[Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 (House)]
[Page H946]
FISA
(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, what is it that my friends on the other
side don't understand about the threat that faces our country today?
Have they not seen the reports coming from Iraq where al Qaeda in Iraq
has now stated that their objective is to use Iraq to launch attacks
against Jerusalem and Israel? Have they not read the reports today
about a radical Islamist plot to perhaps assassinate the President of
the Philippines? Have they not read about the attacks or the arrests in
Denmark of radical Islamists perhaps planning an attack in Denmark?
What is it that you don't understand about the nature of the threat,
that this is a global threat that wants to defeat us in Iraq, that
wants to destabilize modern Islamic regimes, wants to eliminate the
State of Israel, establish the caliphate and reach for the brass ring,
which is to attack the United States? Why are you unwilling to put the
Senate FISA bill on the floor and give the intelligence community the
tools that they need to keep America safe?
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 (House)]
[Page H946]
PROTECT AMERICA ACT
(Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, once again the Protect America Act is set
to expire. If the bipartisan Senate FISA bill is not passed in time,
our intelligence agency will be blinded to our enemies' plans and
required to consult a lawyer before eavesdropping on foreign
terrorists.
The House should immediately pass the Senate's bipartisan bill which
passed the Senate by a 68-29 vote. Our intelligence community needs a
long-term fix in our intelligence laws, not a month-to-month extension.
More importantly, the Senate FISA bill grants liability protection to
telecommunications companies that helped the government after September
11. Allowing these companies to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits
threatens their cooperation in the future. This could have a crippling
effect on America's counterterrorism efforts.
Yesterday, the Democrat majority chose partisan politics in the face
of a strong bipartisan solution that directly determines the fate of
our intelligence gathering abilities, and the House Democrat leadership
failed. The American people have asked for solutions, not political
grandstanding.
We should take up the bipartisan Senate FISA bill immediately. This
cannot wait until we return from the President's Day recess.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 (House)]
[Page H947]
THE NEED FOR A PERMANENT FISA BILL
(Mr. KLINE of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, al Qaeda and their terrorist
allies are America's number one enemy. We all know that. They are
constantly updating the way they communicate and dodge our intelligence
networks. We should be doing nothing short of providing our
intelligence officials with every tool necessary to always stay a step
ahead of these radical extremists.
Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, when
asked about the Protect America Act, said this, ``We must be able to
continue effectively obtaining the information gained through this law
if we are to stay ahead of terrorists who are determined to attack the
United States.''
House Republicans have led the way in delivering 21st century
intelligence collection to protect our citizens. The law now gives
enforcement the tools and flexibility needed to quickly respond to
terrorist threats because House Republicans acted to close a dangerous
loophole in an outdated intelligence law. But the law is threatened
today by the House Democrat majority who are more interested in getting
it for partisan reasons than to provide this country and our allies
abroad the protection necessary as we continue to fight terrorism.
A short-term extension is not enough. We need a permanent fix now.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 (House)]
[Page H958-H962]
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 2, nays
400, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
YEAS--2
Johnson (IL)
Young (AK)
NAYS--400
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
[[Page H959]]
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--26
Ackerman
Brown, Corrine
Costa
DeGette
Dicks
Edwards
Engel
English (PA)
Frelinghuysen
Green, Gene
Hill
Hinchey
Honda
Hunter
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Lowey
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
Peterson (PA)
Renzi
Ruppersberger
Solis
Tierney
Towns
Young (FL)
{time} 1340
Mr. McHUGH, Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota, Messrs. LINCOLN DAVIS of
Tennessee, HIGGINS, SESTAK, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. RUSH, and Ms. BERKLEY
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 59, had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 59, on the motion
to adjourn, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes
remaining; the gentlewoman from New York has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the balance of our time
to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, many of you have heard
me say on numerous occasions that I think the American people sent us
here to work together to get things done on behalf of our country.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have had an opportunity with the
economic growth package to work in a bipartisan way on behalf of the
American people, and I really think it showed our Chamber and our
Congress at its best. But I don't think there is any priority that we
have that is more important than protecting the American people.
For more than 6 months, we have reached out to the majority on the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because we want to give our
intelligence officials all the tools they need to protect us. That bill
that was passed in late July expired on February 1, and several weeks
ago we provided an extension that runs out on Saturday. But for the
last 6 months, as we have tried to come to an agreement on this bill,
we have reached out to the majority, trying to find common ground, and
we have been turned down at every turn.
This week, the President, the Senate, and, frankly, a majority of the
Members of this House have said enough is enough, no more extensions.
But instead of working with the Republicans and Democrats who are
interested in working on this bill that would protect our country and
protect the American people by passing the bipartisan Senate Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance bill, the House floor is the scene of a
partisan political stunt.
Yesterday, the majority leader said that this political stunt would
occur today because we have space on the House schedule. In other
words, we have space on the calendar today for a politically charged
fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the
American people from terrorists who want to kill us.
{time} 1345
Madam Speaker, I think this is the height of irresponsibility. It is
an insult to this House, and it is an insult to the American people.
The actions on the floor of this House today will not make America
safer. It will not help us protect Americans from being attacked.
Earlier today, the President announced that he would delay his trip
to Africa, a long-planned trip. He would delay it so he could work with
us to sign the long-term Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
modernization law into law. House Republicans stand ready to stay here
as long as it takes to get this bill passed and get it to the
President's desk.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will not stand here and watch this floor be
abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national
security. We will not stand for this, and we will not stay for this. I
would ask my House Republican colleagues and those who believe that we
should be here protecting the American people not vote on this bill;
let's just get up and leave.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is an interesting turn of events.
They are apparently attaching no importance whatsoever to the
Constitution of the United States. But that has not always been the
case. I want to read to you a little from the debate in 1998 when Mr.
Boehner speaks.
Mr. Boehner says: ``Mr. Speaker, it is time for the stonewall tactics
to end and the cooperating to begin. Whether it is stalling on basic
requests for information or invoking executive privilege, the result is
the same: the American people are denied the right to know what is
going on inside their White House. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is
what this fight is about, the American people's right to know what
happens in their government.
``The government does not belong to politicians in Washington, D.C.
This government belongs to the American people, and they have a right
to know what happens in Washington, D.C. They have a right to know what
is going on in their White House.''
I concur completely with Mr. Boehner on that statement. I want
neither Republican nor Democrat President to stonewall the House of
Representatives or Congress.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
The debates we have been having over the past few days are
consequential and about the most important thing that this body does,
and that is uphold the law. Not just pass the law, uphold the law.
As I said a little earlier in this debate, part of that was
overseeing the executive branch to ensure that they execute our laws
appropriately and legally. And the Congress has been given under the
Constitution the authority to seek information. The Judiciary Committee
has sought information and that information has not been forthcoming.
The Congress, as Mr. Boehner said, cannot do its job if the Congress
simply fails to assert its constitutional role.
Now there is a situation that we confront that a large number say
they want to adjourn. They have been making motion after motion after
motion to adjourn and they haven't been voting for it, but they have
been making it.
And now they walk off the floor on the assertion that we are not
working. They assert that we are not passing the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. They assert that, but they all voted to a person not
to give us the time to perform our extraordinarily important duties in
resolving the differences between the Senate and the House in a
conference committee.
Now, I will tell my friends on the Republican side of the House, they
know as well as I do that the reason the Senate did not pass us a bill
3 months after we passed our bill to them was because of Republican
delay in the United States Senate. That's the reason this bill is so
late getting to us. That is the reason we don't have the time to work
it out. That is the reason we are not passing legislation.
Now, the President asserts that the expiration of the Protect America
Act will pose a danger to our country. The former National Security
Council Adviser on Terrorism says that is not true. Former Assistant
Attorney General Wainstein says that is not true. Numerous others, and
the chairman, have asserted that is not true. Why is it not true?
Because FISA will remain in effect.
The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect.
And if there are new targets, a FISA
[[Page H960]]
Court has full authority to give every authority to the administration
to act.
So I tell my friends, we are pursuing the politics of fear, unfounded
fear; 435 Members of this House, and every one of us, every one of us,
wants to keep America and Americans safe. Not one of us wants to
subject America or Americans to danger.
The President's assertion is wrong. I say it categorically: the
President's assertion is wrong. Now the President says he will delay
his trip to stay here and work with us. I know Mr. Reyes and Mr.
Conyers will be contacting Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Leahy to discuss
with them how we might move forward. They in turn will talk with their
Republican counterparts, as well, to see how we can move forward.
But the time that we asked for, less than 24 hours after the Senate
passed us a bill, the time we asked for to elect this process, which is
the normal legislative process to bring the Senate and the House
together to fashion a bill that both Houses feel comfortable with, feel
is good for America, was denied to us yesterday by unanimous vote by
the minority party and gave us no time to accomplish that objective.
The President said he was going to veto it, which is why I presume
all of you voted against it, because, of course, in the first 6 years,
we never passed anything to the President that he wasn't supportive of.
We were a very cooperative Congress with this President. This President
is not used to the Congress saying, We may have a different view, Mr.
President. We, too, have a responsibility and we may see it slightly
differently than you.
But, yes, as the leader on the other side said, we have come
together. We worked together. We passed a stimulus package together. We
can do that on this bill. But we can't do it overnight. This matter is
much too serious to do it overnight.
My friend from the Rules Committee indicates that this does not give
us full time for debate on this rule. He opposes this rule. The
interesting thing is he says contrary, we ought to be considering
something overnight, overnight, without any time to consider it in
conference.
The minority has now effected a strategy that they tried to use on
the agriculture bill: let's work, but by the way, we are leaving. And
why are we leaving? We are leaving so we can preclude a majority
responding to a quorum call and if a majority does not respond, we will
have to go out of session. So it is somewhat ironic that on the one
hand they say we ought to be doing something, and on the other hand
they walk out to preclude us from doing our business.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I simply rise to say that my very good
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, is incorrect when he
said that we are asking for a measure to be considered overnight. On
Tuesday of this week, this measure was sent to this House. We have had
an opportunity, as we have looked at the issue of FISA modernization
since July of this past year to get it done, and there is an urgency at
this moment. So it has not been overnight.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. There is no
urgency. That claim is a claim made to stampede this House and the
American people, I tell my friend from California. And the reason that
there is no urgency is because in 1978 this Congress passed legislation
to ensure the fact that we could intercept communications while at the
same time protecting our Constitution. That is why there is no urgency.
Is there an important reason to act? There is. Do we have every
intention of acting? We do. But we will not be presented with a bill on
Tuesday night and be asked to pass it on Wednesday afternoon without
full and fair consideration. That is our duty, that is our
responsibility, and that is what we will do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I began my speech today by saying we
must not always live our lives hoping simply to land on a safe square.
Some votes may be tough. This one isn't. The first thing we do when we
enter this Congress is swear to uphold the Constitution of the United
States. That is what we are asking you to do today on both sides of the
aisle. For some of our friends, it is obviously easier for them to
pass; they would rather not vote on this. But for the rest of us, let
us stand up to our duty, why we were sent here, and reassert that the
Congress of the United States is a co-equal branch, and vote ``yes'' on
this.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the contempt
resolutions. Unfortunately, these resolutions are necessary for
Congress to meet its Constitutional obligations and conduct oversight
and investigations. We provided many opportunities for the
administration to avoid this situation. But here we are.
We are here today to consider issuing contempt citations for former
White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh
Bolten for their failure even to appear in response to valid subpoenas
issued in our investigation of the firings of a number of United States
Attorneys and related matters concerning the politicization of the
Justice Department. We issued these subpoenas only after repeated
unsuccessful attempts to secure their cooperation voluntarily.
It is one thing to assert a legal privilege; but no one has a legal
right simply to refuse to appear at all.
This investigation seeks answers to ensure that the American people
can trust the Justice Department to be guided by the law and not by
political obligations or pressures.
This resolution is about the rule of law. We are taught about a
system of checks and balances to prevent abuses, but this Executive has
shown that it thinks the rules do not apply to it. This sets a
dangerous precedent for our democracy. Our system of government works
only when each branch respects the authority and role of the others,
and follows the rule of law.
For the sake of our democracy, for the sake of the rule of law, and
for the sake of our Constitution, I urge my colleagues to support the
resolutions.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, I plan to vote in favor of this
resolution--first and foremost--because of the essential importance of
maintaining the constitutional role of the Congress as a coequal branch
of government with the executive. However, the partisan division over
this resolution is highly regrettable and serves to obscure the vital
principles at stake.
As my colleagues are well aware, the House Judiciary Committee has
initiated an inquiry into the unusual firing of several U.S. Attorneys.
The impartial administration of federal law around the nation depends
upon the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.
Attorneys. The decisions of the department and the officials who
implement its vast legal authority should be free of even the
appearance of impropriety, and free of politics. This is true under any
administration, regardless of party.
The importance of the committee's inquiry into this matter is clear.
In order to secure the facts necessary to make an informed judgment
regarding the propriety of those firings, the committee first sought
the voluntary cooperation of the administration in producing all of the
information the committee needed to form a fair assessment. When that
cooperation was not forthcoming, subpoenas were duly issued to Chief of
Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. On
the basis of an assertion of executive privilege, neither complied with
the subpoenas. In the face of the White House's inflexibility and
refusal to cooperate, the committee ultimately voted to approve a
contempt citation and bring the matter before the House.
I still believe that focusing on civil proceedings as a way to
resolve the dispute could have garnered bipartisan support, and thereby
avoided much of the partisan division we have witnessed regarding this
resolution. However, that is not the choice before the House today. We
must choose between recognizing and supporting the constitutional role
of Congress, or allowing the administration to direct officials and
former officials to ignore an important inquiry under way in the House.
At this crucial moment in our nation's history, it's more important
than ever to maintain the balance of powers between the federal
government's executive and legislative branches. That balance was
carefully designed by the Founders, and we have consistently seen
through the years the wisdom of that arrangement. Over the last several
years, we witnessed first-hand the unfortunate and regrettable
consequences when that balance was disturbed, and Congress failed to
carry out its oversight responsibilities. The American people deserve
better.
Thus, I cast my vote today not only to support the centuries-old role
of the House under the Constitution, but for greater transparency,
greater accountability, and to ensure the fair administration of
federal law. Once the facts
[[Page H961]]
are known, the House can make an informed judgment about what course of
action is best. Until we learn what the administration knows, but isn't
willing to share with the Congress, we cannot form a final judgment in
this matter.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I regret that it is necessary
for the House to consider this matter today, but I will support the
resolution because I have concluded that the Bush administration has
made it necessary to do so. When this is disposed of, I hope we can
promptly return to the pressing needs of the American people that
Congress needs to address.
Last year, the Judiciary Committee began reviewing the actions of the
administration related to the firings of a number of U.S. Attorneys and
allegations that this was part of a pattern of improper politicization
of the Justice Department.
After failing to get requested information voluntarily, the Committee
served subpoenas on then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of
Staff Josh Bolten. The president then invoked executive privilege and
Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten, despite the subpoenas, refused to appear
before the Committee. In response, the Judiciary Committee approved a
resolution citing them both for contempt of the Congress.
I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert on questions of
executive privilege. But it seems clear to me that the administration
has refused to negotiate in good faith to resolve this matter, offering
only to allow some interviews under severe restrictions, including a
bar to keeping of transcripts.
This is not the first time Congress has sought information from a
president's advisors. The Congressional Research Service reports there
have been 74 instances since World War II where even sitting White
House advisers, including White House counsel, have testified before
Congress, including 17 between 1996 and 2001. But I am not aware of any
instance in which executive privilege has been invoked as a reason why
a former advisor--such as Ms. Miers--will not even make an appearance
before a Congressional committee in response to a subpoena.
And I am not persuaded by the administration's explanations about why
it refused to allow Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolton to even appear, let alone
to testify. For example, we have been assured that the President was
not involved in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys. But if that is
true, how can executive privilege, which is intended to assure that a
president will receive candid advice, apply to this matter?
After reviewing the history of this matter, I find myself in
agreement with someone who is both a lawyer and a distinguished former
Member of Congress--Mickey Edwards, who during his service here as a
Representative from Oklahoma chaired the Republican Policy Committee.
Commenting on this matter, he has written, ``If Congressional leaders
are not able to persuade the administration to reverse its position and
allow Ms. Miers to testify and Mr. Bolten to produce documents, then
all Members of Congress, regardless of party, should insist that the
subpoenas be enforced promptly and vigorously and to use civil
litigation if, as the White House has hinted, it prohibits the D.C.
U.S. Attorney from performing his enforcement duties.''
I agree, and because that is exactly the purpose of this resolution,
I will vote for it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 982 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
``That upon adoption of this resolution, before
consideration of any order of business other than one motion
that the House adjourn, 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, with Senate amendment
thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the
Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate
amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without
intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
____
(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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 32, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 173, as follows:
[Roll No. 60]
AYES--223
Abercrombie
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
[[Page H962]]
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--32
Aderholt
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Conaway
Cubin
Cuellar
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Duncan
Ehlers
Fossella
Foxx
Gallegly
Hall (TX)
Hoekstra
Johnson (IL)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LoBiondo
McHugh
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Poe
Ramstad
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Weller
Wittman (VA)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Porter
NOT VOTING--173
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Honda
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 4 minutes remaining to vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
is 1 minute remaining on this vote.
{time} 1423
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 60 on H. Res. 982,
Contempt on Miers and Bolten, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. By the adoption of House Resolution 982,
House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980 stand adopted.
The text of House Resolution 979 is as follows:
H. Res. 979
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to appear
before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
as directed by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia, to the end that Ms. Miers be
proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law; and
be it further
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to
testify before the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that
Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law; and be it further
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to
produce documents to the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that
Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law; and be it further
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to
produce documents to the Committee on the Judiciary as
directed by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bolten be proceeded
against in the manner and form provided by law.
The text of House Resolution 980 is as follows:
H. Res. 980
Resolved, That the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary is authorized to initiate or intervene in judicial
proceedings in any Federal court of competent jurisdiction,
on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, to seek
declaratory judgments affirming the duty of any individual to
comply with any subpoena that is a subject of House
Resolution 979 issued to such individual by the Committee as
part of its investigation into the firing of certain United
States Attorneys and related matters, and to seek appropriate
ancillary relief, including injunctive relief.
Sec. 2. The Committee on the Judiciary shall report as
soon as practicable to the House with respect to any judicial
proceedings which it initiates or in which it intervenes
pursuant to this resolution.
Sec. 3. The Office of General Counsel of the House of
Representatives shall, at the authorization of the Speaker,
represent the Committee on the Judiciary in any litigation
pursuant to this resolution. In giving that authorization,
the Speaker shall consult with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group established pursuant to clause 8 of Rule II.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 (House)]
[Page H971-H972]
UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, we leave today for the President's Day
Recess. We leave at a time where we have our troops committed in Iraq,
we have our troops committed in Afghanistan, where, in the last 48
hours there have been reports that radical Islamists have perhaps been
plotting an attack to assassinate the President of the Philippines,
where al Qaeda in Iraq has said that they are going to launch new
attacks or additional attacks against Israel, against Jerusalem, where
there have been arrests in Denmark of individuals perhaps planning to
assassinate, murder the cartoonists, their declaration of war by
Hezbollah.
And we're going back home without extending the Protect America Act.
It's unilateral disarmament. The head of our intelligence community has
said that the Protect America Act, that the authorities provided under
FISA have been the tip of the spear in keeping America safe.
But it is not only about keeping America safe, because the
information, the intelligence that we have gathered under the Protect
America Act, under FISA, over the last 6 years have kept America safe,
but has also enabled us to identify threats and potential attacks
against our allies.
And what this now does, this unilateral disarmament, means that an
important tool in keeping America safe and our allies safe expires on
Saturday night.
If you take a look at what's happened here, it's the day after
September 11. The President, meeting with his national security team,
they're looking for ways to identify exactly what the other threats are
against the United States, what the capabilities of al Qaeda are. They
come back with some
[[Page H972]]
suggestions and ideas, one of which is to use our telecommunications
folks, perhaps, and others, to get information and insights into al
Qaeda and to radical jihadists.
Members of Congress are brought in. The current Speaker of the House
was briefed four times, I believe, within the first 8 months in terms
of what we were going to do, what we expected to collect and how that
would keep us safe. And today, these folks are thrown under the bus.
This unilateral disarmament makes America less safe. The President
has said, I'm willing to stay until Congress completes its work. I'm
willing to postpone or delay a trip to Africa that's been in the
planning stages for a long time so that Congress can complete its work.
I'm willing to work with Congress to make that happen.
The Senate did their job. Senator Rockefeller was being briefed at
the same time, 6 years ago, that the current Speaker of the House was
briefed. He recognizes the responsibility that they have and that the
Senate has to making sure that America keeps these tools in the hands
of our intelligence community. They did the right thing.
Overwhelmingly, the other body passed a bill that keeps America safe,
bipartisan, protecting those who helped our government to stay, to put
in place the mechanisms to keep us safe over the last 6 years.
And now, the House walks away from this for the next 12 days. And
each day that we are gone, our ability to monitor radical jihadists and
the threats to the United States begins to erode just a little bit each
and every day. But every time we identify potentially a new threat to
the United States, we need to go back through a cumbersome process, one
that ties the hands of our intelligence community. As al Qaeda and
radical jihadists have evolved, and they're becoming more coordinated
and more effective in planning attacks against the United States, we're
moving back and we're degrading and we are unilaterally disarming.
It is a disappointment and a disgrace that this House is leaving
today without finishing this business.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 (House)]
[Page H972-H973]
THE WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, it's 4:14 p.m. on the 14th day of the second
month of this year. This House is basically empty except for a few of
us. Everyone has gone home.
We found time today to do important business for the people of the
country.
[[Page H973]]
I have some of the bills that we passed today. One of those was that we
had the time to vote after debate on regulating insects, roaches,
fungus, and rats in the United States. Oh, such an important piece of
legislation that the House of Representatives debated and voted on.
But while we had the time to vote on these important issues of
regulating the rats and roaches and fungi in the United States, we
didn't take the time to protect the American people from those people
throughout the world who want to kill us, who want to do harm to us and
our families. And not to America only, but to all freedom countries
throughout the world.
Because we didn't have time to work on the Protect America Act, a
bill that does exactly what it says, Mr. Speaker, it protects America.
It protects America from terrorists. And one of those ways is being
able to eavesdrop into conversations when one terrorist overseas talks
to another terrorist overseas, amending the FISA, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance, Act. But, oh, we didn't have time to do
that.
Mr. Speaker, it troubles me because has the House of Representatives,
without firing a shot, raised the ``white flag of surrender'' to those
people who wish to do us harm? The head of the National Intelligence
Service has told us that 50 percent of the intelligence that they
attained is through FISA. And yet we have cut off that resource by
failing to vote on that, failing debate on that. But yet we had time to
talk about roaches, rats, and fungi.
Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. Under FISA, we have been able to
prevent crimes from being occurred against the United States. One of
those was the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge, another was the bombing
of Fort Dix in New Jersey. Those were prevented because of FISA,
because we had the intelligence, because we had the eavesdropping, the
legal eavesdropping capability.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has not done a service to
the people of the United States by failing to debate this issue and at
least have an argument, a lively debate, and then vote on it to protect
the United States. The people of the United States deserve better from
us. Our job is to protect America through legislation. And, Mr.
Speaker, I think we have not done that today because we are off doing
other things.
So I hope that I am proven wrong by history that this did not hurt
the United States down the road for failing to act on this important
legislation. And it's important that the House come back as soon as
possible and deal with the issue of protecting America first and making
sure that we know what they're saying throughout the world when they
want to do us harm, because the people we fight, the war we fight
against are people who will do anything to get their way and their
radical beliefs including killing children and women and the innocents
and car bombs and anyone else that gets in their way.
And there is probably joy throughout the terrorist cells in the world
that the United States Congress did not do its duty today.
And, Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.
____________________
[Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 (House)]
[Page H973-H974]
{time} 1630
PAY ATTENTION AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the American people mostly don't
pay
[[Page H974]]
a whole lot of attention to what goes on here on the floor, and it's
probably better, but hopefully they're paying attention now because
it's a sad day, and they need to take note.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what has happened today on this
floor has been an abrogation of duty, an abrogation of our duty as
representatives of the people, the finest Nation on the face of the
Earth. But given what we've done today, we may not be there long.
Mr. Speaker, there are individuals who have as their stated goal the
destruction of the West. You can call them what you will, radical
jihadists, terrorists. Their threats are real and they are continuing.
And this House, under this liberal Democrat leadership, is ignoring
their words.
You don't have to take my word for the fact that these threats are
real. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on December 27, allegedly on
orders from al Qaeda. And one might say, well, that's 6 weeks ago.
Well, just in the past 48 hours we have seen threats from other radical
jihadists. In Denmark, three jihadists were arrested in a plot to
murder a cartoonist for drawing an editorial cartoon years ago that
they found objectionable. Mr. Speaker, I know that some on the majority
side view this as comic relief, I guess, but the three jihadists who
were arrested to plot the murder of a cartoonist in Denmark within the
past 48 hours didn't view it as comedy. And this Democrat majority and
leadership says, oh, that's okay, don't worry about it. Mr. Speaker, I
hope the American people are paying attention.
In the last 48 hours, in the Philippines, jihadists with two
terrorist groups associated with al Qaeda are said to be plotting to
assassinate the Filipino President and bomb western embassies. And this
Democrat majority leadership says, oh, that's okay, don't worry.
Mr. Speaker, in the last 48 hours in Iraq, the reputed leader of al
Qaeda in Iraq posted on a jihadi Web site a call for war with Israel
and for jihadists to use Iraq as a launching pad to seize Jerusalem.
And this Democrat majority leadership says, oh, that's okay, don't
worry about it.
And just this morning, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah raised the
prospect of war with Israel declaring, ``Zionists, if you want this
kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open.''
And the Democrat majority leadership in this House said, that's okay,
don't worry about it.
Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the House of Representatives will
leave town today and go home when Saturday of this week the opportunity
and the ability of our intelligence community to protect us and other
freedom-loving people around the world will expire. I'm astounded.
Most of what we do on this floor my constituents think doesn't make a
whole lot of difference in their lives. Mr. Speaker, this makes a whole
lot of difference in the lives of my constituents, in the lives of your
constituents, in the lives of every single American. And not to have
acted today on this bill to allow our intelligence community to keep us
safe and protect us, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is an abrogation of
duty.
I call on the Democrat leadership and the Speaker of the House to
bring us back into session as soon as possible and, on behalf of the
American people, act responsibly, live up to your oath, and pass this
bill, the Protect America Act.
____________________
