[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2338-2340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 HOUR OF MEETING ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House 
adjourns on Thursday, February 21, pursuant to this order, it adjourn 
to meet at 4 p.m. on Monday, February 25.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, if 
I may.
  Mr. Leader, I just had the opportunity to lead the house in the 
Pledge, which is a solemn honor. We stand here in an empty Chamber, 
virtually. Yesterday this House had an opportunity to act and protect 
our Nation to a greater degree by adopting FISA, which the Senate 
adopted in a bipartisan manner 68-29. It troubles me and many on our 
side that we're not proceeding with that business today, and I think 
that it's important that we know, the Nation knows, Representatives 
here know that this House is not acting when it could, and I would 
suggest respectfully, Mr. Leader, we should.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield under his reservation?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In fact, I am from this very Chamber about 25 feet from here going to 
have a meeting with Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
Conyers on proceeding to accomplish the objective the gentleman wants 
to seek and we want to seek.
  As you also know, 2 days ago, we had a vote on ensuring the extension 
of the existing statute, not because we believed that was necessary but 
for an abundance of caution, and as the gentleman knows, every one of 
your Members voted against that extension on the demand that we do what 
you wanted us to do now. But in the protection that was available to 
you to extend for 21 days the protections you say are now going to be 
absent, every one of you voted ``no.'' I'm sorry that that happened.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time and continuing to reserve 
the right to object, the gentleman certainly knows that this has been 
extended from August until earlier this month. And then we agreed to a 
14-day extension, until this evening. We believe, as I know you know 
well, our side believes that this needs to be adopted. Bipartisan 
action in the Senate proceeded along those lines and agrees that it 
ought to be adopted. We believe that letting the time lapse further 
only brings significant potential detriment to our Nation. So we 
strongly believe that it needs to be adopted.
  You know that we're not in the majority. We're in the minority. 
Thirty-four of your Members voted not to extend for 21 days. Not to 
extend. Your side, the majority, could have adopted an extension had 
you been able to muster the votes, but we don't have the majority. 
We're at your disposal, if you will. But we strongly believe that here 
we are in a Chamber that is virtually empty, and in fact I would 
suggest, Mr. Leader, respectfully, that we're abrogating our duties as 
representatives of the people.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Would the gentleman yield under 
his reservation?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would just like to make 
something very clear for the record. In a statement that is contained 
in the Washington Post today, written by the DNI, the Director of 
National Intelligence, he points out that it is not only necessary to 
extend the Protect America Act but it is absolutely essential, in his 
opinion and in the opinion of the others in the intelligence community 
leadership, that we have an immunity for those telecommunications 
companies that responded affirmatively to the request of our 
intelligence agency to assist after 9/11. He states unequivocally that 
it's his opinion and the opinion of the others of the leadership of the 
intelligence community that we put ourselves at risk if we do not do 
that and that failure to do that has already visited upon us some 
problems with respect to cooperation around the world.
  So let's just please let the record be correct that it is not just 
the extension of the Protect America Act, which was the sole subject of 
the vote that we had 2 days ago, or 3 days ago, but it is also the 
question of immunity, or the Good

[[Page 2339]]

Samaritan law, to apply to those companies who have responded 
affirmatively to the request to save our Nation. And that needs to be 
stressed. That's the crux of the question, as the gentleman from 
Maryland made very clear on the floor yesterday, or 2 days ago, in the 
debate.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield so I might respond to the 
gentleman from California's response?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Under my reservation, I'm happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I disagree with Mr. McConnell, Admiral McConnell, whose 
op-ed I read this morning. And as the gentleman knows, I would 
reiterate, had we extended by 21 days the Protect America Act, which 
all of your Members voted against, had we done that, the immunity which 
was provided in that would have continued. As the gentleman also knows, 
that the only issue here is whether or not the administration has to go 
to the trouble to go to the FISA Court, which it has done so over 
16,000 times, not this administration but the previous administration, 
and only had its request rejected five times; 99.9 percent of the time 
the FISA Court has approved. And once it approves, the telecoms, the 
telecommunication companies, acting in response to that court order are 
not liable for their actions. Therefore, we regret that we have not 
extended that, but, as I said, I am meeting today, we will be meeting 
through the next days, to try to come to an agreement.
  Because the Senate delayed its action for 3 months after we passed 
our bill, it presented us with a bill that you wanted us to take as a 
fait accompli, without going to conference, without having the 
opportunity to discuss it. We think that was unreasonable and we didn't 
agree. So we're going to pursue this process and we are all in 
agreement that we ought to get this done.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, continuing under my 
reservation, I would just point out to the gentleman, as he well knows 
again, that the majority party could have passed a 21-day extension had 
it desired, but it was unable to do so.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Ninety percent of our party voted for that. All we needed 
was just a few from your side, and you all, each and every one without 
exception, voted against extending the present law which you now say if 
it lapses will put the country at risk. We do not agree with that, but 
that is your contention, not our contention. And it is somewhat, I 
think, contradictory for you on the one hand to say we're putting our 
country at risk and on the other hand voting to a person to not extend 
the law which you say protects our country.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I would just point out once 
again that this has been delayed from August until earlier this month, 
and then 14 days, or until this evening. I respect the leader greatly, 
but frankly many, the vast majority if not all Members on our side, 
never believed that the majority party would, in fact, allow this to 
lapse. And so to unilaterally disarm us, as many folks have described 
this action on the part of the majority, is something that was, we 
felt, unconscionable.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I'm happy to yield under my reservation to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The gentleman from Maryland 
knows that I have great respect for his abilities here on the floor and 
consider him an expert in parliamentary procedure. However, when the 
opinion of the DNI, Admiral McConnell, comes to bear, I must 
respectfully tell the gentleman from Maryland that I believe he has the 
experience upon which we should rely in this Chamber. He is not a 
partisan. He has served both Democrat and Republican administrations. 
He was the head of the NSA during at least 4 if not 6 years of the 
Clinton administrations, and he is, I believe, a straight shooter. He 
is the one who came to us and said because of the decision by the FISA 
Court, reinterpreting in a sense the state of the law, that at least 60 
percent of the valuable, legitimate terrorist targets internationally 
are closed off to us if we do not have the provisions of the Protect 
America Act and, he said, an immunity given to those companies which 
have assisted us in the past.
  Now, the gentleman can smile about it, I understand, but the fact of 
the matter in he is the top intelligence expert in the United States. 
He along with the unanimous opinion of the top intelligence officers of 
the United States have told us that is a fact.
  Now, the gentleman, as I said, is a well-respected parliamentarian, a 
well-respected leader in this House, and I would certainly respect his 
opinion on those issues. But what we're talking about here is 
intelligence. And so I think we have laid bare the differences. You on 
your side believe with your knowledge and experience that the law we 
had prior to our passage of the Protect America Act is sufficient to 
protect the Nation. That is directly contradicted by Admiral McConnell, 
directly contradicted by someone who served both Democrat and 
Republicans and has had their respect.
  I do not recall the gentleman from Maryland ever calling into 
question the opinion or the direction or the leadership of Admiral 
McConnell when he served in the Clinton administration, and I don't 
understand that while his judgment was appropriate there, his judgment 
is to not be respected here. So the fact of the matter in the dispute 
is whether we believe the top intelligence officers of the United 
States that we need this law, including the immunity, or I call it the 
Good Samaritan law, for those telecommunications companies that have 
responded positively to our request to help find out what the enemy is 
doing, or as the gentleman from Maryland suggests, superior knowledge 
and judgment with respect to this, and, therefore, we ought to put 
aside what Admiral McConnell has told us in the past and continues to 
tell us even till today.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
his response.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I'm happy to yield under the reservation to my 
friend the leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is an important issue which is therefore why I think it's worthy 
of making sure that everybody understands. The gentleman from 
California makes the point that he believes that we are at risk. I 
again reiterate, all of your Members voted against the extension. The 
gentleman from Georgia says we had a lot of time. Very frankly Senator 
Reid has given the opinion, it is my opinion, respected as a 
parliamentarian apparently or knowledge of parliamentary procedure, 
that the reason it was delayed in coming to this body was because, as 
the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, you made the comment, which I 
think is absolutely accurate, all of you on your side of the aisle 
thought that we would take whatever the Senate gave us because we would 
be fearful; we would be fearful of not pursuing substantive legislative 
process to discuss this very important issue. I agree with you. Every 
one of your Members thought, in your words, we would blink. The 
question is not blinking. The question is substantively getting to a 
result that furthers the protection of our country and the protection 
of our Constitution. That is our perception. That is our belief. And I 
will tell my friend from California that it's not my opinion alone but 
it's the opinion of a number of people, including the former adviser to 
this administration on terrorism as well as the previous administration 
on terrorism, Richard Clarke, that the opinion I have expressed is an 
accurate opinion.
  The gentleman also knows in terms, and I want to say, also, I don't 
think it's the appropriate place nor do I intend to get into my 
perception of Admiral McConnell's position. That's not the purpose of 
this debate. I have some views, but I'm not going to get into

[[Page 2340]]

those. What I am going to get into and simply respond to these 
observations is that we believe the country is protected. We believe 
that in terms of all of those al Qaeda objects that you make reference 
to, I hope and presume, I do not know, I have no secret information 
that I'm disclosing, but I would be shocked and dismayed and deeply 
disappointed if at this point in time the administration did not have 
in place orders that covered at least from now until August of this 
year, which is when we last authorized this bill, the Protect America 
Act, and under which the administration could have gotten authority 
which would have lasted for a full year. So those orders are still in 
place, they will not lapse, and it will be no impediment to further 
interception of those communications.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, and I appreciate those 
comments. There's clearly a difference of opinion. Just to set the 
record straight, it's important that this House and the Nation know 
that 34 of your Members voted not to extend for 21 days, a little 
greater number than the 21.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, a lot of them didn't believe 
that the act ought to be in place, you understand, at all.
  Mr. PRICE or Georgia. I appreciate that, because I was about to make 
that point. The objection to the extension comes from both the left and 
the right. It's not that we thought you would blink. We could not 
believe that the majority would not live up to its primary 
responsibility, which we perceive as making certain that this Nation is 
protected. That's what we believed.
  This House, Mr. Speaker, has adopted billions and trillions of 
dollars worth of spending in less time than it would have taken this 
week to come to conference and reach an agreement. We're here on 
Friday. We're ready to go. We are ready to go, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. I believe the gentleman is speaking about when you were in 
charge, passing those trillions of dollars in very short periods of 
time. We took a longer time, as you may recall. I think you were 
responsible, as a matter of fact, for some of that time that we spent.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. And I appreciate that, Mr. Leader. We slowed 
that down a little bit and hopefully we spent a little less.
  Mr. HOYER. Right.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that. But our side looks at the 
world and sees Hezbollah challenging Israel to open war. We look at the 
world and we see al Qaeda threatening to assassinate the Filipino 
President. We look at the world in, I believe, realistic eyes, and we 
cannot believe that this House will leave this Nation exposed to 
threats in this time in our history. It just is astounding to us.
  And so I rise, Mr. Speaker, to reserve the right to object, because I 
believe strongly that the majority of Members of this House, if given 
the opportunity, would support the bill that came from the Senate.
  I am pleased to yield under the reservation to my friend from 
California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. To underscore that point, as the 
gentleman from Maryland knows, a letter was sent by 21 Members on your 
side of the aisle to the Speaker asking that the Senate bill be 
presented and stating that they would support it in whole if it were 
presented on the floor. Now, again, I'm not a math major, but 21 on 
your side and virtually everyone on our side perhaps, with the 
exception of three, certainly adds up to a majority in this House.
  So, if the question is would the House be given the time to work its 
will, the statement of support on your side of the aisle in written 
form from your membership sufficient to create a majority in this House 
shows that we had the will if given the opportunity to support a bill 
coming out of the Senate which responded affirmatively to the 
presentation made by Admiral McConnell.
  I again understand the gentleman from Maryland disagrees with the 
admiral, disagrees with the assessment, but the fact of the matter is a 
majority in this House disagrees with the gentleman from Maryland. They 
specifically said in their letter that all of the specific aspects of 
the bill about which they were concerned were taken care of by the 
Rockefeller-Bond bill and would support it if it were presented here on 
the floor and said a key part of that was the inclusion of the immunity 
for those companies who had assisted this Nation. And, remember, it's 
not a blanket immunity. It is an immunity only if they acted in good 
faith at the request of the United States Government from 9/11 up until 
the present time. That is not a blanket immunity, and that's what we 
are confronted with here, a failure to allow us just to vote it on the 
floor. We could debate it then and the gentleman from Maryland and his 
minority of Members, a strong minority but a minority of Members who 
believe the admiral is wrong would have their opportunity to debate and 
attempt to persuade the majority of Members who have already indicated 
that they support the admiral's position and believe that we should 
follow on that support with actual legislation.
  So that's the point I think that ought not to be lost here. It's not 
that we're not in charge or you're in charge. It's a question of 
whether the leadership will allow the majority of the House of 
Representatives to work its will on probably the most important issue 
facing the American people at the present time.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that and I 
appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the indulgence of the House in allowing this 
debate to go forward which I think has been important.
  I withdraw my reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________