Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, additionally, I ask unanimous consent that our colleagues be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 600.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 600 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time through the legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, on the following measures:

First, H.R. 3087, a bill to require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq; and, second, a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important at this juncture in my remarks that I make it very clear that we have heard a lot of talk from the other side of the aisle about the need to reform FISA. The Director of National Intelligence has identified a specific intelligence collection gap and spoken of ``a backlog for things requiring a warrant,'' and I quote him. He claims that this is hindering our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks.

Congress, Mr. Speaker, takes its responsibilities to protect the Nation seriously. None of us on either side of the aisle want to leave our intelligence professionals short. The Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and the leadership have been working around the clock to come up with a solution that addresses this particular problem. However, again and again, the administration has overplayed their hand. Each time we get close to an agreement, they ask for more, and I might add the negotiations on this have been going on for over a year.

First they said Congress needed to clarify that the government shouldn't need a warrant to collect foreign communications. There was never ever any disagreement about that.

Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that.

Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and would consider retrospective immunity when we get back.

But we insist on a couple of things. We want to preserve the role of the FISA Court as an independent check on the government to prevent them from infringing on the rights of Americans, and we insist that this legislation have a sunset. In this rushed environment before recess, we should not make permanent changes to FISA.

Last night, the congressional leadership was willing to make further changes for Director McConnell. He said with those changes he would support the bill because it would ``significantly enhance America's security.'' And I am quoting him again. But after this agreement was reached, congressional Republicans insisted on a much broader, permanent bill, giving the Attorney General, this Attorney General, not the Court, the discretion to make decisions about surveillance involving Americans. Clearly, in my judgment, they are not negotiating in good faith.

If they reject this bill, the other side is saying, in the face of a resurgent al Qaeda, they don't want to plug the collection gap identified by the Director of National Intelligence immediately. They are rejecting ``significantly enhancing America's security.''

Now, if the other side insists on manufacturing obstructionist delays and rejecting agreements that will enhance our security, we can stay here all August and September and December until we get this done. The security of this Nation deserves no less.

This rule is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because under clause 1(a), rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, as my colleagues well know, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not an unusual procedure, as some on the other side may suggest. In fact, in the 109th Congress, alone, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days.

This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these two bills and will help us move important legislation before we leave for the August recess. Time is, indeed, of the essence. Not because many in this body wish to go home this weekend but, rather, because of the gravity of these situations both here at home and abroad.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this rule and the underlying piece of legislation.

I do wish to put my colleagues on notice that, following the conclusion of debate on this rule, I intend to offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will permit the House to consider emergency legislation today appropriating $250 million to begin the reconstruction of the I-35 bridge, which collapsed this week in Minnesota. We have properly given our condolences and continue those to those who have lost loved ones and those who are awaiting word regarding those who are still missing and those who have been injured. All of us grieve with all of them.

Without this amendment and this rule, this legislation will not be permitted to proceed; and these emergency funds would be delayed. Realize a vote against this rule and my amendment to the rule will be a vote against providing this emergency assistance to the people of Minnesota, specifically Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

This matter is under suspension. My friend on the Rules Committee and I were there when it passed out of the Rules Committee on suspension, and that requirement is met.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you for yielding. It is in the hopper. The minority members of the Intelligence Committee have the measure.

At this time, I am very pleased to yield to my colleague, with whom I've served 7 years on the Select Committee on Intelligence. She was the ranking member and is now the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Before yielding to Ms. Harman, who has gone down this road for well over a year to get us to this point, I would like to say to my friend from Texas that perhaps it would be helpful if he would ask the minority members of the Intelligence Committee about the bill.

Secondly, the measure that we are dealing with is a rule providing for suspension, not consideration.

That said, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Ms. Harman).

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute to respond.

I yield 30 seconds to Ms. Harman.

The gentleman says he has a copy of the bill in his hand. I would remind the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, who is my good friend, that this rule is to make in order a suspension day.

I'm glad you do understand it.

I would ask the gentleman from Texas to ask his Republican colleagues on the Intelligence Committee why they didn't share the bill with the Rules Committee Republicans. We cannot control what you do or do not do.

And under the circumstances, Ms. Harman just made it very clear to you that the goalposts keep moving. You try to act as if you don't know that for a year and a half that this has been going on here in this intelligence community, working with this administration, trying to take care of this matter.

Now understand this. First, you said on that side that Congress needed to clarify that the government shouldn't need a warrant to collect foreign-to-foreign communications. There was never any disagreement about that, and stop saying it to the American public.

Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that.

Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and consider retrospective immunity when we get back.

Last night, not yesterday, not midnight to noon, and some people have gotten caught in the dark, last night, the congressional leadership was willing to make further changes for Director McConnell. He said that with those changes he would support the bill because it would, in his word, ``significantly'' enhance America's security.

But after this agreement was reached, congressional Republicans insisted on a much broader bill giving the Attorney General, not the Court, the discretion to make decisions about surveillance involving Americans. Clearly, in my judgment, as I said previously, you're not negotiating in good faith.

I remind you once again that this rule is to make in order a suspension day. You will have all the time you need to do all the reading you need to do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding me time, and I do know that we are here today, among other things, to seek immediate resolution from the United States Congress to help the wonderful people of Minnesota in their time of grief by authorizing money that will be spent to immediately rebuild the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi.

All Members of this body watched the horror the other night as we saw not only the collapse but also the heroism of men and women, first responders and others, as they joined in to help the people of Minneapolis-St. Paul as they struggled with this.

I would note that the committee action, regular order, has taken place to make sure that this bill would be before not only the Democrat majority but also we as Republicans participated in each of these activities.

The gentleman stood up and talked about how great and wonderful and what normal and regular things happen around here, but these are not normal times.

Once again today, here we are on the floor of the House of Representatives almost as a new low, I would say, Mr. Speaker, being asked to debate a rule on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and we don't even have a copy of the bill. So I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida, can we please see a copy of the bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand this. This new Democrat majority that comes to town, talks about open and honesty, ethics above reproach, all the things that they would do differently than what the Republicans have done, and they have not lived up to that.

I would yield to the gentleman if he will answer the question: Where is the copy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that we're doing the rule on today that we're expected to vote on today?

Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from California for his words.

Mr. Speaker, this Democrat majority has simply not lived up to the words that it spoke when it became the new majority. And it was a campaign promise that is reiterated on a regular basis all through this Chamber and all the committees. Most disappointing among these is the forgotten promise that Democrats promised to be the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history.

And I will now quote Speaker Pelosi from page 24 of A New Direction for America, and I quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

I further quote the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter, on November 12, 2006, just a week after election. She said, ``My fellow Democrats and I have long felt that the Rules Committee was failing its major obligations. We publically argued that it was being used to shut down the legislative process for partisan purposes. But now that the Democrats will control the committee we will have a chance to change all that.''

Mr. Speaker, they have not changed it. They've made it worse.

We do understand right now, as we speak, we have a copy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that evidently has only now been given to the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we talk about this genuine desire to solve the problem, but the fact of the matter is we're about as close as midnight and noon in our thoughts and beliefs as parties for doing that.

I hearken back to just a few days ago in the Rules Committee, where some of the questions from my good friends on the Democrat side are: Well, what about the constitutional rights of some of these people who live in other countries who are known terrorists, what about their constitutional rights? And we need to take those into account.

Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how we're sitting here debating something that's in the best interests of this country, and some people are more concerned about the terrorists' rights than they are about protecting this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his long service, both on the Intelligence and Rules Committees.

I am now the Chair of an Intelligence Subcommittee of Homeland Security. As no one in this Chamber would miss, security is my passion, and I think it is our primary obligation as Members of Congress.

I was sitting here listening to the discussion about where is the bill and why aren't we acting on FISA? It seems a little disingenuous, given the fact that the current ranking member on the Intelligence Committee and former chairman, has an article in USA Today in which he says that this move to get the administration to put its surveillance program under FISA ``gives legal protections to foreign enemies who would do us harm.''

Excuse me? FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed by a large bipartisan majority in 1978. FISA was passed to assure that Americans, not foreigners, would have their constitutional rights protected when the U.S. engages, as it must, in foreign intelligence surveillance.

I don't think there is anyone here, not that I know of, who is against foreign intelligence surveillance. There is no one in this body, I haven't heard one person say that we think that when the U.S. engages in foreign intelligence surveillance, in foreign countries involving communications between foreigners in different foreign countries, that FISA applies. But FISA can and must apply when Americans' constitutional rights are at issue, and that is the issue we will debate a little bit later.

I want to say that it surprises me again that all of a sudden no one knows what we might be talking about. There have been intense negotiations, I have been a part of some of them, for months over what we might do to make FISA work better. In the 109th Congress, all nine Democrats on the Intelligence Committee authored legislation to help FISA work better; and in this Congress I'm aware of both closed and open hearings by the Intelligence Committee to carefully consider these issues.

So it seems to me quite surprising and disingenuous to hear that, for example, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee doesn't even feel that FISA protects Americans; he thinks that it coddles foreigners.

I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Reclaiming my time, I don't have a copy of the latest draft. It may be one I've seen, but I'm not absolutely positive. My understanding is that negotiations have been going on for quite a long time and that the requirements of the DNI have been met.

What is happening, and I think it's a real tragedy for the American people, is that the goalposts keep moving. I just wonder whether the other side wants this to be a wedge issue or wants to solve the problem.

As one Member here who has worked on this for years, I want to solve the problem; and we will attempt to do that under the suspension rules later today.

Well, what I meant was that I'm aware that there were negotiations going on with the DNI last

evening. So drafts have been shared back and forth. All I said was that I came over to the floor to support the rule to permit this issue to be addressed under suspension, and I don't have in my hand what may be the latest version.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, just to respond to that, I'm not interested in lunacy, and I know that Mr. Dreier is not, and I'm sure that Ms. Wilson and Mr. Hoekstra are not either.

There is a way to solve this problem correctly. I believe that the draft, which I'm certain will be circulated to everybody imminently, I believe that you will see that it is a very careful and balanced effort to address this problem, and it has been shared.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I would remind everyone here that this rule is to make in order a suspension day. This particular measure is not about FISA.

Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield to a woman that I've worked with on the Intelligence Committee when she was the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and that I worked on that committee with for 6 years. In this body is the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee; in addition, another of my colleagues, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Turner, Mr. Holt. All of us serve on that same committee that Mrs. Wilson serves on, and I rather suspect that she knows that we know that there is no prohibition that she has suggested here.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the former ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee and the now-Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment of the Homeland Security Committee.

Excuse me.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to be astounded, particularly at the remarks of the distinguished ranking member of the committee that I serve on with him, that he would have us believe something different than what his proposal allows for. His proposal, or the proposal of the minority, would allow the Attorney General to do this, not lawyers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the point person for every person in the House of Representatives on intelligence, the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Silvestre Reyes.

Madam Chairman, what the gentleman just read was ordered to the White House by the National Intelligence Director. The Republican logic allows that what was acceptable yesterday is not acceptable today.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I do not.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to briefly describe this amendment to House Resolution 600.

The amendment would add a third suspension measure to this resolution, a bill to provide assistance to Minnesota. This will allow the House to consider the Minnesota bridge disaster emergency relief legislation. I am sure that everyone here would urge that the reconstruction of the bridge that tragically collapsed on Wednesday be undertaken.

While the minority has been engaging in manufactured obstructionism, the House has been denied the opportunity to act on the priorities of the American people.

While the minority has been engaged in manufactured obstructionism, the House has enacted on legislation to require a comprehensive strategy to withdraw our troops from harm's way.

While the minority has been engaged in manufacturing obstructionism, the House has not been able to act on FISA reform.

Finally, while the minority has engaged in manufactured obstructionism, the House has not acted on providing emergency assistance to our fellow Americans who are grieving and suffering in Minnesota.

Manufactured obstructionism is what they are doing, and the American people will not stand for it.

By allowing this bill to come to the floor today, we can get this bill to the President's desk immediately. Whatever differences we have here today, this should be something we all can support.

I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

As our previous colleague was talking, I think she laid it out pretty well. Are we going to involve the courts in reviewing our foreign intelligence activities? If you take a look at the bill that is out here, it appears that the court is going to be involved in reviewing our intelligence community activities overseas. This becomes the Terrorist Protection Act, not a surveillance program.

Do we want a court reviewing our tactics and strategies for foreign intelligence or foreign individuals in foreign locations and lay it out the way that this bill wants? This is not about theory. This is about protecting the homeland, and it is about protecting our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Does it make sense that when a commander in the field gets the information or gets leads that may protect their soldiers that, rather than following the lead immediately, the first thing that they do is bring in the lawyers to make sure that they get that information in an appropriate and legal way on the battlefield? Is that giving our troops the tools that they need to keep themselves safe and secure and defeat the enemy?

Does it make sense when our intelligence frontline folks, whether it's in northern Africa or in the Middle East, get a lead as to individuals who may be targeting the United States, that the first thing that they need to do is get the lawyers involved to make sure that foreign intelligence is collected in an appropriate way, rather than focusing on what needs to keep us safe?

After 9/11, we spent a lot of time working together to put together an intelligence community that would, in the future, be able to connect the dots. With this bill that it looks like we're going to consider this afternoon, we won't have to worry about connecting the dots anymore because we will put the barriers in place that means that they will not even be able to collect the dots. But if you believe that this is a bumper sticker war and this is a bumper sticker threat that we face today, this bill is for you.

Take a look at the statement by the Director of National Intelligence. The Director of National Intelligence today is the same individual that served many years under President Bill Clinton as the Director of the National Security Agency. Here's what he has to say about this bill:

I have reviewed the proposal that the House of

Representatives is expected to vote on this afternoon to

modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House

proposal is unacceptable. I strongly oppose it. The House

proposal would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to

provide warning and to protect the Nation, especially in our

heightened threat environment. I urge Members of Congress to

support the legislation I provided last evening to modify

FISA to equip our intelligence community with the tools we

need to protect our Nation.

This is an individual who has a 30-year career in this business. He served President Clinton; he's serving President Bush, but most importantly, it is

a career that is distinguished because he has served the country and has kept us safe. Let's respect his opinion. Let's give him the tools that will keep us safe, keep us safe in the homeland and keep our troops safe on the battlefield.