought discredit to the House of Representatives:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives should
immediately consider a motion to concur in the Senate
amendment to the bill, H.R. 3773.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia wish to be
heard on whether or not the resolution constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we are now 25 days into a
unilateral disarmament, a disarmament that doesn't make any sense to
our constituents in each and every district across this Nation.
The Senate voted 68-29, 68-29.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the issue that the gentleman needs to address
himself to is why this is a privilege of the House. I suggest that the
Speaker make sure he is talking to that point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is correct. The
gentleman from Georgia may only address the rule IX issue.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would draw my colleague's
attention to the context in the stated ``whereas'' that on at least one
occasion, if not countless others across this Nation, in the Charleston
Post and Courier, it was written that the House of Representatives'
Democrat leadership was described as ``indeed causing a potentially
dangerous gap in the Nation's defenses'' and ``creating an unnecessary
cloud of uncertainty in a critical area of intelligence operations
where there should be great clarity.''
There have been multiple articles and multiple references across this
Nation as to why this House of Representatives is bringing discredit to
the House and also not fulfilling its responsibility, in fact,
abrogating its responsibility and its duty. An abrogation of duty by
this House of Representatives brings discredit to the House, and,
therefore, this is a question of privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Under the precedents recorded in section 702 of the House Rules and
Manual, the resolution addresses a legislative sentiment and not a
question of the privileges of the House.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table Offered By Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 192, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
AYES--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
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)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--192
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
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
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
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)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Johnson (IL)
NOT VOTING--18
Bishop (UT)
Capito
Ellsworth
Hooley
Kilpatrick
Miller, George
Mitchell
Oberstar
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pryce (OH)
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Souder
Tancredo
Thompson (MS)
Woolsey
{time} 1718
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.
____________________