Date: 2008-02-14
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Madam Speaker. I would like to thank the. gentlelady from New York for the time. and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker. I was in the funeral of our distinguished friend and colleague. Congressman Lantos. someone whom I admired very. very much and who was a personal friend. I was standing by the ranking member of the Rules Committee. At the time during the funeral. the House was in recess subject to the call of the- Chair under the understanding that we would not come back into session until after the funeral. And I was most disturbed and hurt and pained when. even though the funeral was still proceeding and distinguished guests were speaking. the bells rang that the House was going back into session and I had to leame. Because of my obligation today. I have the assignment. as a member of the Rules Committee. to be here during this rule. I had to leave the funeral to be here today. Its most unfortunate. and Im very. very sorry that the day has begun in that ultimately unfortunate fashion. Madam Speaker. today the majority proposes that the House consider a rule that. according to the Parliamentarian. is unprecedented in the history of this institution. It will prevent any and all debate -on two contempt motions against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. A contempt resolution is a privileged matter because it directly concerns the constitutional rights and privileges of the House. Chapter 17. section 2 of House Practice states. "Such a resolution may be offered from the floor as privileged. because the privileges of the House are involved." The action of the majority today is most unfortunate. Never before in the history of this House has a contempt resolution. one of the highest questions regarding the rights and privileges of this institution. been treated in such an underhanded manner. If this rule is adopted. there will be no debate. no vote. and the contempt resolutions will magically and automatically be hereby adopted when this rule is adopted. Now. if the majority believes the contempt resolution to be correct. the just and proper course of action to assert the rights of this institution would be to debate and vote on the resolution. The majority leadership is subverting the rights of every Member of this House. allegedly in order to assert the rights of this House. The irony can escape no one. These are the constitutional rights of this institution that are in question. and not one Member of this institution is going to be allowed to discuss it or vote. to have a vote on these resolutions. The majoritys attempt to rush this contempt resolution through the House will have repercussions that many Members may not be aware of. And so I urge my colleagues to pay close attention because. by this action. the House majority risks causing great harm. It risks causing grave harm and undermining Congresss oversight authority for generations to come. and here is why. The administration is claiming executive privilege. and any attempt to force testimony from the Presidents former counsel and his Chief of Staff will be fought by the administration within the courts. This could very possibly lead to the courts ruling that Congress does not have civil contempt authority. for example. that the U.S. Attorney. for example. does not have to prosecute criminal citations against executive officials or that the Presidents senior advisors are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress. Any of those rulings would weaken Congresss ability to conduct oversight in the future. and a weakened Congress means a strengthened executive. This is not an extreme or farfetched theory. Madam Speaker. Administrations from both parties have claimed executive privilege for many decades. The former Attorney General. for example. Janet Reno. stated. and I quote. "the President and his immediate advisors are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee. because subjecting a senior Presidential advisor to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to his constitutionally assigned functions." What the majority is doing today is needlessly tempting a court loss that could gravely undermine Congresss oversight authority. the very authority the majority is allegedly seeking to protect. If Congress loses in the courts. we could forever disable one of our most important powers. the power of oversight. And for what in return. Madam Speaker? Harriet Miers is no longer with the administration. Alberto Gonzales is no longer Attorney General. But the majority. with its action today. risks quite a bit. Lets remember. Members will not even get the opportunity to vote on these resolutions today. And thats not only uncalled for. but absolutely unprecedented. Members will only be able to vote on this rule. Once the rule passes. so do the two resolutions and so does the majoritys gamble. So. back in July. the Judiciary Committee cited both Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers for contempt of Congress. Now. here we are. 8 months later. considering these two contempt resolutions. but not really. just the rule. By passing the rule. automatically those contempt resolution will be passed. after an emergency Rules Committee meeting last night. So the question is. why the rush? For some reason the majority feels that after 8 months. now this is a pressing issue. But I can think of a large list of other issues that I feel that Americans would rather we address. none more than considering the FISA bill that the Senate approved this week to give the administration the ability to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. The tragic events of September 11. 2001. taught us many lessons. and 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 America. and now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. And the majority seeks to leave today and go home without addressing this issue. The modernization of the foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critically important national priority. and Im pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree as well. On January 28. 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate FISA legislation. The letter states. and I quote. "The Senate FISA RockefellerBond legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues. and we would fully support the 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 at home." Madam Speaker. I will insert the letter sent by the Blue Dogs to the Speaker into the RECORD. DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: Legislation reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being considered by the Senate. Following the Senates 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 foreigntoforeign 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 antiterrorism surveillance programs. The RockefellerBond 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 ensurea 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 longterm 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. btpartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed into law and we should do sothe consequeuces of not passing such a measure could place our national security at undue risk. Sincerely. Leonard L. Boswell. - . Mike Ross. Bud Cramer. Heath Shuler. Allen Boyd. Dan Boren. Jim Matheson. Lincoln Davis. Tim Holden. Dennis Moore. Earl Pomeroy. Melissa L. Bean. John Barrow. Joe Baca. John Tanner. Jim Cooper. Zachary T. Space. Brad Ellsworth. Charlie Melancon. Christophef P. Carney. The extension of this important program is set to expire at 11:59 p.m. tomorrow night. After that. our ability to cofiduct surveillance on foreign terrorists will be severely hampered. Its time to make our country safer. and Congress needs to act today. The House should vote on the Senate measure. and we should do it now. instead of debating these contempt motions in an unprecedented and uncalledfor fashion. Today I will give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan. longterm modernization of FISA. I call on my colleagues to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law before the current law expires and our Nation is at greater risk. Madam Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the RECORD prior to the vote on the previous question.