Charles Dent

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from New Mexico for their strong leadership and advocacy on this critical national security issue. I think the colloquy engaged in really does represent the essence of the issue. Former Director Bobby Inman was just quoted saying that it seems that there is greater concern around this Congress by a minority, frankly, to grant constitutional protections to foreign terrorists, really at the expense of protecting Americans. I think we all know that is wrong. I think the colloquy you both just engaged in, and I heard the frustration expressed in your voice, I think that is also the frustration we are hearing from the American people. The American people do believe that Washington is broken, and I have said this many times. They are angry because Congress is not getting things done on their behalf, and this issue is just proof positive of this terrible failure. It has been pointed out that we have a bipartisan agreement in the Senate, 68 votes. We have more than a majority in this House to pass this critical legislation, the Protect America Act. It will pass, if only the Speaker will allow this legislation to come up for a vote. They simply want us to put the national interests ahead of the special interests. As you pointed out, the most litigious among us in this society are driving this issue and preventing the protection of the American people. I think it is just wrong, and we all know it is wrong. The bipartisan solution on FISA has been reached. There really are no more excuses. It is time for this leadership of the House to take ``yes'' for an answer. It is time to get the job done. It has been 45 days, 45 days, since the Protect America Act has expired. Senator Rockefeller, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, the Democrat from West Virginia, has made a plea, and I am going to quote him. He said, ``What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunication companies lose interest.'' That was Senator Rockefeller, not me. The gentleman from Texas pointed out earlier too the letter that was sent to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, from the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, and Attorney General Mukasey, essentially saying something very, very similar. I will read a quote from them in that letter of February 27, 2008. I will be happy to submit that letter for the Record here this evening. But I am going to quote what they said about the degradation of our intelligence capabilities, pretty much agreeing with what Senator Rockefeller said, a Democrat. What they said is, ``That is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired 6 days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'' That was 6 days after the act. It is 45 days today. They go on to say, ``Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation. In particular they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillances of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act.'' Mr. Speaker, I include the letter for the Record. February 22, 2008. Hon. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Deaer Chairman Reyes, the President asked us to respond to your letter of February 14, 2008, concerning the urgent need to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Your assertion that there is no harm in allowing the temporary authorities provided by the Protect America Act to expire without enacting the Senate's FISA reform bill is inaccurate and based on a number of misunderstandings concerning our intelligence capabilities. We address those misunderstandings below. We hope that you find this letter helpful and that you will reconsider your opposition to the bill passed last week by a strong bipartisan majority in the Senate and, when Congress returns from its recess, support immediately bringing the Senate bill to the floor, where it enjoys the support of a majority of your fellow members. It is critical to our national security that Congress acts as soon as possible to pass the Senate bill. Intelligence collection Our experience since Congress allowed the Protect America Act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill demonstrates why the Nation is now more vulnerable to terrorist attack and other foreign threats. In our letter to Senator Reid on February 5, 2008, we explained that: ``the expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty which could cause us to delay the gathering of, or simply miss, critical foreign intelligence information.'' That is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired six days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation. In particular, they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillances of terrorist and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act. Although most partners intend to cooperate for the time being, they have expressed deep misgivings about doing so in light of the uncertainty and have indicated that they may well cease to cooperate if the uncertainty persists. We are working to mitigate these problems and are hopeful that our efforts will be successful. Nevertheless, the broader uncertainty caused by the Act's expiration will persist unless and until the bipartisan Senate bill is passed. This uncertainty may well continue to cause us to miss information that we otherwise would be collecting. Thus, although it is correct that we can continue to conduct certain activities authorized by the Protect America Act for a period of one year from the time they were first authorized, the Act's expiration has and may well continue to adversely affect such activities. Any adverse effects will result in a weakening of critical tools necessary to protect the Nation. As we explained in our letter to Senator Reid, expiration would create uncertainty concerning: The ability to modify certifications and procedures issued under the Protect America Act to reflect operational needs and the implementation of procedures to ensure that agencies are fully integrated protecting the Nation; The continuing validity of liability protection for those who assist us according to the procedures under the Protect America Act; The continuing validity of the judicial mechanism for compelling the assistance of private parties needed to protect our national security; The ability to cover intelligence gaps created by new communication paths or technologies. Our experience in the past few days since the expiration of the Act demonstrates that these concerns are neither speculative nor theoretical: allowing the Act to expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill has had real and negative consequences for our national security. Indeed, this has led directly to a degraded intelligence capability. It is imperative that our intelligence agencies retain the tools they need to collect vital intelligence information. As we have explained before, the core authorities provided by the Protect America Act have helped us to obtain exactly the type of information we need to keep America safe, and it is essential that Congress reauthorize the Act's core authorities while also extending liability protection to those companies who assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Using the authorities provided in the Protect America Act, we have obtained information about efforts of an individual to become a suicide operative, efforts by terrorists to obtain guns and ammunition, and terrorists transferring money. Other information obtained using the authorities provided by the Protect America Act has led to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks. The bipartisan Senate bill would preserve these core authorities and improve on the Protect America Act in certain critical ways, including by providing liability protection to companies that assisted in defending the country after September 11. In your letter, you assert that the Intelligence Community's ability to protect the Nation has not been weakened, because the Intelligence Community continues to have the ability to conduct surveillance abroad in accordance with Executive Order 12333. We respectfully disagree. Surveillance conducted under Executive Order 12333 in a manner that does not implicate FISA or the Protect America Act is not always as effective, efficient, or safe for our intelligence professionals as acquisitions conducted under the Protect America Act. And, in any event, surveillance under the Protect America Act served as an essential adjunct to our other intelligence tools. This is particularly true in light of the changes since 1978 in the manner in which communications are transmitted. As a result of these changes, the Government often has been required to obtain a FISA Court order prior to surveillance of foreign terrorists and other national security threats located outside the Untied States. This hampered our intelligence collection targeting these individuals overseas in a way that Congress never intended, and it is what led to the dangerous intelligence gaps last summer. Congress addressed this issue temporarily by passing the Protect America Act but long-term FISA reform is critical to the national security. We have provided Congress with examples in which difficulties with collections under the Executive Order resulted in the Intelligence Community missing crucial information. For instance, one of the September 11th hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist facility while he was living in the Untied States. Because that collection was conducted under Executive Order 12333, the Intelligence Community could not identify the domestic end of the communication prior to September 11, 2001, when it could have stopped that attack. The failure to collect such communications was one of the central criticisms of the Congressional Joint Inquiry that looked into intelligence failures associated with the attacks of September 11. The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate would address such flaws in our capabilities that existed before the enactment of the Protect America Act and that are now resurfacing. We have provided Congress with additional and detailed examples of how the Protect America Act temporarily fixed this problem and have demonstrated the operational need to provide a long- term legislative foundation for these authorities by passing the bipartisan Senate bill. In your letter, you also posit that our intelligence capabilities have not been weakened, because the Government can employ the outdated provisions of FISA as they existed before the Protect America Act. We respectfully disagree. It was that very framework that created dangerous intelligence gaps in the past and that led Congress to pass the Protect America Act last summer. As we have explained in letters, briefings and hearings, FISA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect information on foreign intelligence targets located overseas. Most importantly, FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a showing of ``probable cause'' before such surveillance can begin. This standard makes sense in the context of targeting persons in the United States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are most implicated. But it makes no sense to require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to the Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution. Put simply, imposing this requirement in the context of surveillance of foreign targets located overseas results in the loss of potentially vital intelligence by, for example, delaying intelligence collection and thereby losing some intelligence forever. In addition, the requirement to make such a showing requires us to divert our linguists and analysts covering al-Qa'ida and other foreign threats from their core role--protecting the Nation--to the task of providing detailed facts for FISA Court applications related to surveillance of such foreign targets. Our intelligence professionals need to be able to obtain foreign intelligence from foreign targets with speed and agility. If we revert to a legal framework in which the Intelligence Community needs to make probable cause showings for foreign terrorists and other national security threats located overseas, we are certain to experience more intelligence gaps and miss collecting information. You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have lapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ``may begin surveillance immediately'' in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest. Before surveillance begins the Attorney General must determine that there is probable cause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power and that FISA's other requirements are met. As explained above, the process of compiling the facts necessary for such a determination and preparing applications for emergency authorizations takes time and results in delays. Again, it makes no sense to impose this requirement in the context of foreign intelligence surveillance of targets located overseas. Because of the hurdles under FISA's emergency authorization provisions and the requirement to go to the FISA Court within 72 hours, our resource constraints limit our use of emergency authorizations to certain high-priority circumstances and cannot simply be employed for every foreign intelligence target. It is also inaccurate to state that because Congress has amended FISA several times, there is no need to modernize FISA. This statement runs counter to the very basis for Congress's passage last August of the Protect America Act. It was not until the passage of this Act that Congress amended those provisions of FISA that had become outdated due to the communications revolution we have experienced sine 1978. As we explained, those outdated provisions resulted in dangerous intelligence gaps by causing constitutional protections to be extended to foreign terrorists overseas. It is critical that Congress enact long-term FISA modernization to ensure that the Intelligence Community can collect effectively the foreign intelligence information it needs to protect the Nation. The bill passed by the Senate would achieve this goal, while safeguarding the privacy interests of Americans. Liability protection Your assertion that the failure to provide liability protection for those private-sector firms that helped defend the Nation after the September 11 attacks does not affect our intelligence collection capability is inaccurate and contrary to the experience of intelligence professionals and to the conclusions the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached after careful study of the matter. It also ignores that providing liability protection to those companies sued for answering their country's call for assistance in the aftermath of September 11 is simply the right thing to do. Through briefings and documents, we have provided the members of your committee with access to thei nformation that shows that immunity is the fair and just result. Private party assistance is necessary and critical to ensuring that the Intelligence Community can collect the information needed to protect our country from attack. In its report on S. 2248, the Intelligence Committee stated that ``the intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance'' from electronic communication service providers. The Committee also concluded that ``without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation. The possible recution in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.'' Senior intelligence officials also have testified regarding the importance of providing liability protection to such companies for this very reason. Even prior to the expiration of the Protest America Act, we expereinced significant difficulties in working with the private sector because of the continued failure to provide liability protection for such companies. These difficultures have only grown since expiration of the Act without passage of the bipartisan Senate bill, which would provide fair and just liability protection. Exposing the private sector to the continued risk of billion-dollar class action suites for assisting in efforts to defend the country understandably makes the private sector much more reluctant to cooperate. Without their cooperation, our efforts to protect the country cannot succeed. Pending legislation Finally, as you note, the House passed a bill in November to amend FiSA, but we immediately made clear that the bill is unworkable and unaceptable. Over three months ago, the Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) that stated that the House bill ``falls far short of providing the Intelligence Community with the tools it needs to collect effecively the foreign intelligence information vital for the security of the Nation'' and that ``the Director of National Intelligence and the President's other senior advises would recommend that the President veto the bill.'' We adhere to that view today. The House bill has several grave deficiencies. First, although numerous senior intelligence officials have testified regarding the improtance of affording liability protection for companies that assisted the Government in the aftermath of September 11, the House bill does not address the critical issue of liability protection. Second, the House bill contains certains provisions and serious technical flaws that would fatally undermine our ability to collect effectively the intelligence needed to protect the Nation. In contrast, the Senate bill deals with the issue of liability protection in a way that is fair and that protects the national security. In addition, the Senate bill is carefully drafted and has been amended toa void technical flaws similar to the ones in the House bill. We note that the privacy protections for Americans in the Senate bill exceed the protections contained in both the Protect America Act and the House bill. The Department of Justice and the Intelligence Community are taking the steps we can to try to keep the country safe during this current period of uncertainty. These measures are remedial at best, however, and do not provide the tools our intelligence professionals need to protect the Nation or the certainty needed by our intelligence professionals and our private partners. The Senate passed a strong and balanced bill by an overwhelming and bipartisan margin. That bill would modernize FISA, ensure the future cooperation of the private sector, and guard the civil liberties we value. We hope that you will support giving your fellow members the chance to vote on this bill. Sincerely, Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General. J.M. McConnell, Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. DENT. Again, a powerful quote, the degradation and degrading of our intelligence capacities, stated by a Republican Attorney General and a Republican Director of National Intelligence, but also stated by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that the intelligence product will be degraded as a result of our failure to enact the Protect America Act. I can't help but note, the gentleman from Texas having served in law enforcement, many of the arguments I just heard you talking about in your colloquy with Mrs. Wilson were also some of the arguments that I heard at the time of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Remember it was being said that somehow our library records were going to be looked into. Several of the 9/11 terrorists made their airplane reservations on public library computers, and they confirmed those reservations on public library computers. I am not aware that anybody has ever sought a library record under the law. But I also remember, too, after meeting with some folks from the Attorney General's Office, and this is not a classified issue, I remember them telling me that a terrorist, when interrogated, they asked: Why were you constantly on the New York Public Library computers? His response was they clean their hard drives at the end of the day. Interesting point. Another issue we heard at the time of the PATRIOT Act had to do with roving wiretaps, a tool I believe you, as a prosecutor, used over the years, and that we use in drug cases against organized criminals. We use that type of method. When we talk about using it for counterterrorism purposes, it seems as if we were creating some new structure. Do you want to address that.

Mr. DENT. I think that really says it all. Everybody agrees, both Republican and Democrat alike agree that the intelligence product is being degraded. This really isn't a partisan issue. It should not even be an ideological issue. This is simply an issue of common sense, doing what is right for the American people, putting their interests ahead of the special interests. With that, I would be happy to yield back to the gentleman from Texas, because I know there are others who would like to participate in this colloquy.

Mr. DENT. If the gentleman would yield briefly on that point, in fact my own Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, came down to Washington to meet me and expressly asked me to support the Protect America Act. He too, like you, was a U.S. Attorney, and he was emphatic in his support for this legislation, and seemed a bit incredulous that Congress would not provide these necessary tools to our law enforcement and intelligence officials.

Mr. DENT. I want to thank both of you for your eloquence on this critical issue. And with all these references to 9/11, I really believe it is important that we take seriously what this Congress did after 9/ 11. It created a commission, the 9/11 Commission, to make recommendations about how we can improve upon our Nation's homeland security and our national security. They made many recommendations; we are familiar with many. And, indeed, when the 110th Congress was first organized a little over 1 year ago, we were told by the new leadership under Speaker Pelosi that fulfilling those 9/11 Commission recommendations was a top priority. As it should be. And it is time that we equate those words with action. As you and I have both said, failure to do that is a dereliction of duty. I believe that we have it within our means now to do what that 9/11 Commission wanted us to do, and I believe passing the Protect America Act is entirely consistent and compatible with what those folks who wrote the 9/11 Commission want us to do. And I believe that, again, failure to pass the Protect America Act really contravenes and contradicts what the 9/11 Commission stands for. We also talked about this issue of liability and who is getting protected. One thing I guess I find particularly appalling is that, because of this approach to homeland security and national security to intelligence, many of our intelligence officials and officers have been forced to buy personal liability insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits from us, from Congress, from others who may choose to sue them. The phone companies are getting sued. Why not sue the intelligence officials? So what is happening is they are worried about being sued, and that is why they have had to find this type of insurance. Mr. McCaul made a very interesting observation. He read an interesting quote a few minutes ago by that FBI agent, and I would like to put that quote into some context. In fact, at the time of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization a little over 2 years ago, there was an article written in the Wall Street Journal by a woman named Debra Burlingame. Who is Debra Burlingame? I guess she is best known because of her brother, Chic Burlingame, who was the pilot of one of the planes that crashed that day on 9/11, 2001 into the Pentagon. She had written this in the Wall Street Journal on January 30, 2006: Critics contend that the PATRIOT Act was rushed into law in a moment of panic. And there is relevant to our PAA here. The truth is, the policies and guidelines it corrected had a long troubled history, and everybody who had to deal with them knew it. The wall was a torturous set of rules promulgated by the Justice Department lawyers in 1995 and imagined into law by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, or the FISA Court, conceived as an added protection for civil liberties provisions already built into the statute that was the wall and its real world ramifications that hardened the failure to share culture between agencies, allowing early information about 9/11 hijackers Khalid al- Midhar and Nawaf al Hashmi to fall through the cracks. More perversely, even after the significance of these terrorists and their presence in the country was known by the FBI's intelligence division, the wall prevented it from talking to its own criminal division in order to hunt them down. In other words, the FBI criminal division and the FBI intelligence division couldn't communicate because of what was going on pre-9/11. ``Furthermore,'' she writes, ``it was the impenetrable FISA guidelines and fear of provoking the FISA court's wrath if they were transgressed that discouraged risk-averse FBI supervisors from applying for a FISA search warrant in the Zacarias Moussaoui case.'' And we all remember him. ``The search, finally conducted on the afternoon of 9/11, produced names and phone numbers of people in the thick of the 9/11 plot, so many fertile clues that investigators believe that at least one airplane, if not all four, could have been saved.'' That is what Debra Burlingame wrote. Further on in that article where Mr. McCaul began, and this is the woman whose brother was the pilot who crashed into the Pentagon on 9/ 11, she concludes by saying: ``Three weeks before 9/11, an FBI agent with the bin Laden case squad in New York learned that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were in this country. He pleaded with the national security gatekeepers in Washington to launch a nationwide manhunt and was summarily told to stand down. When the FISA Court of Review tore down the wall in 2002, it included in its ruling the agent's August 29, 2001, e-mail to FBI headquarters,'' and I am going to restate what you just stated a few moments ago. The quote was from this FBI agent: ``Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die--and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems. Let's hope that the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, bin Laden, is getting the most protection.'' Not my words, and how can anybody not be moved by this? How can anybody somehow think that our own FBI is a greater threat to the American people than is al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden? Mr. McCaul, you are an attorney. You understand this issue well. We want to protect everyone's civil liberties, and at the same time we have legitimate security threats we must deal with.

Mr. DENT. Quickly, the bottom line is we should be listening to this foreign-to-foreign communication of people who are not American citizens who are suspected terrorists because you want to prevent what happened on 9/11 of 2001. For some of us, it was quite personal. You mentioned what happened in 1993. My cousin spent the whole day on the top of that building, the South Tower, spent the entire day on the roof after what exploded in the basement, the garage of that building. You know, he was there, also, on September 11, 2001. I remember that, too. He was on the 91st floor of the north tower when the plane entered the 93rd floor. Everybody above him was killed. And for many of us it's personal. But if we have information, actionable intelligence, I would certainly hope that our counter terrorism officials, that our intelligence officials would do everything in their power to prevent such terrible events like 9/11 from ever occurring. And again, I just want to state one more time that enacting the Protect America Act will help improve our intelligence capabilities, will protect Americans, and it's time that we get the job done. We have a bipartisan consensus to do it. Let's do it. The time for games is over. It's time to get the job done. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. DENT. What I would respond is that the telecommunication companies at the request of their government were asked to cooperate and help us pursue terrorists. Obviously they have much of the infrastructure that we need to pursue these terrorists. I would have to put this whole issue under the category of ``no good deed goes unpunished,'' where people who are acting in good faith to help their government are now being sued for their efforts, again to protect the most litigious elements of our society. Because of that, because of the failure to provide a retroactive immunity as contained in the Protect America Act, when we do not provide that retroactive immunity, we know that these telecommunications can no longer be good partners. Even though they want to be helpful, they can't be. They have to protect themselves from lawsuits. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to protect themselves and their organizations. I think that is really what is driving us. I would yield back to you, because you have been a distinguished member of the bar, you are a former U.S. Attorney, so you understand these issues probably better than just about anybody in this building.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge that we defeat the previous question so we can adopt the Protect America Act. People in this country think that Washington, D.C., is broken, and they are absolutely right. It is. And this issue is proof positive of why Washington, D.C., is broken. Yes, we do have an agreement. It is a bipartisan agreement, 68 votes in the Senate. There is a majority here, but the majority leadership won't allow us to consider this very important and necessary legislation. Senator Rockefeller, the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, has said our intelligence capacities are being degraded because we have failed to pass the Protect America Act. You know, it is time that we put the national interest ahead of the special interests. Why are we protecting the most litigious among us in our society at the expense of our troops serving overseas? We know the issues. It is retroactive immunity. The telecommunications companies were attempting to help us in good faith, and no good deed goes unpunished. That is what it happening here. It is time to get the job done. I'm going to refer to an article I read in the Wall Street Journal back in January, 2006, by Debra Burlingame, the sister of the pilot who crashed into the Pentagon. The title is, ``Al Qaeda, not the FBI, is the greater threat to America.'' I think we should heed her advice and recall, because of that wall that existed before 9/11 between the intelligence agency and our domestic law enforcement, it prevented us from being more effective. Today, we are placing barriers between our government and those who want to help us in the telecommunications sector, but they are going to be forced to comply with this. They will not be able to do so voluntarily. We know what the issue is. The Fraternal Order of Police, many State attorneys general, the VFW, all agree we should pass the bipartisan. We have it within our means to do it. I don't understand why not. It is important for the majority leadership to explain to this House why they won't let this bipartisan agreement be adopted. The American people are watching. They want us to get the job done. They have had enough. Mr. Speaker, I include the Burlingame article for the Record. [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 30, 2006] Our Right to Security al qaeda, not the fbi, is the greater threat to america (By Debra Burlingame) One of the most excruciating images of the September 11 attacks is the sight of a man who was trapped in one of the World Trade Center towers. Stripped of his suit jacket and tie and hanging on to what appears to be his office curtains, he is seen trying to lower himself outside a window to the floor immediately below. Frantically kicking his legs in an effort to find a purchase, he loses his grip, and falls. That horrific scene and thousands more were the images that awakened a sleeping nation on that long, brutal morning. Instead of overwhelming fear or paralyzing self-doubt, the attacks were met with defiance, unity and a sense of moral purpose. Following the heroic example of ordinary citizens who put their fellow human beings and the public good ahead of themselves, the country's leaders cast aside politics and personal ambition and enacted the USA Patriot Act just 45 days later. A mere four-and-a-half years after victims were forced to choose between being burned alive and jumping from 90 stories, it is frankly shocking that there is anyone in Washington who would politicize the Patriot Act. It is an insult to those who died to tell the American people that the organization posing the greatest threat to their liberty is not al Qaeda but the FBI. Hearing any member of Congress actually crow about ``killing'' or ``playing chicken'' with this critical legislation is as disturbing today as it would have been when Ground Zero was still smoldering. Today we know in far greater detail what not having it cost us. Critics contend that the Patriot Act was rushed into law in a moment of panic. The truth is, the policies and guidelines it corrected had a long, troubled history and everybody who had to deal with them knew it. The ``wall'' was a tortuous set of rules promulgated by Justice Department lawyers in 1995 and imagined into law by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Conceived as an added protection for civil liberties provisions already built into the statute, it was the wall and its real-world ramifications that hardened the failure- to-share culture between agencies, allowing early information about 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to fall through the cracks. More perversely, even after the significance of these terrorists and their presence in the country was known by the FBI's intelligence division, the wall prevented it from talking to its own criminal division in order to hunt them down. Furthermore, it was the impenetrable FISA guidelines and fear of provoking the FISA court's wrath if they were transgressed that discouraged risk-averse FBI supervisors from applying for a FISA search warrant in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. The search, finally conducted on the afternoon of 9/11, produced names and phone numbers of people in the thick of the 9/11 plot, so many fertile clues that investigators believe that at least one airplane, if not all four, could have been saved. In 2002, FISA's appellate level Court of Review examined the entire statutory scheme for issuing warrants in national security investigations and declared the ``wall'' a nonsensical piece of legal overkill, based neither on express statutory language nor reasonable interpretation of the FISA statute. The lower court's attempt to micromanage the execution of national security warrants was deemed an assertion of authority which neither Congress or the Constitution granted it. In other words, those lawyers and judges who created, implemented and so assiduously enforced the FISA guidelines were wrong and the American people paid dearly for it. Despite this history, some members of Congress contend that this process-heavy court is agile enough to rule on quickly needed National Security Agency (NSA) electronic surveillance warrants. This is a dubious claim. Getting a FISA warrant requires a multistep review involving several lawyers at different offices within the Department of Justice. It can take days, weeks, even months if there is a legal dispute between the principals. ``Emergency'' 72-hour intercepts require sign-offs by NSA lawyers and pre-approval by the attorney general before surveillance can be initiated. Clearly, this is not conducive to what Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, calls ``hot pursuit'' of al Qaeda conversations. The Senate will soon convene hearings on renewal of the Patriot Act and the NSA terrorist surveillance program. A minority of senators want to gamble with American lives and ``fix'' national security laws, which they can't show are broken. They seek to eliminate or weaken anti-terrorism measures which take into account that the Cold War and its slow-moving, analog world of landlines and stationary targets is gone. The threat we face today is a completely new paradigm of global terrorist networks operating in a high- velocity digital age using the Web and fiber-optic technology. After four-and-a-half years without another terrorist attack, these senators think we're safe enough to cave in to the same civil liberties lobby that supported that deadly FISA wall in the first place. What if they, like those lawyers and judges, are simply wrong? Meanwhile, the media, mouthing phrases like ``Article II authority,'' ``separation of powers'' and ``right to privacy,'' are presenting the issues as if politics have nothing to do with what is driving the subject matter and its coverage. They want us to forget four years of relentless ``connect-the-dots'' reporting about the missed chances that ``could have prevented 9/11.'' They have discounted the relevance of references to the two 9/11 hijackers who lived in San Diego. But not too long ago, the media itself reported that phone records revealed that five or six of the hijackers made extensive calls overseas. NBC News aired an ``exclusive'' story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda ``switchboard'' inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, ``The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying.'' Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as ``spying on Americans.'' Instead, it was called one of the ``missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives.'' Another example of opportunistic coverage concerns the Patriot Act's ``library provision.'' News reports have given plenty of ink and airtime to the ACLU's unsupported claims that the government has abused this important records provision. But how many Americans know that several of the hijackers repeatedly accessed computers at public libraries in New Jersey and Florida, using personal Internet accounts to carry out the conspiracy? Al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi logged on four times at a college library in New Jersey where they purchased airline tickets for AA 77 and later confirmed their reservations on Aug. 30. In light of this, it is ridiculous to suggest that the Justice Department has the time, resources or interest in ``investigating the reading habits of law abiding citizens.'' We now have the ability to put remote control cameras on the surface of Mars. Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil- liberties hard-liners is to ``question authority''--even when it is coming to our rescue--then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us. The old laws that would prevent FBI agents from stopping the next al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were built on the bedrock of a 35-year history of dark, defeating mistrust. More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate George Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities. Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but whole populations. Three weeks before 9/11, an FBI agent with the bin Laden case squad in New York learned that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were in this country. He pleaded with the national security gatekeepers in Washington to launch a nationwide manhunt and was summarily told to stand down. When the FISA Court of Review tore down the wall in 2002, it included in its ruling the agent's Aug. 29, 2001, email to FBI headquarters: ``Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die-- and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems. Let's hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, [bin Laden], is getting the most `protection.' '' The public has listened to years of stinging revelations detailing how the government tied its own--hands in stopping the devastating attacks of September 11. It is an irresponsible violation of the public trust for members of Congress to weaken the Patriot Act or jeopardize the NSA terrorist surveillance program because of the same illusory theories that cost us so dearly before, or worse, for rank partisan advantage. If they do, and our country sustains yet another catastrophic attack that these antiterrorism tools could have prevented, the phrase ``connect the dots'' will resonate again--but this time it will refer to the trail of innocent American blood which leads directly to the Senate floor.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 90th birthday of an American hero, my constituent, Mr. James W. Murdy. James Murdy wanted to serve his country in the United States military and learn a trade. He joined the Navy in 1940 and soon thereafter served as an electrician aboard the USS Helena, a St. Louis-class light cruiser stationed at Pearl Harbor. On December 7, 1941, shortly after James began serving on the Helena, the ship was hit by a torpedo dropped by a lone Japanese torpedo plane. Thankfully, James Murdy survived the attack that killed 20 of his fellow sailors. James Murdy then attended the Naval Mine Warfare School and worked as a minesweeper for the next 3 years. He was honorably discharged from the Navy in 1946 after achieving the rank of chief electrician's mate, the highest rank he could obtain as an enlisted man. Shortly after being discharged from the Navy, James wed Mary Robb, with whom he had three children; James Murdy, Rosemary Murdy-Haber, and Patricia Murdy-Cressman. He still lives in Allentown, Pennsylvania and loves rebuilding or constructing items from scratch and being called upon to speak about his experiences at Pearl Harbor. He is an ardent fan of the Philadelphia Phillies and Eagles and loves spending time with his family, including his granddaughter and step-granddaughter. Mr. Murdy served our county with valor and distinction, and we should honor his service, his dedication, and his allegiance to our great Nation. It is my honor to join with his many friends and family in celebrating the 90th birthday of this wonderful man.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 117, 118 and 119, I was detained at a meeting with firefighters and missed the votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 117, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 118, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 119.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and the gentlelady from New Mexico, Congresswoman Wilson, for their leadership on this critical issue. I'm also pleased to be joined by my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). But after looking at that graphic, I think all of us should take note. It was not only Attorney General Mukasey and National Intelligence Director McConnell who have talked about the degradation of our intelligence and the intelligence product. But it's also the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, who also talked about how our intelligence capacity has been degraded because of the failure to enact the Protect America Act. He said, and I quote, ``What people have to understand around here,'' and that's the Senate, ``is the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest.'' He said three times, this capacity will be degraded. And I do want to applaud the gentleman from Texas for bringing up that e-mail that was cited in the 9/11 Commission report from the FBI agent who was so frustrated in August of 2001 about the failure of our law enforcement intelligence officers being able to collaborate effectively because of the wall that existed pre-PATRIOT Act. And he talked about that frustration. And he wanted to make sure those barriers were removed. And he also talked about how so many protections were being provided to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda at the expense of the security of the American people. When we came to this Congress, the 110th Congress, when it first convened, we were told by the new leadership under Speaker Pelosi that fulfilling the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report was a top priority. Well, it's time to equate those words with action. It's absolutely essential that we do so. And many of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue because we have bipartisan support for this bill. We have more than a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and there are over 20 members of the Democratic Caucus who have said that they're going to vote for this bill. It shouldn't be a partisan issue. We all know that. And they've often talked about that we should be allowing our law enforcement officials to deal with these terrorists more effectively and that we shouldn't be using our military as much. That is what they say. I have a letter here from the Fraternal Order of Police asking us to pass this law. We need to give law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. We can't simply say on the one hand we shouldn't be using the military but we should be using law enforcement, and then tie the hands of those very law enforcement officials we need to help us. Mr. Speaker I will be happy to submit this letter for the Record so that people can see what the Pennsylvania Fraternal Order of Police police have said or, actually it's the National Fraternal Order of Police, what they have said, why we need to enact the Protect America act. Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, December 4, 2007. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington. DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: I am writing to you on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our position as the Senate prepares to consider legislation amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FOP does support the inclusion of language that would adequately protect telecommunications companies which cooperated with the Federal government and law enforcement investigators from any liability as a result of that cooperation. It is important that such a provision strike the right balance between the need to investigate and gather intelligence about our nation's enemies--those actively plotting to attack and kill our fellow citizens--and the genuine expectation of privacy of the customers of these firms. It is important to emphasize that these records were voluntarily turned over because these companies were trying to assist the Federal government and law enforcement protect the United States and investigate terrorists, and we do not believe they should be punished for providing this assistance. In the view of the FOP, this is no different from a citizen helping to protect their streets by participating in a Neighborhood Watch program and reporting suspicious activity to the police. The attacks on the United States in 2001 were a turning point in our nation's history and, like any turning point, it demands that we change and adapt without yielding our essential liberties or compromising our American values. One of these values is that of compromise, of working together to find common ground and solving problems. The defense of the United States against our terrorist enemies is not the sole province of any entity. If we are to be victorious in this struggle, we must work together. I am proud that law enforcement agencies at every level of government, Federal, State, and local, have changed the way they work so as to foster greater cooperation in the war on terror. I am pleased that our nation's corporate citizens worked with law enforcement and Federal investigators in the wake of September 11th. And now I implore our executive and legislative branch to put aside political considerations, to seek the common ground and to do the right thing those who acted in the best interests of their nation and its citizens. Law enforcement officers must make decisions every day weighing the safety of the public against the individual's expectations of privacy--occasionally these decisions have to be made in seconds--because a law enforcement officer may not have the luxury of having months to deliberate the matter. It is time for all parties--the Administration, Congress and interest groups from both sides of this issue--to stop the hyperbole and work together to reach a solution that will protect those companies that came to the aid of their country in our war against terrorism. I urge both of you, as leaders of your respective parties, to bring the compromise version of this legislation to the floor and work together to see it pass. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of the views of the more than 325,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police. If I can be of any additional assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in my Washington office. Sincerely, Chuck Canterbury, National President. Moreover, my own Attorney General from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, visited me today. He's down here with the Attorneys General. He also talked about the need to enact the Protect America Act. And it is absolutely essential that we do so. People are often frustrated by what they consider the mindless partisanship, the inability of people to get things done in Washington. That's why they're upset with Washington. They believe that Washington is broken. They're angry because Congress just fails to get commonsense legislation accomplished. And I think they want us to put the national interest ahead of special interests. I think great points have been made here tonight about why we should pass this law, and I think we have to recognize what's holding this up. There are people in this body who are more interested in protecting the concerns of the most litigious among us in our society at the expense of the security of the American people. We all know a bipartisan accord has been reached on this FISA Act, on the Protect America Act. There really should be no more excuses. It's time to take yes for an answer. It's time to get the job done. I look forward to working with all of you to make sure we accomplish this before our intelligence is degraded further than it is today. With that I would yield back to my friend from Texas.

Mr. DENT. That graphic you just showed from 9/11 in New York vividly reminds me of that day, and my cousin was on the 91st floor of the north tower. He was one of the lucky ones. He got out. Everybody above him was killed, and all 11 people on his floor made it out, and it was a harrowing experience which I won't go through here tonight. But we should also remember an article that was written by a woman named Debra Burlingame. She wrote this editorial in The Wall Street Journal a few years ago, and she talked about the fact that there were two individuals in this country before 9/11 that FBI agent you referred to earlier was concerned about. He was concerned about those individuals, and for whatever reason, nobody in the FBI was prepared to go to the FISA Court to go on a nationwide manhunt for these two individuals. Didn't happen until the afternoon of September 11, 2001. And those two individuals that Debra Burlingame wrote about, who we were so concerned about, who were operating out of San Diego, who were making phone calls to Yemen into a switchboard run by the brother-in- law of one of those two individuals, bin Laden would call into that switchboard himself. The point is those two individuals were the ones who crashed the plane into the Pentagon, and the pilot of that plane was a man named Burlingame, Captain Burlingame, the brother of Debra, and it really speaks to the issue that we should be surveiling and monitoring calls of people who are not American citizens and who we suspect that are engaged in serious terrorist activities. We had a sense that those two people were bad actors, but we failed to act. We can't let that happen again. Heaven forbid if there's another terror attack like that of 9/11 or something worse, and heaven forbid if, for whatever reason, we failed in our duty to provide our law enforcement officials, our counterterrorism officials the tools they needed to connect the dots. And as you so eloquently stated, we cannot connect the dots if we can't find the dots. That's precisely the point.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentlelady from New Mexico and the gentleman from Georgia for engaging in this colloquy tonight. I think just about everything has been said. We have a job to do. The American people expect us to get it done. We've heard from the attorney generals, we've heard from the U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey. We've heard from the Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell. We have heard from everyone. And the fact that this intelligence product is being degraded should be alarming to every single American. The fact that we're debating this this evening, knowing that we may not be getting vital intelligence or information I think should be cause for alarm. There are going to be those who say that we're doing this fear- mongering. That is absolute nonsense. We're simply stating facts. And the facts are that our intelligence personnel today don't have the tools that they had just a few weeks ago to deal with the threats that we face as a Nation. With that, I want to thank you again for your leadership. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, you and I are deeply engaged in these issues, along with Mrs. Wilson, who has been a great leader on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Again, we need to keep pounding this point home. I am prepared to come to the floor of the House every single night until this law is enacted. With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just say that I think the American people hear our frustration here tonight. People of all ideological stripes in this body support the Protect America Act, and I think the people of the United States expect an answer as to why the leadership of this body under Speaker Pelosi will not allow this legislation to be considered. And I believe very respectfully that Speaker Pelosi and the far left are driven by an extreme agenda on this critical national security issue, and it appears that there are a very small number of people in this body, in this country, who don't want to enact these important reforms. It's time to stop pandering to trial lawyers or to the ACLU or moveon.org and get on with the business of this country, and it seems that in too many cases there are some people who are misguided, who seem to think that the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and other intelligence agencies that support this government are a greater threat to us than is al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. And that is what is so frustrating to me, that our law enforcement officials, our counterterrorism officials, our intelligence officials want us to get the job done. Intelligence officials are taking out personal liability insurance to protect themselves against lawsuits or a congressional inquiry, not protect themselves against al Qaeda but to protect themselves against people in this town, Washington, DC. And again, it's really time for us to get on with the business of this Nation. The bipartisan compromise that we have all talked about has been reached. Many of us try to work in a very bipartisan manner on a number of issues. This is one clear case where we've done so, and it's time for the leadership to allow us to get the job done, and we call on Speaker Pelosi to do just that.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. I thank the gentlelady. And I thank you for your leadership as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But to just follow up on what you said, if there are two insurgents or two terrorists in Iraq talking to each other by cell phones, what appears to be a wireless communication, one to the other, it's likely that that call will be routed through the United States, hit a wire, and then that would pretty much trigger the Wire Act. And that's what caused the intervention of all the lawyers. So we're talking about the denial of tactical intelligence to our men and women who are on the ground, soldiers on the ground and marines on the ground not being able to pursue a hot tip or a hot bit of information because of the inadequacy of current law.

Mr. DENT. The gentleman from Texas made a very eloquent point. It is well stated. His op-ed is worth reading. I would recommend anybody to read this. It states all the points. But to follow up, we did have an incident in this country where there were two suspected terrorists in the United States, and in August of 2001, I believe this was written about in the 9/11 Commission Report, there were two suspected terrorists, and I know there was an individual whose name I can't recall at the moment, but I believe he was in the counterterrorism division of the FBI who was very concerned about two individuals who he thought were in this country, and he wanted a nationwide manhunt. And he had written a memo in August of 2001 saying, some day someone is going to care about this, that all the protections are being provided to al Qaeda and bin Laden at the expense of the security of the American people. Those two people he was concerned about were the two who crashed the plane into the Pentagon on September 11. I believe it was sometime in the afternoon of September 11 he received his request to go engage in that nationwide manhunt for those two individuals. So this is a very real issue. And I think we should try to conclude this program in the way it began, in talking about the need for bipartisanship, particularly when it comes to national security issues. And it can't be stated enough that our friends on the other side of the aisle in the Senate and many in this House are waiting to vote for this bill. We just want to have the opportunity. As I said earlier, I think it is almost tantamount to a dereliction of duty that the Speaker has not allowed a vote on this issue. Sometimes, we have to take ``yes'' for an answer. We have the solution. It is in our reach. It is time to get the job done. And maybe if we do that, the American people will look more favorably upon Congress.

Mr. DENT. I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding. And to follow up on your very valid point about how this law does provide protection for American citizens, in the letter that was signed by about 20 of our Democratic House colleagues in support of the Protect America Act, and the legislation that we'd all like to have considered, they have said that this legislation should include the following provisions: First, require individualized warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad. So there is protection in there for American citizens who are living or traveling abroad. It clarifies that no court order is required to conduct surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are routed through the United States. It provides enhanced oversight by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; compels compliance by private-sector partners; review by the FISA Court of minimization procedures that I believe you have just alluded to; and targeted immunity for carriers that participated in antiterrorist surveillance programs. So I think that there are plenty of protections in place stronger than current law. And I think there is one other issue that needs to be addressed here and now, immediately. Some have suggested, that I think they have irresponsibly suggested, that the PAA's, Protect America Act's, existing certifications will cover all potentially needed surveillance, and I think it's quite clear that in the event that it expired, which it has, it's unclear whether a court would find any directives under the PAA enforceable once the act expires. And it's my understanding too, if a previously unknown group were to attack or kidnap American soldiers after the act expires, it would not be covered under the certifications of the Protect America Act. And I think we should talk about that. And there is another thing that I think we have to be concerned about too is that I guess within 48 hours after the act expired, around February 14, there were at least a few incidents that occurred around the world where we have seen threats from radical jihadists or radical extremists. In Denmark 2 days after February 14, we saw three jihadists that were arrested in a plot to murder a cartoonist for drawing an editorial cartoon years ago that they found objectionable. We've all heard about that case. In the Philippines it's my understanding that there were two jihadists associated with al Qaeda who were said to be plotting the assassination of the Filipino President and bombing western embassies. And, of course, there were repeated threats against Israel that we have all heard about, including one from Mr. Nasralla, the chief of Hezbollah, who raised a prospect of a war with Israel. He even said, ``Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen. Let this war be open.'' And this was all said within 48 hours after the expiration, I believe, of the act.

Mr. DENT. Along those very same lines about protecting our intelligence agents and our counterterrorism officials, it's my understanding that because of this legalistic approach to intelligence gathering, this approach to national security, that has forced intelligence officers to take out liability insurance for fear of investigations or prosecutions for taking the kinds of liberties that someone suggested they take but knowing they are committing a felony. Is that your understanding too, that these intelligence officials are actually having to take out liability insurance to protect themselves not from al Qaeda, not from the enemy, but from prosecution or congressional inquiry?

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DENT. I've been following this dialogue very carefully, and I commend you all for your leadership on this, but I want to say something. You know, the American people, I think, they believe that Washington is broken, and they get sick and tired of the mindless partisan bickering. But as has been stated here already, we have a strong bipartisan consensus, veto proof majority in the Senate. Senator Rockefeller, and I won't read his quote just now, but we have people who are prepared to vote for this. In the House, we have 20 Members who signed the letter, 20 Democratic Members who signed the letter saying they support this bill as it passed the Senate, our friends and our colleagues. We stand ready to work with them in a bipartisan manner to pass this bill. You know, sometimes I think the Speaker of the House has to take ``yes'' for an answer. It's time to get the job done. The time for debate is over. It's time to get the job done. And, again, our failure to act on this legislation is tantamount to dereliction of duty. And I think all of us have had enough. Let's get it done. The consensus has been reached. It's time to move forward. Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's 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 foreign-to-foreign 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 anti-terrorism surveillance programs. The Rockefeller-Bond 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 ensure a 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 long-term 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, bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed into law and we should do so--the consequences 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, Christopher P. Carney.

Mr. DENT. Thank you. I'd like to try to answer the question you just raised. Why wouldn't we pass this bill, given the comments by Senator Rockefeller, who said on three separate occasions, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, that our intelligence capacities had been degraded? And the Director of Intelligence, Director McConnell, he has made similar statements. So the question is why aren't we dealing with this. I think the answer is this: that there are people in this body who are prepared to put the special interests ahead of the national interests. And it's quite clear they are protecting the interests of the most litigious members of our society at the expense of the security of the American people. And that is wrong. And, again, I believe many of us standing here, I know I have tried to work in a bipartisan manner on a number of issues in this Congress. I have reached out on a number of issues from SCHIP to stem cell research to others. We're doing it again today on intelligence, and we are being brushed aside, and I think it's simply disgraceful. And I also want to read a comment, if I may. The Veterans of Foreign Wars has weighed in on this issue, and their commander, Commander George Lisicki said, ``Americans are protected from illegal search and seizures by the fourth amendment, but critical legislation is now being delayed because some would extend these same constitutional protections to those who want to harm America, people who kill without conscience, who represent no country, and who have no agenda other than the total destruction of our country.'' That's not me. That's from the VFW. It's been pointed out that Senator Rockefeller, the Democratic Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that our intelligence capacities are being degraded. The Attorney General and National Intelligence Director McConnell have said, and I quote, that that is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired 6 days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. ``We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress's failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation. In particular, they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillance of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act.'' What they are saying is that those people who were partnering with us, helping us to protect America, are now afraid to do so out of fear of lawsuit. They'll have to be compelled to cooperate. And that's really the tragedy here, in addition to saving American lives.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Derek Brian Johnson and the efforts of his father, Robert Johnson, a resident of Easton, Pennsylvania, to seek justice for his son. Derek Brian Johnson was only 32 when he died. He worked as an Internet security manager. He enjoyed singing, skydiving and motorcycle racing. He was passionate in his support of the Make-A-Wish Foundation. He also loved music and bands. And it was this last love that ultimately cost him his life. On February 20, 2003, nearly 5 years ago, Derek went to a club called The Station in West Warwick, Rhode Island, to hear a band called Great White. The club was jammed that night with patrons. As the show ensued, tour manager Daniel Biechele set off a pyrotechnic display that was part of the band's floor show. The display ignited the building's soundproofing foam. The Station went up like kindling. People rushed for the exits, and panic ensued. Many were crushed as the crowd stampeded to get out of the burning building. In the end, 100 people died that night at The Station, including Derek Johnson. Ultimately Biechele and club owners Jeffrey Derderian and Michael Derderian were charged with manslaughter as a result of the fire and ensuing deaths. And there began my constituent, Robert Johnson's, quest to find justice for his son, a search that from his point of view has not been at all fruitful. First, there was the matter of the club itself. There were more people in the club than there should have been. The Station had no sprinkler system, which would have prevented, or at least minimized, the conflagration. And the soundproofing foam was not treated with flame retardant materials. Second, there were the court proceedings. Biechele pled guilty to 100 counts of manslaughter. He could have gotten 10 years to serve under a plea agreement that Bob claims he did not know about. The judge gave Biechele 15 years but suspended all but 4. Michael Derderian was allowed to plead no contest to 100 counts of manslaughter pursuant to a plea agreement. He too only received 4 years to serve. Finally, there were the parole hearings. Even though both of these men were responsible for the deaths of 100 people, the State parole board in Rhode Island has decided to release them. I have to say that I agree with Bob Johnson when he tells me that serving less than 4 years after being found legally responsible for so much carnage hardly seems just. I commend Robert Johnson for the hard work he has put forth to find justice for his son and for the other victims of The Station nightclub fire. I know that the memory of Derek Brian Johnson will live on in his father's heart forever, and I applaud his efforts to soldier on on behalf of a man who was taken from us all too soon.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up on what my friend Mr. Bishop of New York has just said. We all learned about Lieutenant Michael Murphy's bravery. And, of course, last week, as was just stated, he received the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Bush on October 22. I also want to share with you an experience over the weekend prior to the Penn State/Ohio State game on Saturday evening. We had a ceremony on the field of Beaver Stadium, 110,000 people. Of course Lieutenant Murphy is a Penn State alumnus and graduated from the university in political science, as I did about 17 years earlier. And we had a ceremony. It was touching to be with his parents, Dan and Maureen, to recognize his gallantry, his bravery. As Abraham Lincoln said, he had given that ``last full measure of devotion.'' But we joined his parents on the field, myself along with our colleagues, Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania and Todd Platts of Pennsylvania. We escorted them on the field, along with the president of the university, Graham Spanier. And just prior to the playing of the national anthem, which was dedicated in memory of Lieutenant Murphy, the university presented a certificate that read: ``Pennsylvania State University recognizes Lieutenant Michael Murphy as the recipient of the Medal of Honor, for his gallantry and bravery, serving as a United States Navy SEAL while under enemy attack in Afghanistan. Lieutenant Murphy represents the highest ideal of the university as an alumnus and patriot.'' And, again, I would just like to share with my colleagues from New York, and certainly all Americans, the sense of deep loss we feel for the Murphy family and so many others who have paid the ultimate price in this war, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the courageous efforts of numerous first responders currently battling wildfires in Southern California. Today, these dangerous fires stretch over more than 400,000 acres and have forced the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of local residents from their homes. As we've seen on national television, the tragedy unfolding in Southern California is of epic proportions; yet the many first responders charged with saving life and limb have performed magnificently since the initial flames. Taking on these blazes from all angles, firefighters are ensuring the safety of Californians while fighting to protect their property and homes. The courage of these first responders is truly exemplary. As Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee's Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response Subcommittee, I am pleased to see that these brave firefighters, police officers, and paramedics are being aided in their efforts by FEMA, the National Guard, and other elements of the Department of Defense. Exacerbated by drought conditions and the fierce Santa Ana winds, these fires are some of the most menacing in American history. Like every American, I am thankful for the selfless efforts of all first responders, who perform so bravely in harrowing circumstances, especially those currently battling the wildfires in Southern California.

Mr. DENT

Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of one of my constituents, Mr. Deven Amin of Easton, Pennsylvania. Deven, a senior at the Blair Academy in Blairstown, New Jersey, recently raised $7,500 in local contributions for the Nyumbani Village Project in Kenya. Nyumbani Village, located a short distance from Kenya's capital, Nairobi, is a settlement where HIV/AIDS affected orphans are placed under the stewardship of elderly Kenyans in mutually beneficial family settings. Founded in 1992, the village today provides shelter, nutrition and education for roughly 160 orphans, over 100 of which are infected with HIV/AIDS, and 63 elderly adults. From infants to teenagers, these orphans represent nearly every tribe and ethnicity in Kenya. In the past 2 years, Deven has twice traveled to Kenya to volunteer at Nyumbani, where he helped cultivate the village's farm, organize children's activities and assist families with various household duties. After witnessing firsthand the impact of this unique project on its many participants, Deven returned to Easton eager to share his experiences, enhance awareness of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and generate local support for the continued development of the Nyumbani Village. This year, Deven raised an astonishing $7,500 for the project through an ambitious letter-writing campaign that targeted local businesses and health care professionals. The funds gathered by Deven will be used to help construct a critical multipurpose hall in Nyumbani. This structure will provide necessary recreation space for children during times of inclement weather and serve as a gathering place for the entire Nyumbani community. Construction of the facility has been identified as a top priority by the program's directors, who envision the settlement housing between 1,200 and 1,600 individuals in the future. While raising money, Deven also educated residents of the Lehigh Valley about the devastating impact of HIV/AIDS in Africa through various speaking engagements at local organizations. Recently, Deven spoke at the Palmer Township Kiwanis Clubs, and he will address an audience at a local Rotary International chapter in the near future. He also plans to host a chapel service at his high school in late November. Deven's desire to enhance local awareness of global HIV/AIDS through firsthand accounts of his experience in Kenya is truly commendable. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues today join me in recognizing the achievements of Deven Amin, whose selfless efforts will undoubtedly improve the lives of hundreds of Kenyan orphans impacted by HIV/AIDS. We are all extraordinarily proud of Deven. On behalf of myself and the people of the 15th Congressional District, I congratulate him and thank him once again for what he has done to help make this world a better place.