[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3409-3415]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much the 
opportunity to once again come before the House and address issues of 
concern, to bring another version of the Official Truth Squad.
  The Official Truth Squad started a couple of years ago and was an 
attempt to, actually grew out of a frustration by many of my colleagues 
and I who watched what occurred on the floor of the House here and felt 
that there just wasn't a lot of sunshine going on, bringing light to 
many of the discussions. And so we launched the Official Truth Squad. 
The attempt was to try to hopefully bring some commonsense discussion, 
real-sense discussion to the conversations that go on here in the House 
on a number of different topics.
  One of our favorite quotes is that of the late Senator Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan who said, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but 
they're not entitled to their own facts.''
  And so, Mr. Speaker, what I'd like to do today for a little bit is 
just to talk about some facts. And one fact that I'd like to present as 
I begin is that, about a week ago, exactly a week ago, Thursday of last 
week, a little earlier in the day I took this same well, and I made the 
comment that at that time it was a specific hour on the clock. Today, 
as a matter of fact, it's 3:34 p.m. on Thursday afternoon.
  Many individuals are just getting completed with a full day's work or 
about to complete a full day's work. A lot of folks are getting ready 
for the second shift, getting ready to start their shift from 3 to 11 
across this Nation. Some who will be working the midnight shift, the 
late shift, are probably just putting their head on the pillow so that 
they can get some sleep before they get back up later this evening to 
get to work tonight.
  And where's the House? Well, Mr. Speaker, if you look around you can 
tell that the House has gone home. The House has gone home. In fact, we 
went home today without even passing a bill, without even voting on a 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have great concern about the lack of 
productivity here in the House, and they have specific concern about 
the inability, apparent inability of this House and this leadership to 
address the issues that are of utmost concern to the American people.
  We take an oath, Mr. Speaker, as you know, that says that we will 
work to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of 
America. One of the ways that we do that is to make certain that the 
individuals who are gaining information on our behalf from folks across 
the world who wish to do us harm, that we get that information, that 
we're working with as much information as possible, that we, as a 
Nation, know what the bad guys are going to do before they do it. When 
we don't, what happens is days like 9/11.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, shortly after 9/11 there were some laws that 
were passed that updated our intelligence capability, that made it so 
that our intelligence officers across the world would be able to track 
and listen to and discover electronic communication, verbal and 
otherwise, when terrorists outside of the United States were talking to 
other terrorists outside of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent the Sixth District of Georgia, just outside 
of Atlanta. When I ask folks at home does anybody think that's not a 
good idea, should we be able to listen to terrorists outside of our 
country when they talk to other terrorists outside of our country, and 
they might be talking about plans to bring many of us great harm, 
should we be able to listen if we had

[[Page 3410]]

the technological capability to do so, I haven't met anybody yet, not 
one person yet who thought that was a bad idea.
  This is not the Federal Government wiretapping, surveilling, 
listening in on conversations between you and me. This is not the 
issue. The issue is not whether or not the laws ought to be changed to 
determine whether or not our intelligence officers can listen to 
American citizens talking to American citizens on American soil.
  No, Mr. Speaker, this issue is the ability of our intelligence 
officers to listen to terrorists or suspected terrorists outside the 
United States who are talking or communicating with others of like mind 
outside the United States. Should we be able to do that?
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate thinks we ought to be able to do that, by a 
bipartisan majority, 68-29. Up until this leadership, the House thought 
we ought to be able to do that. The American people think we ought to 
be able to do that.
  But the problem now, Mr. Speaker, is this leadership in the House of 
Representatives who has allowed this law to expire. This leadership has 
made it so that the American people are suffering from an American 
Government that has brought about a unilateral, unilateral disarmament 
when it comes to determining what terrorists are doing, plotting to do 
us great harm. That's not my opinion. That's a fact. That's a fact.
  I'll give you some other facts here, Mr. Speaker. What has happened 
in the past week, since I last took this well and spoke about this 
issue is that a letter was sent out from a bipartisan group of 25 State 
Attorneys General talking about this FISA bill. I will submit this 
letter for insertion into the Record.

                                                    March 4, 2008.
     Re FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248)

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Roy Blunt,
     Minority Whip,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority 
     Leader Boehner and Minority Whip Blunt: We urge the House of 
     Representatives to schedule a vote and pass S. 2248, the FISA 
     Amendments Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation is 
     critical to the national security of the United States. Once 
     passed, S. 2248 will ensure intelligence officials have the 
     ability to collect vitally important information about 
     foreign terrorists operating overseas.
       Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller 
     (D-WV) authored S. 2248 to solve a critical problem that 
     arose when the Protect America Act was allowed to lapse on 
     February 16, 2008. The root of the problem stems from a 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') Court order 
     that jeopardizes America's national security efforts. Under 
     that decision, U.S. intelligence agencies must obtain a FISA 
     warrant before initiating surveillance involving suspected 
     foreign terrorists located outside the United States.
       The FISA Court's decision hinged on the fact that those 
     entirely foreign communications are frequently routed through 
     telecommunications facilities that happen to be located in 
     the United States. Because modern global communications 
     networks routinely route data through numerous facilities in 
     a myriad of countries, the nation in which the call 
     originates may be completely unrelated to the nation through 
     which that call is ultimately routed.
       A bipartisan majority of the United States Senate recently 
     approved S. 2248. But until it is also passed by the House of 
     Representatives, intelligence officials must obtain FISA 
     warrants every time they attempt to monitor suspected 
     terrorists in overseas countries. Passing S. 2248 would 
     ensure our intelligence experts are once again able to 
     conduct real-time surveillance. As you know, prompt access to 
     intelligence data is critical to the ongoing safety and 
     security of our nation.
       As Attorneys General, we are our states' chief law 
     enforcement officials and therefore responsible for taking 
     whatever action is necessary to keep our citizens safe. With 
     S. 2248 still pending in the House of Representatives, our 
     national security is in jeopardy. We therefore urge the House 
     of Representatives to schedule a vote and pass the FISA 
     Amendments Act of 2007.
           Sincerely,
         Attorney General Greg Abbott (R-TX), Attorney General 
           Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Attorney General Thurbert Baker 
           (D-GA), Attorney General Jon Bruning (R-NE), Attorney 
           General Steve Carter (R-IN), Attorney General Talis 
           Colberg (R-AL), Attorney General Roy Cooper (D-NC), 
           Attorney General Tom Corbett (R-PA), Attorney General 
           Mike Cox (R-MI), Attorney General W.A. Drew Edmondson 
           (D-OK), Attorney General Doug Gansler (D-MD), Attorney 
           General Troy King (R-MI), Attorney General Larry Long 
           (R-SD), Attorney General Patrick Lynch (D-RI), Attorney 
           General Bill McCollum (R-FL), Attorney General Dustin 
           McDaniel (D-AR), Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R-VA), 
           Attorney General Darrell McGraw (D-WV), Attorney 
           General Rob McKenna (R-WA), Attorney General Henry 
           McMaster (R-SC), Attorney General Mark Shurtleff (R-
           UT), Attorney General Stephen Six (D-KS), Attorney 
           General Wayne Stenehjem (R-ND), Attorney General John 
           Suthers (R-CO), Attorney General Lawrence Wasden (R-
           ID).

  This letter is dated March 4, 2008, and I'm going to read the 
majority of it because I think it's incredibly important for you, Mr. 
Speaker, and the American people to appreciate the gravity of this 
situation. Again, this is from a group of bipartisan Attorneys General 
from across the United States.
  And what they say is: ``We urge the House of Representatives to 
schedule a vote.'' Again, that's all we're asking for is a vote. ``To 
schedule a vote and pass Senate bill 2248, the FISA Amendments Act of 
2007. This bipartisan legislation is critical to the national security 
of the United States. Once passed, S. 2248 will ensure intelligence 
officials have the ability to collect vitally important information 
about foreign terrorists operating overseas.''
  Mr. Speaker, foreign terrorists operating overseas. State Attorneys 
General understand it's not talking about changing U.S. law to surveil 
or listen in upon conversations between American citizens.
  Going on in the letter, ``Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John 
D. Rockefeller authored S. 2248 to solve a critical problem that arose 
when the Protect America Act was allowed to lapse on February 16, 
2008.''
  That's the law, Mr. Speaker, that was allowed to expire because this 
current left liberal majority, left liberal leadership who runs this 
House refuses to allow a vote on this bill.
  The letter goes on. ``The root of the problem stems from a Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act Court order that jeopardizes America's 
national security efforts. Under that decision, U.S. intelligence 
agencies must obtain a FISA warrant before initiating surveillance in 
following suspected foreign terrorists located outside the United 
States.''
  And, Mr. Speaker, some people say, What's wrong with that? What's 
wrong with going to court to see if it's okay to listen in to these 
folks?
  Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that the manner of communication 
since 1978 when this bill, when the initial FISA bill was adopted, the 
manner of communication across this world has changed. We now have e-
mails. We've got BlackBerries and blueberries and all sorts of things 
that we can provide that give people access to immediate real-time 
communication. We now are able to rent portable phones, cell phones. 
You can rent them by the minute; you can rent them by the hour. If you 
rent a phone, have a phone and use it for an hour, and we're able to 
know that, in fact, that phone is being used by a terrorist overseas, 
but that phone's only going to be used for 1 hour or one call, it is 
incomprehensible that patriotic Americans would believe that our 
government ought to have to go to court in order to get a court order 
to listen to that conversation that occurred yesterday, the day before, 
the day before that, or that morning, for that matter.
  Mr. Speaker, current technology dictates that our law keeps up with 
current technology. Otherwise, the terrorists, the bad guys are a leap 
ahead of us, and that's what's happened in the last 19 days, 20 days 
when this law's been allowed to expire, and that is that the terrorists 
are getting a leap ahead of us. Again, that's not my opinion. That's a 
fact that I'll demonstrate as we talk more about this afternoon.
  Continuing in the letter, ``The FISA Court's decision hinged on the 
fact

[[Page 3411]]

that those entirely foreign communications are frequently routed 
through telecommunications facilities that happen to be located in the 
United States. And because modern global communications networks 
routinely route data through numerous facilities in a myriad of 
countries, the nation in which the call originates may be completely 
unrelated to the nation through which the call is ultimately routed.''
  What that means, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is that when a call is 
made in a foreign land by a terrorist or a suspected terrorist and he 
or she is calling another suspected terrorist in a foreign land, the 
electronics, the signal, the electronic signal of that call may go to a 
satellite, may come down to a station in the United States, and may 
head back to another satellite and then down to the terrorist. And that 
happens in real-time. That happens in split seconds. And because that 
electronic communication touches American soil, or a company on 
American soil, then, apparently, the liberal leadership in this House 
of Representatives believes that those individuals ought to be afforded 
every protection of the United States Constitution.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, that is an abrogation of duty. That is not what the 
American people believe. It is not what the Constitution says, and it 
is not what action we would choose in order to fulfill and live up to 
our responsibility and our oath.
  Again, going on. In the letter it says: A bipartisan majority of the 
United States Senate recently approved S. 2248, but until it's passed 
by the House of Representatives, intelligence officials must obtain 
FISA warrants every time they attempt to monitor suspected terrorists 
in overseas countries. We have talked about how unworkable that is. 
Passing S. 2248 would ensure that our intelligence experts are once 
again able to conduct real-time surveillance.
  As you know, prompt access to intelligence data is critical to the 
ongoing safety and security of our Nation. As attorneys general, we are 
our States' chief law enforcement officials and therefore responsible 
for taking whatever action is necessary to keep our citizens safe.
  With S. 2248 still pending in House of Representatives, our national 
security is in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, that's not Congressman Tom Price 
saying that. That is a signed letter from 25, a group of bipartisan 25 
State attorneys general, saying until this is passed, our national 
security is in jeopardy. We therefore urge the House of Representatives 
to schedule a vote and pass the FISA Amendments Act of 2007. Signed by 
the attorneys general of the States of Texas, New Hampshire, Georgia, 
Nebraska, Indiana, Alabama, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, 
Oklahoma, Maryland, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Florida, Arkansas, 
Virginia, West Virginia, Washington State, South Carolina, Utah, 
Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, and Idaho.
  Mr. Speaker, this letter demonstrates that those individuals, 
Republican and Democrat across this Nation who are charged with making 
certain that their citizens in their respective States are safe, 
recognize the gravity, the gravity of this situation and the 
dereliction of duty that occurs when the House of Representatives is 
not allowed the opportunity to vote on renewing the Protect America 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, we have called on the Speaker, called on the leadership 
on the majority side of the aisle, on the Democrat side of the aisle, 
to schedule a vote. Three weeks ago, the leadership said, no, we need 
about 3 weeks. That's what they said, Mr. Speaker. Three weeks ago they 
said, we need about 3 weeks and we'll be able to work with the Senate 
and work out any differences or disagreements or concerns that we have. 
Just give us 3 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago they said that there wasn't any urgency. 
There wasn't any urgency. Then last week on the floor of this House 
they said, we are working on it. It's an important matter. We are 
working on it. We will get it done. Over this past weekend, the 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee said, we ought to be able to get 
it done this week.
  Mr. Speaker, time is ticking away. Day after day after day that we do 
not have this law in place makes it so that our Nation is less secure, 
our people are less safe all for want of a vote on the floor of the 
House of Representatives. Senate Republicans understand that and have 
acted appropriately. Senate Democrats understand that and have acted 
appropriately. House Republicans understand that and are trying to act 
appropriately. House Democrat leadership refuses to schedule a vote. 
They do so apparently because they believe it will pass. Astounding, 
astounding, Mr. Speaker.
  I am pleased to be joined by my good friend from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn) and look forward to her comments on this issue, which I know 
you have spoken out about so vigorously and understand the gravity of 
not acting on the Protect America Act.
  I am pleased to yield to my friend.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia not 
only for his leadership on this issue of our Nation's security, but for 
his work on the Truth Squad as he always repeats the phrase, everyone's 
entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
  That is so pertinent, Mr. Speaker, to the debate that we are having 
on our Nation's security. There is no issue that trumps the security 
issue. This is something that we know to be very important.
  As I travel the country and as I travel my district, what I hear from 
people is, Why are you not taking this up? Why are you not taking the 
steps to make certain that we can find out who is trying to harm us?
  You know, Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense at all. As I talk with moms 
that are in my district so regularly, they will talk about how 
concerned they are with security, security in our communities, security 
in our places of work, security in our children's schools. They want to 
make certain that the security to live peacefully is there for us here 
in our homeland.
  They want to be certain that those protections are there for our 
troops who are deployed; and at this very minute, I have troops from 
Fort Campbell, which is in my district in Tennessee, and troops who are 
National Guardsmen from Tennessee who are deployed making certain that 
American interests are safe and making certain that Americans in our 
great Nation are also safe to live their lives freely in pursuit of 
happiness every single day.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely revolting and unsettling that the 
leadership of this House continues to stand in the way of the Protect 
America Act. Our colleagues in the Senate have decided this is a very 
important issue. We all know what happens when you set aside work. You 
have to kind of pick it up off the table and move it over and say, we 
are going to come back to that, and we are going to get those items 
accomplished. But first and foremost, let's deal with the Nation's 
security.
  So they put that on the desk. They made it the priority. They took it 
up and they said, it is not a partisan issue. We are going to find 
agreement on this because the security of this Nation trumps it all. 
The security trumps it all.
  Now, if we wanted to go play the ostrich game or if we wanted to go 
play Whack-a-Mole with the terrorists, we could do that. We could just 
rely on the 1978 FISA and pretend that we never had e-mail, that we 
never had cell phones, that we didn't have voice video and data just 
traveling on the waves through the air.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, that would be nice and make us feel good and 
comfortable, but the point is, it is not true. It just isn't true. And 
as the gentleman from Georgia has so eloquently said, we know, we know 
that the terrorists are using these new technologies to communicate, 
and we know that there are terrorists in foreign countries who are 
communicating with other terrorists in foreign countries who are trying 
to do harm to our troops in the field. We have evidence of that, Mr. 
Speaker. To our citizens in this country, we have evidence of that and 
to our citizens and our allies around the globe.

[[Page 3412]]

  Well, what is so difficult to understand about this, Mr. Speaker? It 
just seems like when the evidence is there, as the facts are there, as 
my colleague from Georgia says, why can there not be an admission that 
those are the facts, they are the givens, everybody, everybody in D.C. 
seems to agree with this except the leadership of this body. And I find 
it very disconcerting.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for her 
comments and for her perspective and for bringing more light and truth 
to this issue. And it is not just our opinion. It's the opinion of so 
many individuals.
  As you mentioned, the bipartisan bill in the United States Senate, 
68-29. These aren't the most harmonious of times in Washington, Mr. 
Speaker; but the gentlelady from Tennessee and I certainly understand 
and appreciate that one of our primary responsibilities is the 
protection of our Nation. And the Senate understood that, and that's 
why they worked together in a bipartisan way.
  So many individuals have given their opinion about why this was 
important. Mike McConnell, who is the Director of National 
Intelligence, said before the House Intelligence Committee, We are 
significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign 
terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States. That's 
what the Director of National Intelligence said.
  And Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia who is the 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, said just last 
month, What people have to understand around here is that the quality 
of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be 
degraded. He said that, if we allow the Protect America Act to expire. 
Well, Mr. Speaker, we didn't allow it to expire, but the leadership in 
the House has allowed it to expire. And that's what concerns us so 
greatly.
  I know that my friend from Tennessee appreciates what Senator 
Rockefeller has said as it relates to this issue, and I am pleased to 
yield back.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, there was a comment, you mentioned, Mike 
McConnell, who is the Director of National Intelligence, and I would go 
to a quote that he gave before to the Senate panel, and listen to this: 
that half, half, not a third, not a quarter, not a tenth, that half, 50 
percent, of what we know comes from electronic surveillance. That means 
that all of these new forms of communication that are out there, this 
is what the terrorist cells are using. Half of what we know comes from 
electronic surveillance, and get this, and the outdated Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act had degraded those intercepts by two-
thirds.
  I just find it so egregious that we would hamstring and make it 
difficult for the intelligence community to carry out their jobs when 
they are seeking to serve this Nation, when they are seeking to work 
with the military and to make certain that we know who is seeking to do 
us harm.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend once again for 
her comments and perspective on this most important issue.
  I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if there's anything that we do here that 
is more important than making certain that America is safe and secure. 
And the American people, although they know that there are partisan 
battles and political games that are played here, they understand and 
appreciate that. But what they don't understand is a leadership that 
abrogates the duty and responsibility that they have to make certain 
that this Nation is safe.
  Person after person, individuals who have great knowledge and 
experience in this area, much greater than those of us in the House of 
Representatives in terms of actual hands-on experience in determining 
what the terrorists are trying to do to do us harm, to a person, to a 
person say that this is a bill that must be passed.
  We are now 19 or 20 days into not having the ability to gain this 
intelligence, and it is harming our Nation. It is putting us at greater 
risk.
  We've been joined by another good friend from Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland), and I look forward to your comments on the issue of the 
importance and imperative of passing the Protect America Act, and I 
will yield to him.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to Mr. Price and Mrs. 
Blackburn talk, and I was wondering if we had the time to do this. So I 
went back to the day that the FISA failed, which was February 13, and I 
looked at it and said this is a complicated bill and there are some 
issues and things to be worked out and have we had enough time to do it 
and how much time are we spending on discussing this FISA.
  And so after listening to you all, I went back and got the schedule 
for February, and after February 13, on February 14, we did eight 
suspension bills, which are bills that have very little discussion, and 
two motions to adjourn. So we were in session that day about 5 hours, 
but nothing about FISA.

                              {time}  1600

  And then it seems, too, that we were gone for about 8 days. And then, 
Congresswoman, when we got back the week of the 25th, we worked 4 days 
for a total of 15 hours and 5 minutes with no FISA legislation. We did 
three suspensions on the 25th. We did the public housing on the 26th, 
which was withdrawn. We did the energy tax on the 27th. And then we did 
three suspensions on the 28th. And so, that was for February.
  And if you look at what we've done in March, we did three suspensions 
yesterday. We did six suspensions the next day. Then we did the mental 
health, which was a total of about 10 hours that we spent on that. And 
then today, it's 4 o'clock and we're already out and didn't do anything 
today.
  So, I guess my question, then, is, what are we doing? I mean, we, the 
109th Congress, was called the ``do-nothing'' Congress. What can this 
Congress be called? Does anybody have a good name, Congresswoman, that 
we can call this Congress?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. Mr. 
Speaker, it's kind of appropriate that we are interrupted by a 
unanimous consent request, a motion that says we ought not do anything 
in this House until next week, let's just go home.
  My friend from Georgia points out that we haven't been doing a lot 
this year, haven't been doing a whole lot this 110th Congress. And the 
American people can tolerate a lot in their political leaders, but what 
they can't tolerate is inaction on important issues and matters of 
national concern, national security. So, it frustrates them, it 
frustrates us that this leadership won't bring this bill to the floor. 
Twenty-one Members of the majority party have signed a letter that said 
they would vote for this; 21 Members. This bill would pass if it were 
just brought to the floor.
  I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman from Georgia is so right in what he is pointing out. 
What we're spending our time doing here are items that are not crucial, 
they're policy debates. They're policy debates about how you want to 
approach an issue. My goodness, the Government Reform Committee and my 
committee, Energy and Commerce, we have had hearings on steroids in pro 
sports. Now, we had plenty of time to parade people in and do these 
hearings, but we didn't have the time for FISA. We've had plenty of 
time to have committee hearings. Today, we were in Committee on Energy 
and Commerce on tobacco, and if we wanted the FDA, who already cannot 
keep the Nation's food supply safe, they can't keep the Nation's drug 
supply safe, but we were spending time on that instead of putting time 
on FISA.
  Now, as a mother, you know that children are going to put off to the 
very end doing the hardest thing. So, what you do when you're a mom is 
to say, no, we're going to do the hard things first. When we're doing 
homework, we're going to do the hard problems first, we're going to 
write the hard papers first because you get it out of the way. And then 
you know that regardless of how much time is left,

[[Page 3413]]

you've attended to the things that are going to have the greatest 
impact.
  Now, that is the way the leadership of this House needs to move 
forward. They need to go back and learn a Kindergarten lesson. They 
need to go back and think about what they learned there. You do the 
hard things first.
  FISA is a difficult bill. We are pleased that there are some issues 
that take a lot of work, that we have to work to build consensus, that 
we have to look carefully and study these; the Nation benefits and our 
constituents benefit by that. But to put it off, to choose to not 
address it, to leave it at the back of the line for partisan political 
gain is dead wrong.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. You're absolutely right. And that's what people 
get frustrated by is the partisanship and the political games being 
played.
  I yield to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. The gentlelady brings up a good point. But the 
Republicans, the minority here, we've tried to bring it to the floor on 
over a half dozen occasions. We tried to bring it to the floor again 
today. We tried to bring it to the floor yesterday. And this is the 
same bill that passed the Senate. And the gentlelady from Tennessee was 
taking about, it's a hard issue and it's an issue that needs to be 
discussed. There is no slower body in the world than our colleagues 
across the hall. I mean, they've been working on a farm bill for a year 
now. So, I mean, it's a very deliberative body, and they passed this 
overwhelmingly 68-29. And as the gentleman from Georgia said, there are 
21 Members that have said they would vote for this bill. So we tried to 
bring it to the floor to see if it would pass, but through 
parliamentary procedure they refused to let us vote on it.
  And, you know, Mr. Price, if we don't vote on issues, our 
constituents don't know how we really feel about it. So, you can go 
home and say, yes, I'm for the security of this Nation, I'm for the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but if you don't have an 
opportunity to vote on it, it's just words, it's simple words.
  And so we're ready for some action up here. I mean, we want to see 
some action on our intelligence to make sure our intelligence community 
has the very best tools that they need. And not only that, but our 
corporations, who have been so generous and willing to go along with 
some of the things that our government has asked them to do to keep our 
people safe, we need to make sure that they're protected.
  And so, you know, we're not the party of the trial lawyers; we're the 
party of the people. And so, I think if we quit trying to protect some 
of these special interests and start trying to protect this whole 
country, we would be a lot better off.
  And I want to applaud our leadership for staying consistent and being 
constant that we keep this in front of the American people and that we 
are trying to give the Members of this people's House an opportunity to 
vote on it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.
  We are ready for action. We are ready for action. The American people 
are ready for action on this issue; in fact, they're demanding it. And 
that's why we have begun, I think over the last week or so, to hear the 
language on the other side change, but their actions haven't changed.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. And what we're doing is we're giving an opportunity 
for the terrorists to act.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Exactly. Exactly.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Because we can't surveil them. And so, rather than 
us taking the action, they're taking the action. And that is 
unconscionable that this body is letting that happen.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Without a doubt. And our constituents 
understand and appreciate that.
  The folks that we're up against in this battle, the individuals who 
wish to do us harm, are very smart people, very smart people. And we 
have an open society. When we provide them an opening in that open 
society, they will take advantage of it. And as you say, it's 
unconscionable. It's unconscionable for this House to not allow a vote 
on it.
  Some of my constituents at home say, well, why can't you just bring 
it up? And as you've mentioned, we have tried to bring it up, but the 
House is a very majoritarian body, it is run by strict rules. And if 
the leadership of the majority party doesn't want it to happen, it 
won't happen. If the majority party doesn't want it to happen, it won't 
happen. And the reason for that is they control absolutely everything 
that comes to the floor. And consequently, our constituents, our 
friends at home get frustrated by the fact that we, in this House of 
Representatives, seem to be unable to get this done. And we've called 
on, I've called on, everybody here has called on the Democrat 
leadership, on the Speaker, on the leader on the other side to bring 
this to a vote.
  We're comfortable and confident that this House will do the right 
thing, will do the responsible thing, and will pass this bill.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want Mr. Hoekstra to have a chance, but I do want 
to say this: We had a bomb go off in Times Square this morning, 
fortunately, it didn't do a lot of damage, at the recruiting station 
right in the middle of Times Square in the middle of New York City. And 
we also have had a bombing in Jerusalem today. So, the terrorists are 
still at work. People that want to terrify this country are still at 
work, and we've let our guard down.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you for those comments.
  We're pleased to be joined by our good friend from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra), who is the ranking member, former chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, understands this issue as well as anybody, and 
has been a champion for not just his constituents in the State of 
Michigan but all Americans in bringing focus on it.
  I am pleased to yield to my good friend.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank my colleague. And I thank all of my colleagues 
for talking about this important issue.
  You know, we've been talking about this now for over 7 months. Last 
August, we passed a 6-month extension. That 6-month extension expired 
at the beginning of February. We passed a 2-week extension. We got to 
the end of that, and then the Democratic majority said, well, let's do 
a 3-week extension. And we said, no, we need to do a comprehensive fix. 
We need to fix FISA long term. We need to do the telecommunications 
companies. And then they said, well, we can do that in 3 weeks. An hour 
ago marked the end of the third week of legislating.
  They were never serious about getting this done, and they wouldn't 
have gotten it done when they said they would. At the beginning of this 
week they said, well, we're not going to get to it this week because 
our legislative agenda is just too packed full. Here we are at 10 after 
4 and our packed legislative agenda means the House stopped business at 
3 o'clock.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Absolutely.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Unbelievable. But now 5 weeks ago, when we started into 
this process one more time, we said exactly what my colleague was 
highlighting, both my colleagues, the terrorists have not stopped. They 
continue their attacks in Pakistan. Five weeks ago is when they had 
some major bombings in Pakistan just before the elections. They had the 
major bombing in Afghanistan. But we also then started hearing from al 
Qaeda in Iraq saying they wanted to use Iraq to do what? Do you 
remember? Al Qaeda in Iraq said, we want to use it as a base to attack 
Jerusalem.
  And then a major terrorist died in Lebanon. We're not sure exactly 
what the circumstances were. Some think it's Israel, some others say it 
might have been Hezbollah itself. But one of the key leaders of 
Hezbollah passed away, and the statement from Hezbollah then was, 
``we're going to hold Israel accountable.'' And what happened today? 
Martyr Mughniyah, within the last hour, a TV station affiliated with 
Hezbollah, said this group may not be affiliated with Hezbollah, but 
the group, Martyr Mughniyah, as

[[Page 3414]]

far as we can tell, a new terrorist group, along with the Gaza Martyrs' 
Group, which may also be a new terrorist group, claim responsibility 
for the Jerusalem operation.
  So, with the events of the last 5 weeks, some new identified 
terrorist groups have popped up. And most likely, if there is any 
intelligence that our allies, because we said, who is going to be 
vulnerable by our diminished capabilities? It's going to be America's 
homeland. It's going to be our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is 
our embassies around the world, and potentially our allies. With what 
al Qaeda in Iraq and what the various organizations have now said after 
the death of Mughniyah, these are new terrorist groups.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Yes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate that, because what you point out 
is that in a relatively short period of time, which is what we've been 
saying, the terrorists are flexible. They change based upon what 
happens here at home.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Right.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. What occurs on the floor of this House is 
consequential. Who is to say that there wouldn't have been information 
that would have been gained, had we had this bill in place, that would 
have been gained that would have allowed us to know that those 
activities were going to go on today?
  I am pleased to yield back.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We might have. But the key thing here is if these are 
new terrorist groups that we didn't know about before, guess what? And 
our allies, the Israelis, got meaningful intelligence about this group. 
The law on surveillance would be the law that was in place on 9/10/01, 
the very law that the President, his national security advisers, our 
current Speaker of the House, bipartisan leadership in the House and 
Senate all said would not work. Another example within the last hour. 
All right. Dynamic situation.
  And remember, I think we all know that intelligence only works when 
you do it in a timely way. You know, 2-year-old intelligence is no 
longer intelligence; it's data. It's information for historical 
purposes. To keep America safe, intelligence has to be real-time, and 
the only law didn't do it.
  Again, when we talked about what potential threats would be, 5 weeks 
ago we said, you know, there have been people who have been arrested 
because they were going to allegedly murder the Danish cartoonist. 
There was a plot in Denmark to do this. And I said, well, that's 
interesting. But there is another threat on the horizon. Dutch TV 
refuses to show anti-Koran film as terror alert is raised. What is 
this? We've known for quite some time that a Dutch parliamentarian was 
going to do a video on Islam, his interpretation of Islam. I'm not 
saying whether it's right, whether it's wrong, but as a parliamentarian 
you would think that he could have the opportunity to express his views 
on Islam in a country that, I think in Rotterdam now the most popular 
baby's name is Muhammad. But he was going to give his views of Islam 
and was preparing a video. And there were allegations that there might 
be some things that were inflammatory in this video, people saying he 
might burn the Koran. Who knows. We don't know what's in it.
  But the Dutch Government now, it just came out that the Dutch, we 
knew this video was in development, not knowing what was in it, but the 
Dutch now, the TV networks have refused to show it. But he may release 
this film on the Internet, which has caused the Dutch, again, a very 
firm and strong ally in Afghanistan in the war against radical 
jihadists, the Dutch have gone on a high terror alert.

                              {time}  1615

  If there are groups, new groups that form as a reaction to this new 
video, the old law will apply. Our hands will be tied behind our back. 
Our intelligence community will be limited in its ability to help the 
Dutch protect their assets. And as we have known from the past, when 
radical jihadists have an opportunity like this, they don't just focus 
in on a particular country. They use it as an opportunity to go after 
modern Islamic regimes in the Middle East, countries in northern 
Africa, all of Europe, not just the Dutch, and the Americans. But if 
there are new groups that haven't been identified before, the old rules 
apply, which means we are more vulnerable.
  It is absolutely unconscionable that here we are 3 weeks later and 
once again we are going home without dealing with this. And it's not 
because of a heavy workload. It's because they don't want to do what 
the Senate has done.
  The Senate passed a great bill, 68 votes, bipartisan. And we all know 
how hard it is to get 68 votes in the U.S. Senate today. But a broad 
bipartisan bill that gave our intelligence community the tools that 
they needed, and it gave to the telecommunications companies the help 
that they needed to do their work.
  I mean, it's absolutely unacceptable to have one of our colleagues up 
here today to talk about the intelligence community. Remember the last 
debate on the last bill, not talking about what our intelligence 
community is doing to protect American lives. And American intelligence 
officials, people working in our intelligence community, have lost 
their lives keeping America safe, and our friends on the other side say 
what? They're Big Brother. Well, you know what? They're Big Brother, 
but they are not big brothering America. They're focused on one thing: 
finding radical jihadists.
  But these folks belittle the effort of our intelligence community and 
give the American people the impression that our intelligence community 
is just looking for ways to destroy Americans' civil liberties. I have 
met with these people. I know they're focused on a couple of things: 
protecting Americans' civil liberties as they keep America safe. And to 
belittle the work of our intelligence community is absolutely 
unacceptable, and it's really an embarrassment that those kinds of 
comments are made on the floor of this House.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Without a doubt. And there are so many things 
that have occurred during the discussion about this issue that have 
been sad and distressing. That was one of them today, as you saw the 
chuckles go across on the other side of the aisle when the companies, 
the patriotic companies, are trying to assist this administration, 
assist this government, assist our intelligence community in being able 
to protect all of us; and all they do is denigrate them. It's just so 
distressing because it's such disinformation and misinformation that it 
confuses our constituents. But what our constituents understand and 
appreciate is that it is the majority party in this House that won't 
allow this House to vote on a bill to protect America.
  I'm pleased to yield to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to ask my colleague, the ranking member of 
the Select Intelligence Committee of the House, if I understand it 
correctly, after 9/11 the President called in his national security 
advisers, the CIA, the FBI, all of our intelligence agencies, along 
with representatives of some of the telecommunications companies, and 
got together to find out what their assets were for doing surveillance 
and gathering intelligence, I guess. After they came up with that, if I 
understand you correctly, you're telling me that a bipartisan group, 
which included the now-Speaker of the House, were informed of this and 
that there were some adjustments made to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act to cover these new groups and new methods of gathering 
intelligence, but what I hear you saying now is, because this thing has 
expired, that we're back to September 10, 2001, on our ability to 
gather intelligence on these new groups.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. That's exactly right. The individuals in our 
government. This was never the administration's program. It was never 
the President Bush program. This was always the American Government's 
program, because the administration identified what we needed to do and 
how we could do it and they went to the bipartisan leadership of the 
House and the Senate,

[[Page 3415]]

a small group, because if you have these kinds of capabilities, you 
don't want it broadcast to al Qaeda and radical jihadists about what 
your capabilities are. You want to use it as an effective tool. But on 
a bipartisan basis, the leadership of the House and the Senate and the 
leadership on a bipartisan basis of the Intelligence Committees in the 
House and Senate signed off on these programs.
  The current Speaker of the House was briefed four times in the 8, 9 
months immediately after 9/11, and you know what? Number one, now she's 
not bringing to the floor the very changes that she supported in the 
aftermath of 9/11, but the companies that we went to and asked them for 
their help. And when these companies said we know the administration is 
supportive of this, have Members of Congress been informed, the 
administration could truthfully say, yes, they have been briefed. 
They've been informed. They know what we're going to ask you to do, 
what information we expect to get and how we expect that to keep 
America safe. They're now throwing them under the bus.
  But the more important thing is the urgency of today. We need these 
companies to help us. They help us all the time. And we're having a 
chilling effect on these types of American businesses that in many ways 
are helping us in basic law enforcement activities, not only radical 
jihadists but basic law enforcement, because they're now being told if 
you help us, recognize that in many cases we're going to throw you to 
the wolves, which in this case are the trial lawyers.
  I appreciate my colleagues having this discussion and debate. Thank 
you very much for allowing me to be a part of this. I need to get 
going. I was hoping I could say I'm going to a meeting where we are 
going to work out the final details on FISA, but now that's not the 
case. I've got to go to a different type of meeting. But thank you very 
much for furthering the effort on this very, very important issue.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you for bringing greater clarity to that, 
Mr. Hoekstra.
  And before you joined us, I read and inserted into the Record a 
letter from 25 State attorneys general talking about the importance of 
FISA, a bipartisan group of individuals across this Nation who have the 
responsibility of keeping their States safe. And they understand and 
appreciate the imperative of this.
  Again, this gets so confusing to the American people because the 
people that apparently don't want this to pass want the American people 
to be confused. This is pretty simple, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you know why those attorneys general wrote the 
letter? Because it's affecting the local governments' ability to do 
surveillance on people from Mexico who are in this country illegally, 
drug lords and others. It's affecting our local governments' at-home 
ability to do this surveillance. It's not just al Qaeda and the 
terrorists. This is affecting our local law enforcement too.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. It's affecting the information that they're 
able to get. But it's communication from a foreign individual on 
foreign soil to another foreign individual on foreign soil. This is not 
between an American individual on American soil to another American 
individual on American soil.
  Mr. Speaker, when it's confused and brought into kind of a perplexing 
dilemma for people and talking about the violation of Americans' civil 
rights, that's not what this is about. This is about protecting 
Americans from terrorists overseas. And what we have seen in the last 
19 or 20 days is exactly what Senator Rockefeller knew when we see, 
when he said on February 14 of this year: ``What people have to 
understand around here is that the quality of intelligence we are going 
to be receiving is going to be degraded.'' He said, stating before the 
Senate, that if this bill is not passed, the ability to gather 
intelligence will be degraded. Mr. Speaker, that means that we are not 
able to get the intelligence we need.
  We are now 19, 20 days into not having this bill in place, not having 
this law in place. And why? I have difficulty when I get asked at home 
that question. My constituents, many of them, will say, why won't they 
pass the bill? A majority of the House wants it. Right? And that's 
correct. Twenty-one Members on the Democrat side have said they would 
vote for the bill. The vast majority, if not everybody, on the 
Republican side would vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, you know, that's 
a majority of this House of Representatives. So let the House work its 
will.
  Why won't they bring it up? The only rationale, the only reason that 
has made any sense to anybody, is purely political. Purely political, 
either to continue the issue for their left, liberal wing because they 
believe they could gain political points with it or the political 
nature of not making it so the communications companies have immunity 
from the information that they provide on foreign individuals, 
terrorists overseas communicating with other terrorists overseas, 
providing those individuals the same protections that we have under the 
United States Constitution.
  Never before has that been done. Never before have we provided 
individuals in a foreign land, non-American citizens in a foreign land, 
the rights, privileges, and protections of the United States 
Constitution. Because of the trial lawyer lobby and because of the 
trial lawyer support for the majority party, the Democratic Party, 
that's apparently the only reasonable answer to the question, Why won't 
they allow this to come forward?
  But, Mr. Speaker, the leadership has recognized, at least they say 
they have recognized, the importance of this issue. Just 6 days ago, 
the majority leader said: ``This is a very serious, important bill. 
It's critical to the defense of our country.'' Just last week he said 
this. Why, then, Mr. Speaker, are we not voting on it today? It's 4:25. 
There's no reason that we ought not have brought this bill up today or 
yesterday or the day before or tomorrow. But, Mr. Speaker, no, the 
House has gone home.
  Individual after individual has appreciated and recognized the 
importance of this bill, that the terrorists, those who want to do us 
harm, are very nimble. They're very flexible. They're very bright. 
Members of the House of Representatives oftentimes have the opportunity 
to go to Iraq and to Afghanistan. I was talking to a colleague who was 
there just 11 days ago. That's just a week into when we didn't have 
this capability. And 11 days ago, this Member of this body, this House 
of Representatives, was told by a general on the ground in Iraq that 
the information they were receiving was not as of high quality as it 
had been the week before. Changes occur that rapidly in the ability to 
gain information.
  Mr. Speaker, some say that the individuals representing them across 
this Nation are incapable of leading this Nation anymore. Some say that 
the actions of this House of Representatives border upon treasonous 
activity. Mr. Speaker, this isn't leadership that's going on in this 
House right now; it's an abrogation of duty. It's an abrogation of 
responsibility. It's a violation of the people's trust. It's a 
violation of the oath of office. Mr. Speaker, the American people are 
demanding that this be voted on and that it be voted on at the first 
opportunity, which now becomes next week.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate Republicans have voted ``yes.'' The Senate 
Democrats have voted ``yes.'' The House Republicans will vote ``yes'' 
when given the opportunity. The House Democrat leadership is the only 
thing standing in the way of passing the Protect America Act and 
securing and defending this Nation in only the way that we can now, 
with appropriate intelligence capability. We must do that and we must 
do that as soon as possible.

                          ____________________