To allow tribal members to make their own health care choices.

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

[[Page H998]]

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 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

[[Page H999]]

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 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.

____________________