|
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 02:18 PM by LSK
From thomas.gov, Steny Hoyer, March 14,2008 during the floor debate of the latest FISA bill:
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an important day for our country, for the House of Representatives, and for the American people. An important day because we focus on the protection that we owe to our people and to our country, not only from terrorists but from those who would undermine the Constitution of the United States.
Let me just briefly put in context where we are today some 7 years and 2 months after the start of this administration. From 2001 to 2006, the President of the United States did not veto a single bill. Why did he not veto a single bill? Because the Congress would not send him a bill that he did not want sent to him. It was a complacent, complicit Congress. And as a result of that complacency of the representatives of the American people, the administration came to believe that it could do anything it wanted without oversight or accountability.
And because of that, when we were put at risk by 9/11, the administration's response, perhaps led by the Vice President, was that we do not need to follow the law. There was a law in place. It's still in place. It still provides for the protection of the American people. It's called the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. But as too often has been the case in this administration, they chose not to follow the law. They chose, instead, to follow their own predilections. And that's why we are here today.
In addition to that, we were in a condition where technology had changed. The administration was absolutely correct on that point. And both the Intelligence Committee in the Senate and the Intelligence Committee in the House knew they had to respond to that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Hoekstra and Ms. Harman, as the chairman and ranking member, and Mr. Goss prior to that, knew that we had to move towards that. That is now a result of the legislation we see before us.
My good friend and distinguished colleague, the former attorney general of the State of California who's been in this body for some years. He was here, then he went back to California. He read from the letter of the attorneys general. One of them was Maryland. I talked to him yesterday.
Sometimes people put letters in front of us that are not accurate and we don't check all of the facts. I presume that the other attorneys general that were presented with this letter are in the same position.
Let me read from this letter: ``Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller authored S. 2248 to solve a critical problem that arose when the Protect America Act was allowed to lapse on February 16, 2008.'' Hopefully, everybody in this body knows that information is inaccurate. Senator Rockefeller started to draft his legislation, and the Senate Intelligence Committee, long before February of 2008, the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee, long before that ever happened. That information is inaccurate. I don't hold the attorneys general personally responsible for that inaccuracy. But I will tell you, my own attorney general, a signatory on this letter, had been misinformed. That's unfortunate.
I presume by the association, the overwhelming majority of these attorneys general are Republicans, but I don't think it was a partisan letter, per se, but it is shocking to me that an attorney general of a State in this country would say, ``whatever action is necessary to keep our citizens safe.'' There have been those down through history who, when we have been at risk, have said whatever action we take is justified, and the Constitution has suffered in that process.
We have a responsibility to do both, not just one. The attorneys general in their letter also said this: ``Intelligence officials must obtain FISA warrants every time they attempt to monitor suspected terrorists in overseas countries.'' That is categorically false. I do not believe that any one of the attorneys general that signed this letter believed it to be false, but it is wrong. They are misinformed.
We have an opportunity today to move this process forward to protect America and protect our Constitution. Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, a committee from the Senate, passed a bipartisan bill. And I am so interested to hear all of the Members on the Republican side talk about how a Senate, bipartisan-passed bill ought to pass this House.
My, my, my. If Congressman DeLay were here now, he would turn over in his seat. His premise was the Senate doggone well ought to pass House bills and not ask any questions. That was his position. He had no intent to pass, no matter how bipartisan a Senate bill was, Tom DeLay had no use for talking to Senate Republicans about what he ought to pass.
And by the way, if the President said pass it, if it was the Patients' Bill of Rights that he didn't want and it passed the Senate and the House, it didn't pass out of the conference committee because the President didn't want it. And by the way, on the prescription drug bill that a large number of your caucus was against, you passed anyway. It took you 3 hours to vote it, but you passed it. And so many of your Members came kicking and screaming to the final result and lament that vote this very day, and all of you on that side of the aisle know it. Not all of you, but a large number.
Our responsibility is not to take a Senate bill or a House bill at face value. It is to exercise our best judgment to serve the American people as best we can.
I will close with this: Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the committee, strong proponent of the bipartisan bill, said this on March 11, 2008, just a few days ago:
``Today's House proposal reflects progress in bringing the two bills together, and it is a step in the right direction.'' He concluded his statement by saying this: ``As soon as the House sends us this new bill, we will once again roll up our sleeves and get back to work on a final compromise that the House, the Senate, and the White House can support.''
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and they gave to the President of the United States a role in the legislative process. We have an opportunity today to serve the protection of our country, the interception of communications dangerous to our people, and to uphold our oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Let us take that opportunity.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
