Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5349.

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

Members of the House, the temporary FISA law we enacted in haste as a stopgap last August expires Saturday. We want to replace that law with a well-considered one which appropriately addresses both our security needs and our constitutional values.

The House passed a version of that well-considered law in my view in November, the RESTORE Act. We have been waiting for the Senate to pass its version so that we could compare it with ours and decide together on the best course of action. We have also been waiting on access to classified documents regarding what telecom companies may have done in recent years to assist our government with surveillance on United States citizens outside the bounds of law at that time.

The 15-day extension we passed 2 weeks ago was intended to give us time to consider the Senate bill, thought to be on the verge of passing, and to review the classified documents. Unfortunately, it has turned out not to be enough time.

The Judiciary Committee members, 38 in number, have not all seen the documents. We have only had clearance for 19 of those members to gain that access to the classified documents that we have been asking for for over 1 year. The review process is unavoidably somewhat cumbersome and inefficient. Even today, as I stated in my letter to the White House, we still do not have access to numerous critical legal documents. In addition, those documents that we have reviewed have left many of our questions unanswered and, as a matter of fact, raised a number of new ones.

Moreover, the Senate has just passed its version of a long-term surveillance law. It differs from the House version in ways that may have major ramifications on the freedoms that we cherish.

So we need a bit more time. The measure before us will give us 3 weeks, 21 days, not much time in the view of some, but enough, I believe, to permit us to reach an appropriate resolution on this matter of utmost importance. Therefore, your Committee on the Judiciary comes before you to urge support for this short-term extension.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from California, Jane Harman, a long-time member of the Intelligence Committee who now on Homeland Security chairs the subcommittee that handles that same subject, for 4 minutes.

I am pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the chairman of the Constitution Committee on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jerry Nadler, for 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and a subcommittee chairman on Homeland Security, for 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise disappointed that the President of the United States is attempting to short-circuit the legislative process and force Congress into an impulsive decision by vowing to veto this short-term extension before us now that would permit us to legislate responsibly.

It is beyond me how the Chief Executive of this country who truly wants an effective FISA reform, who truly cares about enacting sound legislation to protect Americans' lives and liberty, who truly respects the prerogatives of Congress in shaping that legislation, could seriously threaten us with the prospect of vetoing this legislation.

It is especially disturbing to think that he might refuse to accept a brief extension of his own surveillance program in order to ramrod a decision his way on telecom immunity before we can know what it is we are giving immunity to.

I am also disappointed that some of my friends, Members of the minority, whom I have always considered to be responsible legislators, have spoken today in support of the President's attempt to once again bludgeon us to enact sweeping new wiretapping powers for the executive branch without giving the legislative branch the time to ensure that the way it is done holds true to our most cherished American values.

I hope that these few observations do not reflect widely shared sentiments in the minority, and I would hope that we would not lend credence to the President's veto threat. I don't think we should have to legislate under that kind of intimidation. It amounts to a demand that we abandon and abdicate our sworn constitutional duty.

I hope that we would all agree that we need to consider FISA reform responsibly with the care it deserves, with the importance that every American attaches to it, and to preserve the prerogatives of the House to have our voice heard.

This demand that we act irresponsibly reflects no credit upon the process. We should instead remind him that we are the legislative branch and remind him that he must show some patience and allow the Congress to responsibly work its will.

If the President were to veto this brief extension of his own surveillance program and if that in any way compromises our national security, no amount of political blustering would change the fact that it would be him who has put our Nation at risk by refusing to participate responsibly in the legislative process.

Now, I can't truly imagine that happening. I hope that with a strong bipartisan vote for this commonsense, temporary measure, we can convince our President to help us take this responsible step to ensure that Americans are appropriately protected against threats to their liberty as well as threats to their security. I hope that the result of this discussion will turn into a sound bipartisan vote in support of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would grant myself as much time as I may consume.

I appreciate the discussion that we're engaging in, but at this point I rise to make the case that this is not a debate exclusively about immunity. There are other key differences that we should and, I think, want to consider.

For example, the Senate bill, which we've just examined, does not contain sufficient provisions to guard against reverse targeting of United States citizens. I think that's an important matter that needs our continued consideration.

The Senate bill permits surveillance to commence without judicial approval of the essential procedures that will be used to ensure that there's no surveillance of United States persons without appropriate individualized warrants. I think that's pretty important.

The Senate bill further does not require the Inspector General or the Justice Department to investigate the President's warrantless surveillance program. The House bill requires this investigation.

And so I don't think we need to be stampeded into a vote by threats from the executive or from the mathematical perfection of the other side in suggesting where the majorities ally in this body. The 21 signers of the letter are entitled to get some answers to these questions just as everyone else that didn't sign the letter are.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point from cnn.com, ``Phone companies cut FBI wiretaps due to unpaid bills.''

[From CNN.com, Feb. 13, 2008]

Phone Companies Cut FBI, Wiretaps Due to Unpaid Bills

Washington.--Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps

used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the

bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.

A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the

lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in

undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program

also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation ``was halted due

to untimely payment,'' the audit found. FISA wiretaps are

used in the government's most sensitive and secretive

criminal investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected

terrorists or spies.

``We also found that late payments have resulted in

telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone

lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI,

resulting in lost evidence,'' according to the audit by

Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication

surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not

paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid

costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

The FBI did not have an immediate comment.

The report released Thursday was a highly edited version of

Fine's 87-page audit that the FBI deemed too sensitive to be

viewed publicly. It focused on what the FBI admitted was an

``antiquated'' system to track money sent to its 56 field

offices nationwide for undercover work. Generally, the money

pays for rental cars, leases and surveillance, the audit

noted.

It also found that some field offices paid for expenses on

undercover cases that should have been financed by FBI

headquarters. Out of 130 undercover payments examined,

auditors found 14 cases of at least $6,000 each where field

offices dipped into their own budgets to pay for work that

should have been picked up by headquarters.

The faulty bookkeeping was blamed, in large part, in the

case of an FBI agent who pleaded guilty in June 2006 to

stealing $25,000 for her own use, the audit noted.

``As demonstrated by the FBI employee who stole funds

intended to support undercover activities, procedural

controls by themselves have not ensured proper tracking and

use of confidential case funds,'' it concluded.

Fine's report offered 16 recommendations to improve the

FBI's tracking and management of the funding system,

including its telecommunication costs. The FBI has agreed to

follow 11 of the suggestions but said that four ``would be

either unfeasible or too cost prohibitive.'' The

recommendations were not specifically outlined in the edited

version of the report.

A lot has been said about what some call patriotic phone companies. Are these the same companies that cut off the FBI FISA wiretaps because the FBI hadn't paid its phone bill? This is breaking news.

I ask that we examine this issue, and that we include it in the ones in the 21-day period. After all, we already have a FISA bill that will continue during the 21 days. Someone may have accidentally mischaracterized the fact that we will be without FISA protection if we don't act immediately. I don't think that's the case, and I think many of our colleagues on the floor at this time know that as well as I do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I continue the reservation of time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague from Washington for his insightful history on the FISA bill. I would submit that I agree with him that the FISA bill is necessary for the security of America. No one questions that. No one on our side of the aisle questions that. The question that we do have is does the Senate bill actually take away some of the liberty that is so necessary to the American people.

All we are asking for is an extension of 21 days. When you think about it in the grand scheme of things, 21 days to make a determination whether or not this bill continues to give the American people the liberty that they have had for over 200 years, that is not a lot to ask for. I would much rather have 21 days, keep the bill in effect but extend it for 21 days, knowing full well that the end product is something that not only ensures our security but guarantees our liberty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion on this issue. Certainly it is the type of issue that elicits real passion from people. But I think we as a body need to be sure that the steps that we take are deliberative and thoughtful. Certainly reacting to an issue such as this in a passionate way may deprive us of taking the necessary steps that we need to ensure that the liberty of our citizens is kept intact.

Again, I would just point out that this bill is asking for an additional 21 days within which Congress can continue to review the documents that we have asked for that we have only recently received to make a determination, again, a deliberative determination based upon facts and reasons and not on passion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be asking us to rely upon assurances given to us by this administration, this same administration that has told us about weapons of mass destruction, the same administration that told us that Iran was building a nuclear bomb. And then she asks why we are skeptical about taking the word of the administration.

As my colleague knows, the House passed the RESTORE Act last November. It was not until last night that the Senate passed a bill reauthorizing and reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill is significantly different than the one we passed in November.

As is the case when the House and the Senate have differing bills, it is appropriate for the two to meet and reconcile their differences. That is exactly what we intend to do in a bipartisan and bicameral way.

However, as my colleagues also know, the President's preferred surveillance law is set to expire on Saturday. The underlying bill will extend that law for 3 weeks and give the House and Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees time to work toward a conference agreement. Additionally, it will also give our Members, Republican and Democrat, time to review reams of highly classified materials which were only provided to us by the White House in recent days, despite requests dating back all the way to May, 8 months ago. These materials are absolutely critical as the House considers the request which has been made by the White House to grant what amounts to a blanket transactional immunity to telecommunications companies who participated in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance plan without any explanation of what that immunity is for. While the President has been quick to call on Congress to act, it is he who has continued to ignore countless congressional requests for information about the actions of his administration.

As a former State attorney, I know firsthand that not even a first- year prosecutor would even entertain the idea of granting immunity without knowing what that immunity is for and who that immunity is being granted to.

From his seat, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee noted last night in Rules that he cannot recall a time in his 45 years in the House when an administration has asked Congress to provide immunity to anyone or anything without telling us why. The House is not opposed to granting such immunity, but if we are going to act, then we need to know why.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of passing long-term FISA reform, but it will take time because there are very real differences between the positions of the majority Members of this body and the Senate and the White House. Those who come to the floor today to delay this extension and engage in a manufactured obstructionism, which has become so symbolic of the congressional Republicans, are doing a great disservice to this Nation.

We will overcome this obstructionism, and we will use the next 3 weeks to reconcile our differences and come to the American people with a bill that protects our homeland without sacrificing our civil liberties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would submit to my colleague that the only dangerous political game that is being played here is the attempt to cast this as a political game. There is no such attempt being made by anyone in the Democratic Party. The only attempt we are making is to give us time to go through the material that has only recently been given to us with the simple objective of ensuring that we get a bill which keeps our country safe and guarantees the liberty of our people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, you know, obviously raises a good point. As a former FBI agent, he was very concerned, he is very concerned, and he continues to be very concerned with doing the right thing, getting the people who are breaking the laws, hurting our children and who are putting our citizens in jeopardy. But no one in this Chamber has the market cornered on that. That is something that I think universally throughout this Chamber there is a strong desire to fulfill. That is why we are here. We are here to protect and defend our citizens and to protect and defend our Constitution, and that is all we are asking for today: 21 days to ensure that we are able to look over the recommendations, to look over the material that has recently been forwarded to us by this administration to ensure that we are not only protecting and securing this country, but rather that we are also doing it in a way that protects our liberty.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

I thank my friend and colleague from New York for his statements.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the speakers on the other side continue to try to couch this argument in a way and frame it in such a way that makes it appear that people on our side, the Democrats, don't care about the security of this country in the way that they do. And it's obvious that nothing could be further from the truth.

Simply by extending the FISA bill for 21 days to ensure that we have all the information that is out there and all the information that is available and that we have an opportunity to go through it in a thoughtful way doesn't mean that we have less concern for security but, rather, an equal amount of concern for security and also for the liberty of the American people.

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

I have no further speakers.

Yes, sir.

I thank my colleague from Washington for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything since the terrorist attacks of September 11, it is that the balance between security and civil liberties is not only difficult, it's absolutely critical. Providing this 3-week extension will do nothing to block or hinder the efforts of our intelligence community. Quite the contrary, it enhances their ability to do their jobs effectively and ensures the integrity of their efforts because it gives us time to get these reforms right.

I want to remind my colleagues that voting to defeat the previous question is a vote to deny the administration the ability to utilize its existing authority under law to assess threats, gather intelligence and protect the freedom and security of every American.

Twenty-one days isn't a long time. And based on the sensitivity and public interest in this issue, we owe that to the American people and the framers of the Constitution to strike a fair balance that allows us to protect the civil liberties of Americans and to provide the administration the tools and resources to protect our Nation from another terrorist attack. Twenty-one days is a fair request.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the original 1978 FISA law was to enhance Americans' security while at the same time protecting Americans' 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 the nearly 30 years since FISA became law, we have seen tremendous advances in communications technology, such as the Internet, cell phones, and e-mail. However, under the original FISA law, our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists, Mr. Speaker, in foreign countries, without a court order, because of advances, as I mentioned, in communications technology.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again: Because of advances in technology, our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists in foreign countries. It is clear that the law is outdated and must be modernized to reflect changes in communications technology over the past three decades.

In August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step 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 authority they need to protect our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked a significant step forward in improving our national security. But, unfortunately, Democrats forced these needed technology tools to expire in 6 months.

In November, the House Democrat leaders brought legislation to the floor that does not go far enough to reform outdated FISA laws. It weakens Americans' privacy protection and fails to permanently close our Nation's intelligence gap. A bipartisan, permanent solution is needed that shows all Americans and our enemies that the United States is truly committed to closing our Nation's intelligence gap.

Yesterday, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner by a vote of 68-29 to permanently close the terrorist loophole and ensure that intelligence officials are able to monitor communications of suspected terrorists overseas such as Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. This commonsense solution would help keep our country safe from attack and should be acted on immediately and sent to the President to be signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrat leaders need to stop dragging their feet. They need to end their delaying tactics, indeed, to let the House vote on the Senate-approved measure. Today, I am going to give Members of the House an opportunity to support the bipartisan measure that the Senate passed just yesterday. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House an opportunity to concur with the Senate amendments. By approving the Senate amendments, the bill can become law before the current extension expires in just a few days.

We don't need to close the terrorist loophole just temporarily, Mr. Speaker. We need to close it permanently and update our Nation's surveillance laws in order to protect our Nation from another terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can permanently close the loophole.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), also a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the former attorney general of the State of California, Mr. Lungren.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a Member who for 6 years was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutions of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from New York if he has any more speakers.

And so the gentleman is prepared to close after I close?

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

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 taught us many lessons. One of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm our fellow Americans. Now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with that assessment. On January 28, 2008, less than 3 weeks ago, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi in support of the Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation. The letter states, and I quote, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our country.''

Mr. Speaker, that was a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi less than 2 weeks ago by the members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 28, 2008.

Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being

considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a

FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly

consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President

before the Protect America Act expires in February.

It is our belief that such legislation should include the

following provisions: Require individualized warrants for

surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad;

Clarify that no court order is required to conduct

surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are

routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight

by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel

compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court

of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers

that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.

The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory

language addressing all these issues and we would fully

support that measure should it reach the House floor without

substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a

strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism

across the globe and save American lives here in our country.

It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a

timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect

America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a

limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical

surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace

the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong,

bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed

into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing

such a measure could place our national security at undue

risk.

Sincerely,

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and give us an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan, permanent solution that closes this terrorist loophole in the FISA Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the resolution.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri