forty six in lieu of the amendments recommended by the committee on the judiciary and the permanent select committee on intelligence printed in the bell the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part of house report one can three eighty five modified by the amendment printed in part b another report is adopted and the bill as amended is considered read debate should not exceed ninety minutes but sixty minutes equally divided and control by the chairman and ranking member of the committee on judiciary and thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence a gentleman from michigan mr con a gentleman from texas mr smith each will control thirty minutes and the gentleman from texas mr ayers and the gentleman from mr and the gentleman from michigan mr h control fifteen minute the chair recognizes gentleman from michigan mr conyers mr speaker i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and gentleman from michigan thank you mr speaker and members six years ago the administration unilaterally chose to engage in more and less surveillance of american citizens without court review that decision created a legal and political quagmire to fight terrorism and prevent another nine eleven we need to have an effective and legal system of intelligence gathering and that's what we're here to do today when that old scheme broke down the administration then force congress to accept an equally flawed statute in august the protect america act the protect america act granted broad new powers to engage in more of the searches within the united states  including physical searches of our homes computers offices libraries and medical records there was a valiant fight against it but we did not prevail and i at this time  acknowledge the great work of the chairman of the intelligence committee so vast array is for what he did and on judiciary committee i'm quite proud of gerry of new york the chairman of the constitution committee and sheila jackson lee the distinguished gentleman eighty from texas and also chairman of crime  searches within the united states and it included as i said physical searches of our homes of our computers offices libraries and even medical records no meaningful oversight whatsoever and went around the feis accord and it should not be made permanent and that's why we're here today with the restore act to create a framework for illegal surveillance that includes the pfizer court careful consideration by the judiciary and by the intelligence committees address the need for a flexibility in intelligence gathering and to leverage the ability to deal with the modern communications networks more importantly it's consistent with the rule of law the constitution and our democratic val yes let's be clear about how the restores  basket court orders were they these orders are not individual warrants for osama bin laden or other terrorists they allow so very less of an entire terrorist group or other foreign power through a flexible court process this act prohibits reverse targeting to engage in warrantless spying on americans in approving the order the court must also approve the guidelines and procedures that will be used to protect the rights of americans under the constitution and under the foreign intelligence surveillance a when the intelligence community turns its attention to americans at home they will have to get a warrant that isn't just good policy this is the critically important fourth amendment in action and so restore even brings the court into the emergency provisions n s a must notify the court when they start emergency acquisition they must seek a court order within seven days this is not a secret process and the court knows when it is started and is awaiting the application the phone company can't even turn on the switch unless it has a certification from the government that they're actively seeking that court order if the application is turned down the surveillance shuts off unless the court specifically stays there ruling pending an appeal and the an appeal must be resolved within forty five days these emergency authorisations are not a backdoor way to avoid court review in fact the court will be looking at the emergency from the very first day the bill also provides other critical safeguards periodic audit the inspector general narrowed scope of authority to security threats not just anything protect privacy of americans traveling abroad and most important sunsets the legislation andy samberg of the year two thousand and nine so that we can review it one more time importantly the bill has no retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers whatsoever why because we have been refused the documents to determine whether retroactive immunity has any place or not interesting now that was the liver to the senate they have the documents but we begging pleading screaming don't have the documents so no retroactive immunity until we receive these underlying documents there's no way we can begin any consideration of that request so the legislation before us today is a very very important star over improving the measure the protect america that still exists please join with me in a careful consideration of everything in this thousand and seven a compromise well i agree it compromises our national security why do democrats want to make it more difficult to gather intelligence about terrorist after nine eleven than before nine eleven since the foreign intelligence surveillance act was enacted thirty years ago are terrorist fighting agencies have been able to gather information about terrorist without obtaining a court order why burden our intelligence agencies now why make it harder to find osama bin laden why protect terrorist this bill for the first time requires a court order to monitor foreign persons outside the united states if osama bin laden makes a call and we don't know who it's to a court order must be obtained that takes many hours and could well mean we missed an opportunity to stop and attack the bill protection for telephone companies that provided the federal government with critical information after nine eleven these companies deserve our thanks not a flurry of frivolous lawsuits the bill sunsets and for years yet our agencies need certainty and permanence so they can develop new procedures and train employees mr speaker we don't need the restore act we do need to restore the ability of the federal government to gather information about law in place today the law that we brought up to today's technical standards in august is the law is essentially the law that the congress passed in one nine hundred seventy eight a congress that had a majority of democrats senate jimmy carter president carter signed that bill and it's worked for thirty years now the way this bill is drafted the administration would be forced to seek warrants as mr smith just said for foreign targets if they just in case they might call the united states you know if osama bin laden calls the united states we should know that if osama bin laden calls and turns out to be a call it didn't matter there are ways to minimize that in all likelihood a post on a bin laden  called it wouldn't be a matter that we should know about you know if he calls to offer to order a pizza and says deliver the pizza cave fifty six in bora bora that's something we oughta know at that minute we should not have to go back to go to court to monitor these calls just in case they call somebody in the united states granting what in essence is de facto a fourth amendment rights constitutional rights to non citizens who are not in this country makes no sense at all it's not the right direction we need a permanent fix this bill does not contain as my good friend mr conyers said it doesn't contain retroactive liability we need to have liability for those companies that stepped up after nine eleven and immediately helped the country begin to monitor the things we needed to monitor we still don't clarify in this bill water intelligence agents does this does not solve any problems it creates problems when you've got a system that has worked in one way and effectively for thirty years there's no reason to change that system this bill makes needless dangerous changes i hope we vote no on this bill today and get down as we did in late july to the reality of what we have to do to defend the country i yield back to our manuals back gentleman from michigan the minority leader may let make light of the ordering pizza but the reality is we still haven't gotten osama bin laden america faces a continuing threat from al qaeda and other terrorist groups just this week admiral scott red director of the national counterterrorism center said that the iraq war has created a giant recruiting tool for al qaeda who are now asked if we are safer as a result of our invasion of iraq had more red said tactically probably not mindful of the of this threat our committees have drafted the restore act and i wish to thank chairman conyers and members of both committees for their great work in drafting this legislation the restore act arms our intelligence community with powerful new authorities to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist targets around the world but it also restores essential constitutional protections for americans that were sharply eroded when the president signed the protect america act where p a a last august some on the other side want to extend the p a permanently that would be a huge mistake according to expert testimony we have received in our committee the p a authorizes warrantless domestic searches of americans homes mail computers and medical records as the chairman of the judiciary committee of served earlier although we don't have any information at this time that the bush administration is using this authority in this way we must guard against the possibility of abuse in the future our committee heard testimony that the p a even allow spying without probable cause was on our own soldiers deployed overseas talking to their families back home that mr speaker is wrong the restore act helped restore the balance between security and liberty the restore act puts the feis the court back in business back in the business of protecting americans constitutional rights after the president and vice president put the courts out of business six years ago some will try to portray this bill as extending rights to terrorists we've heard that this morning that is absolutely false that bill doesn't this bill does not require individual warrants were terrorists such as some of bin laden the bill the bill does not extend fourth amendment rights to foreigners what the restore act does is it allows block surveillance of terrorist overseas with speed and agility and will never go dark because the bill includes an emergency provision that allows surveillance to continue for forty five days even before the court approves of procedures to protect americans this legislation will restore accountability and oversight in all three branches it restores regular audits and reports by the department of justice which will be reviewed by the congress it also requires an audit of the president's domestic surveillance program and other warrantless surveillance programs perhaps most importantly it ensures that when an american is the target of surveillance an individualized warrant is required mr speaker some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle prefer an approach that would allow the administration to police itself this simply isn't acceptable if we have learned anything from the past six years that is that unchecked executive power is a recipe for abuse and it has not made us safer mr speaker i have served my country as a soldier in combat in vietnam as a law enforcement professional on our southern border and as a member of congress for the past decade i have seen the great strength of our country and in my view the source of that great strength is our constitution the restore act provides tools to keep this nation safe the united states has been at war with islamic terrorism since september eleventh two thousand and one this is a war which threatens our survival with a civilization and it is a war in which it is essential  the use of electronic surveillance which is one of the strongest weapons in our arsenal it is a weapon which should not be trivialized nor should the struggle be trivialized by using such terms as spying and snooping is important we keep in mind who the real enemy is the real citizens from terrorist attacks and protecting our civil liberties tragically today's bill the restore act marks an undeniable retreat in the war against islamic terrorism it limits the type of foreign intelligence information that may be acquired and actually gave us foreign targets more protections than americans can get in criminal cases here at home by sunsetting this legislation to you is the restore act fails to provide permanency and guidance to the intelligence  unity and the restore act also fails to provide legal protection and immunity to those american companies who answered the call of this administration and also answer the call of an administration which believed that this policy was legal and not only this administration but high ranking officials from previous administrations democrat and republican who believe that these policies were legal and constitutional there was no personal gain for these companies to allow them to be subjected to lawsuits for answering the nation's call in times of great peril is mean spirited vindictive and shortsighted mr speaker i strongly urge the defeat of this misguided  august the restore act establishes a strong framework much stronger than the administration's bill to fight terrorism affectively by providing reasonable reasonable safeguards to protect personal privacy the several important clarification s made in the bill before us one important change draws the just property distinction based on physical location and types of targets there's never been any controversy over the fact that surveillance directed at people all of whom are overseas you don't need a warrant in that situation the second is that a bill removes a vague and overbroad language in the bill that passed last august that would allow wiretapping of conversations without a warrant if the communication was concerning a foreign target that by its own wording suggests that if two citizens are in the united states talking about someone overseas that you could wiretap their communications without a warrant the bill before us makes it clear that the persons involved in the conversation must be overseas not just that the subject of the conversation must be old busbee overseas third the restore act was a step further than the ministrations of bell and only allows expanded wiretapping authority in case foreign intelligence that that specifically relates to national less it relates pacifically to national security as opposed to the over expense of nature and nature of foreign intelligence foreign intelligence going to include anything a trade deal or anything of general foreign affairs activities if you're talking about national security let's talk about national security finally the restore act was made even stronger in the committee by requiring the department of justice in its application of the court to specify the primary purpose of the wiretapping under fire but an agent wanted to obtain a warrant he had dick certify the purpose of the wiretap the standard was altered in the patriot act which says that it only has to be a significant purpose now we have to put this change in context because the department of justice as not credibly refuted the allegations that some u s attorneys were fired because they failed to indict democrats in time to effect an upcoming election so if the department of justice wiretap someone when foreign intelligence is not the primary purpose you have to wonder what the primary purpose is this bill would require the administration to reveal the true purpose of the wiretap as a chairman in the fight against ter terror terrorism we do not have to sacrifice constitutional protections or trust this administration to secretly protect the rights of americans without public accountability it is important to note that everything that the administration can do in its own bill committee subcommittee of the judiciary committee john is recognized to have you mr speaker as you listen to this debate and those watching at home listen to it the only thing that they hear are democrats saying one thing republicans saying another thing they don't know who to believe and they listen to the debate and they hear hatred of the presidency and hatred of republicans but mr speaker we just invite you today take a moment and a breath and put all of that hatred on the shelf for just a second and to remember that the director of national intelligence not an appointee originally from the president bush from for president clinton has stated that there are approach will be devastating to the intelligence gathering capability of the united states mr speaker here's the facts that we know in the late one nine hundred ninety s we cut intelligence then we had nine eleven where we had the worst terrorist attack to ever hit our shores and sits that tab regardless who did it and regardless who deserves the credit we have not had a major terrorist attack hit the united states and now we're trying to repeat the cycle and cut intelligence gathering capability again and we all know what's going to happen some would say when another terrorist attack hits we're going to bring law enforcement in and we're going to point our finger at them and say why didn't you stop it mr speaker just recently we've had one of our n f l football coaches who got in trouble because he was trying to steal the signals of an opposing team and everyone argued and agreed that wasn't fair and they were right but that was again mr speaker in this particular situation it's not aga we don't want to fair fight we want to steal every signal we can from enemies who are trying to harm this nation and we want to know what they're doing before they do it so we can protect and defend this country  us to take the hatred off the shelf to take the rhetoric off the shelf and to exchange it for ration and reason so that we can do what we need to do to gather the intelligence to keep our people safe and i yield back the balance of my t gentleman yield back a time gentleman from texas thank you mr speaker now it's the my pleasure to yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from iowa a fellow vietnam veteran mr boswell a member of our house intelligence committee jennifer mile is recognized for one and one half minutes thank you michel speaker i first support this bill it's a good bill that protects the constitution and i'd like to speak prince bit today to my colleagues who like me are concerned about what the bill does and that in fact it does not address fully the issue of carrier liability as you know the administration telecommunications companies have requests that we provide them with the immunity from lawsuits or prosecutions arising out of information and assistance that may have provided to the intelligence community now we don't precisely know what information they provided we don't know what they were told by the administration about the legality of what they were doing i hope and believe that those companies acted good faith with patriotism they were trying to do their part for national security and i think they deserve our appreciation i take seriously their concerns that they might be subject to liability that being said i do not believe it should be the responsibility of the it is the government that should be held primarily accountable i believe the eventually should be able to take care of any company who acted in good faith incorporate the name of protecting our nation no one who acted out of a good faith with a desire to prepare to protect america should be punished but we must know what brought forth their action and under what circumstances and what pressure if any they acted as this process moves forward i expect that they will get more information about the administration the most times  ranking member of the crime terrorism and homeland security subcommittee of the judiciary committee john is recognized for two minutes thank you mr speaker thank you ranking member i appreciate chairman right his service to this country i believe people on the other side of the aisle mean well when they say they want to protect the constitution the problem is this extends the constitution beyond america to our enemies on foreign soil who cut off  americans that's just the way it is it does that now we keep hearing across the aisle this has nothing to do with foreign to foreign calls it has nothing to do with foreign terrorists and foreign soil column calling foreign terrorists and that says that in the bill you don't have to worry about that you don't need a warrant for that the trouble is there is no conceivable time that an honest intelligence gatherer overseas can swear that a foreign terrorist that he wants to surveil well we'll never under any circumstances call the united states and since he can't swear to that and since there's a chance especially since this law is public and the terrorist will know all they've got to do is call america even or you know order flowers and just call time and temperature they've made a call on american soil and i come within the requirement of getting a court order it's very clear this doesn't exist in the constitution in a way that it should be on american soil it protects enemies and i know people on the other side you just want to protect civil liberties but what scares me is what will happen when i terrorist attack on the nature of nine eleven comes again people will rush to take away civil liberties and people will voluntarily give up civil liberties for protection things liberties that were so hard fought so for those who are really going to be protected and  don't understand the concern this is going to protect also americans who get calls from foreign terrorists on foreign soil that's what this is really going to do i don't think it's too much for the interest of america tell your american friends not to tell their terrorist brands on foreign soil don't call me you some other means of communication as time's expired gentleman from michigan i am pleased now to recognize the gentle lady from california jane harman whose experience in intelligence matters and fife and particular are well known and i used to her two and one half minutes generally is recognized for two and one half minutes i think chairman reyes and others for their work on what is a strong bill the line no longer serves on the intelligence committee i have followed this in this issue with intense interest this bill contains many provisions that i and others authored over recent years it is a strong bail and i strongly support it it a man fires it to permit more speed and agility in the effort to conduct surveillance of those who would do us harm but it also provides more resources and a court approved framework to assure that the constitutional rights of americans are protected i continue to follow the intelligence in my role as chair of the homeland security intelligence subcommittee and threats against our homeland are real westerners are training in al qaeda camps in the tribal areas of pakistan europe especially britain may experience more attacks plots have recently been foiled in denmark and germany we have helped britain disrupt the so called liquid bomb plot in august of two thousand and six a plot that could have killed more americans than were killed on nine eleven as they flew on u s bound airlines from england to america mr speaker all members want to protect america  members want to protect america so it deeply saddens me that this is yet another partisan debate it could have been otherwise for several weeks pete hoekstra who chaired the intelligence committee when i was privileged just chair to serve as ranking member and i tried to fashion a bipartisan bill our list of principles could i believe have garnered broad support in both caucuses and lead to a veto proof majority in this house americans want congress on a bipartisan basis pursuant to section two of house resolution seven forty six for the proceedings on the bill will be postponed for so long to clause twelve a rule one the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair