John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. The motion to recommit is not germane to the bill under consideration and therefore should not be considered. H.R. 5349 seeks a 21-day extension of the Protect America Act as previously amended, thus amending the act so that it would expire not 195 days but 216 days after enactment. The motion to recommit goes beyond the scope of the bill, and beyond the scope of the Protect America Act the bill temporarily extends, to make permanent changes to the FISA law, including retroactive legal amnesty for telecom companies who may have broken the law in cooperating with earlier surveillance activities. Because it goes beyond the scope of the bill and deals with a different purpose, it is not germane.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I would begin by yielding myself as much time as I may consume. Members of the House, after delaying consideration of the House- passed RESTORE Act for months, just last night the other body has passed a very troubling FISA bill. Their action comes only 3 days before the expiration of the temporary bill which expires this Saturday, and we have a number of problems with the legislation coming from the other side. First, it provides blanket retroactive amnesty for telecom companies that took part in warrantless surveillance programs. Now I have never heard, in my legal experience, that retroactive immunity, or immunity of any kind, can be given when you don't know what it is being given for, and that presents quite a large problem. Then there is no FISA Court review of certain authorizations generally referred to as ``basket warrants'' until after the wiretapping starts. It creates a problem that we would use the additional 21 days that we are asking for, I think that would come under very close examination. And then there are much weaker provisions on stopping other warrantless wiretapping, for example, reverse targeting of U.S. citizens and the question of sufficient congressional oversight. So based on the documents that have been provided so far, and they are far from complete, I have letters of requests in great detail, the case for amnesty has really not been made. The administration's bluster and fear-mongering don't do any of us very well. That doesn't serve the purpose of our legislative function and our relationship with the several branches of government. And it should be understood as perhaps another attempt to use national security for partisan ends. The administration's view is that the President, as Commander in Chief, can spy on Americans in the United States without a warrant, a proposition that is very seriously contested by many of our constitutional and civil liberties authorities. Congress is committed to providing the executive branch the tools it needs. But we need to do so to make sure that the power to spy on Americans is not subject to abuse or misuse. All of us in this body think that that is of paramount concern. The administration has requested that the Congress rubber-stamp its proposed legislation but has refused to provide Congress the information that would even purport to support the legislation. It is the administration that has unfortunately played politics with this issue. The administration still hasn't provided us with all of our requested documents. Just yesterday, another letter was sent requesting the same information we have been asking for for so long. The House can't simply be stonewalled or ignored. And it cannot exercise its constitutional responsibility and then be bullied to rubber-stamp complicated and important legislation that impacts on national security. We hope that the measure before us today will be passed resoundingly in a bipartisan way. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, we have the right to close. Are there any more speakers?

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I have never violated parliamentary procedure, and I would insist upon the point of order.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to table.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, the temporary FISA law we enacted in haste as a stopgap last August expires Saturday. We want to replace that law with a well-considered one which appropriately addresses both our security needs and our constitutional values. The House passed a version of that well-considered law in my view in November, the RESTORE Act. We have been waiting for the Senate to pass its version so that we could compare it with ours and decide together on the best course of action. We have also been waiting on access to classified documents regarding what telecom companies may have done in recent years to assist our government with surveillance on United States citizens outside the bounds of law at that time. The 15-day extension we passed 2 weeks ago was intended to give us time to consider the Senate bill, thought to be on the verge of passing, and to review the classified documents. Unfortunately, it has turned out not to be enough time. The Judiciary Committee members, 38 in number, have not all seen the documents. We have only had clearance for 19 of those members to gain that access to the classified documents that we have been asking for for over 1 year. The review process is unavoidably somewhat cumbersome and inefficient. Even today, as I stated in my letter to the White House, we still do not have access to numerous critical legal documents. In addition, those documents that we have reviewed have left many of our questions unanswered and, as a matter of fact, raised a number of new ones. Moreover, the Senate has just passed its version of a long-term surveillance law. It differs from the House version in ways that may have major ramifications on the freedoms that we cherish. So we need a bit more time. The measure before us will give us 3 weeks, 21 days, not much time in the view of some, but enough, I believe, to permit us to reach an appropriate resolution on this matter of utmost importance. Therefore, your Committee on the Judiciary comes before you to urge support for this short-term extension. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from California, Jane Harman, a long-time member of the Intelligence Committee who now on Homeland Security chairs the subcommittee that handles that same subject, for 4 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. I am pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the chairman of the Constitution Committee on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jerry Nadler, for 4 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and a subcommittee chairman on Homeland Security, for 3 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise disappointed that the President of the United States is attempting to short-circuit the legislative process and force Congress into an impulsive decision by vowing to veto this short-term extension before us now that would permit us to legislate responsibly. It is beyond me how the Chief Executive of this country who truly wants an effective FISA reform, who truly cares about enacting sound legislation to protect Americans' lives and liberty, who truly respects the prerogatives of Congress in shaping that legislation, could seriously threaten us with the prospect of vetoing this legislation. It is especially disturbing to think that he might refuse to accept a brief extension of his own surveillance program in order to ramrod a decision his way on telecom immunity before we can know what it is we are giving immunity to. I am also disappointed that some of my friends, Members of the minority, whom I have always considered to be responsible legislators, have spoken today in support of the President's attempt to once again bludgeon us to enact sweeping new wiretapping powers for the executive branch without giving the legislative branch the time to ensure that the way it is done holds true to our most cherished American values. I hope that these few observations do not reflect widely shared sentiments in the minority, and I would hope that we would not lend credence to the President's veto threat. I don't think we should have to legislate under that kind of intimidation. It amounts to a demand that we abandon and abdicate our sworn constitutional duty. I hope that we would all agree that we need to consider FISA reform responsibly with the care it deserves, with the importance that every American attaches to it, and to preserve the prerogatives of the House to have our voice heard. This demand that we act irresponsibly reflects no credit upon the process. We should instead remind him that we are the legislative branch and remind him that he must show some patience and allow the Congress to responsibly work its will. If the President were to veto this brief extension of his own surveillance program and if that in any way compromises our national security, no amount of political blustering would change the fact that it would be him who has put our Nation at risk by refusing to participate responsibly in the legislative process. Now, I can't truly imagine that happening. I hope that with a strong bipartisan vote for this commonsense, temporary measure, we can convince our President to help us take this responsible step to ensure that Americans are appropriately protected against threats to their liberty as well as threats to their security. I hope that the result of this discussion will turn into a sound bipartisan vote in support of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would grant myself as much time as I may consume. I appreciate the discussion that we're engaging in, but at this point I rise to make the case that this is not a debate exclusively about immunity. There are other key differences that we should and, I think, want to consider. For example, the Senate bill, which we've just examined, does not contain sufficient provisions to guard against reverse targeting of United States citizens. I think that's an important matter that needs our continued consideration. The Senate bill permits surveillance to commence without judicial approval of the essential procedures that will be used to ensure that there's no surveillance of United States persons without appropriate individualized warrants. I think that's pretty important. The Senate bill further does not require the Inspector General or the Justice Department to investigate the President's warrantless surveillance program. The House bill requires this investigation. And so I don't think we need to be stampeded into a vote by threats from the executive or from the mathematical perfection of the other side in suggesting where the majorities ally in this body. The 21 signers of the letter are entitled to get some answers to these questions just as everyone else that didn't sign the letter are. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point from cnn.com, ``Phone companies cut FBI wiretaps due to unpaid bills.'' [From CNN.com, Feb. 13, 2008] Phone Companies Cut FBI, Wiretaps Due to Unpaid Bills Washington.--Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time. A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said. In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation ``was halted due to untimely payment,'' the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies. ``We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence,'' according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000. The FBI did not have an immediate comment. The report released Thursday was a highly edited version of Fine's 87-page audit that the FBI deemed too sensitive to be viewed publicly. It focused on what the FBI admitted was an ``antiquated'' system to track money sent to its 56 field offices nationwide for undercover work. Generally, the money pays for rental cars, leases and surveillance, the audit noted. It also found that some field offices paid for expenses on undercover cases that should have been financed by FBI headquarters. Out of 130 undercover payments examined, auditors found 14 cases of at least $6,000 each where field offices dipped into their own budgets to pay for work that should have been picked up by headquarters. The faulty bookkeeping was blamed, in large part, in the case of an FBI agent who pleaded guilty in June 2006 to stealing $25,000 for her own use, the audit noted. ``As demonstrated by the FBI employee who stole funds intended to support undercover activities, procedural controls by themselves have not ensured proper tracking and use of confidential case funds,'' it concluded. Fine's report offered 16 recommendations to improve the FBI's tracking and management of the funding system, including its telecommunication costs. The FBI has agreed to follow 11 of the suggestions but said that four ``would be either unfeasible or too cost prohibitive.'' The recommendations were not specifically outlined in the edited version of the report. A lot has been said about what some call patriotic phone companies. Are these the same companies that cut off the FBI FISA wiretaps because the FBI hadn't paid its phone bill? This is breaking news. I ask that we examine this issue, and that we include it in the ones in the 21-day period. After all, we already have a FISA bill that will continue during the 21 days. Someone may have accidentally mischaracterized the fact that we will be without FISA protection if we don't act immediately. I don't think that's the case, and I think many of our colleagues on the floor at this time know that as well as I do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time at this point.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue the reservation of time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of H. Res. 909 ``Commemorating the Courage of the Haitian Soldiers That Fought for American Independence in the Siege of Savannah and for Haiti's Independence and Renunciation of Slavery.'' This resolution highlights the heroism displayed by 900 Haitian soldiers in Savannah during the American Revolutionary War and is a source of great inspiration and pride for all Haitians. I am not surprised by the indomitable spirit of these Haitian soldiers who so courageously defended America's fight for independence. On October 9, 1779, the soldiers of Chasseurs-Volontaires de Saint Domingue, Haiti, served as the largest unit of soldiers of African descent to fight in the Siege of Savannah alongside American and French forces. The monument in Savannah serves as a tribute to the hundreds of Haitian volunteers who took great risk and traveled by sea to fight for American freedom during the Revolutionary War. Today, I heartily applaud the Haitian soldiers who lost their lives fighting for our country. MR. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 281 celebrates the birth of Abraham Lincoln and recognizes the prominence the Declaration of Independence played in the development of his beliefs. I am honored and pleased to stand with my friends in the Illinois delegation as we honor our 16th President on his 199th birthday and kick off the nationwide bicentennial celebration of his birth. Abraham Lincoln has achieved universal recognition as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. Today we recognize the life and legacy of the man who had the moral courage and political acumen to end the abominable practice of slavery in America and to save an imperiled Union from secession and civil war. We also emphasize the prominent role the Declaration of Independence played in President Lincoln's political philosophy. President Lincoln often cited the Declaration of Independence as a basis for his opposition to slavery and as his inspiration for saving the Union. On his inaugural journey to Washington, President Lincoln stopped in Philadelphia at the site where the Declaration of Independence had been signed and declared, ``I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.'' In the Gettysburg Address, he defined the end of the war as a rededication to the ideals of that founding document. H. Con. Res. 281 calls upon the President to issue an annual proclamation recognizing the anniversary of the birth of our 16th President. It recognizes the activities of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which initiates two years of commemorations beginning on February 12, 2008. It also encourages local governments and schools to spend sufficient time studying President Lincoln and his devotion to the Declaration of Independence. I urge my colleagues to give their enthusiastic support to this important legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, H.R. 4137. In passing this reauthorization today, the 110th Congress is once again demonstrating its commitment to strengthening America's economy by increasing access to higher education. In the lead-up to the 2006 election Democrats made a pledge to make increased access to a quality education a priority in the 110th Congress. The passage of this reauthorization today is just the latest example of our making good on this promise. Titled the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, H.R. 4137 reauthorizes one of President Lyndon Baines Johnson's key Great Society programs, the Higher Education Act of 1965. The purpose of this legislation from the outset always has been to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and higher education. H.R 4137 builds on this strong foundation. A college education continues to be the best path to enter the middle class. But ever-increasing tuition costs and other obstacles are putting a college degree further out of reach for America's students. In addition to rising tuition, students and their families face an overly complex federal student aid application process and a student loan industry tainted by conflicts of interest and mired in corrupt lending practices. H.R. 4137 addresses these problems by encouraging colleges to rein in price increases, ensuring that states maintain their commitments to higher education funding, and providing students and families with consumer-friendly information on college pricing and the factors driving tuition increases. The legislation strengthens provisions previously approved by the House to avoid conflicts of interest in the student loan programs. The bill's new provisions also include requiring better consumer disclosures and protections on private student loans. In the first 50 legislative hours of the 110th Congress, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act, which cut the interest rates in half on certain subsidized student loans over the next five years. In July 2007 we passed H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill. Today, with H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, we build on these efforts and once again demonstrate that the 110th Congress is building a better future for all Americans.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my support for H.R. 4848, the extension of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA). This legislation would extend MHPA for 1 year, maintaining the current provisions for parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits. For group plans that choose to offer mental health benefits, the MHPA requires those plans to provide benefits for mental health treatment subject to the same annual and lifetime dollar limits as their coverage of physical illnesses. Unfortunately, insurance plans may still limit the amount and type of mental health treatment covered. For example, an insurance company can cap the number of times a patient may visit the doctor's office, not only annually, but over the course of a lifetime. ``Partial parity'' is an oxymoron. Rather than rely on stop-gap measures and patch-work fixes, the need for true mental health insurance parity must be recognized and acted upon. I strongly encourage my fellow members to quickly pass H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007, which puts mental health coverage on an equal footing with medical and surgical coverage. The inequity of coverage with regard to mental health and substance abuse treatment benefits is tantamount to discrimination against the mentally ill. It is built upon the insurance companies' strategy of denying rather than providing care in order to maximize profits. The notion that an insurance company can limit medical care based on cost is immoral. Only medical professionals should dictate the amount and type of care a patient receives. H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide health care coverage for all, including coverage of mental health and substance abuse treatment. Madam Speaker, it is our duty to end this intolerable discrimination against the mentally ill, and provide timely, appropriate, and adequate health care for all, free of the loopholes, pitfalls, and entanglements which exist under the current fragmented, non-system of care.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5104) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 30 days, as amended.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the temporary Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law that we enacted in August as a stopgap measure expires on Friday. We passed the RESTORE Act in November to provide some FISA reform. The Senate is at this moment completing the action. This extension will give us time to consider responsible FISA reform in both Houses of the Congress while fully preserving current intelligence capabilities while we do so. I hope that everyone would agree that this is the most responsible approach for protecting our freedom, as well as our security. I further hope that we would all agree that we need to consider FISA reform responsibly, with the care it deserves, and to preserve the prerogatives of the House to have our own voice heard. This extension is not a vote on the temporary law that we have been living under since August of last year, nor is it a vote against the temporary bill or against what the Senate is working on. It is a vote for avoiding a headlong rush into possibly ill-conceived legislation. We should all be able to come together on that, and I am confident that we can. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the chairperson of the Subcommittee of Intelligence on Homeland Security and a veteran Member of the House on intelligence matters.