Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 824 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my good friend from Washington, Representative Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 824 provides for further consideration of H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 60 minutes of debate. Thirty minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairperson and ranking Republican of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 30 minutes will be equally divided and controlled by the chairperson and ranking Republican of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The rule considers as adopted another amendment printed in the Rules Committee report.

Mr. Speaker, with the resurgence of al Qaeda and an increasing global threat from weapons of mass destruction in places such as Iran, every single person in this body wants to ensure that our intelligence professionals have the proper resources they need to protect our Nation.

As vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I assure you that each and every one of us on that panel and others, Republican or Democrat, are working tirelessly, and often together, to do just that.

But the government is not exempt from the rule of law, as the Constitution confers certain unalienable rights and civil liberties to each of us.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the Bush administration upset that balance by ignoring the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law, establishing a secret wiretapping program, and refusing to work with Congress to make the program lawful.

Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee have been trying to learn about the Bush administration's FISA programs for years. But the administration, which has been anything but forthcoming, has sought to block our oversight efforts nearly every step of the way.

When the administration finally came to Congress to modify the law this summer, it came with a flawed proposal to allow sweeping authority to eavesdrop on Americans' communications while doing almost nothing to protect their rights.

The RESTORE Act, true to its name, restores the checks and balances on the executive branch, enhancing our security and preserving our liberty. It rejects the false statement that we must sacrifice liberty to be secure. The legislation provides our intelligence community with the tools it needs to identify and disrupt terrorist networks with speed and agility. It provides additional resources to the Department of Justice, National Security Agency, and the FISA Court to assist in auditing and streamlining the FISA application process while preventing the backlog of critical intelligence gathering.

The RESTORE Act prohibits the warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans in the United States, including their medical records, homes and offices. And it requires the government to establish a record- keeping system to track instances where information identifying U.S. citizens is disseminated.

This bill preserves the role of the FISA Court as an independent check of the government to prevent it from infringing on the rights of Americans. It rejects the administration's belief that the court should simply be a rubber stamp.

Finally, the bill sunsets in 2009. This is a critical provision because it requires the constant oversight and regular evaluation of our FISA laws, actions which were largely neglected during the last 6 years of Republican control.

In so many ways, the underlying legislation is more efficient and effective than the administration's proposal which passed in August.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, last month, we came to the floor on this bill, but when it became clear that Republicans were intent on playing

politics with the security of the American people, we refused to take the bait.

At that time, Republicans announced that they intended to offer a motion to recommit the bill that had no substantive base, was already addressed in the bill and in current law, and was designed to delay consideration of this important intelligence tool. Their reasoning was disingenuous; their motives were absolutely political. As a result, Democrats refused to partake in their game of political theater.

If the House does not pass this bill today because of Republican obstructionism, then it will be abundantly clear that the minority and the administration are willing to put politics in front of the safety of the American people. We are back today, and we will continue to come back to the House floor, however many times it takes, to give our men and women in the intelligence community the tools that they need to do their jobs and keep America safe, while also preserving our civil liberties. This is a balance that is not only difficult but absolutely critical.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague and good friend from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from California, the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee raised a plethora of questions. I would say to him that he can expect his answers in the general debate, and I am sure that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) will enlighten him as to the scope of questions that he put. I would like to, for I feel that he knows the answer to every one of them, but I won't take the time.

I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, the Chair of the Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security, and if you can say all of that, then you must be somebody, Jane Harman.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Florida that this rule doesn't change the law. Members will still have an opportunity to vote on the base text of this bill. It doesn't change the law of FISA.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my good friend and classmate, Mr. Doggett.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to inform each side as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Reyes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who is a member of the Select Intelligence Committee and had substantial input with reference to this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Speaker, for a year and a half, the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have been working with the administration to craft a bill that will ensure our Nation is protected, without sacrificing American constitutional liberties. Let me just talk about some of the people that have had input into that particular measure. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers; the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Silvestre Reyes; the ranking members of both of those committees, including Mr. Hoekstra; all of the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, including myself; Ms. Harman, who serves on Homeland Security.

Countless testimonies during that year and a half, hundreds of discussions and negotiations between the staffs of the respective committees, and a markup of this particular provision that the Republicans brought only two amendments to in the markup in the Select Committee on Intelligence.

We negotiated. We compromised. We reached an agreement. Then the administration backed out of the agreement. So we negotiated some more. We compromised some more. We reached another agreement. We reached agreements until we were blue in the face here in August. Everybody was so tired, and the administration continued to back out of the agreement. Then, less than 24 hours before the bill was supposed to come to the floor in August, the administration reneged on the agreement and refused to work with us to protect the American people.

Last month, Democrats again brought this bill to the floor, and yet again Republicans tried to play politics with the safety of the American people. Just as they did this past summer, Republicans and the administration now seem content on letting the clock run out on the current FISA law rather than working with us to get something done. They choose and chose obstructionism rather than bipartisan cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, the American public needs to know that there are no persons in the United States Congress that do not want to protect the security and liberty of the United States.

So I do not cast aspersions on my colleagues for having a different view as to how administratively we should proceed to protect those securities and liberties, but everybody here is mindful of all of our responsibilities. So the hyperbole is off the chain sometimes when I hear people talk and it is as if we didn't really do substantively what was required of us as individuals on behalf of the American people.

None of us should be ashamed of any of the work that was done with reference to the RESTORE Act. We made a bad bill better. And it is not as good, for example, as I would like for it to be, but it is as good as we are going to get with this administration at this time.

The esteemed chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, Representative Reyes, has noted on more than one occasion: You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

Mr. Speaker, those are the well-documented facts that I just got through dealing with. The RESTORE Act protects the American people. It protects them at home and on the streets. It protects their safety and the constitutional rights, which have been intact more than 225 years, and no one need fear when the fearmongers come here and try to divide people by having somebody think that undocumented aliens are going to be put in some category. I personally am just tired of the smearing that is being done with reference to immigration in this country. We need a solid immigration policy, and we need a policy that contemplates all of the particulars of that immigration set of circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, this body has the responsibility today to pass this rule and the underlying legislation today. The security of this Nation requires it of all of us, and I believe all of us want that security and liberty. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 824 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the

vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to

proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . .

[and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications

whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said.

Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the

Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in

the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee

described the rule using information from Congressional

Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the

previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to

the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor

Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a

germane amendment to the pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3773.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Members of the House, the RESTORE Act dealing with FISA addresses the needs of the intelligence community for flexibility in dealing with modern communications networks.

It received the most careful scrutiny and consideration by this Committee on the Judiciary, as well as by the Intelligence Committee, chaired by Chairman Reyes, to ensure that it meets every concern our intelligence agencies have raised, every single one of them, and does so consistent with the rules of law, our Constitution, and our values.

Let's begin this discussion this evening by clearing up a few things that the bill will not do. The RESTORE Act will never require our intelligence agencies to stop listening to the bad guys. Never. Special emergency provisions allow us to listen first and get the warrant after the fact, if it's needed. No one will ever have to stop listening to a terrorist plotting an attack. I hope I don't hear that raised on the floor this evening.

The RESTORE Act will not make our intelligence agencies have to get thousands of warrants for terrorists outside the country. It will not do that. Instead, a basket authorization will permit surveillance of an entire foreign terrorist organization. This is the most effective way to target Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other threats to our country and our citizens.

The RESTORE Act does not give the government free rein to listen to Americans. As has always been the case under FISA, this bill requires that the government get a warrant to target an American; any American. We have also a manager's amendment, which continues to promote the goals of intelligence flexibility with appropriate oversight, while safeguarding our security and our liberty. It makes clear that the protections of the act will not inhibit gathering intelligence against present dangers, such as Osama bin Laden, or threats to our troops in the field.

It does provide guidelines to make it easier to determine when the significant purpose of the surveillance act is to acquire information on a United States person and a FISA warrant is needed. It provides important safeguards on dissemination of information about individual Americans when it's acquired under the RESTORE Act's more flexible structure. Specifically, an SES-level manager will review such dissemination on a particularized basis.

Importantly, the RESTORE Act has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who may have assisted the government in conducting unlawful surveillance on Americans. I am sorry to report to you that the other body has a measure that does give that retroactive immunity. The RESTORE Act now on the floor has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who may have assisted the government in unlawful surveillance on Americans.

Until we receive the information, the data, the letters that we have requested to know what they have done, information we have been waiting for more than 10 months for, we can't even begin to responsibly consider such a request. So as of now, it's out. No retroactive immunity.

The legislation that we have before us now is a much-needed start to restoring our system of checks and balances, preserving our liberty, and ensuring that our government has the tools they legitimately need to combat terrorism. We got pressed up against the wall in August. It's not going to happen again. There's a 6-month run on the present measure before us. Before we get pushed up against the holidays, we are saying, Let's do it now.

We have had a tremendous working relationship with the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, and his staff and my staff. Majority and minority have been working

closely together to bring to you a commonsense and balanced piece of legislation that does what we set out to do, and that is to preserve our liberties and make sure we have effective security. We want our intelligence agencies strong, but we want to bring the FISA Court back into the picture, and we do in the measure before us.

Six years ago, the administration unilaterally chose to engage in warrantless surveillance of American citizens without court review. That decision has--to be charitable--created a legal and political quagmire. Officials resigned, the program was riddled with errors, it was shut down for several weeks, officials rushed to the hospital to ask a sick man to reauthorize it over his deputy's objections, and vital prosecutorial resources were diverted. Most importantly, our own citizens questioned wheher their own government was operating within the confines of the law.

Two months ago, when that scheme appeared to be breaking down, the administration forced Congress to accept an equally flawed statute. This new law gutted the power of the FISA court. It granted the administration broad new powers to engage in warrantless searches within the U.S., including physical searches of our homes, computers, offices and medical records. The law contained no meaningful oversight whatsoever.

The legislation before us today seeks to once again strike the appropriate balance between needed government authority and our precious rights and liberties. It tells the government they need no warrant when foreign agents communicate with other foreigners. It reiterates that warrants are needed when Americans are being targeted. The bill also allows the interception of communications of foreign targets who may communicate with U.S. persons. However, it insists that procedures be in place--approved by the FISA court--to insure that no American is being targeted, and that his or her privacy is protected.

The bill also provides for several critical safeguards. We include periodic audits by the Inspector General, we narrow the scope of the authority to protect against threats to our national security, and we protect the privacy of Americans traveling abroad. We also sunset the legislation in December 2009.

The RESTORE Act, which has received careful consideration by the Judiciary Committee and by the Intelligence Committee, addresses the needs of the intelligence community for flexibility and the ability to deal with modern communications networks.

It meets every concern that our intelligence agencies have raised and does so consistent with the rule of law, our Constitution, and our values.

Let me be clear on a few things this bill will NOT do:

The RESTORE Act will never require our intelligence agencies to stop listening to the bad guys. Never. There are emergency provisions and the ability to get a warrant after the fact. No one will ever have to stop listening to a terrorist plotting an attack.

It will not make our intelligence agencies get thousands of warrants for terrorists outside of the country. Instead, they can get a basket authorization to surveil the entire foreign terrorist organization. This is the most effective way to target Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other threats.

The RESTORE Act does not give the government free rein to listen in to Americans. As has always been the case under FISA, this bill requires the government to get a warrant if it wants to target an American.

The Managers' Amendment also reflects the RESTORE Act's goals of intelligence flexibility and oversight, while ensuring both safety and civil liberties. It makes it clear that the protections of the Act will not inhibit gathering intelligence against present dangers, such as Osama bin Laden or threats to our troops in the field. It provides guidelines to flesh out what should be considered when determining whether a significant purpose of collection is to acquire information about a U.S. person, such that a FISA warrant would be required.

The Manager's Amendment also provides important safeguards on dissemination of information about individual Americans when it is acquired under the RESTORE Act's more flexible structure. Dissemination of U.S. person communications acquired under the RESTORE Act's basket authorities can only happen when an SES-Ievel supervisor determines that the identity of that person is needed to understand or assess the importance of the foreign intelligence, and to protect the national security of the United States. This is not a blanket authorization to unmask everyone intercepted, but must be done on a person-by-person basis.

Importantly, the bill has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers. Until we receive the underlying documents relating to their conduct from the administration--and we have been waiting for more than ten months--we cannot even begin to consider this request. Sending a small set of the documents to a subcommittee of the other body does not begin to meet this test.

There is one of the grave concerns about the Protect America Act that bears mention as we consider the RESTORE Act. The Protect America Act was overbroad in the types of entities from which the government could compel information, reaching into business or medical records or libraries. We have narrowed the scope of the acquisitions in the RESTORE Act to ensure that the government can only seek information under the ``basket authorizations'' from telecommunications service providers and related companies.

I share the concern of our library community that believes their mission and the chance to bring knowledge and freedom of expression abroad will be diminished if the U.S. government can indiscriminately monitor American libraries when they serve foreign users. This is not a hypothetical concern in an age of distance learning. While a library certainly is not the same kind of ``communications service provider'' as AOL or AT&T, it may allow patrons to access the internet, to send emails, and to conduct research on-line, so it literally ``provides'' these communications services to patrons. The Judiciary Committee report indicates that these now-standard library services do not make them ``telecommunications service providers'' for a 105B or 105C acquisition, but let me be clear--nothing in the bill is intended to leave libraries outside of the protections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The legislation before us today is a much needed start to restoring our system of checks and balances, to preserving our precious liberties, and to insuring that our government has all the tools they legitimately need to combat terrorism. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common sense and balanced legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize a very effective member of our committee, Mr. Schiff of California, as well as the gentleman Mr. Flake of Arizona, and I would yield them 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am stunned by my friend from California's comments, but I yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), a member of the Judiciary Committee, for 1\1/4\ minutes.

Would the former Attorney General of California yield?

That is why I seek to have you yield to me, sir.

Osama bin Laden is never going to have any rights superior to any citizen.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we understand that Mr. Lungren in his dramatic presentation about the cumbersomeness and the protections that we are affording bin Laden almost begs the question here.

We have been on this bill for several times. We have got a carve-out here. Nothing prevents conducting lawful surveillance that is necessary to, one, prevent Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda or any other terrorists, Mr. Lungren, or any ally of those persons from receiving any of these protections. We can operate against them without giving them any rights, and I think you must know that by now.

I can't give you time. I have got less than anybody here. No. I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield the balance of our

time on our side to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, an invaluable member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order, and I object to waiving the reading of the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I do not insist upon my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, here we are again at another one of these so-called motions to recommit. Approach them with great care. I strongly oppose this motion.

The minority has just made it clear that they are not seeking to change the bill; they are seeking to kill the bill. The tactic is getting pretty old in the House of Representatives. If they wanted to vote on their proposal today, they would have used the word, doesn't everybody know it now, ``forthwith,'' as I have suggested. But they have refused under well-established House rules and precedents.

Other words do not have that effect, even if they sound like they should. The minority used the word ``promptly.'' It's no accident that they chose that word. The authors of this motion know full well the effect of choosing this word, and so do we. That is why they chose it. They wanted to send the bill back to the graveyard, which is what will happen if this motion is adopted.

I would now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

I thank the chairman.

I am really moved by the sudden concern for immigration rights that the other side has begun to display, to my surprise.

I yield now to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank both chairmen, Chairman Conyers for his leadership and Chairman Reyes. In the month of August, I stood here and shredded paper to reflect that the vote we took on that bill was really a destruction of the Constitution. I am very glad to be able to stand here today to hold the Constitution sacredly in my hand and to indicate that this bill does, in fact, offer a restoration of the civil liberties of Americans but yet does not protect one single terrorist.

It is a bill that avoids reverse targeting of Americans. But it is a bill that provides the opportunity that if there was a pending threat against the United States, the Attorney General, the National Security Director, and three others could, in fact, prevent a terrorist act from occurring in the United States. This restores justice and it protects the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3773, introduced by my colleague Mr. Conyers. Had the Bush administration and the Republican- dominated 109th Congress acted more responsibly in the 2 preceding years, we would not be in the position of debating legislation that has such a profound impact on national security and on American values and civil liberties in the crush of exigent circumstances. More often that not, it is true, as the saying goes, that haste makes waste.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is intended to fill a gap in the Nation's intelligence gathering capabilities identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, by amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. It gives our intelligence professionals the tools they need to legally monitor suspect foreigners outside the United States, while protecting the fundamental rights of Americans at home.

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation, resourcefulness, and courage.

The United States would do well to heed de Tocqueville and recognize that the best way to win the war on terror is to remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of international villains will defeat the United States in the pursuit of its vital interests. A major challenge facing the Congress today is to ensure that in waging its war on terror, the administration does not succeed in winning passage of legislation that will weaken the Nation's commitment to its democratic traditions.

This is why the upcoming debate over congressional approval authorizing the administration to conduct terrorist surveillance on U.S. soil is a matter of utmost importance. I offer some thoughts on the principles that should inform that debate.

In the waning hours before the August recess, the House acceded to the Bush administration's request and approved the woefully misnamed ``Protect America Act,'' which gives the Federal Government enlarged powers to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens under the guise of conducting surveillance of foreign terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes on a sound legal footing. Given the exigent circumstances claimed by the administration, I am prepared to support a number of temporary changes to FISA legislation, provided that they follow certain principles.

First, I am prepared to accept temporarily eliminating the need to obtain a court order for foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through the United States. But I do insist upon individual warrants, based on probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. The Attorney General must still be required to submit procedures for international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval, but the FISA Court should not be allowed to issue a ``basket warrant'' without making individual determinations about foreign surveillance. There should be an initial emergency authority so that international surveillance can begin while the warrants are being considered by the Court. And there must also be congressional oversight, requiring the Department of Justice Inspector General to conduct an audit every 60 days of U.S. person communications intercepted under these warrants, to be submitted to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

This legislation allows the interception of electronic communications between foreigners outside of the United States without a warrant and permits the director of national intelligence and the attorney general to seek ``blanket'' warrants to intercept communications of people reasonably believed to be outside the United States, even if such communication happens to involve ``U.S. persons.'' Wiretap surveillance could be conducted for 7 days before a warrant must be sought, and the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court would have to act on the application for a blanket warrant within 15 days.

This legislation has many other important provisions. It affirms that FISA is the exclusive source of legal authority for conducting electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence. Crucially, it does not grant amnesty to telecommunications companies for any past violations of law. Finally, it gives the FISA Court more oversight authority and terminates the authorization to conduct foreign surveillance on U.S. soil after 2 years.

In all candor, Mr. Speaker, I must restate my firm conviction that when it comes to the track record of this President's warrantless surveillance programs, there is still nothing on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the trustworthiness of this administration, to indicate that they require any legislative response, other than to reaffirm the exclusivity of FISA and insist that it be followed. This could have been accomplished in the 109th Congress by passing H.R. 5371, the ``Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA'' Act, LISTEN Act, which I have cosponsored with the then ranking members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Harman.

The Bush administration has not complied with its legal obligation under the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the Intelligence Committees ``fully and currently informed'' of U.S. intelligence activities. Congress cannot continue to rely on incomplete information from the Bush administration or revelations in the media. It must conduct a full and complete inquiry into electronic surveillance in the United States and related domestic activities of the NSA, both those that occur within FISA and those that occur outside FISA.

The inquiry must not be limited to the legal questions. It must include the operational details of each program of intelligence surveillance within the United States, including: (1) who the NSA is targeting; (2) how it identifies its targets; (3) the information the program collects and disseminates; and most important; (4) whether the program advances national security interests without unduly compromising the privacy rights of the American people.

Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted communications.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is necessary. It is incumbent on the Congress to act expeditiously to amend existing laws so that they achieve the only legitimate goals of a terrorist surveillance program, which is to ensure that Americans are secure in their persons, papers and effects, but terrorists throughout the world are made insecure. The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join together today in enacting important and much needed reforms to FISA.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Manager's Amendment to this legislation. This amendment clarifies that nothing in this act can be construed to prohibit lawful surveillance necessary to prevent Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization from attacking the U.S., any U.S. person, or any ally of the U.S.; to ensure the safety and security of our Armed Forces or other national security or intelligence personnel; or to protect the U.S., any U.S. person, or any U.S. ally from the threat of WMD or any other threats to national security.

Mr. Speaker, even as we work to protect our Nation, we must remember the fundamental need to protect Americans. At bottom, America is its people connected to each other, and to past and future generations, as in Abraham Lincoln's unforgettable phrase, by ``the mystic chords of memory stretching from every heart and hearthstone.'' America, in other words, is Americans coming together in a community of shared values, ideals and principles. It is those shared values that hold us together. It is our commitment to those values that the terrorists wish to break because that is the only way they can win.

Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is for this country to redouble its commitment to the values that every American

will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave and the country we love.

H.R. 3773 does just that. It balances the interest in protecting the Nation from terrorists who would do us harm and, at the same time, ensures that the constitutional rights of American citizens and persons in America are not abridged. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

I thank the gentleman and my namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee held a second hearing to consider a second rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 3773, the Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective, or the RESTORE Act. As you may recall, a month ago the House considered and approved a closed rule for the RESTORE Act. Not only was it a closed rule, prohibiting any debate on amendments, but it also denied Members the opportunity to cast a separate vote on a manager's amendment and changes to the amendment which became part of the base bill once the rule was adopted.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The result a month ago was that the Democrat majority recognized the RESTORE Act was insufficient and decided to pull the bill from the House floor without a vote. Rather than spending a month working in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the bill, yesterday the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee was at it again, rewriting and denying Republican Members the chance to even offer input or suggestions and prohibiting every single Member of the House from offering amendments and alternatives. The Democrat majority's take-it-or-leave-it strategy on this bill is dangerous and is destined to fail, Mr. Speaker. It will not close our Nation's intelligence gap. In fact, it could widen it.

In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to establish a procedure for electronic surveillance of international communications. As enacted into law, FISA had two principles: first, to protect the civil liberties of Americans by requiring the government to first obtain a court order before collecting electronic intelligence on U.S. citizens in our country; second, the law specified how intelligence officials working to perfect our national security could collect information on foreign persons in foreign places without having to get a warrant.

The intent of the original FISA law was to enhance American security, while at the same time protecting American privacy. Recognizing that no responsibility of the Federal Government is more important than providing for the defense and security of the American people, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure that FISA continues to reflect the intent of the original law.

In August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step forward to close our Nation's intelligence gap. The Protect America Act passed only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's intelligence professionals the tools and the authority they needed to protect our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked a significant step forward in improving our national security. The Democrats forced the security tools that we passed in August to expire after 6 months.

Now Congress must act again to renew this law by early next year before the Democrat expiration date arrives and our national security once again will be at serious risk. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today does not provide the security we need to protect our Nation from a potential future terrorist attack. It is a retreat, Mr. Speaker, from a law enacted in August, and jeopardizes the safety and security of Americans from foreign terrorist threats.

I am concerned that not only were final changes to the bill given to the minority just yesterday afternoon, but it was stated in our hearing that the Democrat chairman of the Judiciary Committee got the revised text just moments before we did. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Conyers' willingness expressed in his testimony before the Rules Committee to work with Republicans and perhaps even postpone consideration of a rule until the bill could be properly reviewed and Republicans had a chance to offer a substitute or changes to the bill. Sadly, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee overruled Mr. Conyers and expressed her intention to move this bill without any alternatives, amendments, or possible improvements being considered.

The action of the Rules Committee in October and again yesterday to completely shut down the legislative process shatters the promises made by Democrat leaders a year ago. The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee on December 27, 2006, was quoted in the New York Times, Mr. Speaker: ``We are going to give people an honest and contemplative body they can be proud of once more. We are going to have a much more open process.''

House Majority Leader Hoyer, on December 5, 2006, was quoted in Congress Daily PM as saying, Mr. Speaker: ``We intend to have a Rules Committee that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals an ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

Mr. Speaker, actions obviously speak louder than words. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority. It is alarming that the Democrat majority wants to move full speed ahead on a bill that weakens Americans' privacy protections, while at the same time strengthening protections for our enemies in the war on terror. I must therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule so that we can make absolutely certain that we are making our laws more, not less, effective in our constant battle to prevent a future terrorist attack against our Nation.

If this rule is adopted, Members will only have the choice to vote for or against a seriously flawed bill that threatens, not strengthens, our national security. The Democrat take-it-or-leave-it strategy shuts down all voices from being heard, and ultimately every American can suffer the consequences if this bill and the rule are adopted.

Enacting the Protect Act last August, which was a major accomplishment of this Congress, which has chosen to spend, frankly, more time debating and enacting legislation naming post offices and Federal buildings than real policy, it is ironic that the Democrat majority now wants to pull the rug out from under this successful accomplishment.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about

process here on this very, very important issue. Everybody on both sides of the aisle has talked about the need to make sure that we have the right intelligence, and yet through this process there are a number of questions, I think very legitimate questions, that were raised; because if this rule is adopted, then we will have no opportunity to even vote on the manager's amendment. It will be self-executing.

It seems to me like it is a process by which, because we all know pretty much that rule votes are party votes. So it is like denying anybody an opportunity. If somebody on the other side has some questions about the questions that were raised here, they will be denied the opportunity because you have got to stay with the party and support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I just simply say that is a very, very bad process.

Mr. Speaker, we also need to pass the stand-alone veterans funding bill. It has now been over 150 days since the veterans funding bill was approved by the House. The Senate passed a similar bill and appointed its conferees 2 months ago. Sadly, Democrat leadership in the House has refused to name conferees and instead has chosen to put politics and partisanship ahead of ensuring that our veterans' needs are met.

Once the Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass the stand-alone veterans bill. Mr. Boehner took a positive historic step in that direction; now Speaker Pelosi must follow. Therefore, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Funding Bill and appoint conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the 42nd, Mr. Speaker, closed rule that we are debating here today.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is a time and place for politics and partisanship. But there are in fact important issues that transcend politics. The security of our Nation outweighs politics, especially when our country is at war.

One of the finest moments of bipartisanship in Washington came after one of the darkest days in our history. On the evening of September 11, 2001, Members of Congress stood shoulder to shoulder on the steps of the Capitol as a symbol of strength and unity in response to the terrorist attacks. In that moment, we stood together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans resolved to protect our Nation. However, as we stand here today, that same spirit of bipartisanship we shared on 9/11 no longer exists.

We began in August to address a very specific and very urgent issue facing our intelligence community. We learned from the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was outdated for today's technology. But the bill we are considering today does not modernize FISA; it weakens it. Why, after 30 years of lawful foreign intelligence collection, does the Democratic majority suddenly object to a law that their party originally enacted in 1978? Why make it harder to gather intelligence on terrorists after 9/11 than before?

Now, after only a few hours' notice, we are considering the RESTORE Act, which actually restores little. Rather, it undermines our national security and increases the risk of a future terrorist attack on our country. It prevents our intelligence community from gathering critical intelligence information. It ignores the need for legal protection for communications companies that assist law enforcement and intelligence officials. We are at war with terrorists who spend every day plotting attacks against us. Our intelligence community needs to detect and disrupt these plots. To deny this ability could have catastrophic consequences.

Admiral McConnell testified in great detail before the Judiciary Committee about the specific needs of the intelligence community and the need to reform FISA. Admiral McConnell's recommendations are ignored, unfortunately, in the RESTORE Act. Instead, it requires the intelligence community to obtain FISA court orders for all communications of persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. FISA has never applied to persons outside of the United States.

Under the RESTORE Act, FISA court orders will be required for the first time ever for thousands of overseas terrorist targets. Also, section 18 of the

manager's amendment is bluntly titled: ``No Rights Under the RESTORE Act for Undocumented Aliens.'' That is what it says. But the practical effect of the RESTORE Act will be to allow unregulated, warrantless wiretapping of illegal immigrants in the United States. Is this really what the Democratic majority intends?

Finally, the RESTORE Act omits any liability protection for telephone companies and other carriers that assisted the government after September 11, 2001. These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of harassing lawsuits. Communications technology has changed since 1978. We can no longer gather foreign intelligence without the assistance of private communications companies. Extending commonsense liability protection to communication providers who acted in good faith to protect the United States from another terrorist attack is completely appropriate. If we fail to provide this protection, we risk losing the future cooperation of communication providers in gathering foreign intelligence.

Democrats made a promise to the American people in 2006 that Members of Congress would put aside politics and work together to find bipartisan solutions to issues facing the American people. That promise has apparently been broken.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) who is the senior member of both the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a senior member of the Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished minority whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit says ``promptly,'' because the bill needs to go back to committee immediately. Members were given almost no notice of what was going to be in this bill. There are many questions remaining about the text because it has not gone through the regular committee process.

This motion addresses a major problem created by the manager's amendment. Under existing law, court orders are required to conduct certain surveillance of illegal immigrants within the United States. Section 18 of the manager's amendment strips away any rights that illegal immigrants have under FISA, stating clearly that there will be ``no rights under the RESTORE Act for undocumented aliens.''

If that is really what the Democratic leadership wants to do, then we should ensure that the legislation does not treat terrorists more favorably than illegal immigrants. To fix this problem, the motion adds ``state sponsors of terrorism and their agents'' to section 18

to ensure that they are treated equally. There is no reason that the law should provide greater protection to terrorists than to illegal immigrants.

Also, the motion preserves the ability of our intelligence community to conduct surveillance of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and other terrorist organizations to protect America from an imminent terrorist attack. When faced with a life-or- death situation, a ticking bomb, an imminent threat of attack, do we really want to subject intelligence agents to unnecessary legal hurdles in order to protect our country?

The RESTORE Act hinders our intelligence community's ability to collect foreign intelligence needed to prevent al Qaeda and other terrorists from attacking our country. It requires the government to obtain court orders to conduct surveillance of overseas terrorists. The implication of this requirement, Mr. Speaker, could be catastrophic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who is the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

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