Congratulating the National Football League champion New York Giants for winning Super Bowl XLII and completing one of the most remarkable postseason runs in professional sports history.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5349, to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days. Let me be clear that while I do not support legislation that grants legal immunity to telecommunications companies that provide information to Federal investigators without a warrant, I recognize that the current legislation is set to expire this Saturday, February 16th. Although I do not support the Protect America Act, we need more time to work with our colleagues in the Senate on the substance of this legislation in order to ensure that we reconcile the Senate language with the RESTORE Act (H.R. 3773), which we passed in the House on November 15, 2007.

I would like to thank my Senate colleague Senator Feingold, from Wisconsin, for his diligent work in trying to amend this legislation to protect American civil liberties, both at home and abroad.

Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of us.

The original legislation offered by the House Majority gave the Administration everything that they needed, but what the Senate is proposing virtually throws our Bill of Rights out the window, because they are telling Americans that no matter what your business is, you are subject to the unchecked scrutiny of the Attorney General without judicial intervention.

I am disheartened by the other body for their failure to recognize that we can secure America by passing responsible electronic surveillance legislation that does not compromise our civil liberties.

Madam Speaker, in August of this year, I strongly opposed S. 1927, the so-called ``Protect America Act'' (PAA) when it came to a vote on the House floor. Had the Bush administration and the Republican- dominated 109th Congress acted more responsibly in the 2 preceding years, we would not have been in the position of debating legislation that had such a profoundly negative impact on the national security and on American values and civil liberties in the crush of exigent circumstances. As that regrettable episode clearly showed, it is true as the saying goes that haste makes waste.

The PAA was stampeded through the Congress in the midnight hour of the last day before the long August recess on the dubious claim that it was necessary to fill a gap in the Nation's intelligence gathering capabilities identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. But in reality it would have eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and represented an unwarranted transfer of power from the courts to the Executive Branch and a Justice Department led at that time by an Attorney General whose reputation for candor and integrity was, to put it charitably, subject to considerable doubt.

The RESTORE Act, H.R. 3773, is superior to the PAA by orders of magnitude. This is due in no small measure, Madam Speaker, to the willingness of the leadership to reach out to and work with all members of the House. The result shows. The RESTORE Act does not weaken our Nation's commitment to its democratic traditions. Rather, it represents a sound policy proposal for achieving the only legitimate goals of a terrorist surveillance program, which is to ensure that American citizens and persons in America are secure in their persons, papers, and effects, but terrorists throughout the world are made insecure. Let me direct the attention of all members to several of the more important aspects of this salutary legislation.

First, H.R. 3773 explicitly affirms that the exclusive law to follow with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As initially enacted by Congress in 1978, the exclusivity of FISA was undisputed and unambiguous. I hasten to add, however, that while FISA remains the exclusive source of law, H.R. 3773 recognizes that the law as enacted in 1978 can and should be adapted to modem circumstances and to accommodate new technologies. And it does so by making clear that foreign-to-foreign communications are not subject to the FISA, even though modern technology enables that communication to be routed through the United States.

Second, under H.R. 3773, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and is accorded a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. The bill ensures that the FISC is empowered to act as an Article III court should act, which means the court shall operate neither as a rubber-

stamp nor a bottleneck. Rather, the function of the court is to validate the lawful exercise of executive power on the one hand, and to act as the guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other.

Third, the bill does not grant amnesty to any telecommunications company or to any other entity or individual that helped federal intelligence agencies spy illegally on innocent Americans. I strongly support this provision because granting such blanket amnesty for past misconduct will have the unintended consequence of encouraging telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans. The only permissible path to legalization of conduct in this area is full compliance with the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Moreover, Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that the loudest demands for blanket immunity come not from the telecommunications companies but from the Administration, which raises the interesting question of whether the Administration's real motivation is to shield from public disclosure the ways and means by which government officials may have ``persuaded'' telecommunications companies to assist in its warrantless surveillance programs. I call my colleagues' attention to an article published in the Washington Post in which it is reported that Joseph Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, alleges that his company was denied NSA contracts after he declined in a February 27, 2001 meeting at Fort Meade with National Security Agency (NSA) representatives to give the NSA customer calling records.

Madam Speaker, the authorization to conduct foreign surveillance on U.S. soil provided by H.R. 3773 is temporary and will expire in 2 years if not renewed by the Congress. This is perhaps the single most important limitation on the authority conferred on the Executive Branch by this legislation. The good and sufficient reason for imposing this limitation is because the threats to America's security and the liberties of its people will change over time and thus require constant vigilance by the people's representatives in Congress.

To give a detailed illustration of just how superior the RESTORE Act is to the ill-considered and hastily enacted Protect America Act, I wish to take a few moments to discuss an important improvement in the bill that was adopted in the full Judiciary Committee markup.

The Jackson Lee amendment added during the markup made a constructive contribution to the RESTORE Act by laying down a clear, objective criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce in preventing reverse targeting.

``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons.

One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, have with the PAA is that the understandable temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards in the PAA to prevent it.

My amendment reduces even further any such temptation to resort to reverse targeting by requiring the administration to obtain a regular, individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the surveillance is a person in the United States.

The amendment achieves this objective by requiring the Administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.'' The current language in the bill provides that a warrant be obtained only when the Government ``seeks to conduct electronic surveillance'' of a person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.

It was far from clear how the operative language ``seeks to'' is to be interpreted. In contrast, the language used in my amendment, ``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that has long been a staple of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by the agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson Lee amendment provides a clearer, more objective, criterion for the Administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can agree should not be permitted.

Let us be clear, Madam Speaker, that nothing in the bill or in my amendment requires the Government to obtain a FISA order for every overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into or from the United States. Rather, the bill requires, as our amendment makes clear, a FISA order only where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications.

This will usually happen over time and the Government will have the time to get an order while continuing its surveillance. And it is the national security interest to require it to obtain an order at that point, so that it can lawfully acquire all of the target person's communications rather than continuing to listen to only some of them.

The Jackson Lee amendment gives the Government precisely what Director of National Intelligence McConnell asked for when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

It is very important to me; it is very important to members

of this Committee. We should be required--we should be

required in all cases to have a warrant anytime there is

surveillance of a U.S. [sic] person located in the United

States.

In short, the Jackson Lee amendment makes a good bill even better. For this reason alone, civil libertarians should enthusiastically embrace the RESTORE Act.

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, who remains the most astute student of American democracy, 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.

As I wrote in the Politico, ``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.''

Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is for the United States country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which 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.

I would ask my colleagues to support this 21-day extension so that we may work together as a body, Members of both the House and the Senate to provide our citizens with the protections they so richly deserve. We need to have time to reconcile the differences between the House and the Senate in order to ensure that the important provisions of the RESTORE Act protecting the constitutional rights of Americans is preserved. I ask my colleagues to support the Bill of Rights and national security by supporting the 21-day extension in H.R. 5349.

Madam 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, and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned.

First, I was prepared to accept temporarily obviating the need to obtain a court order for foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through the United States. However, I continue to insist upon individual warrants, based on probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. This can be negotiated during this 21-day extension period.

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.

In all candor, Madam 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 not enough on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the trustworthiness of this administration, to indicate that they require a blank check from Congress.

The Bush administration did not comply 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.

Madam Speaker, the legislation before us is only necessary to give this body time to work with our colleagues in the Senate. The 21-day extension will give us time to impress upon the Senate, how important it is to protect the civil rights of all Americans.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in a vote of support of this 21- day extension. H.R. 5349 gives us time to amend the unwise and ill- considered reauthorization of the Protect America Act of 2007.

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the time. I thank him as well for his leadership. I thank Mr. Reyes for his leadership. And, yes, I thank Mr. Hoekstra for his leadership as well, as well as Mr. Smith.

This is a very serious issue we confront today. This bill passed the Senate less than 24 hours ago; yet this coequal branch of the government of the United States is asked to do what the minority when it was in the majority would never have done, to take exactly what the Senate tells us to take, or, frankly, what the President tells us to take.

Now, let me say that we passed a bill November 15, 3 months ago, which gave the FISA Court and which gave the intelligence community everything they needed, given the technological changes and given the demands of keeping America safe. Everything. The Senate passed a bill out of their committee at about the same time.

But I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the Senate you have been slow-walking this bill. You have been slow-walking this bill to put us in the position we find ourselves in today. And you did it because the issue here is not the intelligence community, as Mr. Hoekstra talked about. It is the telecommunications companies. That is what the issue is here. Because title I would have been conferenced months ago. But, no, we do not want to apparently look very closely at what happened between the administration and the telecommunications companies.

Now, we passed a statute which said to the telecommunications companies, look, when we make phone calls, they need to be private and you can't disclose those to people, including the government, without a court order. We passed the FISA Court bill specifically to provide for the ability of our intelligence community to intercept communications, but to do so under the aegis of a court. That is what we do in America. It makes us a little different. Some governments, of course, do willy- nilly whatever they want to do.

This is not just about FISA. We incarcerate people without hearings, without lawyers. We torture people, contrary to the edicts of the international law, rationalized by an Attorney General of the United States in a memo to the President of the United States.

But I tell my friends that nobody in this institution ought to have any self-respect if what you are saying is we ought not to go to conference on this important issue, which is what you say by voting against this extension. This extension is caused almost solely by the members of the President's party in the United States Senate who would not allow this legislation to move more quickly in the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I believe our friends on the other side of the aisle and the President of the United States are taking an untenable position. And what is that position? On the one hand, if the Protect America Act expires, America will be at risk. On the other hand, if we extend and keep in force the Protect America Act, the President says he will veto it. Now, I don't know what kind of Lewis Carroll logic that is, but it certainly escapes me. If in fact, and I don't agree with the President, but if in fact it is important to keep the Protect America Act in place, then passing this extension is the best way to do so.

Now, I think there are some things that we can discuss in conference. I, frankly, have told the White House as late as just a few hours ago that I think we can discuss possible ways to move forward on this, because there is not a person on this floor that doesn't want to protect America, that doesn't want to facilitate the interception of communications valuable to that objective of protecting America and Americans.

I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this extension, just as we did by unanimous consent essentially without a vote just a few weeks ago. The contemplation then was that the Senate would act. But the Senate did not act. It did not act until less than 24 hours ago, last night, late afternoon, and now we are confronted with take it or leave it.

Do we have no self-respect in this institution? Do we have no sense of responsibility to oversee that which has been passed, to go to conference and discuss our differences? There are differences, as you know. I would hope that every Member would say to themselves, yes, we have that kind of self-respect, and we understand our responsibility as an independent House of the Congress of the United States.

The logic of the opponents of this legislation, as I said, escapes me. The Protect America Act is imperative, they say, but they oppose its extension, as I said.

Madam Speaker, I support this 21-day extension. I want everybody on this House floor to understand that if we have a 21-day extension, I am hopeful that we will go to conference, I am hopeful the Senate will agree to a conference, and I am hopeful that we can engage Republicans and Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, on the Judiciary Committee, in an honest conference trying to resolve our differences and pass legislation that helps protect America. I want to remind my colleagues that this body has already passed reauthorization, so there is no need to do that. We are ready for conference right now.

So, Madam Speaker, in closing, let me urge every Member of this House, whether you are for or against the Protect America Act, whether you are for or against immunity, whether you are for or against title I of this bill, vote for this extension, just as you would vote for a CR and not shut down the government in order to give us time to pass appropriation bills fully. That is what this is, simply to give us 3 weeks, 10 days of which we won't be here, to address this very thorny issue on which there are legitimate differences of opinion.

The only other thing one could conclude is simply we are taking the position of ``Take it or leave it, House. Don't exercise your judgment, House. Don't meet your responsibilities to the American people, House.''

That is not what our constituents expect us to do. Vote for this extension.

Madam Speaker, I believe our friends on the other side of the aisle and the President of the United States are taking an untenable position on this legislation to provide a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act. On one hand, they argue that the extension of the PAA is vital to our national security. Yet, on the other hand, they come to this floor and oppose--and the President is threatening to veto--the 21-day extension of the PAA.

The logic of the opponents of this legislation escapes me. The PAA is imperative, they say. But they oppose its extension?

Madam Speaker, I support this 21-day extension. Here's why: it represents progress toward a final measure to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I want to remind my colleagues that this body has already passed legislation to reauthorize FISA. On November 15--3 months ago this Friday--the House passed the Restore Act, a bill that modernizes the technologically outdated FISA statute, gives the intelligence community the authority to intercept critical foreign communications, and honors our constitutional principles.

As we all know, this is a complicated issue. That is precisely why we're doing this extension today. With this vote, we are declaring that we will not just take whatever legislation the Senate sends us and rubber-stamp it. We are declaring that this body has a prerogative and a role in making law.

The bottom line is: responsible people in both Chambers want an opportunity to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills.

Let me close by saying, I do not agree with those who contend that the expiration of the PAA will jeopardize our national security. And, I am not alone in this view.

For example, Richard Clarke, the former chief National Security Council counterterrorism advisor to Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, has stated (and I quote):

Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would

not cease should the Protect

America Act expire. If this were true, the President would

not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his

veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue

even after legislative provisions lapsed because

authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a

full year.

And, Kenneth Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, recently said in an interview--according to the New York Times--that if the PAA expires, intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year under the law.

We must not fall prey to fearmongers who claim that our intelligence community could ``go dark.'' That is simply not true.

I urge my colleagues: pass this 21-day extension of the PAA so that we may try to work out our differences with the Senate-passed legislation, and enact legislation that protects our national security and the constitutional rights of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 960, legislation to congratulate the New York Giants for winning Super Bowl XLII and completing one of the greatest upsets in professional sports history. I introduced this resolution because I am so proud that this incredible team plays at Giants stadium, located in East Rutherford, New Jersey in my district. I am honored that we have a Super Bowl champion back in the New York New Jersey region again.

On Sunday, February 3rd, in Glendale, Arizona, the New York Giants achieved the highly improbable by beating the previously undefeated New England Patriots by a score of 17 to 14 in Super Bowl XLII to win the National Football League (NFL) championship. The game was the most watched Super Bowl ever, with nearly 100 million viewers tuning in-- making it the second most viewed American broadcast in television history.

Since its inception in 1925, the New York Giants organization has been a model of professionalism, teamwork, and community service in the New York New Jersey metropolitan area. From the beginning, the Giants franchise--and indeed the entire National Football League--has flourished under the leadership and guidance of the Mara family. Back in the 1960s professional football was struggling to survive. It was the foresight of Wellington and Jack Mara, co-owners of the most profitable team in the NFL, which allowed professional football to prosper. They put the league ahead of their team by agreeing to share lucrative television revenue equally among all NFL teams, thus providing the other teams in the league with much needed capital to promote the sport across America. The current success of the NFL is a tribute to the character and selflessness of the Mara brothers. They proved to the National Football League and the Nation that honorable business practices and teamwork can indeed generate great success.

The New York Giants franchise has been one of the most successful in National Football League history. The Giants have had 15 players inducted into the Profesional Football Hall of Fame. The team has been to the postseason 26 times and won more than 600 games, including 16 divisional championships and 7 NFL championships--three of which were Super Bowls (XXI, XXV, and XLII).

Since 1976, the Giants have played at Giants stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey--which is located in my congressional district. I have always been proud to have such a wonderful organization located in our district. In particular, I would like to recognize the ``Giants Foundation,'' which was founded by Wellington Mara. It is an organization that provides important social and financial support to underprivileged youth and their families throughout the entire metropolitan area.

The Giants began the 2007 season with a tough loss to the Dallas Cowboys at Texas Stadium. What they didn't know as they walked off the field in Irving, Texas, was that this would be the last time they would lose a road game all season. After that loss to the Cowboys the Giants won 11 straight road games--an unprecedented achievement and a record in the National Football League.

Their impressive road streak began just a few miles away from here in Landover, Maryland at FedEx field. The Giants turned their season around with a fourth quarter comeback against the Washington Redskins, capped by an impressive stop on fourth and goal as time expired.

After the regular season ended the Giants took their road winning streak into the postseason where they won 3 straight road playoff games--a National Football Conference record.

The Giants' victorious journey this season epitomizes the American values of hard work, determination, and resiliency. Along each step of the journey, few believed they would triumph, but the Giants continued to defy conventional wisdom and prove to the so called experts that a team of individuals fully devoted to a goal is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Their defense, which allowed 80 points in the first 2 games, turned their season around to become the best defense in the league--capable of holding the most vaunted offense in recent memory to 2 touchdowns on the biggest stage in sports. Their offense, captained by quarterback Eli Manning, was sporadic at best during the regular season, but seemed to mature right before our eyes in the

playoffs as the Giants protected the football and put together clutch drives when it mattered most.

But perhaps the greatest momentum shift of the season was Coach Tom Coughlin's decision to have his team play to win against the then undefeated New England Patriots in the final game of the regular season. In a game that didn't matter for the Giants, as they had already clinched a playoff birth, the ``Boys in Blue'' played their hearts out and went toe-to-toe against what many were calling the best team in NFL history. Even though they lost on that day--the Giants gained a great deal of confidence from the contest, which they carried with them all the way to their victory against those same New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.

I am offering this resolution to honor the entire Giants organization on their incredible season, and on their outstanding win in Super Bowl XLII. Specifically, I would like to congratulate Giants owner and Chief Executive Officer John Mara, Executive Vice President Steve Tisch, Head Coach Tom Coughlin, Defensive Coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, Offensive Coordinator Kevin Gilbride, and all of the Giants players and support staff on a job well done. Their triumph shows that no matter the odds, a group of determined underdogs can take on a dynasty and emerge victorious.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 960, and congratulate the Giants for their exciting season and remarkable win in Super Bowl XLII.

Madam Speaker, I would begin by yielding myself as much time as I may consume.

Members of the House, after delaying consideration of the House- passed RESTORE Act for months, just last night the other body has passed a very troubling FISA bill. Their action comes only 3 days before the expiration of the temporary bill which expires this Saturday, and we have a number of problems with the legislation coming from the other side.

First, it provides blanket retroactive amnesty for telecom companies that took part in warrantless surveillance programs. Now I have never heard, in my legal experience, that retroactive immunity, or immunity of any kind, can be given when you don't know what it is being given for, and that presents quite a large problem. Then there is no FISA Court review of certain authorizations generally referred to as ``basket warrants'' until after the wiretapping starts. It creates a problem that we would use the additional 21 days that we are asking for, I think that would come under very close examination.

And then there are much weaker provisions on stopping other warrantless wiretapping, for example, reverse targeting of U.S. citizens and the question of sufficient congressional oversight.

So based on the documents that have been provided so far, and they are far from complete, I have letters of requests in great detail, the case for amnesty has really not been made.

The administration's bluster and fear-mongering don't do any of us very well. That doesn't serve the purpose of our legislative function and our relationship with the several branches of government. And it should be understood as perhaps another attempt to use national security for partisan ends.

The administration's view is that the President, as Commander in Chief, can spy on Americans in the United States without a warrant, a proposition that is very seriously contested by many of our constitutional and civil liberties authorities. Congress is committed to providing the executive branch the tools it needs. But we need to do so to make sure that the power to spy on Americans is not subject to abuse or misuse. All of us in this body think that that is of paramount concern.

The administration has requested that the Congress rubber-stamp its proposed legislation but has refused to provide Congress the information that would even purport to support the legislation. It is the administration that has unfortunately played politics with this issue. The administration still hasn't provided us with all of our requested documents.

Just yesterday, another letter was sent requesting the same information we have been asking for for so long. The House can't simply be stonewalled or ignored. And it cannot exercise its constitutional responsibility and then be bullied to rubber-stamp complicated and important legislation that impacts on national security.

We hope that the measure before us today will be passed resoundingly in a bipartisan way.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, we have the right to close. Are there any more speakers?

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, what we have discussed this afternoon is far too important to rush the legislative process. I hope we will rise above partisanship today and act responsibly to defend the Constitution as we have all taken an oath to do. And so I urge the bipartisan passage of the measure that has been debated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order.

The motion to recommit is not germane to the bill under consideration and therefore should not be considered.

H.R. 5349 seeks a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act as previously amended, thus amending the act so that it would expire not 195 days but 216 days after enactment.

The motion to recommit goes beyond the scope of the bill, and beyond the scope of the Protect America Act the bill temporarily extends, to make permanent changes to the FISA law, including retroactive legal amnesty for telecom companies who may have broken the law in cooperating with earlier surveillance activities. Because it goes beyond the scope of the bill and deals with a different purpose, it is not germane.

Madam Speaker, I have never violated parliamentary procedure, and I would insist upon the point of order.

Madam Speaker, I move to table.

Mr. Speaker, this is great fun.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 960 congratulating the New York Giants for their 17-14 victory over the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.

It was a second straight Super Bowl victory for the first family of football, the Mannings. Peyton Manning led the Indianapolis Colts to the title last year, and his younger brother, Eli, threw two touchdown passes to lead the Giants to victory this year and claim the Most Valuable Player award, like his brother.

Their father, Archie, of course, was a great pro quarterback himself, spending most of his career with the New Orleans Saints.

John Wooden, the greater former UCLA basketball coach, said sports don't build character, they reveal it. So what does this victory say about the New York Giants? It says they are a resilient bunch, entering the playoffs as the number five seed in a six-team NFC field, then defeating a Dallas team who had beaten them twice in the regular season and a Green Bay team in arctic conditions to reach the big game.

There, they stymied an offense that had scored more points, gained more yards, and won more games in a season than any team in NFL history. They did it by keeping that offense off the field. New York owned the ball for nearly 20 of the first 30 minutes. They did it with new heroes such as David Tyree, who scored the go-ahead touchdown. He had never caught a touchdown pass in the NFL before. And they did it with seasoned vets such as Michael Strahan who led a defense that held the Pats to a season low of 274 yards.

So what was revealed of the character of these Giants? That they ignored the conventional wisdom which didn't give them a chance, that they found in each other the strength to do what they couldn't have done any other way, take down the ``next big thing'' in the biggest game of the year. Thanks, Giants, for showing us what is possible when we don't take ``no'' for an answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any speakers at this time, except I would have liked to have asked unanimous consent that former Congressman Roger Wicker, who was a House Member who was sitting here, could speak; but given now he's a Senator, I don't think you would have found that in order. But what he said to me was how proud he is that Archie Manning, who was his classmate at Ole Miss, had these two remarkable sons in Eli and Peyton, and he thinks it reflects well, I think, on Ole Miss, and certainly on his dad.

But I'd also like to express something else. For those of us who are not the sports fans that others may be, it was a tremendously proud moment for us to see the New York Giants put their best team forward in the last game of the season against the New England Patriots when the outcome of the game didn't matter to New York, but it mattered to people like me and others who feel that the obligation of pro sports is to always play their best and always put their best team forward. And I think that remarkable game which they almost won led ultimately to the remarkable games that followed and to their ultimate victory.

This is a kick. This was a game that I'll remember the rest of my life because it had so much to do about character.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.