[国会纪录：2008年2月14日（房屋）] [H946] FISA（Hoekstra先生问道，并获得了一个允许在房子上处理1分钟。）Hoekstra先生。扬声器先生，我的朋友在另一边的朋友不了解今天所面临的威胁吗？他们是否没有看到来自伊拉克的报告，伊拉克的亚QReportsReportsaeda现在已经指出，他们的目标是使用伊拉克对耶路撒冷和以色列发动攻击？他们今天没有阅读报告关于一个激进的伊斯兰主义情ReportsReports节，也许暗杀菲律宾总统吗？他们没有读过丹麦丹麦的攻击或逮捕，也许计划在丹麦袭击吗？你不了解威胁的性质是什么，这是一个想要在伊拉克击败我们的全球威胁，该威胁希望稳定现代伊斯兰制度，希望消除以色列的状态，建立哈里尼特和距离黄铜环，这是攻击美国吗？为什么你不愿意将参议院FISA票据放在地板上，并为智力社区提供他们需要保持美国安全的工具？____________________ [国会纪录：2008年2月14日（房屋）]保护美国法案（格兰杰女士问道，并获得许可才能解决房屋1分钟。）格兰杰女士。扬声器先生，再次保护美国法案将被设定为期。 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. ____________________