[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23235-23250]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2030
                      PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
I call up the Senate bill (S. 1927) to amend the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for 
authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                S. 1927

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protect America Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN 
                   ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                   INFORMATION.

       The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     105 the following:


   ``CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE 
                             UNITED STATES

       ``Sec. 105A.  Nothing in the definition of electronic 
     surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to 
     encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably 
     believed to be located outside of the United States.


``ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING 
               PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

       ``Sec. 105B.  (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, 
     may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition 
     of foreign intelligence information concerning persons 
     reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the 
     Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General 
     determine, based on the information provided to them, that--
       ``(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for 
     determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence 
     information under this section concerns persons reasonably 
     believed to be located outside the United States, and such 
     procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to 
     section 105C of this Act;
       ``(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic 
     surveillance;
       ``(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign 
     intelligence information from or with the assistance of a 
     communications service provider, custodian, or other person 
     (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified 
     person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) 
     who has access to communications, either as they are 
     transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is 
     being or may be used to transmit or store such 
     communications;
       ``(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain 
     foreign intelligence information; and
       ``(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect 
     to such acquisition activity meet the definition of 
     minimization procedures under section 101(h).
       ``This determination shall be in the form of a written 
     certification, under oath, supported as appropriate by 
     affidavit of appropriate officials in the national security 
     field occupying positions appointed by the President, by and 
     with the consent of the Senate, or the Head of any Agency of 
     the Intelligence Community, unless immediate action by the 
     Government is required and time does not permit the 
     preparation of a certification. In such a case, the 
     determination of the Director of National Intelligence and 
     the Attorney General shall be reduced to a certification as 
     soon as possible but in no event more than 72 hours after the 
     determination is made.
       ``(b) A certification under subsection (a) is not required 
     to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or 
     property at which the acquisition of foreign intelligence 
     information will be directed.
       ``(c) The Attorney General shall transmit as soon as 
     practicable under seal to the court established under section 
     103(a) a copy of a certification made under subsection (a). 
     Such certification shall be maintained under security 
     measures established by the Chief Justice of the United 
     States and the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed 
     unless the certification is necessary to determine the 
     legality of the acquisition under section 105B.
       ``(d) An acquisition under this section may be conducted 
     only in accordance with the certification of the Director of 
     National Intelligence and the Attorney General, or their oral 
     instructions if time does not permit the preparation of a 
     certification, and the minimization procedures adopted by the 
     Attorney General. The Director of National Intelligence and 
     the Attorney General shall assess compliance with such 
     procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate under section 108(a).
       ``(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition 
     under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and 
     Attorney General may direct a person to--
       ``(1) immediately provide the Government with all 
     information, facilities, and assistance necessary to 
     accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect 
     the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of 
     interference with the services that such person is providing 
     to the target; and
       ``(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the 
     Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence 
     any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished 
     that such person wishes to maintain.
       ``(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing 
     rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or 
     assistance pursuant to subsection (e).
       ``(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive 
     issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may 
     invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) 
     to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall 
     issue an order requiring the person to comply with the 
     directive if it finds that the directive was issued in 
     accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. 
     Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as contempt of court. Any process under this section 
     may be served in any judicial district in which the person 
     may be found.
       ``(h)(1)(A) A person receiving a directive issued pursuant 
     to subsection (e) may challenge the legality of that 
     directive by filing a petition with the pool established 
     under section 103(e)(1).
       ``(B) The presiding judge designated pursuant to section 
     103(b) shall assign a petition filed under subparagraph (A) 
     to one of the judges serving in the pool established by 
     section 103(e)(1). Not later than 48 hours after the 
     assignment of such petition, the assigned judge shall conduct 
     an initial review of the directive. If the assigned judge 
     determines that the petition is frivolous, the assigned judge 
     shall immediately deny the petition and affirm the directive 
     or any part of the directive that is the subject of the 
     petition. If the assigned judge determines the petition is 
     not frivolous, the assigned judge shall, within 72 hours, 
     consider the petition in accordance with the procedures 
     established under section 103(e)(2) and provide a written 
     statement for the record of the reasons for any determination 
     under this subsection.
       ``(2) A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside 
     a directive may grant such petition only if the judge finds 
     that such directive does not meet the requirements of this 
     section or is otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not 
     modify or set aside the directive, the judge shall 
     immediately affirm such directive, and order the recipient to 
     comply with such directive.
       ``(3) Any directive not explicitly modified or set aside 
     under this subsection shall remain in full effect.
       ``(i) The Government or a person receiving a directive 
     reviewed pursuant to subsection (h) may file a petition with 
     the Court of Review established under section 103(b) for 
     review of the decision issued pursuant to subsection (h) not 
     later than 7 days after the issuance of such decision. Such 
     court of review shall have jurisdiction to consider such 
     petitions and shall provide for the record a written 
     statement of the reasons for its decision. On petition for a 
     writ of certiorari by the Government or any person receiving 
     such directive, the record shall be transmitted under seal to 
     the Supreme Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review 
     such decision.
       ``(j) Judicial proceedings under this section shall be 
     concluded as expeditiously as possible. The record of 
     proceedings, including petitions filed, orders granted, and 
     statements of reasons for decision, shall be maintained under 
     security measures established by the Chief Justice of the 
     United States, in consultation with the Attorney General and 
     the Director of National Intelligence.
       ``(k) All petitions under this section shall be filed under 
     seal. In any proceedings under this section, the court shall, 
     upon request of the Government, review ex parte and in camera 
     any Government submission, or portions of a submission, which 
     may include classified information.
       ``(l) Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action 
     shall lie in any court against any person for providing any 
     information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a 
     directive under this section.
       ``(m) A directive made or an order granted under this 
     section shall be retained for a period of not less than 10 
     years from the date on which such directive or such order is 
     made.''.

     SEC. 3. SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF 
                   PROCEDURES.

       The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     105B the following:


               ``SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW OF PROCEDURES

       ``Sec. 105C.  (a) No later than 120 days after the 
     effective date of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit 
     to the Court established under section 103(a), the procedures 
     by which the Government determines that acquisitions 
     conducted pursuant to section

[[Page 23236]]

     105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The 
     procedures submitted pursuant to this section shall be 
     updated and submitted to the Court on an annual basis.
       ``(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of 
     this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall 
     assess the Government's determination under section 
     105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to 
     ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B 
     do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review 
     shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is 
     clearly erroneous.
       ``(c) If the court concludes that the determination is not 
     clearly erroneous, it shall enter an order approving the 
     continued use of such procedures. If the court concludes that 
     the determination is clearly erroneous, it shall issue an 
     order directing the Government to submit new procedures 
     within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under section 105B 
     that are implicated by the court's order.
       ``(d) The Government may appeal any order issued under 
     subsection (c) to the court established under section 103(b). 
     If such court determines that the order was properly entered, 
     the court shall immediately provide for the record a written 
     statement of each reason for its decision, and, on petition 
     of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record 
     shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such 
     decision. Any acquisitions affected by the order issued under 
     subsection (c) of this section may continue during the 
     pendency of any appeal, the period during which a petition 
     for writ of certiorari may be pending, and any review by the 
     Supreme Court of the United States.''.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING TO CONGRESS.

       On a semi-annual basis the Attorney General shall inform 
     the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives, concerning acquisitions under this section 
     during the previous 6-month period. Each report made under 
     this section shall include--
       (1) a description of any incidents of non-compliance with a 
     directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of 
     National Intelligence under section 105B, to include--
       (A) incidents of non-compliance by an element of the 
     Intelligence Community with guidelines or procedures 
     established for determining that the acquisition of foreign 
     intelligence authorized by the Attorney General and Director 
     of National Intelligence concerns persons reasonably to be 
     outside the United States; and
       (B) incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to 
     whom the Attorney General and Director of National 
     Intelligence issue a directive under this section; and
       (2) the number of certifications and directives issued 
     during the reporting period.

     SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 103(e) of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``501(f)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``105B(h) or 501(f)(1)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``501(f)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``105B(h) or 501(f)(1)''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
     (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 105 the following:

``105A. Clarification of electronic surveillance of persons outside the 
              United States.
``105B. Additional procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions 
              concerning persons located outside the United States.
``105C. Submission to court review of procedures.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided, the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect immediately 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Transition Procedures.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, any order in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act issued pursuant to the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.) shall remain in effect until the date of expiration of 
     such order, and, at the request of the applicant, the court 
     established under section 103(a) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1803(a)) shall reauthorize such order as long as the facts 
     and circumstances continue to justify issuance of such order 
     under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act of 1978, as in effect on the day before the applicable 
     effective date of this Act. The Government also may file new 
     applications, and the court established under section 103(a) 
     of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall enter orders granting such applications 
     pursuant to such Act, as long as the application meets the 
     requirements set forth under the provisions of such Act as in 
     effect on the day before the effective date of this Act. At 
     the request of the applicant, the court established under 
     section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)), shall extinguish any extant 
     authorization to conduct electronic surveillance or physical 
     search entered pursuant to such Act. Any surveillance 
     conducted pursuant to an order entered under this subsection 
     shall be subject to the provisions of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.), as in effect on the day before the effective date of 
     this Act.
       (c) Sunset.--Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 
     2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this 
     Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Authorizations in Effect.--Authorizations for the 
     acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to 
     the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued 
     pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until 
     their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the 
     applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be 
     deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is 
     defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we bring up tonight the bill that was passed on the 
Senate side, S. 1927. Although this bill, in my opinion, is not the 
ideal bill, I think it is important that all of us understand that 
under the current situation that our country faces with the threat 
level being high, it is very important that we do everything that we 
can to keep the American people safe, to reassure people that this 
Congress is going to do everything it can to provide the administration 
the tools to keep us safe and secure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1927, the Protect America Act of 2007. We 
are a Nation at war with foreign terrorists who are plotting deadly 
attacks. Al Qaeda recently released a video promising a big surprise in 
the near future. Yesterday, the Senate passed this national security 
bill, and the Senate got it right. It is time for the House to do the 
same.
  This morning, the President called on the House to pass this critical 
bill, stating, ``Protecting America is our most solemn obligation, and 
I urge the House to pass this bill without delay.''
  Mr. Speaker, last night we wasted valuable time considering a bill on 
the same subject strongly opposed by the Director of National 
Intelligence. But that debate did serve a purpose. Now we know where 
the majority of the majority stands. Ninety percent of the majority 
voted to deny the Director of National Intelligence what he said he 
needs to prevent future terrorist attacks.
  The majority claimed that its legislation fixed the problem, knowing 
that the Director had publicly opposed the bill because it would not 
allow him to carry out his responsibility of protecting the Nation, 
especially in our heightened threat environment.
  In the 30 years since Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, telecommunications technology has dramatically 
changed. As a result, the intelligence community is hampered in 
gathering essential information about terrorists needed to prevent 
attacks against America. Congress must modernize FISA to address this 
problem.
  The bill, one, clarifies well-established law that neither the 
Constitution nor Federal law requires a court order to gather foreign 
communications from foreign terrorists; two, adopts flexible procedures 
to collect foreign intelligence from foreign terrorists overseas; 
three, provides court review of collection procedures for this new 
authority; and, four, requires semiannual reports to Congress on the 
use of this new authority.

[[Page 23237]]

  Unlike the majority's proposal from last night, this bill does not 
impose unworkable, bureaucratic requirements that would burden the 
intelligence community. Regrettably, the Protect America Act includes a 
180-day sunset, but terrorists do not sunset their plots to kill 
Americans, so Congress must enact a permanent change in our laws.
  Mr. Speaker, last April, the Director submitted to Congress a 
comprehensive proposal to modernize FISA. That proposal already should 
have been approved. Congress must enact the Director's proposals from 
April to give the intelligence community the additional tools they need 
to keep our country safe.
  As we approach the sixth anniversary of the devastating 9/11 attacks, 
it is critical that we remain vigilant in our war against terrorism. 
President George Washington once said: ``There is nothing so likely to 
produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.'' Heeding his 
words, we must maintain our commitment to winning the war against 
terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this bill goes far beyond 
what is necessary and what was agreed to by the Director of National 
Intelligence. All of us agree that foreign-to-foreign communications 
need to be available for surveillance. However, this bill would grant 
the Attorney General the ability to wiretap anybody, anyplace, anytime, 
without court review, without any checks and balances.
  I think that this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply 
eviscerate the fourth amendment that protects the privacy not of 
terrorists, but of Americans.
  I strongly oppose this warrantless surveillance measure. I realize 
that in a short period of time, months, we will have an opportunity to 
undo the damage that is going to be done here tonight, and I pledge to 
America that should this measure pass, I will give it my all to make 
sure that we reclaim the fourth amendment in a measure that gains a 
vote from Members of Congress and Senators who take their oath of 
allegiance to the Constitution more seriously than has happened to 
date.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am 
pleased to see this legislation on the floor this evening. I think it 
is critical that we pass this bill today, and many in the majority did 
too. I know it is not the bill that many of our friends on the other 
side would have liked to have had passed tonight, but I also know that 
they understand that there is a huge gap at this moment in the 
intelligence that we are watching, that we are gaining, that we are 
analyzing. This bill closes that gap.
  Earlier today would have been better to pass this bill. Three weeks 
ago would have been better to pass this bill. But I am grateful that we 
have a chance before Congress goes into a district work period for a 
month to get this critically important piece of legislation passed.
  Three weeks ago, we read the National Intelligence Estimate, if we 
wanted to take time to look at that estimate, and it was publicly 
stated during that estimate that our terrorist enemies were regrouping, 
that their communications had heightened, that their planning appears 
to be heightening; and we also understood at that time that we were not 
monitoring the communication that we knew we needed to be monitored 
because the law hadn't kept up with technology.
  This takes the 1978 law, it provides the same protection for 
Americans that they had in 1978 and 1988 and 1998. And now, as we 
approach 2008, it just simply lets us have the definitions of the law 
meet the technology of the time.
  The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have 
to have approval. That is a change, and it is an important change. This 
is no longer only one person in the executive branch, but two people, 
both of whom have both responsibilities and penalties if they don't 
make the right decision under the law.
  This monitors the communication of people who are initiating their 
communication in a foreign country. It protects Americans. That is why 
the FISA court was created. Americans are still protected under the 
FISA court, as they were under the technology of 1978.
  I am pleased to see this on the floor. I am glad that the majority 
has agreed with us, that while many of them don't like this piece of 
legislation, the gap was too big not to take the bill that could wind 
up most quickly now on the President's desk and pass it tonight.
  I urge my colleagues to support this, and I am grateful to my 
colleagues for seeing that this gap will not continue between now and 
Labor Day.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration has told us many things, from the 
beginning with the weapons of mass destruction, to different issues 
that have had us to the point to where we are tonight. We are here 
because we are concerned about the safety and well-being of this 
country. But a number of Members do believe that we have been told 
many, many things that have not been true.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the other body has not acted, in my opinion, this humble 
Member's opinion, in a way that warrants great respect of the American 
people. It has done not just violence to the fourth amendment and 
violence to our civil liberties; it has eviscerated them with the bill 
it has sent over here for action.
  The American people have a right to expect more from us. This is the 
Protect America Act of 2007. The American people expect to be protected 
and to be secure, not just against terrorists and other foreign 
threats, but also to be secure in the rights established in the 
Constitution of the United States, to know that we are standing up for 
the Constitution and fulfilling our pledge and our oath of office.
  This bill does not do this. It purports to provide security, but it 
certainly doesn't provide any protections for our constitutional rights 
and civil liberties. We should have done better, and we could do 
better.
  This administration took the Secretary of State and sent him to the 
U.N. on a mission which everyone ended up being ashamed of. Now they 
have sent the DNI, I fear, over here to make an agreement and find a 
bill that he can live with, under the premise that when he said he 
would, the President would sign it. Well, the conversations he had, he 
indicated that our bill strengthened the security of this country. But 
after a conversation with the White House, that was withdrawn, and now 
we end up with a bill that does not protect our civil liberties.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we can do better and we 
should do better. This bill starts off with the words ``notwithstanding 
any other law.'' That assumes that notwithstanding the Constitution, 
notwithstanding the fourth amendment, notwithstanding our civil 
liberties they are giving the authority to a President, a Director of 
National Intelligence, and an Attorney General, any Attorney General, 
to make decisions that should be made by a court, that should at least 
be reviewed by a court.
  We have provided in a Democratic alternative a way to secure that 
protection and the security of this country, while still protecting our 
rights. The White House saw an opportunity to roll over that into a 
bill that is going to be I think regretted by everyone in this Chamber 
if they pass it, and it should be regretted in the Senate for what they 
did.

                              {time}  2045

  We are not doing this country any favors. If we think we are going to 
correct this in 120 days, when you give up

[[Page 23238]]

your securities, when you give up your rights under the Constitution, 
it is not likely you are going to regain them.
  As somebody said earlier tonight, your civil liberties don't go in a 
loud noise and a clap of thunder and the curtain coming down; they go 
quietly with whispers and into the darkness. That is what is happening 
with this bill, Mr. Speaker. We will all regret it.
  We should pass a bill that secures this country, certainly and gives 
us all of the intelligence that needs to be intercepted, but we should 
do it in a way that doesn't sacrifice our civil liberties and the 
fourth amendment and our Constitution.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this bill coming to the 
floor. I do not think it is a travesty against our civil rights.
  Some people have some confusion, I think, over civil rights versus 
rights in a time of war. Believe it or not, and I think most of you 
should understand, we are in a war. We didn't know it in 1979 when war 
was declared against us, but we are at war. There are those in the 
world who believe that freedom and liberty necessarily leads to 
debauchery and degradation. Therefore, we must have a dictatorial, 
brutal leader, religious leader that tells us what we can and can't do. 
If you don't, then they have the right to cut off your head and destroy 
our way of life.
  Now we happen to believe when you declare war against us and you want 
to cut off our heads and destroy our way of life, then we have a right 
to protect ourselves. In criminal law, it is called self-defense, and 
that is an exception to some of the rights others may have. What some 
have confused, I think, is civil rights versus rights of those declare 
war against your way of life.
  This is not a bill that will allow surveilling American citizens on 
American soils. But the message is this: If you declare war on this 
country and you are a foreigner, we may just listen in on your 
conversations and you can be prepared for that. I have every confidence 
because of the oversight that will be coming with Chairman Conyers and 
the reports that are required in this bill, if they are not 
forthcoming, I expect to see to people held accountable, and I know 
Chairman Conyers will make sure that happens. And hopefully some day, 
Chairman Smith will be doing the same thing.
  But the message, Mr. Speaker, is clear. You declare war on this 
Nation and you are in a foreign country, we may come after you and 
listen to what you have to say.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman 
of the Constitution Subcommittee in Judiciary, Jerry Nadler of New 
York, and I am happy to yield to him 2 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this dangerous and 
ill-considered legislation.
  Once again, this House is being stampeded by fear-mongering and 
deception into signing away our rights. If you trust this President and 
if you trust this dishonest Attorney General to exercise unfettered 
power to spy on Americans without any court supervision, then you 
should support this bill.
  If you still believe in the America our Founders, the Framers and 
every succeeding generation has fought and died for, then you must 
oppose this legislation.
  This bill is not what the Director of National Intelligence told us 
he needed. That was embodied in the bill that we considered last night 
and that we should be considering tonight, the House bill. We were told 
that we needed to fix the foreign-to-foreign intelligence. That bill 
fixed it.
  We were told we had to compel electronics companies to do what the 
government needs to do on properly authorized surveillance. That bill 
did it. The Director of National Intelligence told us we had to deal 
with all foreign intelligence, we had to deal with recurring 
communications into the United States from foreign targets. That bill 
did it. That bill dealt with everything we were told was necessary for 
national security.
  This bill is what Karl Rove and his political operatives in the White 
House decided they need to win elections. That is not national 
security, that is political warfare.
  I do not believe we will soon be able to undo this damage. Rights 
given away are not easily regained. This bill is not needed to protect 
America from terrorists. . . .
  We should stand up for America. We should stand up for our freedoms. 
We should stand up for our security. We should reject this bill so we 
can go and do the right thing and pass the bill that we had on the 
floor last night that did everything necessary for our national 
security. It gave us all the right to do the wiretapping and the 
surveillance we need. We should all be willing to stay here as long as 
it takes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has alleged illegal acts by the 
President's administration in his speech. I ask that those words be 
taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of our getting home at some 
reasonable hour, I will be happy to withdraw the truthful and accurate 
statements I made a moment ago.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. ISSA. The gentleman asked to withdraw the what statements? I 
couldn't quite hear it.
  Mr. NADLER. Accurate statement I made a moment ago.
  Mr. ISSA. No, he is not withdrawing them if he claims they are 
accurate. They are inaccurate.
  Mr. NADLER. I am withdrawing them.
  Mr. ISSA. Is the gentleman withdrawing them without any other 
reservation?
  Mr. NADLER. I withdraw them without any reservations; but I retain my 
opinion.
  Mr. ISSA. That's fair. Thank you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) who is a member of the Judiciary Committee 
and ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, 9/11 is the ultimate reminder of 
the countless innocent American lives at stake when we miss critical or 
e-mail communications between foreign terrorists in foreign countries. 
If our national intelligence community is to effectively anticipate 
future threats, it must be allowed to keep up with the rapidly evolving 
world of telecommunications technology.
  Mr. Speaker, last night in this House, Democrats chose to blatantly 
disregard the appeals of both the Director of National Intelligence as 
well as those of the FISA courts who have pleaded for a modernization 
of the system in order to reduce the needless burden of FISA court 
orders for foreign terrorist surveillance.
  Instead, Democrat Members passed a bill that only further immobilizes 
our outdated foreign intelligence system.
  Mr. Speaker, whether or not liberal Democrats acknowledge the threat 
that we face, that threat is very real, as terrorists themselves 
continue to remind us. Al-Manar recently said on BBC: ``Let the entire 
world hear me. Our hostility to the great Satan [America] is absolute . 
. . Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, death 
to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to 
America.''
  Mr. Speaker, tonight is the last opportunity before leaving 
Washington for Members of this House to address the imminent 
possibility of a terrorist attack by effectively modernizing our FISA 
regulations to provide for the defense of the American people.
  One thing is absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker: Al Qaeda will not rest 
when this body adjourns for the August recess. If we do not address the 
critical loopholes in our foreign surveillance system tonight, our 
children may some day face nuclear jihad, perhaps even in

[[Page 23239]]

this generation. And what we will tell them, Mr. Speaker, when they 
look back on this day and condemn this generation for unspeakable 
irresponsibility in the face of such an obvious threat to human peace. 
We must pass this critical bill.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chair of the Select 
Intelligence Oversight Appropriations panel, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, this tonight is about how our government 
treats its people. One of the characteristics of oppressive governments 
that we detest throughout history is that they spy on their own people. 
The chilling intrusion into people's lives, effects, and relationships 
must be controlled even if the government officers think that the 
intrusion is necessary to preserve safety, security and order. Indeed, 
civil protections are necessary, especially if the government says they 
are trying to protect safety, security and order.
  Courts must establish that there is a probable cause to believe an 
American is a threat to society, and it must be the courts, not the 
Attorney General, not the Director of National Intelligence, who 
determine that the standard is being met.
  Let me correct some points. There is not a huge gap. FISA is not 
broken. Do not believe these scare tactics. Legislation should not be 
passed to respond to fear-mongering. Of course, we need good 
intelligence to protect Americans, but we are being asked to enter a 
``just trust us'' form of legislation. Just trust an Attorney General 
who has provided demonstrably false or misleading testimony before 
Congress on this very issue. We are being asked to just trust this 
Attorney General with unlimited authority to authorize spying on 
Americans through this legislation without oversight of the courts, 
even after his own Inspector General has revealed massive abuses of 
civil liberties through his department's unchecked use of national 
security letters.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize this for the historic importance it 
has and vote down this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, when our foreign wiretap law was enacted in 
1978, telephones were plugged into a wall, cell phones did not exist, 
and no one had heard of e-mail. Bin Laden was in college and Zawahiri 
was in medical school.
  Today, these men are now responsible for the murder of 3,000 
Americans. They attacked the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and nearly 
sunk the USS Cole.
  They talk to each other now with cell phones, satellite phones, e-
mail and Internet chat. While they have changed their communications, 
our law has not.
  As a currently serving Naval intelligence officer, I am not just a 
Congressman, I am also a customer of these programs. Serving on the 
House Foreign Operations Subcommittee, we watch foreign matters 
closely.
  And look at the issues we will deal with just in August: A reactor 
shutdown in North Korea; the Hamas takeover of Gaza; Venezuelan arms 
purchases from Iran; a war in Iraq; a war in Afghanistan, the rise of 
the Taliban in Pakistan; narcotraffickers in Colombia; genocide in 
Darfur. That is just this month's list.
  The bipartisan bill passed by over 60 votes in the Senate. It will 
help us learn more about dangers. It doesn't just protect the rights of 
Americans. It will protect the lives of Americans.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a valued member of our committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I do applaud him for his 
consistent and impeccable commitment to civil liberties and civil 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration has the law to protect the American 
people. Let no one come to this floor and suggest that what we are 
doing tonight is going to save lives because last night we passed 
legislation that indicated that foreign-to-foreign communication had no 
barriers, no barriers for those who are seeking intelligence.
  Yet when an American was involved, the Bill of Rights, the fourth 
amendment, civil liberties with the underpinnings, and therefore a 
court intervened.

                              {time}  2100

  Homeland security is not a Republican issue. It is an issue for all 
Americans--all of us. Not one of us who sang ``God Bless America'' on 
the steps of this House will allow anyone to undermine the security of 
America.
  The legislation last night offered by the Majority gave the 
Administration everything that they needed, but what we're doing here 
tonight, we are shredding the Constitution. We are tearing up the Bill 
of Rights because we are telling Americans that no matter what your 
business is, you are subject to the unscrupulous, undisciplined, 
irresponsible scrutiny of the Attorney General and others without court 
intervention.
  This is not the day to play politics. It is to important to balance 
civil liberties along with the homeland security and the protection 
needs of America. I feel confident that the House FISA Bill does do 
that.
  Shame on the other body for failing to recognize that we can secure 
America by securing the American people with fair security laws and by 
giving them their civil liberties.
  I would ask my colleagues to defeat this so that we can go back to 
the bill that protects the civil liberties of Americans and provides 
homeland security. I ask my colleagues to support the Bill of Rights 
and National Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S. 1927. Had the 
Bush administration and the Republican-dominated 109th Congress acted 
more responsibly in the two preceding years, we would not be in the 
position of debating legislation that has such a profound impact on the 
national security and on American values and civil liberties in the 
crush of exigent circumstances. More often that not, it is true as the 
saying goes that haste makes waste.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is intended to fill a gap in 
the Nation's intelligence gathering capabilities identified by Director 
of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, by amending the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. But in reality it eviscerates the 
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and represents an unwarranted 
transfer of power from the courts to the Executive Branch and a Justice 
Department led by an Attorney General whose reputation for candor and 
integrity is, to put it charitably, subject to considerable doubt.
  Mr. 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 or 
substantially amended. But given the claimed exigent circumstances by 
the administration, let me briefly discuss some of the changes to FISA 
I am prepared to support on a temporary basis, not to exceed 120 days.
  First, I am prepared to accept temporarily obviating the need to 
obtain a court order for foreign-to-foreign communications that pass 
through the United States. But I do insist upon individual warrants, 
based on probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the 
United States. 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. There should be an initial 
15-day emergency authority so that international surveillance can begin 
while the warrants are being considered by the Court. And there must 
also be congressional oversight, requiring the Department of Justice 
Inspector General to conduct an audit every 60 days of U.S. person 
communications intercepted under these warrants, to be submitted to the 
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. Finally, as I have stated, this 
authority must be of short duration and must expire by its terms in 120 
days.
  In all candor, Mr. 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 nothing on the public record 
about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the 
trustworthiness of this Administration, to indicate

[[Page 23240]]

that they require any legislative response, other than to reaffirm the 
exclusivity of FISA and insist that it be followed. This could have 
been accomplished in the 109th Congress by passing H.R. 5371, the 
``Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by 
NSA Act,'' LISTEN Act,'' which I have co-sponsored with the then 
Ranking Members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. 
Conyers and Ms. Harman.
  The Bush administration has not complied 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.
  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.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is not necessary. The bill 
which a majority of the House voted to pass last night is more than 
sufficient to address the intelligence gathering deficiency identified 
by Director McConnell. That bill, H.R. 3356, provided ample amount of 
congressional authorization needed to ensure that our intelligence 
professionals have the tools that they need to protect our Nation, 
while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding Americans. That is 
why I supported H.R. 3356, but cannot support S. 1927. I encourage my 
colleagues to join me in voting against the unwise and ill-considered 
S. 1927.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who's a member of the 
Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, after listening to my friend from Texas, with whom I 
serve on two committees, I just must say that I'm sure she misspoke 
when she said that we passed a bill on the floor yesterday that would 
have done all those things. If the gentlelady will recall, it failed on 
the floor because it was under suspension, and that recollection is 
about as accurate as the description of the bill before us that I've 
heard from the other side.
  I am disappointed to hear the rhetoric on this floor that scares the 
American people into believing that somehow we're tearing up the 
Constitution.
  The fact of the matter is in 1978, when we passed the original 
version of FISA, we exempted from its consideration our capture of 
foreign conversations involving someone in a foreign country. The 
technology that was used at that time is different than the technology 
now, and what we are doing with this bill is making the law compatible 
with current technology.
  What is that section of the bill that we've heard our colleagues on 
the other side get so upset about? It is this section, section 105(a): 
Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 
101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a 
person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.
  And what the Director of National Intelligence has told us is the 
interpretation of current law forbids him to do that to a large extent. 
Now, we can spend hours on the floor explaining why, but that's the 
fact. He was not here trying to scare us. I am amazed that some of my 
friends on the other side would suggest that Admiral McConnell, with 
his distinguished career of service, 40 years as mentioned by the 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, serving under Presidents 
Democrat and Republican, would be involved in scare tactics. He came to 
us and told us we need this because America is blinded in a significant 
degree by current law.
  If, in the capture of this information, we do come into contact with 
communication that involves someone in the United States, an American 
citizen, we go through a process called minimization, which means we 
get it out of there if it has nothing to do with the evil actor. We get 
rid of it, as we've done for 50 years in the criminal justice system, 
28 years under FISA.
  But if, in fact, that individual is someone who is involved in 
terrorism, a reasonable suspicion that that is the case, then we get a 
warrant. Not only do we do that and maintain that in this bill, we beef 
up the minimization process, and we beef up the oversight, and we allow 
the FISA court to look at it and to approve it and to audit it, and in 
addition, we require reports to the committees of the House and the 
Senate.
  How that is tearing up the Constitution I do not know unless you 
haven't read the Constitution, unless you haven't read the history of 
FISA, unless you haven't read the means by which we have extracted 
communications around the world.
  All this does is bring the law up to present-day technology. It does 
nothing to tear up the Constitution. And please, talk about fear-
mongering, to stand on this floor and say that this allows the Attorney 
General or anybody else in the Federal Government to listen in to any 
conversation you have is absolutely untrue. No one should believe that. 
It hasn't been done in the past. It's not being done now. This law does 
nothing but bring us up to present-day technology.
  If you will look at the original FISA law, you will see that it 
specifically exempts from the definition of electronic communications 
these kinds of communications, but they used to be carried in a 
different way, and we captured them in a different way. We just want to 
capture them now under the technology that is currently used in the 
world. That's all we're doing; nothing more, nothing less.
  Let's not involve ourselves in fear tactics, scare tactics on the 
floor and suggest to the American people something which is occurring 
which has not, is not, and will not and cannot be done under this bill.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are going to 
decide for themselves when they read the text of this bill.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California, a valued member 
of our committee, Ms. Eshoo.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House 
Intelligence Committee.
  In listening to my colleague from California, he talked about 
technology, and I think I know something about it. I represent the 
place, Silicon Valley, which is the home of innovation and technology 
for our Nation and the world, but this isn't just a matter of how. This 
is a matter of who, of who.
  Now, for the American people that are tuned in, what is this debate 
about? We all know that there are sworn enemies of our country. There 
are those that would do us harm and do us in, and every President of 
the United States deserves the best intelligence. We take an oath to 
protect our country and also to protect our Constitution.
  So where's the dispute here? The dispute is that this bill allows the 
Attorney General, without any legal framework, when someone from 
outside the country calls, our government can monitor you, and we are 
saying that this is an abrogation of rights that we have.
  This side, what we have fought for all along is to protect our 
country, protect our Constitution and have a legal framework. This is 
the administration that had to acknowledge that they were operating 
outside the law. This is the Attorney General that has disgraced 
himself, his office and the department with how he has conducted 
himself. Most frankly, this should not be a matter of trust of 
individuals. This should be a matter of legal framework, a matter of 
law, and this bill does not accomplish it.

[[Page 23241]]


  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Michigan has 9\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Michigan has 15.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of 
the committee, Mr. Issa of California.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I want to lower the tone and the rhetoric for 
just a moment and in 2 minutes give the American people and the body 
here the opportunity to reflect on what we're really doing here 
tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I travel throughout the Arab world regularly. People in 
that area of the world are more afraid of Islamic terrorism than any 
American here tonight. They count on us to be their eyes and ears. Most 
of those countries do not have the resources we have.
  So when they hear tonight that we don't want a foreign terrorist who 
calls into a cell in the U.S. to be listened to, they're shocked. 
They're shocked that we wouldn't at least listen to the foreign side of 
the operation or see the e-mail, and if the President doesn't sign this 
by tomorrow, there will be plenty of terrorists who will take note of 
this because they didn't think, in fact, we weren't able to listen to 
foreign callers who are calling in to their terrorist cells.
  Mr. Speaker, oddly enough, September 11 is a story of exactly this, 
that we were not listening to Osama bin Laden. We were not monitoring 
Osama bin Laden's instructions to his cells as they went back and forth 
into the U.S. and even into my home of San Diego.
  Mr. Speaker, what's amazing to me here tonight is that we're arguing 
as though we're changing the Constitution arbitrarily. Mr. Speaker, 
what we're doing is passing a stopgap 6-month, I repeat, 6-month bill. 
This thing sunsets in 6 months. One of those months, everybody here 
will be out on vacation or in their districts doing town hall meetings.
  The fact is that only 5 months will remain when we come back from the 
August recess to work further on refinements on a lasting bill.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would close by saying, if people would understand, 
that really what we're doing is we're simply buying the ability to 
leave town and letting our allies and the American people know that 
they can sleep safely tonight. I urge you to take this compromise 
bipartisan bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to continue the 
discussion raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren) because he doesn't think that we're having constitutional 
problems that are legitimate over here.
  Now, he's been on both committees, so he knows that the FISA experts 
call reverse targeting the ability of the Attorney General to conduct 
surveillance on every American's calls with people abroad, with or 
without probable cause or warrant just by characterizing the 
surveillance as concerning persons abroad. He can claim that the target 
is abroad, but the real target is an American citizen in New York who 
is on the line, and this is called reverse targeting.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, simply just to answer this 
distinguished chairman and friend and distinguished colleague from 
Michigan, reverse targeting is not in this bill. It is not in this 
bill.
  When I was a young FBI agent, this whole thing started a lot 
differently. We had to target the phone. We didn't target the 
individual. We targeted the phone. So we had to develop a probable 
cause case on the phone that an individual was using, that phone, that 
bit of copper wire, to further a criminal enterprise and have criminal 
discussions. Think about how long ago that was and how the world has 
changed. And the big thing for us, by the way, was to get a pay phone, 
where they would change pay phones because they were trying to outsmart 
us. They'd go to one pay phone and go to the other one, and if we 
didn't have a warrant on that other pay phone, couldn't listen to them 
even though we knew what the heck they were doing on that phone. We had 
to go back to the court, develop probable cause on that particular 
phone. You can see how technology even then started to get ahead of us 
a little bit.
  Then we realized in America we got really smart and we said, hey, 
wait a minute, it's not the phone that's the criminal. It's the bad 
guy. Let's target the bad guy. So, if he goes to phone A or phone B or 
phone C, it shouldn't matter. We know that he's the bad guy using those 
instruments to further their criminal enterprise.
  That's what we did, and we all did, and you did that. When I was an 
agent, you passed those laws and they were good. They were good laws 
and they helped us keep abreast of technology and changes and changing 
in criminal activity.
  Think about today, prepaid phones. If I'm a terrorist, I buy a 
thousand of them. I don't ever use the same phone again. It means we 
have to be that much better.
  And what this bill does, what the bill yesterday did not do, is make 
it technology neutral. Everyone got up last night and said this is 
about foreign-to-foreign. We don't care about that, but the bill and 
the language as it was written did, and it put technology in there. So 
now you had some FBI agent trying to figure out how do I catch this 
guy, because not that I don't know he's a bad guy and I can prove it to 
the judge, but because of the kind of technology he's using.
  It took us right back into the 1970s and 1980s when we had to scratch 
our head and we came to Congress and said don't do that to us.
  Yesterday, you're saying we're going to do it to you again, and it's 
wrong. And I guess I'm so disappointed. I know you hate the Attorney 
General and I know you hate the President of the United States, but 
don't you love soldiers? Don't you love people who are risking their 
lives to catch terrorists? Of course you do, and I know you do.

                              {time}  2115

  This bill helps us protect them so they can protect us. Right now 
there are billions, and I mean billions of conversations and 
communications every single day, and I mean billions. There is nothing 
in this bill that circumvents a United States citizen's right to the 
fourth amendment protections, nothing, nothing. It protects them.
  What we are trying to say is, let us, let the intelligence community 
go overseas.
  May I have an additional 30 seconds?
  This bill is an important step to protect us to bring technology to 
the point where we don't make agents and officers worry about foreign-
to-foreign communications between terrorists we ought to be listening 
to. The court should not be involved. America believes it. I know my 
colleagues believe it too.
  Pass this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair assumed that the gentleman yielded 
an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. No, I did not yield an additional 30 seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is corrected.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. The gentleman appreciates the generosity of the Chair.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, don't worry, they snooker us all the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it's now my privilege to yield to the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Let me assure the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), 
and everyone in the House, that I do not hate the Attorney General, and 
I do not hate the President of the United States. I disagree strongly 
with what they are doing and doing to the Constitution, but I do not 
hate them. I just want the Record to show that.
  I am offended by the gentleman suggesting this on the floor of the 
House.
  Secondly, I was advised by my friend from California that reverse 
targeting isn't in the bill, so we don't have to worry about it. Well, 
of course it isn't in the bill. If they did that, you would be over 
here arguing the same thing I am.

[[Page 23242]]

  But what is in the bill at section 105(a) is, nothing in the 
definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be 
construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably 
believed to be located outside of the United States.
  There is your reverse targeting that is in this bill. They didn't 
name it that way, but I think we can read the English language 
sufficiently.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is in order, but I 
would like to ask unanimous consent, recognizing the generosity of the 
Chair to this side, that my colleague from the State of Michigan also 
be given an additional 30 seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I rise in perhaps reluctant support of the measure 
tonight. I rise reluctantly because I supported a lot of the Democrat 
proposal yesterday, save one piece. I didn't believe that FISA should 
be inserted where it hasn't been inserted already, but I do believe 
FISA should govern foreign surveillance when it comes in contact with 
an American.
  I am troubled that this legislation does not have language which 
would allow the Inspector General to actually report to Congress. 
That's how we learned that there were abuses going on in the national 
security letter division or department. But I am convinced by the 
testimony that I have heard, the briefings that I have gone to, that we 
do need to move forward.
  I see this as an interim measure and hope to come back in 180 days 
and put in additional protections. But in the meantime, feel that we do 
need to move forward and we need the make sure that we are catching the 
intelligence that we need to.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this is not the United Nations of Alberto 
Gonzales, it is the United States of America.
  In America, we do not allow Alberto Gonzales to listen to our phone 
conversations while we are sitting in our living room talking to our 
daughter anywhere in the world without judicial review, and that's what 
this bill does.
  In America, we do not allow Alberto Gonzales to intercept our e-mail 
conversations to our business partners anywhere in the world without 
some kind of judicial review. In America, we have that concept because 
we understand people who can make mistakes.
  I base my principle on fundamental tenet that the Americans trust the 
United States Constitution more than they trust Alberto Gonzales. What 
Benjamin Franklin said still holds true, those who would give up 
essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither 
liberty and safety. He was right then. He is right now.
  Don't pass this bill. Come back and have something that allows 
surveillance with protections from our judicial system.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I remember after 
9/11 how there was a lot of finger pointing as to who made mistakes and 
who caused it, where was the intelligence community, where were our 
defenses?
  Isn't that what this is all about, trying to put in place mechanisms 
to ensure and to allow our intelligence community to stop another 
attack? Isn't this what it's all about to protect the American people 
and not to have so many police officers and firefighters rush into a 
burning and collapsing building?
  Just remember one thing. On 9/11, aside from a tragedy that occurred 
that day, about 3,000 kids lost a parent, 450 kids on Staten Island 
alone. Just think of how many missed birthdays there are, missed 
weddings, missed graduations, 3,000 kids lost a parent because of what 
happened on that day.
  Shouldn't we be standing united to ensure that not one more kid in 
this country loses their parents because some terrorist wants to blow 
up a building in this country? Shouldn't we err on the side of giving 
our folks the power to stop that?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Scott of Virginia, 
the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, an Homeland Security Subcommittee 
on Judiciary.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, last night we considered a bill that the Director of 
National Intelligence said provided everything we needed. We didn't 
pass that bill, and here we are today.
  This bill, unfortunately, does more than what's needed. It really 
lets the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to 
kind of use their imagination to decide when surveillance is 
appropriate without any meaningful review.
  This bill will allow warrantless collection of personal data, e-
mails, Internet usage, and allows the Attorney General and the Director 
of National Intelligence to do data mining, Internet usage monitoring, 
reading e-mails or otherwise acquiring information on every American, 
even domestic communications, as long as they determine that the 
surveillance is gathering foreign intelligence, that's not terrorism 
information, that's anything involving diplomacy, concerning someone 
abroad, not someone who is abroad. It could be a conversation, if the 
conversation concerns someone abroad. It's helpful just to read the 
language of the bill.
  Section 105(b)(a), notwithstanding any other law, the Director of 
National Intelligence and the Attorney General may, for periods of up 
to 1 year, authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence 
information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the 
United States if the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney 
General determine, based on information, so on and so forth, that, 
among other things, that the information that they are gathering is 
that a significant purpose is the acquisition of foreign intelligence, 
doesn't even have to be the main purpose, just a significant purpose.
  There is no meaningful oversight. They just have to determine that 
and put it in writing. Then they can listen in.
  In terms of the reverse targeting, the language that the gentleman 
used makes it clear that if they are talking to somebody outside, they 
can listen to someone domestically.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a valued member of 
the committee, Mr. Thornberry.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, just briefly to the gentleman from 
Virginia's point, the very next section on that page says this does not 
include electronic surveillance.
  The operative part of this bill is a short paragraph which 
essentially brings up the checks and balances that were originally in 
the 1978 FISA and brings it up to 2007 technology. That is what's going 
on here.
  Now, there are some people who do not agree with the checks and 
balances that were in the 1978 FISA. Some people think it went too far 
one way, some people think it went too far another way.
  This bill does not touch that. What it does is it just brings up 
those same checks and balances with the way we communicate today, and 
the way that technology has changed.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to emphasize what's going on 
here. Information is the critical element, which allows us to defend 
the country, which allows troops to operate in the field, which allows 
Homeland Security folks of all sorts to defend us against terrorism.
  We are not collecting, today, the information we were able to collect 
a short while ago. Most of us would agree, not all of us, but most of 
us would agree it's information we should be collecting from foreign 
targets in foreign countries. The heart of the problem is a law that 
has not kept up with technology.
  Now, there have been efforts for many months in this Chamber to try 
to

[[Page 23243]]

update that law. Last September, the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) had a bill which passed this House, which was a comprehensive 
bill, more than 40 pages, that tried to fix this law.
  Unfortunately, that did not get signed into law and the chairman of 
Intelligence Committee says that we are going to get back to that more 
comprehensive view. But while we are waiting for that, the danger 
persists, and the danger grows.
  Now we have a very small bill, just a few pages, that tries to close 
the gap between the intelligence we need to keep us safe and the 
intelligence we are getting. It doesn't do everything, it doesn't do 
nearly as much as I would like to do, but it does close the gap at a 
critical time.
  It's important, even with that limited bill, it's important to get 
the details right. That's why, for all of the talk we have heard about 
what the Director of National Intelligence has or has not said, the 
only thing we have in writing is the bill we considered last night did 
not enable him to do his job, but he says this bill will.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish passing this bill would guarantee we will not 
suffer another terrorist attack. It won't, but it will provide a 
significant step towards getting the information we need and the 
information that the troops in the field need. It's worth passing 
tonight.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the former speaker indicated that 
I didn't read the whole section where he said that acquisition does not 
constitute electronic surveillance. That's true, it doesn't include 
wiretap, but it does include searches, e-mail review, all kinds of data 
mining so long as it's not electronic surveillance.
  This is overly broad. It can happen in the United States so long as 
it concerns someone we reasonably believe to be outside of the United 
States. It doesn't even have to be the primary purpose of the search. 
It can be a significant purpose of the search.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the former 
ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for 
his steadfast protection of civil liberties in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, in June, I received the CIA Seal Medal, the Agency's 
highest civilian award. As one who lives and breathes security issues, 
this was a tremendous honor which I share with the courageous women and 
men of the intelligence community, serving in unaccompanied posts in 
austere locations around the world.
  I have visited them and thank them again for their bravery and 
selfless patriotism. Why do I mention this? Because the issue before us 
is fundamental to our efforts to track terrorists and to ensure that 
our freedoms and liberties are protected in the process.

                              {time}  2130

  Only a handful of us in this House are fully briefed on the Terrorist 
Surveillance Program, a program which gives those who implement it 
incredible tools to find people who would harm us or to engage in 
unprecedented violations of Americans' constitutional rights for 
improper, ideological, or political purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate-passed bill punts on the need for a clear 
legal framework, to check and balance unfettered executive power. In my 
view, we are drilling down to bedrock principle here, and sadly we in 
this House appear poised to repeat the Senate's mistake.
  We can track terrorist communications, and we must, but we must do 
this without starting down the slippery slope to potential 
unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy. This is our 
challenge, and work starts today on building the bipartisan support 
necessary to do a crucial course correction by the time this bill 
sunsets.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from 
New Mexico, who has been a champion on this issue and leading the 
effort to get us to where we are tonight, Mrs. Wilson.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for 
people to understand why we are here tonight. In April of this year, 
the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Mike McConnell, came to 
the Congress and said, we have a problem, and the only thing that can 
fix that problem is legislation. We have an intelligence gap. There are 
things that we should be listening to that we are missing. Over the 
intervening months, we came to discover that the gap was larger than 
any of us suspected.
  FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is frozen in time in 
1978. While it has been updated since then in some respects, the basic 
structure of treating wire communications differently than over-the-air 
communications is still there. In 1978, the phone was on the wall in 
the kitchen, and blackberries grew on bushes. Technology has changed, 
and we have not kept pace by changing the law.
  FISA was never intended to acquire warrants for foreigners in foreign 
countries just because the point of access was in the United States. 
And FISA court judges have told us and expressed frustration that they 
are spending so much of their time dealing with foreigners in foreign 
countries. We need to update this law.
  The bill before us would continue to require warrants on people in 
the United States. Let me say that again. The bill before us would 
continue to require warrants on people in the United States. It would 
stop requiring warrants on people reasonably believed to be outside of 
the United States.
  That is the problem.
  There are procedures in the bill that must be reviewed by the FISA 
court for compliance with the law and reasonableness. It has a 180-
sunset, which puts the obligation on us as a Congress to review the 
implementation of this law, to learn from that experience, to see if it 
works, and to monitor implementation.
  Now, we do not all agree in this House. That is very natural for our 
self-governing Republic. But on the floor tonight and yesterday, there 
are some Members who have questioned the integrity and the independence 
of the Director of National Intelligence. He is a retired admiral of 40 
years' service who has come back to take a job, at a considerable pay 
cut probably, to serve his country. And while it may not violate the 
rules of the House to question his integrity and his independence, 
those words do bring discredit to this House.
  The bill we have before us tonight got 60 votes in the United States 
Senate, 16 from Democrats. The Director of National Intelligence has 
told us that it will close the gap that must be closed to give our 
intelligence community the tools they need to keep us safe. I would ask 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this past week the Director of National 
Intelligence came before the Congress and told us that there was an 
important gap in our Nation's intelligence capabilities. So we 
responded swiftly, by crafting legislation tailored to concerns 
outlined by Director McConnell. We did what the Director of National 
Intelligence asked us to do: we drafted legislation that protected 
America.
  But we also did one thing that the administration did not ask us to 
do: we protected the Constitution; we protected civil liberties. 
Because we believe that you can both protect the Nation and the 
liberties upon which it was founded.
  Regrettably, that is not the legislation that is before you today. 
This bill undermines longstanding protections for the civil liberties 
of Americans. It sweeps aside constitutional norms that have governed 
the relationship between the people and the government since its 
founding. It puts all domestic spying power back in the hands of 
Alberto Gonzales. Now, that ought to scare everybody. It scares me. It 
makes FISA a rubber stamp for the Attorney General, and it fails to 
provide for adequate oversight of the activities that it authorizes.

[[Page 23244]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Senate bill that is before 
us tonight so that we can once again bring up the House bill that 
strikes a balance between protecting America from terrorists and 
preserving our civil liberties.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left 
for each of the three Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 1\3/4\ 
minutes; Mr. Conyers from Michigan has 5\1/4\ minutes; Mr. Reyes has 
3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a distinguished member of the 
Judiciary, for 1 minute.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, in North Carolina at 9:35 on a Saturday night, 
I doubt that there are any people who are worried about what this 
Congress is doing to their constitutional rights, and probably that is 
so for people throughout America. I doubt that many of them understand 
what a FISA court is. But what they do understand is they don't want to 
entrust their constitutional rights to the Attorney General Alberto 
Gonzales. They don't trust him, and rightfully so.
  So when Mr. Issa says that we worry about what the terrorists might 
be thinking tomorrow, I worry about what they might be thinking 
tonight, because they must be thinking: You know, we might have won the 
battle, because we have the United States reacting and giving up its 
constitutional rights.
  Vote against this bill.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of our 
committee, the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. This bill is an offense to the Constitution that we 
are sworn to protect. Let me tell you what we are voting on tonight.
  If we pass this bill, we are voting for the warrantless, that means 
no court order, warrantless surveillance of our phone calls, a 
warrantless collection of personal data, e-mails, and Internet usage, 
the evisceration of the power of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
court, and making it little more than a rubber stamp for Alberto 
Gonzales. Are these the principles our Nation was built on?
  Our Founding Fathers knew better.
  John Adams: ``A Constitution of government once changed from freedom 
can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.''
  We have Thomas Jefferson: ``I would rather be exposed to the 
inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too 
small a degree of it.''
  And, finally, Ben Franklin: ``They that can give up essential liberty 
to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor 
safety.''
  We can have liberty and safety. The House Democrats offered that 
plan. We should heed the word of our Founding Fathers and reject this 
legislation.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to yield to the gentleman 
from Tennessee, Mr. Steve Cohen, 1 minute.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I think it has well been addressed here the 
dangers that this side of the aisle and possibly some well-meaning 
folks on the other side of the aisle have about the encroachment on the 
Constitution that this bill will have. What it basically does is take 
judges out of the process. When we fear judges, we have got a real 
problem in this country, and from a court that routinely approves all 
requests made of it, the FISA court.
  On our walls enshrined forever are the words of Judge Lewis Brandeis 
in 1928. Judge Brandeis said: ``The greatest danger to liberty lurks in 
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without 
understanding.''
  The greatest danger to liberty lurks in insidious encroachment by men 
of zeal, well-meaning, without understanding. I am afraid in Attorney 
General Gonzales we have somebody without understanding and maybe not 
even well-meaning. And the problem is, he should resign, because he is 
jeopardizing the security of this country, because the people of this 
country and most of the Members of this Congress don't trust him with 
additional powers. He should resign.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Minnesota, Keith Ellison, 1 minute.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, the right of the people to be secure in 
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable 
searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue 
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and 
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or 
things to be seized.
  Mr. Speaker, I remind us of those words in our Constitution tonight, 
because I believe that this Senate bill has forgotten about them. I 
remind us of these words because, as I consider this bill before us 
today, the administration, this legislation would allow the NSA 
warrantless access virtually to all international communications of 
Americans with anyone outside the U.S., including Americans, as long as 
the government declared that the surveillance was directed at people 
which includes foreigners or citizens reasonably believed to be located 
outside the U.S., a definition which covers literally billions of 
people.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania who serves on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. 
Sestak.
  Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, through my 31 years in the military, I came 
to understand throughout this world how much we are respected for the 
power of our military, for the power of our economy, and admired for 
the power of our ideals.
  After I became head of the Navy's antiterrorism unit after 9/11, I 
came to truly understand the value of data mining facilitated by 
eavesdropping properly done. But I relearned the lesson I had learned 
at the White House as Director of Defense Policy, as intelligence 
officers came forward to the President, that seldom does one need a 
one-armed intelligence officer. In their gray world, it is often on the 
one hand, but on the other hand. Therefore, you often press for more 
intelligence. When I went into Afghanistan with the CIA and we had 
millions of dollars to buy loyalty on that ground, we wanted all the 
intelligence. But I know the FISA system, and that is giving to them 
the ability to give it.
  What we did is we met with my colleague from the Navy, Admiral 
McConnell. We facilitated the ease by which we could do this. The bill 
we voted on last night is the right bill. It gives the proper balance. 
It gives the ability to the President to come and do his intelligence 
seeking, even coming later if he must, to the FISA court.
  My concern is what Benjamin Franklin said: Those who give up liberty 
for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, Mr. 
Tiahrt.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding.
  This bill is a good bill and it is needed to fill the gap.
  I have heard a lot of hate for Attorney General Gonzales and the 
President tonight, but legislation should not be written based on one 
individual or two individuals.
  In 1995 the Republican majority didn't pass legislation because 
Attorney General Janet Reno took credit for the fiasco in Waco when 
more than 20 children were burned to death. We didn't write legislation 
because government agents shot to death a woman holding her child in 
Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Instead, we went ahead and did the right thing. And 
tonight, Attorney General Gonzales shouldn't have anything to do with 
the legislation we are going to pass because the leaks and the lawsuits 
that have occurred from liberal Democrats have placed this country in 
jeopardy.

[[Page 23245]]

  Do you realize we don't listen to the terrorist calls like we used 
to, we don't listen to e-mails or follow e-mails like we used to, we 
don't follow terrorist finances like we used to because of these leaks 
and lawsuits from liberal Democrats. But this legislation tonight will 
pass and it will fill the gap.
  If you don't pass this legislation, you will be responsible for any 
attacks that could occur on America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor). The Chair would advise Members 
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has 45 seconds 
remaining, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 45 seconds 
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has the right to 
close.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, we teach American children that we ought to 
protect both our safety and our privacy with equal vigor, and tonight 
we fail these children and we fail future generations.
  The Senate bill before us empowers the Attorney General to authorize 
surveillance. It empowers the Attorney General to develop the 
regulations guiding that surveillance. It empowers the Attorney General 
to audit the compliance with his own guidelines. This bill makes Albert 
Gonzales the sheriff, the judge, and the jury.
  Americans expect accountability, that their private lives remain 
private, and that their government is one they need not fear.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 1 
minute to the majority leader of the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, one of our 
most senior Members and a gentleman who is deeply committed to civil 
liberties and the protections being accorded that our Constitution 
guarantees to every citizen.
  I also want to thank Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, an individual who has been involved in law enforcement all 
of his life before coming to the Congress of the United States, who 
understands the necessity for constraints on those in power.
  We all understand as well the threat that confronts us from 
terrorism. And every Member of this body, without exception, wants to 
assure the safety and security of our homeland and of our people. Every 
Member of this body wants to assure that we have given to those in 
charge of protecting this country the tools necessary to accomplish 
that objective.
  Our Founding Fathers were convinced that if we worked hard at it and 
cooperatively, that we could accomplish both of those objectives.
  I want to congratulate Mr. Reyes and Mr. Conyers for working hard at 
this. I participated myself, as I have said the other day when we 
passed another bill, to accomplish what I believed was much better as 
far as both objectives.
  I believe that every Member in this House wants to protect America. 
Each of us will exercise our judgment when this vote comes on whether 
or not this bill is supportable given what I think is the failure to 
pay attention, as it should have, to the constitutional protections 
while focusing on the protections against terrorism and against those 
who would harm and undermine the interests of our country. I regret 
that.
  I spent time talking to Admiral McConnell. Roy Blunt, my friend, and 
I spent time talking to Admiral McConnell. We spent time reviewing the 
legislation. I believe that we could reach agreement. I will tell my 
friends here that I think if we had been dealing with Admiral 
McConnell, that we would have reached agreement. It became evident, 
however, that that was not the case. I say that candidly and 
disappointedly. It became obvious that we were dealing with the 
administration. There are many of us in this House who believe the 
administration has focused on the security interests, unfortunately to 
the exclusion too often of the constitutional requirements.
  I will be voting against this legislation, not because I don't want 
to give the tools to our security apparatus that I think they need, 
that I want them to have, that I think the American people expect us to 
make sure they have, but because I believe we have not reached the 
balance that our Founding Fathers expected.
  Now, there would be some on my side and many on the other side who 
will vote for this legislation. From my perspective, however, we have 
much work that remains to be done. Mr. Reyes, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. 
Hoekstra will be working very hard during the coming days to fashion 
permanent legislation.
  This legislation is for 6 months. And my plea to each one of us on 
this floor and to the administration is to work together to ensure that 
we protect both the American public from terrorists and, as our 
Founding Fathers expected our Constitution to do and as conservatives 
have always focused attention on, protecting our people from the 
excesses and abuse of those to whom we give power in this country. 
Because we have done that through the decades and centuries, our 
country is unique and respected for that protection of liberty and 
freedom.
  So I urge my colleagues, whatever the outcome on this floor tonight, 
as we proceed over the next few months, let us work together as 
Americans committed to both of those objectives.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a statement by the 
Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Mike McConnell, of August 3.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on crafting permanent 
legislation.

 Statement by the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Mike McConnell

       I have reviewed the proposal that the House of 
     Representatives is expected to vote on this afternoon to 
     modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House 
     proposal is unacceptable, and I strongly oppose it.
       The House proposal would not allow me to carry out my 
     responsibility to provide warning and to protect the Nation, 
     especially in our heightened threat environment.
       I urge Members of Congress to support the legislation I 
     provided last evening to modify FISA and to equip our 
     Intelligence Community with the tools we need to protect our 
     Nation.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
minority leader, Mr. Boehner.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we live in a dangerous world. If you 
have read the National Intelligence Report or if you have read reports 
of it, you understand the growth of al Qaeda not only in the Middle 
East but around the world. You have read about other organizations in 
other parts of the world, radical jihadist movements aimed at killing 
Americans and our allies both here and abroad.
  Our intelligence capabilities are the first line in our defense of 
providing safety and security to the American people and information to 
our troops around the world who are out there on the front lines being 
the beacons of hope and opportunity for those who live in very 
oppressed areas of the world.
  Today all of us know that we have a gap in our intelligence-gathering 
operations. I believe that the bill we defeated last night was the 
right move on behalf of the House because it would not have provided 
our intelligence agencies the tools they needed to protect the American 
people and to provide the information to help protect our troops and to 
give them the information they need to win the war against terrorists.
  I believe that the bill, crafted by our colleagues in the Senate in a 
bipartisan way, that we are dealing with here tonight does, in fact, 
give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to help keep 
Americans safe, to help provide the tools for our men and women around 
the world as they are out there doing their job to protect the American 
people and to win the war against terrorism.
  We all know there is an increased threat of terrorism here in our 
country. We all know that we are expected

[[Page 23246]]

to be more vigilant. Why should we tie the hands of our intelligence-
gathering capability at a time when we are facing an increasing threat?
  I believe that the bill we have here before us does give our agencies 
the tools they need. This bill is only for 6 months. Six months. We 
have a lot of work to do to modernize the underlying bill in order to 
put in place a system that allows us to collect the information we need 
while protecting the rights of the American people.
  We are dealing with the right bill tonight. It deserves the support 
of all of our Members, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to a 
distinguished member of our Judiciary Committee, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago, this body, 
during another congressional recess, debated and passed a bill that 
dealt with the right to privacy: the Terri Schiavo legislation. The 
Republican Congress shredded the right to privacy in the Constitution 
then, and many Members regretted their vote because they got home and 
faced their constituents that were aghast at what we had done.
  This bill is far worse because it treads on all Americans' civil 
liberties and their right to privacy. It allows warrantless wiretaps 
with no prior court review. It allows the government to spy on 
Americans without suspicion of their wrongdoing. It allows the 
government to force telecommunication companies to conduct the 
eavesdropping.
  We need to adopt a wiretap program that protects our constitutional 
rights. Do we trust this administration with respecting the privacy of 
Americans and not casting the widest net possible? When do we say 
``this far and no farther''?
  Voting for this bill lets the terrorists win. It lets them force us 
to choke off our citizens' rights. Americans want us, as they have 
repeatedly shown, to uphold the finest example of democracy and civil 
liberties the world has ever known.
  Don't let the terrorists win. Vote against this bill. Adopt a 
surveillance program that protects our citizens and our rights.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the preferable legislation we debated yesterday. Having 
done that, we are going to do vigorous oversight over this legislation 
we have debated tonight, and we are going to do our best to bring 
permanent legislation at the end of September.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This measure fails because it allows targeting under section 105(a). 
This measure fails because it contains no guidelines that are missing 
in 105(b).
  Mr. KUCINICH., Mr. Speaker, I wish to make clear my opposition to 
H.R. 3356, the Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend 
the Nation and the Constitution Act of 2007, and S. 1927, both of which 
I proudly voted against.
  This legislation must be opposed because the Bush administration 
cannot be trusted with any additional surveillance powers. This 
administration has actively violated the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act by engaging in surveillance of Americans without 
warrants. And the administration violated our Constitution by hiding 
this fact from Congress and the American public.
  The only legislation that should come to the floor in this Congress 
is legislation that would limit the powers of this rogue presidency. 
Democrats must challenge the President and take back the power granted 
to Congress by the Constitution.
  Instead this Congress has given into the fear tactics of the 
administration. Those who use fear to gain power are themselves 
subverting democracy. This Congress must not accept this false choice 
and defend Americans and their Constitution from the politics of fear.
  The Democrats cannot shrink from this fight. We must demand that the 
President cease his attacks on our civil liberties.
  For these reasons Mr. Speaker I opposed this legislation and I will 
oppose all future attempts by this body to pass gratuitous, fear 
provoking legislation that sanctions oppression against the American 
people.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1927. This 
bill represents a shocking and grave invasion of long-held 
constitutional rights of American citizens that--until the abuses of 
this administration--have been regarded as sacrosanct and inviolable. 
This bill codifies violating the Fourth amendment ``right of the people 
to be secure in their person, homes, papers, and effects against 
unreasonable searches and seizures . . .''
  S. 1927 will permit the National Security Agency (NSA) to acquire and 
analyze all international communications of Americans, without any 
meaningful judicial oversight. It will allow the NSA to gain 
warrantless and unchecked access to virtually all international 
communications of Americans with anyone outside the United States. All 
the government has to do is to declare that the surveillance was 
directed at people--which includes foreigners and citizens alike--it 
``reasonably believed'' to be located outside the United States. It 
doesn't have to even target terrorists; all that the government needs 
to do is to determine that the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain 
``foreign intelligence information'' outside the United States. These 
overly broad definitions covers millions of people--and potentially 
millions of U.S. citizens--and the purpose need not involve the 
surveillance of suspected terrorists. We are giving the government, and 
specifically this administration, entirely too much power.
  One of the two people given extraordinary power to authorize these 
warrantless intrusions into our private communications is the Attorney 
General of the United States.
  Can we be assured that this Attorney General--or any Attorney General 
for that matter--will have the integrity and sound judgment to 
faithfully carry out his or her responsibilities in a way which will 
inflict the least possible harm to the constitutional rights of 
American citizens?
  Can we be assured that each Attorney General who is granted this 
power will have only the national security in mind, and not any 
political motivation in exercising his or her extraordinary power?
  Mr. Speaker, we Americans don't like governments which spy on their 
people. This bill allows just that in our own country. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to the S. 
1927, the Senate FISA bill and urge all of my Democratic colleagues, 
who are the last remaining protectors and defenders of our Constitution 
and democracy, to oppose it as well.
  Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having said something to the effect 
of, ``He who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that this bill before us purports to offer 
security, but what it does is it gives someone who has proven 
untrustworthy the ability to wiretap conversations of any one of us he 
deems a threat, and thus trashes the 4th amendment--something the 
President, Alberto Gonzales and all of us took an oath to uphold as 
part of our Constitution.
  I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to remind everyone that 
President Bush and the Attorney General have every authority needed to 
do surveillance of any phone conversation or wire communication between 
persons who they have substantive reason to suspect is involved in 
activities against our government and the American people. And they 
don't even have to get the FISA court order before in cases where time 
lost would put us at increased risk; they can go ahead and go to the 
court up to 72 hours later.
  H.R. 3356, the bill we passed last night, was drafted with the input 
and blessing of Admiral Mike McConnell before he was advised to oppose 
it by his Commander in Chief. It provides the authority he said would 
be what is needed, without trampling the rights that you, I and every 
American hold dear.
  I urge my colleagues to vote this measure down and bring back H.R. 
3356 the bill the Director of National Intelligence says does what he, 
his office and our country needs. And should our Republican colleagues 
and the President prevail tonight, we ought to begin tonight to reverse 
the overly broad authority given.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great remorse 
that we are considering the legislation before us. I believe that the 
basic foundation of our Nation is inextricably linked between our 
national security and our civil liberties. Indeed, it was the very 
battle to secure our civil liberties that brought our Nation into 
being. Unfortunately, the current Attorney General and the White House 
continue to obfuscate the line between these links by casting 
inflammatory rhetoric that has little basis in truth.
  And now we have bad legislation and few options. The Senate has sent 
this bill to us and has gone home, leaving the House in the position of 
considerable difficulty. The effort of

[[Page 23247]]

the House leadership in the last six months, and in particular in the 
past two weeks, has been one of compromise, of negotiation, and of 
listening, and the legislation upon which this body voted on yesterday 
demonstrated that. That is why I voted in favor of its passage. The 
legislation today is little more than an ill-advised attempt by the 
Senate at a quick fix that will do nothing to protect our civil 
liberties and everything to give the continued opportunity of 
threatening American citizens' freedoms.
  It is absolutely essential that the Congress deliberate extensively 
before reaching a final legislative conclusion on a matter of this 
magnitude. As with my vote on the PATRIOT Act, I do not believe that 
changes to the FISA Court--and allowing the surveillance activity of 
the Attorney General to remain untethered and unchecked--should be 
supported simply due to the rhetoric of a few. I have supported the 
investigation of the Attorney General because I believe he has failed 
in his duties to protect the American people from a deterioration of 
our basic civil liberties. For all of these reasons, I will vote 
against today's legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for 
this bill.
  The bill is intended to provide a temporary response to the request 
of Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, for 
legislation to address what he says is a critical collection gap in our 
electronic surveillance capabilities.
  I think Congress should take such action. That is why on August 3rd I 
voted for the House version of the legislation. That bill was supported 
by a majority of the House. However, it was considered under a 
procedure requiring a two-thirds vote, so our Republican colleagues, 
taking their lead from President Bush, were able to block it--and so 
now we are considering this different version, which has already passed 
the Senate.
  Like the version I voted for earlier, this bill would make clear that 
no warrant or court order is required for our intelligence agencies to 
monitor communications between people located outside the United 
States, even if those communications pass through the United States or 
the surveillance device is located within the United States. The point 
of this clarification is to resolve doubts about the status of 
communications between foreign persons located overseas that pass 
through routing stations here in the United States.
  I have no reservation in supporting this clarification to help 
resolve questions related to changes in communications technology since 
enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. And I 
think it is useful that the bill reiterates that individual warrants, 
based on probable cause, are required when surveillance is directed at 
individuals in the United States.
  However, this Senate bill would go much further than the House 
version. It would allow interception, without warrants, of 
communications between someone in the United States and a foreign party 
suspected of involvement in ``foreign intelligence'' matters, which is 
broader and less precise than the requirement that the party be 
suspected in connections to a terrorist group such as al-Qaida.
  I am not convinced such a sweeping grant of authority is justified, 
and cannot support it.
  The bill does require a warrant from the special FISA court for 
surveillance of a U.S. resident who is the chief target of the 
surveillance. And the bill requires involvement of the Director of 
National Intelligence, as well as the Attorney General, in approving 
surveillance, rather than just the Attorney General alone as the 
Administration wanted. In that regard, it is not as troublesome as it 
might have been. However, again, I am not convinced that its safeguards 
of Americans' privacy and civil liberties are adequate.
  I greatly regret that our Republican colleagues made it impossible 
for the House to pass a better version of this legislation. I recognize 
that the bill before us is not a permanent measure, but will expire in 
six months. Nonetheless, while I do think Congress should act on this 
subject, I cannot support this bill as it stands.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today we will pass the Senate 
version of a bill to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act (FISA). Because I have been actively involved in the crafting of 
this legislation and the review of the FISA law over the last two 
years, I feel it is important to be very clear about our legislative 
intent on some key points.
  The legislation is intended to make clear that our intelligence 
agencies do not need a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court to target people for electronic surveillance who are 
reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.
  While the law prior to these amendments does not require warrants on 
communications between foreigners in foreign countries, because 
technology has changed, it is only in rare circumstances that our 
agencies can tell in advance that there is no chance that a target will 
not call a number in America. Because they can't tell in advance that 
the targeted communication is not to an American and there is no ``safe 
harbor'' in the current law, they are forced to get warrants to avoid 
potentially committing a crime. As a result, increasingly, our 
intelligence agencies have been forced to get warrants on foreign 
targets in foreign countries. The foreign intelligence surveillance 
court is increasingly spending time approving warrants on people who 
have no privacy rights under our Constitution in the first place.
  Because of recent court decisions relying on the statute, this 
problem has become worse. This bill was intended to not require 
warrants if the target is reasonably believed to be located outside the 
United States even if the point of the intercept or the technology used 
to intercept the communication is inside the United States. What 
matters is the location of the person who is communicating, not the 
location of the communications device or the interception technology.
  The bill is also intended to retain very important protections of 
American civil liberties. If the target of a collection is a person in 
the United States, the government must get a warrant to intercept the 
content of that communication, as required by current law.
  There was some concern during work on the bill about ``reverse 
targeting''. In its simplest form, this could be ``targeting'' a 
foreign number frequently called by an American so that the government 
could collect the content of the American's conversation. It is our 
intention that this ``reverse targeting'' would be illegal under the 
statute. If the intent is to collect the content of communications of a 
U.S. person who has an expectation of privacy, a warrant is required, 
even if the number targeted for that collection is a foreign number.
  With this new legislation, the role of the FISA Court is limited to 
reviewing the new procedures for collection, not approving individual 
warrants or micromanaging collection. The intention is to have the 
Court review the process, the protections of privacy and the audits in 
place to determine that they are satisfactory and in compliance with 
the law. The Court may also issue orders to assist the Government in 
obtaining compliance with lawful directives to provide assistance under 
the bill, and review challenges to the legality of such directives.
  The legislation provides for compulsion certifications for 
telecommunications carriers. These compulsion certifications are 
intended to provide the same degree of legal protection as a FISA court 
order.
  This is a narrowly crafted change to FISA that fixes an immediate 
problem. The bill contains a sunset and we must review how the law is 
being implemented during the early months to determine what, if any, 
other provisions need to be changed.
  There are issues we must address when we reauthorize this 
legislation, including how the Congress should provide immunity, 
including retroactive immunity, for telecommunications carriers that 
are parties to lawsuits based on allegations that they assisted the 
government.
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has faced many challenges in our 
history, and none more serious or deadly than our battle against 
violent extremists. Make no mistake, we must do whatever it takes to 
defend America and keep hostilities from our shores. We must be tough 
and we must be smart. We have the tough part right, and now more than 
ever we must be smart.
  The bill now before the House asks the American people to give up our 
Fourth amendment rights--without firing a single shot--even when the 
facts reveal we already have laws to allow intelligence agencies to 
protect all of us.
  The Senate-sponsored bills trades our Fourth amendment rights for a 
false promise of security. It pretends to offer our people the 
reassurance that the current Attorney General--a man few believe to be 
honorable or honest--will exercise good judgment in defending all of 
us.
  Our Nation has lost faith in this administration's competence, and 
has lost faith in the ability of President Bush to understand and obey 
the rule of law. Having lost our faith in this President, we must not 
lose our constitutional rights as well. We must defend our Nation, and 
we can continue to do so under the rule of law.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1927, a temporary 
bill to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, FISA, 
to provide procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign 
intelligence information.
  As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I know that the 
recent National

[[Page 23248]]

Intelligence Estimate contains a stark warning about our vulnerability 
to terrorist attacks. S. 1927 intends to fill an intelligence gap that 
exists in the original FISA law and due in part to a recent court 
ruling regarding the surveillance of foreign suspects. S. 1927 seeks to 
make clear the procedures for obtaining warrants for the surveillance 
of domestic and foreign terrorist suspects. Reform in the intelligence-
gathering arena is particularly necessary as the worlds of technology 
and communications rapidly change. Clearer laws and boundaries enable 
our intelligence agencies to respond swiftly against terror suspects.
  Although I believe in providing our intelligence agencies with the 
necessary tools to protect our Nation from terrorism, I am also 
concerned that we do so without limiting Americans' liberties and 
rights to privacy. Because of the seriousness of the threats we face, 
we cannot delay in giving needed direction to our intelligence 
agencies. However, I share many of my colleagues' concerns with this 
bill. While S. 1927 includes a provision to sunset in 6 months, I 
support Speaker Pelosi's call to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to revisit 
this issue as soon as possible when Congress reconvenes. Congress 
should continue to work to find a balance between protecting our 
Nation, and protecting the freedoms that have made our Nation great.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
disappointment regarding the House of Representatives' approval of S. 
1927, legislation greatly expanding the Bush Administration's 
eavesdropping authority beyond even what Administration officials 
requested. I urge the House Judiciary Committee to promptly consider 
and report improved legislation that will provide the necessary 
surveillance authority our intelligence services need to protect our 
nation, while protecting our citizens' most basic expectation of 
privacy and fundamental civil liberties that are guaranteed by our 
constitution. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution states plainly: ``The right of the people to be secure in 
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable 
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall 
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and 
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or 
things to be seized.''
  I have been a longstanding supporter of efforts to provide our 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies with all the necessary tools 
they need to monitor potential agents with terrorist intentions against 
the United States. Following the awful terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001, on our country, I joined 356 of my House colleagues to vote 
for the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-56). The legislation gave 
federal officials greater authority to track and intercept 
communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence 
gathering purposes. Among other additional provisions, the law also 
created new crimes, new penalties, and new procedural efficiencies for 
use against domestic and international terrorists.
  The law contained, however, provisions that allowed for enhanced 
surveillance procedures that many citizens were concerned restricted 
civil liberties. I subsequently supported several amendments to various 
appropriations measures that would have improved civil liberties 
protections, namely: (1) Rep. Bernie Sanders' amendment to fiscal year 
2006 Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations Act which 
would have exempted libraries and bookstores from section 215 of the 
PATRIOT Act while increasing congressional oversight; and (2) Rep. 
Butch Otter's amendment to a fiscal year 2004 appropriations measure 
that would have prevented the use off section 213 of the PATRIOT Act 
that extended so-called ``sneak and peek'' authority to local police 
that previously was made available only to foreign intelligence 
investigators. Previously, police had to ``knock and announce'' their 
intention of searching before executing any warrant. Even though the 
Sanders amendment passed the House by a vote of 238-187, and the Otter 
amendment passed by a vote of 309-118, they both were unfortunately 
pulled from their respective appropriations measures before they were 
signed into law by the President.
  Several sections of the PATRIOT Act were set to expire on December 
31, 2005, unless they were extended. These ``sunset provisions'' 
included wiretapping privileges, sharing wiretap and foreign 
intelligence information, FISA authority and jurisdiction, voicemail 
warrants, and various other powers. On July 21, 2005, the House 
approved H.R. 3199 by a vote of 257-171. This legislation would have 
made permanent 14 of the 16 provisions that were set to expire in 2005. 
The remaining two provisions, involving the government's ability to use 
roving wiretaps and the government's access to business and library 
records, were assigned 10-year sunsets, at which point they will either 
be renewed or will expire. While the majority of the sections remained 
unchanged, during consideration of this legislation, the House adopted 
a few measures that would help protect government abuses of civil 
liberties. Among these were amendments that would require the Director 
of the FBI to personally review any and all requests for library or 
bookstore records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, as well as an 
amendment that would allow the recipient of a national security letter 
(NSL) to consult with an attorney and challenge the issuance of the 
letter in court. I voted for both of these amendments. I voted against 
H.R. 3199, however, because I didn't believe it was a good idea to make 
permanent policy for the United States concerning our fundamental 
rights and freedoms during extraordinary times of war. We must never 
allow terrorists to alter the freedoms that define our country and make 
us the greatest nation in the world.
  On July 29, 2005, the Senate approved legislation that would also 
make permanent 14 of the 16 provisions set to expire in 2005; however, 
it would have placed 4-year sunsets on the two remaining provisions and 
would have placed additional checks on government power that would help 
ensure the preservation of our valuable civil liberties. These two 
pieces of legislation were sent to a House-Senate conference committee 
to resolve their differences; In December 2005, a new agreement was 
reached in conference proposing 4-year expiration dates for the two 
provisions involving the government's ability to use roving wiretaps 
and the government's access to business and library records, as well as 
a 4-year sunset to a provision in the 2004 intelligence overhaul law 
(P.L. 108-458) that allows law enforcement to seek warrants against 
``lone wolf'' terrorists not connected to foreign powers. On December 
14, 2005, the House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 251-
174. I voted for the final version of the legislation because I was 
satisfied with the shorter expirations on some of the more contentious 
provisions and I was concerned about the possible effect on our 
national security if these provisions of the PATRIOT Act were allowed 
to expire.
  After being approved in the House, however, several members of the 
Senate remained concerned about the government's ability to acquire 
records and obtain administrative search warrants. Several Senators 
later announced an agreement they had reached with the White House, to 
make three changes to the previously agreed-to conference report 
relating to the government seizure of records. Specifically, these 
changes: (1) Allow recipients of a business records request to 
challenge a gag order, although to overturn it they would have to wait 
one year and prove the government acted in ``bad faith''; (2) remove a 
requirement that recipients of national security letters, which do not 
require court approval, disclose the name of any attorney they consult 
or intend to consult; and (3) clarify language in the 2001 law to 
ensure that libraries operating in traditional roles and not as 
Internet service providers would not be subject to national security 
letters. The House later agreed to these amendments by a vote of 280-
138, which I supported. On March 9, 2006, President Bush signed the 
final version of H.R. 3199 (P.L. 109-177) and the S. 2271 amendments 
(P.L. 109-178) into law.
  In order to effectively fight the war on terror we need intelligence, 
but this intelligence should be gathered in a legal manner and 
consistent with our constitution. Traditionally, the NSA's 
intelligence-gathering role has been limited to intercepting 
international communications as part of the government's foreign spying 
activities. Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 
P.L. 95-511), the federal government is required to obtain a warrant to 
conduct domestic wiretaps, but the NSA program disclosed by President 
Bush and his administration appears to have operated outside the FISA 
law.
  In the 109th Congress, Rep. Heather Wilson introduced H.R. 5825, the 
Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. This legislation would have 
given the President expanded authority to authorize electronic 
surveillance of communications by suspected terrorists without first 
obtaining approval from the FISA court. Specifically, it allowed the 
President to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for up to 90 
days in three circumstances--an armed attack against the United States, 
a terrorist attack against the United States, or if there is an 
``imminent threat'' that is likely to cause death or widespread harm. 
The measure also would have extended the amount of time intelligence 
agencies can conduct warrantless electronic surveillance in ``emergency 
situations'' to seven days, from the current three-day limit.

[[Page 23249]]

  The FISA law then contained certain exceptions for intelligence 
operations on U.S. soil--it permitted the president to authorize the 
Justice Department to conduct electronic surveillance or physical 
searches without approval by the FISA court to gather foreign 
intelligence for up to 15 days after Congress enacted a declaration of 
war. In addition, it allowed the federal government to conduct 
electronic surveillance without the court's approval in ``emergency 
situations,'' provided that the government seeks approval from the FISA 
court within three days of initiating emergency surveillance.
  The Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, however, represented a 
significant departure from the protections put in place under FISA in 
1978. Nowhere in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does it 
state that the president can bypass the process of seeking a court 
order to spy on American citizens through an executive order. I was 
concerned that this legislation was a political attempt to 
retroactively justify the President breaking the law. I fully believe 
that if the President followed the law and approached the FISA court 
and Congress for approval of such programs, that Congress and the FISA 
court would gladly give the President the powers he needs to combat 
terrorism. For these reasons, I voted against H.R. 5825 when it was 
brought to the House floor for a vote on September 28, 2006. This 
legislation was approved in the House by a vote of 232-191, but did not 
receive a vote in the Senate, effectively killing the legislation in 
the last Congress.
  Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced on January 17, 2007, that 
the FISA court authorized and issued orders on January 10, 2007, 
granting wiretaps that the Administration requested. Subsequently, the 
Justice Department has shared those classified documents with the House 
and Senate Intelligence Committees, as well as the Chairmen and Ranking 
Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
  The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General 
released a 126-page audit report on March 9, 2007, entitled ``A Review 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of National Security 
Letters.'' In this report, it was revealed that FBI agents were using 
national security letters to obtain personal information such as phone, 
internet, and financial records of individuals without court orders. 
The audit also found that 22 percent of these letters were not recorded 
and of those that were recorded, some were issued without proper 
authority. Senators Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy have voiced concern 
over the findings of this report. I am deeply troubled by this report 
and strongly believe vital intelligence should be gathered in a manner 
that is fully consistent with our laws and constitution.
  The congressional leadership spent many months in 2007 negotiating a 
reauthorization of the FISA law with the Bush Administration and 
Admiral Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence (DNI). 
Both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need to update the FISA 
law to incorporate new technologies, such as cell phones and e-mail, 
which did not exist when the original FISA law was written. Prior to 
the August District Work Period, the Bush Administration pressed the 
congressional leadership to pass a short-term FISA update. During 
negotiations, Director McConnell told the congressional leadership that 
he supported several technical changes that: (1) allowed foreign 
targets to be added a ``basket warrant'' after the warrant was 
approved; (2) expanded the draft bill to apply to ``all foreign 
intelligence'' from only intelligence ``relating to terrorism''; and 
(3) eliminated the requirement that the FISA court adjudicate how 
recurring communications into the United States from foreign targets 
would be handled. Following these improvements to the draft bill, the 
DNI told congressional leadership that with these changes, he could 
support the bill because it would ``significantly enhance America's 
security.'' I voted for the final version of this legislation, H.R. 
3356, the Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the 
Nation and the Constitution Act of 2007. Even though a majority (218-
207) voted in favor of H.R. 3356, the bill did not pass as it was 
considered under suspension of the rules (2/3 vote to approve 
required).
  The Senate passed a much different version of FISA legislation, S. 
1927, the Protect America Act sponsored by Senators Mitch McConnell and 
Kit Bond. This legislation greatly exceeds what the Bush Administration 
requested in legislation, providing a virtual blank check for 
intelligence agencies to eavesdrop, including on the conversations of 
U.S. citizens, with essentially no oversight by the FISA court or 
Congress. The legislation allows the U.S. Attorney General to decide 
when to eavesdrop on any e-mail message or phone call without a 
warrant, so long as one of the people communicating is ``reasonably 
believed'' to be outside the country. That is a vague term that the 
Administration is allowed to interpret however they want, greatly 
expanding its surveillance powers, while the legislation does not 
provide the courts with any real power to supervise this surveillance. 
Proponents of S. 1927 point out that the legislation has a six month 
sunset and will expire in February 2009. This sunset is artificial, as 
the orders in effect in February 2009 could last for up to a year, 
essentially for the remainder of the Bush Administration with no 
oversight. For these reasons, I voted against S. 1927 when the House 
considered the measure on August 4, 2007. The House approved the 
legislation by a vote of 227-183, and the President signed it into law 
on August 5, 2007 (P.L. 110-55).
  Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote a letter to Judiciary Chairman John 
Conyers and Select Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes on August 4, 
2007, urging that the House of Representatives should consider 
comprehensive FISA reauthorization legislation. I agree with her 
statement that: ``Many provisions of this legislation are unacceptable, 
and although the bill has a six-month sunset clause, I do not believe 
the American people will want to wait that long before corrective 
action is taken.''
  As a co-equal branch of government, it is necessary that Congress 
fully understand how the Bush Administration executes intelligence 
activities in order to exercise proper oversight. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in Congress to ensure that law enforcement 
agencies have strong, flexible tools to intercept the communications of 
terrorists, and at the same time protect our citizens' civil liberties 
from unwarranted government probing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired.
  All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Senate bill is 
considered read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 183, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 836]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     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
     Chandler
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula

[[Page 23250]]


     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2220

  Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas and Ms. SOLIS changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________