[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22749-22754]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 600

       Resolved,  That it shall be in order at any time through 
     the legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to the following measures:
       (1) The bill (H.R. 3087) to require the President, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military 
     leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive 
     strategy for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces 
     in Iraq.
       (2) A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain 
     electronic surveillance.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded 
during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, additionally, I ask unanimous 
consent that our colleagues be given 5 legislative days in which to 
revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 600.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 600 authorizes 
the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at 
any time through the legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, on the 
following measures:
  First, H.R. 3087, a bill to require the President, in coordination 
with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, and other military leaders, to develop and transmit to 
Congress a comprehensive strategy for redeployment of United States 
Armed Forces in Iraq; and, second, a bill to amend the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for 
authorizing certain electronic surveillance.

[[Page 22750]]

  Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important at this juncture in my 
remarks that I make it very clear that we have heard a lot of talk from 
the other side of the aisle about the need to reform FISA. The Director 
of National Intelligence has identified a specific intelligence 
collection gap and spoken of ``a backlog for things requiring a 
warrant,'' and I quote him. He claims that this is hindering our 
efforts to prevent terrorist attacks.
  Congress, Mr. Speaker, takes its responsibilities to protect the 
Nation seriously. None of us on either side of the aisle want to leave 
our intelligence professionals short. The Intelligence Committee, the 
Judiciary Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and the 
leadership have been working around the clock to come up with a 
solution that addresses this particular problem. However, again and 
again, the administration has overplayed their hand. Each time we get 
close to an agreement, they ask for more, and I might add the 
negotiations on this have been going on for over a year.
  First they said Congress needed to clarify that the government 
shouldn't need a warrant to collect foreign communications. There was 
never ever any disagreement about that.
  Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic 
surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that.
  Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications 
carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and would 
consider retrospective immunity when we get back.
  But we insist on a couple of things. We want to preserve the role of 
the FISA Court as an independent check on the government to prevent 
them from infringing on the rights of Americans, and we insist that 
this legislation have a sunset. In this rushed environment before 
recess, we should not make permanent changes to FISA.
  Last night, the congressional leadership was willing to make further 
changes for Director McConnell. He said with those changes he would 
support the bill because it would ``significantly enhance America's 
security.'' And I am quoting him again. But after this agreement was 
reached, congressional Republicans insisted on a much broader, 
permanent bill, giving the Attorney General, this Attorney General, not 
the Court, the discretion to make decisions about surveillance 
involving Americans. Clearly, in my judgment, they are not negotiating 
in good faith.
  If they reject this bill, the other side is saying, in the face of a 
resurgent al Qaeda, they don't want to plug the collection gap 
identified by the Director of National Intelligence immediately. They 
are rejecting ``significantly enhancing America's security.''
  Now, if the other side insists on manufacturing obstructionist delays 
and rejecting agreements that will enhance our security, we can stay 
here all August and September and December until we get this done. The 
security of this Nation deserves no less.
  This rule is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because under clause 1(a), rule 
XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on 
Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to 
be considered on other days, as my colleagues well know, the Rules 
Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.
  This is not an unusual procedure, as some on the other side may 
suggest. In fact, in the 109th Congress, alone, my friends on the other 
side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for 
additional suspension days.
  This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these two bills and 
will help us move important legislation before we leave for the August 
recess. Time is, indeed, of the essence. Not because many in this body 
wish to go home this weekend but, rather, because of the gravity of 
these situations both here at home and abroad.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this rule and 
the underlying piece of legislation.
  I do wish to put my colleagues on notice that, following the 
conclusion of debate on this rule, I intend to offer an amendment to 
the rule. My amendment will permit the House to consider emergency 
legislation today appropriating $250 million to begin the 
reconstruction of the I-35 bridge, which collapsed this week in 
Minnesota. We have properly given our condolences and continue those to 
those who have lost loved ones and those who are awaiting word 
regarding those who are still missing and those who have been injured. 
All of us grieve with all of them.
  Without this amendment and this rule, this legislation will not be 
permitted to proceed; and these emergency funds would be delayed. 
Realize a vote against this rule and my amendment to the rule will be a 
vote against providing this emergency assistance to the people of 
Minnesota, specifically Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida 
yielding me time, and I do know that we are here today, among other 
things, to seek immediate resolution from the United States Congress to 
help the wonderful people of Minnesota in their time of grief by 
authorizing money that will be spent to immediately rebuild the bridge 
that collapsed over the Mississippi.
  All Members of this body watched the horror the other night as we saw 
not only the collapse but also the heroism of men and women, first 
responders and others, as they joined in to help the people of 
Minneapolis-St. Paul as they struggled with this.
  I would note that the committee action, regular order, has taken 
place to make sure that this bill would be before not only the Democrat 
majority but also we as Republicans participated in each of these 
activities.

                              {time}  1330

  The gentleman stood up and talked about how great and wonderful and 
what normal and regular things happen around here, but these are not 
normal times.
  Once again today, here we are on the floor of the House of 
Representatives almost as a new low, I would say, Mr. Speaker, being 
asked to debate a rule on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
and we don't even have a copy of the bill. So I would like to ask the 
gentleman from Florida, can we please see a copy of the bill?
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. This matter is under suspension. My friend 
on the Rules Committee and I were there when it passed out of the Rules 
Committee on suspension, and that requirement is met.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand 
this. This new Democrat majority that comes to town, talks about open 
and honesty, ethics above reproach, all the things that they would do 
differently than what the Republicans have done, and they have not 
lived up to that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would yield to the gentleman if he will answer the 
question: Where is the copy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act that we're doing the rule on today that we're expected to vote on 
today?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you for yielding. It is in the hopper. 
The minority members of the Intelligence Committee have the measure.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I see we're joined 
here by a very distinguished member of the House Committee on 
Intelligence. I think we have been, for literally months, trying to 
make in order the legislation that has been introduced by our friend 
from Albuquerque (Mrs. Wilson), and we believe that that, in fact, is 
the answer to this problem.
  The President of the United States, in the news conference that he 
held with Mike McConnell about an hour ago, made it crystal clear that 
he is going to ask the Director one question: If he gets legislation 
that emerges from this body, will it, in fact, enhance our ability to 
make sure that foreigners on foreign soil who are trying kill us, if 
the legislation provides them with the

[[Page 22751]]

tools to intercept those conversations and prevent them from having the 
ability to attack the United States of America?
  Now, my friend from Dallas has just very correctly said, can we see 
the legislation that we're expected to vote upon today if this 
suspension rule is made in order that will do exactly what the 
President has said is necessary to ensure the safety and the security 
of the American people?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from California for his words.
  Mr. Speaker, this Democrat majority has simply not lived up to the 
words that it spoke when it became the new majority. And it was a 
campaign promise that is reiterated on a regular basis all through this 
Chamber and all the committees. Most disappointing among these is the 
forgotten promise that Democrats promised to be the most open, honest 
and ethical Congress in history.
  And I will now quote Speaker Pelosi from page 24 of A New Direction 
for America, and I quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor 
under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of 
a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer 
its alternatives, including a substitute.''
  I further quote the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Louise Slaughter, on November 12, 2006, just a week after election. She 
said, ``My fellow Democrats and I have long felt that the Rules 
Committee was failing its major obligations. We publically argued that 
it was being used to shut down the legislative process for partisan 
purposes. But now that the Democrats will control the committee we will 
have a chance to change all that.''
  Mr. Speaker, they have not changed it. They've made it worse.
  We do understand right now, as we speak, we have a copy of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that evidently has only now been 
given to the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. At this time, I am very pleased to yield to 
my colleague, with whom I've served 7 years on the Select Committee on 
Intelligence. She was the ranking member and is now the chairman of the 
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Before yielding to Ms. Harman, who has gone down this road for well 
over a year to get us to this point, I would like to say to my friend 
from Texas that perhaps it would be helpful if he would ask the 
minority members of the Intelligence Committee about the bill.
  Secondly, the measure that we are dealing with is a rule providing 
for suspension, not consideration.
  That said, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Ms. 
Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for 
his long service, both on the Intelligence and Rules Committees.
  I am now the Chair of an Intelligence Subcommittee of Homeland 
Security. As no one in this Chamber would miss, security is my passion, 
and I think it is our primary obligation as Members of Congress.
  I was sitting here listening to the discussion about where is the 
bill and why aren't we acting on FISA? It seems a little disingenuous, 
given the fact that the current ranking member on the Intelligence 
Committee and former chairman, has an article in USA Today in which he 
says that this move to get the administration to put its surveillance 
program under FISA ``gives legal protections to foreign enemies who 
would do us harm.''
  Excuse me? FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed by 
a large bipartisan majority in 1978. FISA was passed to assure that 
Americans, not foreigners, would have their constitutional rights 
protected when the U.S. engages, as it must, in foreign intelligence 
surveillance.
  I don't think there is anyone here, not that I know of, who is 
against foreign intelligence surveillance. There is no one in this 
body, I haven't heard one person say that we think that when the U.S. 
engages in foreign intelligence surveillance, in foreign countries 
involving communications between foreigners in different foreign 
countries, that FISA applies. But FISA can and must apply when 
Americans' constitutional rights are at issue, and that is the issue we 
will debate a little bit later.
  I want to say that it surprises me again that all of a sudden no one 
knows what we might be talking about. There have been intense 
negotiations, I have been a part of some of them, for months over what 
we might do to make FISA work better. In the 109th Congress, all nine 
Democrats on the Intelligence Committee authored legislation to help 
FISA work better; and in this Congress I'm aware of both closed and 
open hearings by the Intelligence Committee to carefully consider these 
issues.
  So it seems to me quite surprising and disingenuous to hear that, for 
example, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee doesn't even 
feel that FISA protects Americans; he thinks that it coddles 
foreigners.
  I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I thank the gentlelady because I have some 
confusion over here, and you may be able to help me.
  As I look at this, I think this is the bill that was rejected by the 
Director of National Intelligence 36 hours ago as insufficient. And it 
is not the bill that, as I understand it, was going to be accepted by 
the Senate this morning that the DNI proposed.
  Is the House offering a different bill than has been accepted by the 
Senate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute 
to respond.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Reclaiming my time, I don't have a copy of the latest draft. It may 
be one I've seen, but I'm not absolutely positive. My understanding is 
that negotiations have been going on for quite a long time and that the 
requirements of the DNI have been met.
  What is happening, and I think it's a real tragedy for the American 
people, is that the goalposts keep moving. I just wonder whether the 
other side wants this to be a wedge issue or wants to solve the 
problem.
  As one Member here who has worked on this for years, I want to solve 
the problem; and we will attempt to do that under the suspension rules 
later today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You know, Mr. Speaker, we talk about this genuine 
desire to solve the problem, but the fact of the matter is we're about 
as close as midnight and noon in our thoughts and beliefs as parties 
for doing that.
  I hearken back to just a few days ago in the Rules Committee, where 
some of the questions from my good friends on the Democrat side are: 
Well, what about the constitutional rights of some of these people who 
live in other countries who are known terrorists, what about their 
constitutional rights? And we need to take those into account.
  Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how we're sitting here debating something 
that's in the best interests of this country, and some people are more 
concerned about the terrorists' rights than they are about protecting 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I have the highest regard 
for my California colleague (Ms. Harman). She knows that very well. We 
share representing Los Angeles County here. And I know that she has 
worked very hard on intelligence issues.
  But I will say that I am very troubled with the exchange that I just 
saw take place between my friend from Albuquerque here, who has worked 
on this. She talked about the fact that we have legislation that was 
just rejected 36 hours ago by the Director of National Intelligence, 
Mr. McConnell. And my friend from California has just said something to 
the effect that she's not sure exactly what bill it is that we're 
looking at. I'm not an expert on this myself.

[[Page 22752]]

  I would be happy to yield to my friend if she wants to respond at all 
on this.
  Ms. HARMAN. Well, what I meant was that I'm aware that there were 
negotiations going on with the DNI last evening. So drafts have been 
shared back and forth. All I said was that I came over to the floor to 
support the rule to permit this issue to be addressed under suspension, 
and I don't have in my hand what may be the latest version.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I know my colleague would certainly 
share this concern to support the rule, but we like the idea of seeing 
what it is that we're about to vote upon before we do that. I know that 
may be an unusual request under this majority, but I think that is 
definitely fair. And I will say that I think that it's right and 
correct that Members have a chance to see what it is that they're 
voting upon, rather than having something thrown upon them.
  And we have Mrs. Wilson, who has legislation that we've offered 
probably a dozen times on our quest to defeat the previous question on 
rules so that we could at least allow consideration of this. And so 
that has led us, I believe, to this point.
  But I think it is just absolute lunacy to believe that we are, at 
this moment, in a position to go ahead and vote upon something that we 
don't know what it consists of. And I know my friend would agree with 
that, that we really shouldn't have a pattern like that.
  Ms. HARMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield 30 seconds to Ms. Harman.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, just to respond to that, I'm not interested 
in lunacy, and I know that Mr. Dreier is not, and I'm sure that Ms. 
Wilson and Mr. Hoekstra are not either.
  There is a way to solve this problem correctly. I believe that the 
draft, which I'm certain will be circulated to everybody imminently, I 
believe that you will see that it is a very careful and balanced effort 
to address this problem, and it has been shared.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think I've got it in my 
hands right now.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The gentleman says he has a copy of the bill 
in his hand. I would remind the distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, who is my good friend, that this rule is to make in 
order a suspension day.
  Mr. DREIER. I understand that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I'm glad you do understand it.
  I would ask the gentleman from Texas to ask his Republican colleagues 
on the Intelligence Committee why they didn't share the bill with the 
Rules Committee Republicans. We cannot control what you do or do not 
do.
  And under the circumstances, Ms. Harman just made it very clear to 
you that the goalposts keep moving. You try to act as if you don't know 
that for a year and a half that this has been going on here in this 
intelligence community, working with this administration, trying to 
take care of this matter.
  Now understand this. First, you said on that side that Congress 
needed to clarify that the government shouldn't need a warrant to 
collect foreign-to-foreign communications. There was never any 
disagreement about that, and stop saying it to the American public.
  Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic 
surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that.
  Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications 
carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and consider 
retrospective immunity when we get back.
  Last night, not yesterday, not midnight to noon, and some people have 
gotten caught in the dark, last night, the congressional leadership was 
willing to make further changes for Director McConnell. He said that 
with those changes he would support the bill because it would, in his 
word, ``significantly'' enhance America's security.
  But after this agreement was reached, congressional Republicans 
insisted on a much broader bill giving the Attorney General, not the 
Court, the discretion to make decisions about surveillance involving 
Americans. Clearly, in my judgment, as I said previously, you're not 
negotiating in good faith.
  I remind you once again that this rule is to make in order a 
suspension day. You will have all the time you need to do all the 
reading you need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time 
remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 21\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Florida has 13\1/2\ minutes.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard it straight out: You don't 
need to see the bill. You will see it whenever we want to give it to 
you. You don't need it. All we are doing down here is playing 
tiddlywinks with national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that. We disagree with that. I think 
this is an unfair way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have the privilege to serve on the Intelligence 
Committee now, but in the 1980s I did. Then, following that, in the 
1990s when I served in California as the attorney general, I recall 
getting security briefings from the intelligence community from 
Washington, DC.
  It was during the Clinton administration that Admiral McConnell was 
the head of the NSA. I do not recall any partisan or bipartisan dispute 
about his qualifications, his professionalism or his judgment. He is 
the man that the President has brought out of retirement to be the 
Director of National Intelligence. He is the one that has presented to 
us in open and in closed testimony why we need this.
  I think it is fair for us to ask, if we are getting a draft that he 
has rejected, why it is the draft that is going to be presented to us 
under the suspension calendar. Unless we have changed the rules of the 
House in the 16 years I was gone, the whole concept of a suspension 
bill is that you suspend all the rules for noncontroversial bills. 
Noncontroversial bills. If the head of our intelligence services 
believes that this is so controversial we ought to reject this, then 
why is it being brought up under this kind of a suspension?
  Now, I have tried to work and have worked with the gentlewoman from 
California on many occasions getting bipartisan legislation through 
this floor. But this is the single most important bill that I have seen 
brought up in the 3 years that I have been back, and maybe in the 10 
years I was here before.
  This goes to the question of whether we take our blinders off with 
respect to intelligence, with respect to what kind of chatter that is 
going on around the world. And, yes, they say we all agree that 
foreign-to-foreign communications ought to be not under the purview of 
the Court, because we understand that has never been protected under 
the Constitution. We have been informed that the draft that we are 
talking about would not allow us to do that in the way it is necessary 
to protect this Nation.
  That is why it is so important; not that it is partisan, not that 
somebody came here under one rule or another, but because the head of 
intelligence for the United States has said we can't accept this draft. 
If he says that, we ought to listen to him. We ought to try and get 
something that will work.
  So let's forget about this nonsense of partisanship. Let's not get up 
here,

[[Page 22753]]

shake something out here in the hand and say, well, you have had it 
long enough. I don't know how long it took the Constitution to be 
written from beginning to end. It wasn't how long it took. It is the 
words they put there. It is what they actually produced. That is what 
we are going to be judged by; not by how many hours we were here, but 
whether we got it right.
  The Director of National Intelligence has told us we have gotten it 
wrong now. All our people back home are in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy 
because it is wrong, because we are not doing it right. He has asked us 
to fix it. It is the most solemn obligation we have under our oath of 
the Constitution to do it right. And to say that we are going to do it 
under some suspension and don't worry about what it says violates that 
oath.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how 
disappointed I am in my friends. And I have the greatest respect for my 
good friend from Florida and the gentlewoman from California. We have 
worked so well together on so many issues that, I think, have made a 
difference in a positive way for national security for this country. I 
believe that with every fiber of my being.
  I almost feel bad for you that you would be sent here on behalf of 
the Speaker to try to defend this today. I feel bad for you because I 
know you both. And I know that is not the direction you would have 
taken, had it been your decision.
  Efforts to change this are not new. The level of concern by so many 
of us who sit in those classified hearings in our Intelligence 
Committee is not new. Last year, my colleague from New Mexico 
introduced a bill that would have fixed this problem last year, and it 
was stopped. Earlier this year, earlier this year, it was introduced 
again to fix this problem, and it was denied by the majority.
  I have to tell you, when I was a young FBI agent, sometimes you would 
look up at the policies kind of flowing down at you. We were working 
awfully hard to develop probable cause to get wiretaps, which was the 
right thing to do. It was a difficult process with lots of vetting, 
lots of hours, lots of source development and source vetting, lots of 
surveillance, and putting it all together to make something like that 
work so that it could rise to the standard to go after a United States 
citizen and their communication. It is a pretty high standard. I argue, 
as somebody who did it for a living, it should be.
  But what we have been arguing for for the last year is to say, 
listen, we should not give those rights to terrorists overseas who are 
conducting terrorist activities to target Americans or our allies, 
including the United States soldiers. They do not deserve the rights of 
a U.S. citizen.
  This was an easy fix. It said, let's be technology neutral. Times 
have changed since the 1970s when FISA was written. Technology has 
changed. People communicate completely differently.
  What we said last year is let us change to keep up, because today we 
have asked soldiers to stand in harm's way. And the thing that I know 
that my colleagues understand, both Democrats and Republicans, is 
because this House has failed to act, they have stood in harm's way 
without all the information that they need and deserve to be safe, 
successful, and come home to their families.
  This gamesmanship is dangerous, and I mean dangerous. My colleagues 
understand those classified cases that we talk about, that we know 
because this has not been fixed. Lives may have been lost because of 
it. Lives may have been lost because of it. We can change that today.
  I just got a copy of this. As I go through it, just in my brief 
cursory look at it, this is not what we have been negotiating. There 
have been no new demands. This is so easy. This is so simple. It can be 
about a 2-page bill, and we can begin to protect Americans in harm's 
way, including the homeland, but, most importantly, the soldiers who 
are overseas who deserve that protection. And just because we shout and 
we yell, no, no, no, we believe that terrorists should not have to have 
a warrant overseas as well doesn't make it so, and you know that. That 
has been the stumbling block. The Court has said it. The intelligence 
community has said it. The DNI has said it. We have said it.
  I am going to beg all of you, please, for the lives of the soldiers 
who are at risk today, for the homeland, this is not the place for 
gamesmanship. This is not the place that we argue about a bill that we 
have not even seen. This is the time that we should come together. This 
is the time that this bill should be out and done, negotiated, and free 
from all of the gamesmanship we see today.
  When I go home and look at those families of those folks who have 
loved ones overseas, I want to be able to tell them we have done 
everything that we can do to make them safe. When somebody kisses their 
young child and puts them on the bus, I want to be able to look that 
family in the eye and say we are doing everything to make sure we get 
all the information of what the terrorists are up to to protect the 
United States of America.
  We all know in good conscience we can't say that today, and we have 
not been able to say that for months in good conscience.
  This is our chance to come together as people I know and I respect, 
who know the dangers of the gamesmanship on an issue this important. 
Let's stop it. Let's go back. Go back and tell the Speaker, I am sorry, 
we are not playing this game.
  People's lives are at stake. We can do this. We can do this together. 
I know that is why I was sent here. I know that is what you believe in 
your hearts. Let's do this together. Let's put this stuff aside and fix 
this problem so that we can begin to listen to the conversations of 
terrorists we know are planning attacks against our allies and the 
United States of America.
  I strongly urge the reconsideration of this. Let's do this. We can do 
this. We should do this. We ought to do it. And shame on us if we can't 
do it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I will yield to the distinguished Chair of the 
Intelligence Committee in just a moment.
  But I would like to respond to my good friend from Michigan, and he 
is my good friend, and he was correct in asserting that he, Ms. Harman, 
myself, all of the members of the Intelligence Committee that are here, 
have worked actively for more than a year on this. What he was 
incorrect about was whether or not there were ongoing negotiations.
  I would urge him to know that with staff, the distinguished Chair of 
the Intelligence Committee and many other Members, and Ms. Harman from 
her Chair on Homeland Security, and countless others in the minority as 
well, have worked day and night with the administration to produce a 
bipartisan, bicameral proposal.
  Mr. Rogers just said last night no other negotiations were going on. 
Last night the DNI asked us to make three changes, three, to our 
proposal. We made all three changes. They are in this bill. But the 
administration still rejected our proposal, and they gave us a moving 
target.
  We gave the administration what it told us it needed to protect 
America. They still said no.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes), the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute to respond to my 
colleague from Michigan.
  This is a serious issue. We have worked hard for the last 2 weeks in 
particular, in addition to the hearings that we have had, with the 
commitment that we are going to do an overall fix of FISA in the fall. 
But we wanted to give the administration the three things, as my 
colleague from Florida just mentioned, that they could work with so 
they could keep this country safe in this urgent hour. Those three 
things we gave them. Then the goalposts were moved and we were told 
that there would be additional issues. That has been our experience.

[[Page 22754]]

  The difference here is very simple, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle for 6 years have been only too happy to oblige 
the administration on whatever they need. You got a bill? Let's rubber-
stamp it. Need a supplemental? Let's rubber-stamp it.
  Well, do you know what? Those days are over. Since we took control of 
the Congress, we are doing the oversight that was neglected. We are now 
being part of the process to make sure that not only do we have the 
tools to keep this country safe, but that we protect the American 
people and their civil rights. That is the basic fundamental 
difference.
  This bill here does the three things that the DNI asked us to do and 
that the administration wanted us to do. It is not the all-encompassing 
changes that FISA needs, but we are committed to doing that in the 
fall.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the House recess until we get feedback from the Director of National 
Intelligence that he has seen this legislation and he agrees that it 
will fix the intelligence gap that is threatening the United States.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________