[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.

                          ____________________