[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27460-27470]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3773, RESTORE ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 746 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 746

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
     1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain 
     acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
     now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part B of such report, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour and 
     30 minutes of debate, with one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3773 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my namesake and good friend, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the matter 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 746 provides 
for consideration of H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007, under a closed 
rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate. Sixty minutes will be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Thirty minutes will be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. Speaker, with the resurgence of al Qaeda and an increasing global 
threat from weapons of mass destruction in places such as Iran, every 
single person in this body wants to ensure that our intelligence 
professionals have the proper resources they need to

[[Page 27461]]

protect our Nation. As vice chairman of the House Intelligence 
Committee, I assure you that every one of us on that panel and others, 
Republican or Democrat, are working tirelessly and often together to do 
just that. But the government is not exempt from the rule of law, as 
our Constitution confers certain unalienable rights and civil liberties 
to each of us.
  After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Bush administration 
upset that balance by ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act, commonly referred to as the FISA law, establishing a secret 
wiretapping program and refusing to work with Congress to make the 
program lawful. Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee, led 
by the distinguished chairperson, Sylvestre Reyes, have been trying to 
learn about the Bush administration's FISA program for years. But the 
administration, which has been anything but forthcoming, has done 
everything it can to stop us from doing our job and helping them to do 
theirs better.
  A footnote right there, Mr. Speaker. In today's Washington Post, it 
is reflected as late as now, when the RESTORE Act is on the floor, the 
administration has agreed to give certain information to the Senate and 
still not to the House.
  When the administration finally came to Congress to modify the law, 
it came with the flawed proposal to allow sweeping authority to 
eavesdrop on Americans' communications, while doing almost nothing to 
protect their rights. The RESTORE Act, true to its name, restores the 
checks and balances on the executive branch, enhancing our security and 
preserving our liberty. It rejects the false statement that we must 
sacrifice liberty to be secure. It does not go as far as I would want 
it to go. It does not go as far as some people would like for it to go, 
but it does protect our liberty and secures this Nation.
  The legislation provides our intelligence community with the tools it 
needs to identify and disrupt terrorist attacks with speed and agility.
  Yet another footnote, Mr. Speaker. While we concentrate on 
surveillance as it pertains to wire, I would have people know that the 
terrorists by now have been pretty well educated about these matters 
and may very well be using other methodologies totally unrelated to the 
telephone.
  I remind people when it was leaked to the media that Osama bin Laden 
was using a certain kind of wire, he hasn't been heard from in that 
forum since. So let's be very cautious to not put all our eggs in the 
surveillance basket. There are other methodologies that might be 
employed that I assure you the intelligence community is mindful of and 
right on as it pertains to discovering them.

                              {time}  1045

  It provides additional resources to the Department of Justice, the 
National Security Agency and the FISA Court to assist in auditing and 
streamlining the FISA application process while preventing the backlog 
of critical intelligence gathering.
  The RESTORE Act prohibits the warrantless electronic surveillance of 
Americans in the United States, including their medical records, homes 
and offices. And it requires the government to establish a 
recordkeeping system to track instances where information identifying 
U.S. citizens is disseminated.
  This bill preserves the role of the FISA Court as an independent 
check on the government to prevent it from infringing on the rights of 
Americans. It rejects the administration's belief that the court should 
be a rubber stamp.
  Finally, the bill sunsets in 2009. This is a critical provision 
because it requires the constant oversight and regular evaluation of 
our FISA laws, actions which were largely neglected during the last 6 
years of Republican rule.
  Mr. Speaker, all the American people have to do is pick up a 
newspaper to read about what happens when this government has 
unfettered access to warrantless electronic surveillance. According to 
a letter to Congress from a company executive, Verizon alone has 
fielded almost 240,000 phone record requests from the FBI since 2005. 
Nearly 64,000 of these requests, or over one-quarter of them, were made 
without a warrant.
  This is almost 100 phone record requests per day by our government to 
Verizon seeking private information about our citizens, without a 
warrant. Realize, we are just talking about requests made to Verizon by 
the FBI. And these are just the requests that Verizon told Congress 
about this week because the Bush administration has consistently 
refused to answer our questions about the President's program.
  Even more, it doesn't factor in the hundreds of thousands of requests 
that were made to other phone companies during the same time that we 
don't know about.
  Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything since the terrorist attacks 
of September 11, it is that the balance between security and civil 
liberties is not only difficult, but absolutely critical.
  The RESTORE Act does absolutely nothing to block or hinder the 
efforts of our intelligence community. And Member after Member on the 
other side of the aisle are going to come down here and comment that it 
is hampering our intelligence efforts. Quite the contrary. It enhances 
their ability to do their jobs effectively and ensures the integrity of 
their efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good 
friend and namesake, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee held a hearing to consider 
a rule for H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act. At the outset of the hearing, 
the chairwoman of the Rules Committee did something that Republicans 
would not have even contemplated when we were in the majority.
  Before Members of Congress even had an opportunity to testify before 
the Rules Committee, the chairwoman announced that the rule would be 
closed. She further went on to say no notice was sent out seeking 
amendments from Members, yet at least 27 amendments on a bipartisan 
basis were submitted to the committee. I guess, Mr. Speaker, we know 
now that no amendment announcement is code for no opportunity for 
meaningful, open debate. While surprising, this action is, 
unfortunately, not unprecedented for this Democrat-controlled Rules 
Committee.
  I would like to thank all Members for submitting their thoughtful 
amendments on behalf of those they represent. And I especially would 
like to thank the Members who chose to stay and testify despite 
learning from the very start that their amendments would not be made in 
order.
  It is sad that yesterday the minds and ears of the Democrat members 
of the Rules Committee were closed to even allowing for the 
consideration of amendments and alternatives to legislation, important 
legislation aimed at closing loopholes and strengthening our national 
intelligence capabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1978 Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, or FISA, to establish a procedure for electronic 
surveillance of international communications. As enacted into law, FISA 
had two principle purposes: First, to protect the civil liberties of 
Americans by requiring the government to first obtain a court order 
before collecting electronic intelligence on U.S. citizens in our 
country. Second, the law specified how intelligence officials, working 
to protect our national security, could collect information on foreign 
persons in foreign places without having to get a warrant.
  The intent of the original FISA law was to enhance American security 
while at the same time protecting American privacy. Recognizing that no 
responsibility of the Federal Government is more important than 
providing for the defense and security of the American people, Congress 
should be doing all it can to ensure that FISA continues to reflect the 
intent of the original law.

[[Page 27462]]

  In the nearly 30 years since FISA became law, we have seen tremendous 
advances in communication technology such as the Internet, cell phones 
and e-mail. However, under the original FISA law, our intelligence 
officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists in foreign 
countries without a court order because of advances in communication 
technology. It is clear that our FISA laws are outdated and must be 
modernized to reflect changes in communication technology over the past 
three decades.
  In August, Congress in a bipartisan manner took an important first 
step forward to close our Nation's intelligence gap; but, 
unfortunately, only for a 6-month period. The Protect America Act 
passed only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's 
intelligence professionals the tools and the authority they need to 
protect our homeland. This action was long overdue and this law marked 
a significant step towards improving our security.
  Now Congress must act again to renew this law by early next year 
before it expires or our national security will once again be at risk. 
Unfortunately, the legislation before us today, the RESTORE Act, does 
not provide the security we need to protect our troops and our Nation 
from a potential future terrorist attack. The bill also weakens 
Americans' privacy protections and fails to permanently close our 
Nation's intelligence gap.
  Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the RESTORE Act does not go far enough to 
reform outdated FISA regulations that burden our troops in the 
battlefield. It contains no provision for third parties to challenge 
FISA court orders. The bill also creates a centralized database that 
could actually increase the risk of privacy violations. Another major 
concern is that the RESTORE Act contains yet another sunset provision 
that forces the bill to expire on December 31, 2009, unnecessarily 
leaving our intelligence officials without the tools they need to 
protect Americans.
  It is alarming to me that this rule brings a bill to the House floor 
that goes so far as to weaken American privacy provisions while at the 
same time strengthening protections of our enemies in times of war.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, nearly 30 amendments were 
submitted by Members on both sides of the aisle to address these and 
other concerns with the Democrat majority's failed attempt to update 
our current FISA laws. However, none of these amendments, which ranged 
from permanently strengthening our FISA laws to acquiring 
communications of foreign terrorists in foreign countries without a 
FISA court order, were allowed to be considered on the House floor 
today under this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, it is truly disappointing to me that every Member of 
this House is prohibited from offering changes to this bill that could 
make it more effective in our constant battle to prevent a future 
terrorist attack against our Nation. After all, if we cannot come 
together and work in a bipartisan manner on issues as important as 
improving our national security, then what can we work together on.
  Sadly, because the Democrat majority has chosen to consider the 
RESTORE Act under this closed process, working together in a bipartisan 
manner will not be possible. Instead, if this rule is adopted, Members 
will only have a choice to vote for or against a seriously flawed bill 
that threatens, not improves, our national security. Sadly, this closed 
process shuts out all American voices from being heard and, ultimately, 
every American could suffer consequences if this rule and bill are 
adopted. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I would like to 
assist my colleague from Washington, who is my good friend and was in 
the majority last year when the Wilson bill, H.R. 5825, the Electronic 
Surveillance Modernization Act, was considered by the House. It was 
considered under a closed rule, H. Res. 1052, which self-executed an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute in lieu of amendments 
recommended by the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. I think that 
is the precedent.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my very good friend who 
serves on the Ways and Means Committee and the Homeland Security 
Committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, and I rise 
this morning to speak in favor of the rule on the RESTORE Act, H.R. 
3773. I believe this is an appropriate rule given the large number of 
amendments that were considered in both the House Judiciary and 
Intelligence Committees.
  I want to highlight some of the most important provisions in the bill 
provided through this rule and steps that I believe can be taken to 
strengthen the intent of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, section 5 of the current legislation requires quarterly 
audits by the Justice Department Inspector General on communications 
collected under this legislation, which would then be provided to the 
FISA Court and to Congress. In the end, the issue is that without 
outside oversight, such as the FISA Court, you put a huge amount of 
authority in the hands of a very small number of people and leave an 
awful lot to their individual judgment in dealing with very sensitive 
issues of personal privacy.
  I hope that under this section the Justice Department Inspector 
General would also be inclined to include statistical information, as 
is possible, relating to the sex, race, ethnicity, religion and age of 
U.S. persons identified in intelligence reports obtained pursuant to 
the legislation. This data will help our intelligence agencies, the 
FISA Court and the Congress to gain a clear overview of intelligence 
collection on Americans swept up through these types of investigations 
and would create the necessary oversight to judge whether a pattern of 
profiling is occurring.
  I want to draw attention to the Schakowsky amendment which was 
approved by the Intelligence Committee. This would require that the 
FISA Court approve guidelines to ensure that an individual FISA court 
order is sought when the significant purpose of an acquisition is to 
acquire the communications of a specific U.S. person reasonably 
believed to be located in the United States.

                              {time}  1100

  This is a vital provision to the bill that makes clear that no 
American can be the target of surveillance under this bill unless an 
individual warrant is obtained from the FISA Court.
  Under this provision, I hope we will also make clear the sensitivity 
surrounding communications between Americans and family members who may 
live abroad. We need to make certain that no American, regardless of 
their foreign family connections, can be the target of surveillance 
without an individual warrant being obtained from the FISA Court.
  We're not trying to protect foreigners. We're trying to protect 
Americans and safeguarding the Constitution.
  I thank the Speaker for the time. I want to thank you, and I hope 
that the Members will approve the appropriate rule on the RESTORE Act. 
I thank my friend.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is there on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
has 23 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Dreier of California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pasco for yielding 
and congratulate the Hastings cousins for their management of this 
very, very important measure.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon eight of our colleagues sat before 
the dais of the Rules Committee with 27 different proposed amendments 
that they wanted to offer to improve this very important measure, to 
work in a

[[Page 27463]]

bipartisan way to improve it. Before they were able to utter their 
first words, they were told in response to a question that came from 
our friend from Pasco, Mr. Hastings, that this was going to be a closed 
rule.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, a closed rule means that no amendment is offered. 
No alternative proposal is allowed at all. We simply get the measure 
that is before us, and that is it. Now, that's when there were 27 
different amendments that were proposed and, as I said, eight Members 
waiting to offer and discuss their ideas. They were completely shut out 
from that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to report to this House that we, 
today, have achieved something that is not great for this institution. 
As of today, Mr. Speaker, in the 110th Congress, we have had more 
closed rules in a single session of the United States House of 
Representatives than we have in the 218-year history of this great 
institution. The sad thing about that, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we 
were promised something much different, and this bill is critically 
important for our Nation's security.
  One of the very thoughtful proposals to come forward made great 
sense. It's the idea of saying that when the government asked the 
private sector to help us work to interdict those communications taking 
place among people who are trying to kill us, terrorists who are trying 
to kill us, we should allow them to do that. We should allow them to 
have immunity from the threat of prosecution if that, in fact, is being 
utilized. But unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have failed to allow that proposal, for those people who were 
asked by the government to help us win the global war on terror, to 
make sure that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists do not have the 
potential to kill us.
  And now what we've been told, and I heard countless Democrats say, 
oh, these people in the telecommunications industry, they've got enough 
money, they're making enough money, let them stand on their own. Well, 
Mr. Speaker, that is just plain wrong, and we, unfortunately, with this 
rule, are not even allowed a chance to debate that, which, to me, is 
absolutely outrageous.
  What we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is a closed rule on a bad bill 
that can't become law. Tragically, that's a pattern that we have been 
facing for a while. The exact same thing has happened on the bill that 
we're going to be voting after it was sent here 2 weeks ago on SCHIP 
legislation. We're going to be voting on that tomorrow.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me just say again, this is a closed rule on a 
bad bill that can't become law. We've got to defeat this rule. We've 
got to make sure that those people who are working to keep this country 
safe have all the tools necessary to make that happen.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I make one reference to the 
Computer and Communications Industry Association which writes in 
support of the House Judiciary Committee's approach to retroactive 
immunity, contrary to what the previous speaker, my good friend, the 
ranking member, just said regarding that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, 
a distinguished member of the Intelligence Committee, my good friend 
Rush Holt, who is also chair of the Special Intelligence Oversight 
Committee.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  The RESTORE Act, which its well-meaning authors believe will both 
help protect our liberties and our security, does the latter but, 
unfortunately, does not fully do the former. If I had more time, I 
would talk about the good features of this bill, but in the time I 
have, I would like to point to the one thing that it needs most, that 
it lacks, which is ironclad language that maintains the fourth 
amendment's individual warrant requirement when Americans' property or 
communications are searched and seized by the government.
  The RESTORE Act would allow the government to collect the 
communications of innocent Americans. The executive branch assurances 
that the rights of Americans will be protected through administrative 
procedures are no substitute for judicial protections. In recent weeks 
and months, we've seen too many abuses of administrative warrants to 
find any reassurance or to even find these assurances believable.
  Yes, I voted ``yes'' in committee to bring this to the floor, with 
the assurances that we would work to get it better. I regret to say 
that I've seen no effort to resolve this point. It could be fixed 
easily to the safety of Americans, because Americans will be safer when 
agencies have to demonstrate to a court that they know what they are 
doing. We get better intelligence, just as we get better law 
enforcement, when you do it by the rules.
  In fact, my own leadership I believe would deny me time to speak on 
this issue to try to strengthen this bill, but for the sake of the 
security of Americans, I implore the leadership to make these 
improvements.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I stand before the House as a member of Mr. Holt's new House Special 
Intelligence Oversight Panel and as a lifelong resident of New Jersey, 
a State which is still feeling the heartrending damage of September 11, 
2001. We will never forget what happened that day, and I work each and 
every day to prevent another such attack.
  I recognize that achieving the proper balance between our national 
security and our civil liberties is a real challenge, but we must also 
recognize that our war against violent international extremists is the 
first conflict of the information age.
  With our technical assets and expertise, the United States is far 
better at gathering information at this point in history than our 
enemies. This is an advantage we must exploit to better protect the 
American people from those who would do us harm.
  Then why are we on the floor debating a rule on legislation that 
essentially amounts to unilateral disarmament on our part?
  Last August, Congress enacted the Protect America Act, legislation 
that sought to modernize the old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
FISA, and closed dangerous loopholes that prevented our intelligence 
community from monitoring overseas communications between al Qaeda 
members and other terrorist groups plotting and planning their next 
attack on U.S. citizens and our interests at home and abroad. These 
were not conversations involving Americans. These were communications 
between foreign targets overseas.
  Director of National Intelligence McConnell asked Congress to ``make 
clear that court orders are not necessary to effectively collect 
foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas.'' I repeat, 
``foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas.''
  But this new proposed legislation would not only undo the progress 
made by the Protect America Act, but it would do further damage to our 
collection efforts.
  Since it was enacted in 1978, FISA never required our government to 
acquire court orders for foreign communications of persons reasonably 
believed to be outside the United States. This bill would require such 
a court order, thus gutting 30 years of foreign intelligence 
collection.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I understand that achieving the proper 
balance between our national security and our civil liberties is a 
challenging task. I believe the Protect America Act achieved this goal. 
The bill required a warrant to target a person in the United States but 
allowed U.S. intelligence agencies to listen to foreign persons in 
foreign countries.
  Why is this important? Because speed matters in a war on terrorism, 
where terrorists are using our communications networks, not theirs, in 
order to try to harm us. This is not about politics. It's about 
ensuring that we give our security personnel the tools they

[[Page 27464]]

need to help protect our families from future terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I fear the RESTORE Act will live up to 
its name. It will restore our intelligence community to the days when 
their hands were tied and they could not monitor the communications of 
al Qaeda members and other terrorists overseas without lengthy 
legalistic procedural delays.
  Terrorism is an international threat that requires (international) 
technology to solve.
  I urge my colleagues to restore our intelligence community's hard-
earned technological advantage over al Qaeda and their murderous 
comrades. Protect America.
  I urge defeat of this rule and rejection of the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre 
Reyes.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, due to an administrative error, the following cosponsors 
were left off the list of cosponsors for this bill, H.R. 3773: 
Representative Anna Eshoo from California; Representative Dutch 
Ruppersberger from Maryland; Representative Dennis Moore from Kansas; 
Representative Ciro Rodriguez from Texas; Representative Earl Pomeroy 
from North Dakota; Representative Leonard Boswell from Iowa; 
Representative Baron Hill from Indiana; and Representative Patrick 
Murphy from Pennsylvania.
  I would like to thank them for their cosponsorship and ask that they 
be recognized as such, and I would finish up by saying this is a good 
rule. This is also a good bill that balances the ability to protect our 
country with the ability to protect the civil rights of its citizens.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a member of the 
Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I'm rising to oppose 
the rule.
  For the first time, this bill would stop intelligence professionals 
from conducting surveillance of foreign persons in foreign countries 
unless they can read the mind of their terrorist targets and guarantee 
that they would not call the United States or one of their people in 
the United States. This is more protection than Americans get under 
court-ordered warrants in mob and other criminal cases.
  So the issue we're debating today is very important. It is a matter 
of life and death essentially.
  I serve as ranking member of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation 
Subcommittee. That there has not been a terrorist attack on our soil 
since 9/11 is due to the improved surveillance in real-time that we're 
able to conduct against foreign terrorists.
  That good record, though, in no way should lead us to discount the 
jihadists, because the image of Osama bin Laden's allies operating in 
some remote terrain somewhere may give the impression that our foes are 
isolated. They are not isolated.
  We are confronting a virtual caliphate. Radical jihadists are 
physically dispersed, but they're united through the Internet, and they 
use that tool to recruit and plot their terrorist attacks. They use 
electronic communications for just such a purpose, and they're very 
sophisticated in that use.
  So how has the West attempted to confront that? Well, the British use 
electronic surveillance in real-time, and they used it last year to 
stop the attack on 10 transatlantic flights. They prevented that attack 
in August of last year by wiretapping.
  The French authorities used wiretaps to lure jihadists basically into 
custody and prevented a bomb attack.
  Given this threat, it is unfathomable that we'd weaken our most 
effective preventative tool, and that's exactly what this bill does.
  Before we passed the Protect America Act in August, the Director of 
National Intelligence told Congress that we are losing up to two-thirds 
of our intelligence on terrorist targets. Admiral McConnell went on to 
testify, ``We're actually missing a significant portion of what we 
should be getting.''
  Though Admiral McConnell has served both Democrat and Republican 
administrations with distinction, now his credibility has been 
attacked. I'd ask those so distrustful: Go ahead, discount his 
estimate, cut them in half, say we'd lose one-third of our intelligence 
by passing this bill. Isn't that too much to give up? I don't want to 
lose a single percent of our intelligence on terrorist communications. 
With nuclear and biological material floating around this globe, we 
don't have that margin of error.
  We've heard the ACLU concerns, but before we unilaterally disarm, 
before we hobble our ability to listen in real-time to the very real 
terrorists who are attacking our troops in Iraq every day, shouldn't we 
have something of an accounting of the supposed civil liberties price 
we're paying? Frankly, I don't see the troubling cases.
  What I do see is the very misguided concern for the civil liberties 
of foreigners having conversations with terrorists.
  This bill grants privacy protection to foreigners, those believed to 
be terrorists, by requiring the intelligence community to seek court 
orders to collect foreign intelligence on foreign targets.

                              {time}  1115

  This process in the past has clogged the FISA Court, it has wasted 
untold intelligence hours, it has pulled Arabic and Urdu and Farsi 
speakers off of listening to terrorist cases and put them on filing 
hundreds of pages of paperwork. FISA restrictions hindered the search 
for kidnapped Americans in Iraq.
  My colleagues, it has come down to this: Are we interested in best 
protecting American lives, or giving away privacy rights to foreigners 
involved in conversations with terrorists?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished 
friend and colleague from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, 1 minute. But 
before I do, I would like to have Mr. Royce understand that he is 
entitled to his opinion but he is not entitled to his facts. And the 
facts as he recited them with reference to what Director O'Connell said 
occurred under the old FISA law, not this one. And I might add, that 
old FISA law was good enough to participate in bringing down the German 
possible terrorists.
  With that in mind, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlelady from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Florida, a former jurist, and let me acknowledge that the RESTORE 
Act is the right balance between national security and the protection 
of our civil liberties.
  I beg to differ with my good friend from California because in fact 
there are elements of this bill that clearly provide the parameters for 
foreign-to-foreign surveillance. The only difference is the fact that 
we protect an American citizen who may be targeted inappropriately as 
the court intervenes in providing a warrant.
  My friends, we are moving forward to secure America. I support this 
rule and I support the rule in its present form, because we need to now 
substitute a real bill that secures America supported by the language 
of Director McConnell and as well provides the civil liberties that all 
Americans deserve. I look forward to the debate on the floor. The 
RESTORE Act is what it is says, protecting us and providing the right 
surveillance and ensuring that terrorists do not attack America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 746, the rule governing 
debate on H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act. I thank the gentlemen for 
yielding and wish to use my time to discuss an important improvement in 
the bill that was adopted in the full Judiciary Committee markup.
  The Jackson-Lee Amendment added during the markup makes a 
constructive contribution to this important legislation that already is 
superior to the misnamed ``Protect America Act'' by orders of 
magnitude. It does this simply by laying down a clear, objective 
criterion for the Administration to follow and the FISA court to 
enforce in preventing reverse targeting.
  ``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this 
Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the

[[Page 27465]]

arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government 
targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to 
collect information on certain U.S. persons.
  One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical 
conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties 
organizations, have with the PAA is that the understandable temptation 
of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be 
difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards in the PAA to 
prevent it.
  My amendment reduces even further any such temptation to resort to 
reverse targeting by requiring the Administration to obtain a regular, 
individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the 
surveillance is a person in the United States.
  The amendment achieves this objective by requiring the Administration 
to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an 
acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person 
reasonably believed to be located in the United States.'' The current 
language in the bill provides that a warrant be obtained only when the 
Government ``seeks to conduct electronic surveillance'' of a person 
reasonably believed to be located in the United States.
  It was far from clear how the operative language ``seeks to'' is to 
be interpreted. In contrast, the language used in my amendment, 
``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that has long been a staple 
of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by the 
agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson 
Lee Amendment provides a clearer, more objective, criterion for the 
Administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the 
practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can 
agree should not be permitted.
  I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that nothing in the bill or in my 
amendment will requires the Government to obtain a FISA order for every 
overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into 
or from the United States. Rather, the bill requires, as our amendment 
makes clear, a FISA order only where there is a particular, known 
person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's 
calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a 
significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that 
person's communications.
  This will usually happen over time and the Government will have the 
time to get an order while continuing its surveillance. And it is the 
national security interest to require it to obtain an order at that 
point, so that it can lawfully acquire all of the target person's 
communications rather than continuing to listen to only some of them.
  In short, my amendment gives the Government precisely what Director 
of National Intelligence McConnell asked for when he testified before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee:
  ``It is very important to me; it is very important to members of this 
Committee. We should be required--we should be required in all cases to 
have a warrant anytime there is surveillance of a US [sic] person 
located in the United States.''
  In short, my amendment makes a good bill even better. For these 
reasons, I am happy to support the rule and urge all Members to do 
likewise.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I am extremely concerned 
about our national security and I am deeply troubled that our 
intelligence community will be prevented from doing the job they need 
to do to protect Americans by this bill. For that reason, I strongly 
oppose the RESTORE Act as it will only further tie the hands of our 
intelligence community.
  If this bill passes, Congress would depart from the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission by making it more difficult and cumbersome to 
gather intelligence on Islamic terrorists. Our most important job here 
is to provide the tools to those charged with protecting our Nation and 
keeping us safe from those threats. In the last 6 years we have been 
kept safe in this country because we have had a sharp edge on the tools 
that we have been using to peel back the layers of secrecy on 
terrorists and terrorist organizations.
  This bill requires a court order to gather communications when a 
foreign terrorist in a foreign country tries to contact somebody in the 
United States. Since 1978, from President Carter to President Clinton, 
there was never a concern. Yet now, after we have had attacks on our 
U.S. soil and are well aware there are terrorist cells in our homeland, 
the Democrats want to prevent the intelligence community from 
intercepting communications of foreign terrorists.
  To my knowledge, no violation of civil rights has occurred in the 
FISA process. However, as this bill is written, the Democrats have 
opened the door for alarming violations of civil liberties by requiring 
the intelligence community to compile a database of reports on the 
identities of U.S. citizens that have inadvertently been accumulated in 
the process of gathering information. As the Washington Times noted 
this morning, apparently pandering to the left-wing blogosphere and the 
ACLU is a higher priority than the safety of Americans and even 
American GIs fighting al Qaeda.
  Normally, under current guidelines, the intelligence community blacks 
out all these names and they never get distributed anywhere. They are 
just simply eliminated from the database. But now, under this bill, we 
see the Democrats requiring a list be sent to Congress. And we all know 
that we have had leaks here in Congress. You would think the ACLU would 
be opposed not only to compiling such a list but distributing it to 
Congress. We have had leaks related to the way we collect information 
on individuals through electronic conversations, we have had leaks 
about how we have e-mails that have been reviewed on terrorist Web 
sites, we have had leaks that caused our allies in Europe to no longer 
cooperate when it comes to tracking terrorist financing. For us to give 
this type of information to Congress would almost certainly guarantee a 
leak and a violation of the civil liberties of those individuals who it 
inadvertently picked up in the process of trying to find terrorists 
working within our country trying to do harm.
  This is a bad bill. It goes back and dulls the tools, this edge that 
we have been using to keep the country safe. If it is passed and it 
becomes law, I would fear for the safety of this country because 
dulling the tools that have kept us safe for 6 years would put us in a 
much more vulnerable position than we are today.
  Over 2 months ago, the DNI, Mike McConnell, the man charged with 
overseeing the intelligence community, urged us to modernize the FISA 
law. But this does not do it. This sets us backwards.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida controls 15 
minutes. The gentleman from Washington controls 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to reserve my 
time. And as a matter of courtesy to my good friend from Washington and 
to you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be replaced 
in managing the time, although not required under the rules, by my 
distinguished colleague from New York, Michael Arcuri.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to another member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers of 
Michigan.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to commend Mr. Hastings. We have 
worked on many issues of which we have agreed strongly in the 
betterment of national security. I couldn't more strongly disagree with 
this bill and where we are going today.
  As one of the very few people on this floor that has actually gone 
out and developed sources and developed the leads that you possibly 
need to develop probable cause as a former FBI agent to either bug or 
intercept phones, offices, or other privileges communications between 
Americans, I can tell you the long and arduous process it takes to 
develop that, to go to the judge and say, Your Honor, I do believe that 
these people are engaged in criminal activities and here is why. And it 
takes months and months and months. So let me tell you what this bill 
does today that is so disturbing.

[[Page 27466]]

  Non-United States citizens who are insurgents in Iraq building IEDs 
that our troops are trying to intercept electronically are now given 
more rights to privacy than we do for gamblers, degenerate gambling 
operations developed under the criminal code in the United States of 
America. That, my friends, is true. Incidental communications, you 
don't have to go back to the judge, you continue to listen. But what we 
have done is we have set a standard that every time they want to go 
overseas and intercept these folks, the standard of the bar is set so 
high they have to go get a court order. They have to get a warrant. And 
it takes months.
  This isn't about Hollywood. This isn't about Jack Bauer. This is 
about real people having to develop probable cause in accordance with 
the law of the United States. And what you said is that insurgent in 
Iraq has more privacy rights than any criminal, any United States 
citizen under the criminal code of the United States of America. That 
is what you have done with this bill. Oh, yes, sir, it is. Read the 
language and understand what it takes for them to go through the 
process to develop probable cause.
  This is the confusion that led to the delay that may have cost the 
lives of United States soldiers. We all know the example of which we 
are talking about.
  This bill encourages that confusion and that standard to give foreign 
terrorists in a foreign land more privacy rights than United States 
citizens under the criminal code here. It's wrong.
  We often say, listen to the intelligence community, listen to our 
commanders on the ground. I implore you to do just that. They oppose 
this bill because it makes it harder for them to go after foreign 
terrorists in foreign lands plotting to kill either U.S. soldiers or 
even attacks against our homeland or our allies. This bill does all of 
those things.
  I don't ever doubt the intention of my friends, but words matter in 
the legal code. And when you stand before that judge, believe me, there 
is no agent that believes they are Jack Bauer and are going to fudge a 
little bit on what the Constitution asks and tells them they must do. 
They are going to err on the side of the United States Constitution 
every time. And for those who don't, they deserve to go to jail, and we 
do prosecute those occasionally. But what you are saying is we are 
going to create this whole system for foreign terrorists to give them 
more rights than the privacy of United States citizens. I strongly urge 
the rejection of this bill. Let's go back to the table and protect our 
United States citizens.
  Mr. ARCURI. I thank my colleague, and as a former prosecutor for 13 
years, I have stood before a judge many times and made application for 
warrants on a number of different occasions. And, frankly, I certainly 
respect his position; but he is just not correct on this.
  This legislation not only gives our country the ability to do what 
needs to be done to protect us, but more importantly and equally as 
important certainly it protects our civil rights. So it does both 
things: It protects our civil rights and gives us the ability to keep 
our country safe.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, once again, how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington controls 6\1/
2\ minutes; the gentleman from New York controls 14\1/2\.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Gohmert of 
Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, once again we have heard from across the 
aisle, this is not true that we are saying you will have to get 
warrants for foreign-to-foreign, because the bill says in section 2(a), 
gee, you don't have to get a court order if it is between persons not 
U.S. citizens not located within the United States.
  The problem is, when you look at 2(b) and 3 and section 4, it says: 
If you can't be sure and you are risking a felony if you are not, if 
you can't be sure that they may not call somewhere in the United 
States, you have got to get a court order. That is the bottom line. 
That is what Admiral McConnell testified.
  I realize some people on the other side may think he is suspect 
because he was the National Security Adviser under the Clinton 
administration for several years, but I think he is a very credible 
source.
  As a former judge and chief justice, I realize we have got lawyers in 
here, but I am telling you, when the language says if there may be a 
call to the United States or to an American, you have got to get a 
court order, then you are going to have to get them in virtually every 
time.
  But we keep hearing no, no, all that is covered. Once again, we are 
told something is covered when again it is nothing but a hospital gown 
coverage. You are exposed in areas you don't want exposed. And that is 
what the country is looking at.
  Now, it also requires the DNI and the AG to jointly petition. Oh, and 
there is great comfort in this bill. It says the judge, once they 
finally get the papers filed, will have to rule in 15 days. If we get a 
soldier kidnapped, we have some sensitive situation, and maybe it is an 
emergency, maybe it is not, but you can't take a chance of being guilty 
of a felony, you are going to have to follow through and get a court 
order. That is what the DNI says and that is what needs to be done.
  Now, the main protection here is not for American citizens in 
general, it is for foreign terrorists. The bottom line is, tell your 
American friends who are getting calls from foreign terrorists in 
foreign countries not to call them. Use some other way to communicate, 
and then your friends are covered.
  Mr. ARCURI. It is sad that my colleague attempts to change the actual 
meaning of what this statute does. It gives no protection to 
terrorists. It gives protections only to Americans, and it keeps us 
safe and it gives us the protections that are guaranteed us under the 
Constitution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield at 
this time 2\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Franks of Arizona.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill here at issue, the so-called RESTORE Act, 
undermines the existing structure that we put in place to reform FISA 
only 3 months ago.
  In the midst of a war, any changes to the way that our intelligence 
community operates should be understood as a somber and delicate 
undertaking that requires great care. Our national security hangs in 
the balance. We cannot afford to get this wrong, Mr. Speaker.
  My amendment aimed to deal with the seriously flawed provision of the 
RESTORE Act that will do great damage to the civil liberties of the 
protections of Americans.

                              {time}  1130

  My amendment would have stricken section 11 of the bill that directs 
the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to 
jointly maintain a recordkeeping system of U.S. persons whose 
communications are intercepted.
  Mr. Speaker, this would amount to a big government database that 
would have individuals' identity attached in every practical way. There 
is simply no way to have a database like this that does not attach 
individual identities to verify the process. The Democrats maintain 
that the identity is not attached. But this is an impractical rebuttal.
  Mr. Speaker, the proposal's not only misguided, it attempts 
ostensibly to protect Americans' civil liberties and only undermines 
them further. And we have to understand that these identities would be 
attached, even if they have no connection to spying or terrorism.
  And the bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker, this war on terrorism is 
ultimately fought in the area of intelligence. If we knew where every 
terrorist was tonight, in 60 days this war would be over. And if we tie 
those people's hands who are fighting to protect

[[Page 27467]]

this country with this RESTORE Act by the majority, I believe that we 
will some day revisit this issue, Mr. Speaker, because when a terrible 
tragedy comes on this country, it will transform this debate in the 
most profound way, and we need to be very, very careful. We need to 
understand that what we're doing here is of vital importance to future 
generations.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I know my friend has more 
time than I have, and I have more requests for time than I have time 
for. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that each side 
get an additional 5 minutes so I can accommodate the requests on my 
side.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would object to that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I wonder then if I could 
inquire of my friend, since he has more time, if maybe he would yield 
me at least enough time so I can close on my side, and I'd ask my 
friend from New York if he would do that for me.
  Mr. ARCURI. Well, we are waiting on one more speaker, so at this time 
I would not yield any additional time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, once again, in defense of liberty and to 
tell my colleagues they should vote against this Rule.
  While I find it honorable that several of my colleagues have 
attempted to work to find a compromise in this legislation, I have 
concluded it still does not often enough protections for the rights of 
our citizens.
  It is the duty of Congress to strike the appropriate balance of 
freedom and liberty with the assurances of security and stability. But, 
we must constantly ask ourselves, are we going too far in one 
direction?
  And I have always maintained that if a threat is imminent and known, 
the administration should be given the temporary powers needed to keep 
our homeland secure and Congress should exercise its inherent power of 
oversight over that authority.
  I advocated this throughout the PATRIOT Act reauthorization and 
maintain it is the correct stance for us to take in times of crisis.
  While I am encouraged by the inclusion of sunsets in this proposal 
and additional roles for the FISA Court, this legislation still does 
not bring us back to where we were earlier this summer--the 
administration needing a clarification on foreign-to-foreign and 
foreign-to-domestic communications.
  Instead of taking the simple tenets of the Constitution and applying 
it to this debate, we in Congress like to overcomplicate the issue. We 
all agree these are important issues that deserve our time and 
attention but we need look no further than the Constitution for the 
right answers.
  Mr. Speaker, the proper route we should have taken in crafting the 
answer to the FISA problems is H.R. 11--The NSA Oversight Act. This 
bipartisan bill has the answers, in very clear terms, to what the 
administration has sought Congress to address.
  It allows for emergency surveillance and doesn't overly impede the 
work of intelligence officers;
  It places the FISA Court in a more proper role for reviews of the 
tactics used and warrants needed;
  And it ensures Congress conducts vigorous and smart oversight of 
these activities, all while protecting the individual freedom of 
Americans.
  And that is the goal we should be aiming for, Mr. Speaker: The 
protection of our rights and the upholding of our Constitution.
  If we fail to adhere to the Constitution and ``sacrifice our 
liberty,'' then we will have lost this great experiment we began over 
220 years ago and the terrorists will have accomplished the very thing 
they set out to do on that morning in September 7 years ago.
  We should vote down this Rule, go back to the table and report back a 
bill that preserves liberty and strikes a more proper balance between 
freedom and security for Americans.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
left, and how much time does the other side have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington controls 2\1/
4\ minutes, and the gentleman from New York controls 14 minutes.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I'll continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from New 
York if he has any more speakers.
  Mr. ARCURI. We are waiting on one more speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, we have heard so much today from the other 
side about the fear that they have that this provision will somehow put 
Americans at risk. And I think it's very clear that what this FISA bill 
does is protect America, give our Intelligence Community ability to do 
the kind of things that it needs to do, while, at the same time, 
protecting our civil rights.
  I think it was Benjamin Franklin who once said that any country who 
gives up its liberty for its security deserves neither and will end up 
losing both. And I think clearly this bill takes that into 
consideration.
  This bill clearly provides for security for our country. It clearly 
provides our Intelligence Community with the ability to obtain 
information that it needs and use that and analyze it in a way that 
keeps America safe to prevent another 9/11 activity.
  At the same time, this bill also protects Americans' rights and gives 
us the ability to prevent wiretapping of Americans here in this 
country.
  We're not talking about foreign-to-foreign. They can do that. They 
have done that in the past, and they will continue to do that. This 
clearly deals with protecting Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that have been 
brought up by the other side regarding this bill. First of all, it's 
important to keep in mind that what we're trying to do with this 
legislation is to carefully balance providing the tools to the 
intelligence professionals that are charged with keeping us safe in 
this country, and this legislation does that, regardless of what 
comments the other side has made.
  Second, and most important, we have to balance it with protecting the 
civil rights of our citizens. As we talk about protecting this country, 
we have to keep in mind that this country was founded on the principle 
of the rule of law. The rule of law protects its citizens.
  Under the Protect America Act, as we have seen over the course of the 
last few weeks, many, many concerns have been raised about the 
authorities that have been given to the government, authorities that 
would render our citizens not being able to protect and be secure in 
our homes and in our possessions.
  The Protect America Act has given so many authorities that people are 
not safe and secure in their own homes. The government can go in there 
and search their computers, search their residences, and search 
literally every possession that Americans have. This legislation 
corrects those deficiencies. This legislation is a careful balance in 
keeping our country safe, as well as securing the rights of Americans 
in their homes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would inquire of my friend from New 
York if they have any additional speakers.
  Mr. ARCURI. I have one more speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have on my side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman continues to have 2\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow for a 
substitute amendment to be offered by Mr. Hoekstra of Michigan or Mr. 
Smith of Texas. This will give the House an opportunity to consider 
additional views that were denied with this closed rule in the Rules 
Committee last night.
  And, Mr. Speaker, September 28, 2006, we had a debate on this issue 
last year, and I'd like to quote a Member and what he said on the House 
floor. And I quote: ``You beat with rulemaking that which you know you 
cannot beat with reason.''
  And he goes on to say, ``I know what you say: Do as you say, not as 
we do. For today, in the people's House democracy has been eviscerated 
by those

[[Page 27468]]

who recommend it to others. I have said it before. The way the majority 
runs the House is shameful. It is undemocratic. It happens every single 
day that we have a closed rule.''
  The speaker was my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the previous question and the closed rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
commend him for his excellent management of this rule affording us the 
opportunity to bring this important legislation to the floor.
  I commend Chairman Reyes and Chairman Conyers for their leadership in 
protecting and defending the American people by putting forth the best 
way to collect intelligence under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, as we say over and over again here, and each one of us 
who comes to serve in this body, indeed, everyone who serves our 
country takes an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution 
of the United States. It's a thrill to take that oath of office.
  As we protect and defend the American people in the preamble, it says 
to form a more perfect Union, Mr. Jackson has been a champion on that, 
to provide for the common defense. In that preamble, that's a high 
priority for us. We have a responsibility to protect the American 
people; that makes everything else possible in our community and in our 
society.
  But as we protect and defend the American people, our oath of office 
calls upon us to protect and defend the Constitution and our civil 
liberties. The legislation before us today does just that. It's about 
protecting the American people from terrorism and other national 
security threats.
  I, for a long time, have served on the Intelligence Committee, both 
as a member, as the ranking member, and also ex officio as leader and 
now as Speaker. I believe very firmly in the role that intelligence 
gathering plays in protecting the American people. We want to prevent 
war. We want to prevent harm to our forces. Force protection is a very, 
very high priority for us. Protection of our forces. And we must now 
meet this horrible challenge of fighting terrorism in the world. It has 
been a challenge for some time. In order to do that, we have to have 
the laws in place in order to collect that intelligence under the law, 
and that is what this legislation does. First, it helps us defend our 
country against terrorism and other threats. Secondly, it protects the 
privacy of the American people, which is important to them and a 
responsibility for us. And third, this legislation restores a system of 
checks and balances and how we protect and defend our country and 
provides for rigorous oversight by Congress of this collection.
  In the 1970s, when the FISA law was passed, it was conceded that 
Congress had a role in determining how intelligence was conducted, how 
the executive branch conducted the collection of intelligence, the 
executive branch, Congress, making laws to govern that, 2 Houses, 2 
branches of government. And in the FISA bill that was passed at that 
time, the role of the third branch of government was defined, the FISA 
Courts. That system of checks and balances has served our country well. 
With the advance of technology, additional challenges arose, and this 
legislation meets those challenges. Any suggestions to the contrary are 
simply not factual. What the Director of National Intelligence has 
asked for in terms of collection he has received in this legislation, 
and he has received it under the law.
  The legislation restores checks and balances in other ways. It 
rejects groundless claims of inherent executive authority. Under that, 
we might as well just crown the President king and just say he has 
access to any information in our country, and he may collect that 
outside the law.
  And this legislation reiterates that the law enacted by Congress, 
FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is the exclusive means for 
conducting electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence. The 
principle of exclusivity is a very, very important principle, and it is 
enshrined in this legislation.

                              {time}  1145

  The bill also sunsets by December 31, 2009, at the same time the 
PATRIOT Act sunsets, so the next administration and another Congress 
can review whether the new program appropriately meets national 
security and civil liberty objectives.
  This bill does not provide immunity to telecommunications companies 
that participated in the President's warrantless surveillance program. 
As I have said many times, you can't even consider such relief unless 
we know what people are asking for immunity from. Congress is not a 
rubber stamp; we are a coequal branch of government. We have a right to 
know what conduct the administration wants us to immunize against.
  Working side by side, the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary 
Committee have produced an excellent bill. It has been heralded so by 
those organizations whose organized purpose is to protect our civil 
liberties in light of our responsibility to our national security. It 
has been heralded by those who follow and hold as a value the privacy 
of the American people. It has been heralded by those who understand 
that one of our first responsibilities is to provide for the common 
defense. Our Founders understood it well, the balance that needed to be 
struck between security and liberty. They spoke eloquently to it in 
their speeches. They enshrined it in the Constitution. Let us protect 
the American people under the law.
  Please, my colleagues, support this very important legislation.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentlewoman 
from California for her very strong leadership on this issue and, over 
the years, for her many years of strong leadership in this area. I 
would also like to thank Chairmen Conyers and Reyes for their strong 
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Having said that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and 
on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 746 Offered by Representative Hastings, WA

       In section 1, strike ``and (2)'', and insert ``(2) a 
     further amendment to be offered by Representative Hoekstra or 
     Representative Smith of Texas, or their designee, which shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order or 
     demand for division of the question and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3)''.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

[[Page 27469]]

     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 746, if ordered; and 
suspending the rules on H. Res. 549.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 199, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 974]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Carson
     Castor
     Holt
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Moore (WI)
     Tancredo
     Wilson (OH)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 90 seconds left 
on the vote.

                              {time}  1211

  Mr. ISSA, Mrs. CAPITO and Mr. McCAUL of Texas changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 196, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 975]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry

[[Page 27470]]


     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Carson
     Castor
     Delahunt
     Holt
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kirk
     Marchant
     McKeon
     Tancredo
     Wilson (OH)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1218

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 975, I inadvertently 
voted ``yea'' and intended to vote ``nay.''

                          ____________________