Silvestre Reyes

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I just wanted to thank everyone again, as Mr. Hoyer indicated. I believe every Member in this body cares about our national security, and I also believe that this is a good bill, a good compromise and is worthy of supporting.

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a sponsor of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill represents the culmination of more than a year's work by the members and staff of the House Intelligence Committee, together with our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, to bring to the floor a bill that modernizes our surveillance authorities while protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his efforts to strengthen this bill. As always, I greatly appreciate my good friend's commitment to protecting our country and the principles that we hold so dear. I also want to thank the respective ranking members and all that worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor today. This bill, Madam Speaker, enjoys wide support inside the Democratic Caucus. It has been endorsed by our Democratic whip, by our Democratic Caucus chair, by the Blue Dog Coalition, the New Democratic Caucus and by a number of our colleagues. For that, I want to thank in particular our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, for leading the effort towards a bipartisan compromise. This bill is a far better deal than the Protect America Act. And it is far better than the Senate bill that passed earlier this year. Madam Speaker, intelligence is the first line of defense in our Nation's effort to prevent terrorism and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This legislation strengthens the ability of our intelligence agencies to conduct lawful surveillance of foreign targets. But this legislation also serves another very important and vital function. It strengthens the constitutional rights of Americans, protects them from unlawful surveillance and it stops this President, or any President, for that matter, from invoking executive power to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans. This bill does more than just retain the original FISA requirements for an individual warrant based upon probable cause for surveillance targeting Americans here in the United States. For the first time ever, this bill requires in statute warrants for Americans anywhere in the world. It also requires the government to establish clear guidelines to ensure that no American is the target of any surveillance without a warrant. It clarifies that FISA and Title 18, the Criminal Code, are the exclusive means by which the government may conduct domestic surveillance. It will prohibit any unlawful, warrantless wiretapping, the kind we saw under this administration. It provides accountability by requiring the inspectors general of various agencies to compile a comprehensive report on the President's surveillance program and that review must be given to Congress. It requires prior court approval of the procedures used to conduct surveillance of foreign targets, except in an emergency, similar to the current FISA law. This legislation, Madam Speaker, also addresses the issue of lawsuits against telecommunications companies that comply with directives from our government. This bill does not grant immunity to any government official who might have violated the law, and this bill does not grant automatic immunity to telecom companies, as the Senate bill would have. Under this legislation, a Federal District Court will review the evidence submitted by the Attorney General and then the court will decide whether to grant civil liability and protection to a company that provided post-9/11 assistance to the government. This bill does not grant immunity. Congress isn't deciding the question of immunity; the District Court will. Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill will sunset in 4\1/2\ years, ensuring that the next administration will be in a position to assess and review the effectiveness of this legislation. This legislation represents a bipartisan compromise, and, as such, both sides got less than they wanted. But it is a product of a good faith effort by both Republicans and Democrats to give our intelligence agencies the tools necessary to keep America safe, while protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this very important piece of legislation. In addition, Chairman Reyes submitted the following views for the Record: Exigent Circumstances Prior court review is an absolutely integral part of this bill, but we have also crafted an ``exigent circumstances'' circumstances provision that allows the Administration to commence surveillance immediately in an emergency. This provision should be invoked rarely, if at all. In the normal course of events, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will have ample time to submit applications for surveillance to the FISA Court for its approval before initiating a particular surveillance. When used, this exception should be for purposes of a true emergency, involving unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances. I consider this to be limited to situations where the intelligence sought would serve a critical function in protecting national security and where the failure to act immediately would result in the loss of what might be the only opportunity to collect the information in question. The Intelligence Committee intends to engage in regular and vigorous oversight of these new authorities and, in particular, the use of the ``exigent circumstances'' exception to ensure that the important protections in this bill are not circumvented. ``Reverse Targeting'' The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 regularly uses the term ``targeting.'' We intend this term to mean more than simply the process of selecting a telephone number or an e-mail address to surveil. Rather, it is meant to describe the process of purposely acquiring communications of or information about a specific individual. It is in this context that Section 702(b)(2) prohibits what is generally referred to as ``reverse targeting.'' In our discussions with the intelligence agencies, they have agreed that this language prohibits the targeting of one or more persons overseas where the purpose is to acquire the communications of or information about a U.S. person or any specific person reasonably believed to be inside the United States. Accordingly, Section 702(f) requires that the government adopt guidelines to ensure that this does not occur. Inadvertent Collection of U.S.-Person Information Because of the nature of the new surveillance authorities granted under this bill, we were particularly concerned about the potential for a significant increase in the inadvertent collection of U.S.-person communications and information. For that reason, we have adopted several oversight provisions that require the Intelligence Community to report to Congress on the number of targets later determined to have been located inside the United States, the number of disseminated intelligence reports that contain U.S.-person information, and the number of disseminated intelligence reports that contain information identifying specific U.S. persons. The Intelligence Committee plans to conduct vigorous oversight of the reports. Exclusivity The exclusivity provision of this bill is extremely important. This language is designed to prevent any future efforts to conduct surveillance that is not authorized by statute. The bill not only establishes that FISA and Title 18 are the exclusive means of conducting surveillance, it requires that any future authorization for surveillance must be explicitly established in statute. The language should in no way be read to imply that there is an inherent power to conduct surveillance beyond what is expressly authorized by statute. In particular, the language in Section 102(c)(l)(ii) should be read to require citation to specific statutory authority in all certifications for assistance in conducting electronic surveillance issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B). Sunset This bill is set to expire on December 31, 2012. During the next four years, Congress will continue to assess the surveillance activities of the U.S. Government and assess whether additional changes need to enacted before the sunset date to correct any deficiencies or problems that arise. Civil Liability Provisions The provisions in title II of this bill establish a meaningful court review to determine whether telecommunications companies should be protected from civil liability for assistance provided to the government. It is important to state that these provisions are not intended to imply in any way that the President's conduct in connection with the President's warrantless surveillance program was lawful or to excuse the conduct of any government official that might have violated the law. Further, no telecommunications company should interpret these provisions to imply that Congress will act in the future to seek the dismissal of any other lawsuits charging improper conduct in connection with surveillance activities. Rather, Congress considers the tragic events of 9/11 to be a unique set of circumstances that require special consideration. As a general matter, we expect companies and private citizens to respect the rule of law and to require the same of its government. With respect to the applicable legal standard, we intend ``substantial evidence'' to apply not only to a finding that assistance was provided in response to a request that meets the standard of this bill. That standard should also apply where the court is asked to determine that the alleged assistance was not provided. A simple declaration from the Government or the defendant that the alleged assistance did not occur should be deemed insufficient where there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Similarly, when the Government alleges that a surveillance program was ``designed'' (as opposed to ``intended'') to detect and prevent terrorism, the court should examine the evidence to assess the scope of the program and determine, where appropriate, that indiscriminate surveillance that acquires the communications of millions of Americans is not truly ``designed'' to detect or prevent terrorism. Finally, these provisions should also not be interpreted to remove the power of the courts to review the constitutionality of the process this bill establishes.

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the centennial birthday of President Lyndon B. Johnson, a proud Texan with a Texas- sized personality. President Johnson provided the nation with strong leadership following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and his enduring legacy includes such seminal programs as Medicare and Medicaid, and the groundbreaking Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. One area where President Johnson's leadership continues to be felt today is the issue of education. Under his tenure the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was signed into law. This measure directed instruction in English as well as multi-cultural awareness in the wake of the Civil Rights movement. The Act gave school districts the opportunity to provide bilingual education programs without violating segregation laws. As someone who grew up only speaking Spanish and had to attend a school that only taught in English, I personally know the significance of these actions for students in El Paso and the border region. I will always remember meeting President Lyndon B. Johnson in the spring of 1965 while I was attending the University of Texas at Austin, and I rise today to honor the impact that he had on our country, and on El Paso. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution. Thank you Madame Speaker.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 84th birthday of the United States Border Patrol. Next Wednesday, May 28, 2008, we will be commemorating the establishment of the United States Border Patrol, which began as the Patrol Inspectors in El Paso, Texas. The Border Patrol began under the Bureau of Immigration, then became a part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, the Border Patrol has become an integral part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Today, the Border Patrol is led by my friend and former colleague, Chief David V. Aguilar. Under his strong direction and leadership, the Border Patrol has grown to over 16,000 agents stationed throughout the Nation's southern, northern, and coastal borders. Guided by their national strategy, with the proper mix of manpower, technology, and infrastructure, the Border Patrol's primary goal is to gain and maintain operational control of our borders. Agents protect and defend the United States by preventing the smuggling of illicit materials, and surreptitious entry of persons into the United States. Last year alone, the Border Patrol arrested over 876,000 persons illegally entering or already present in the United States, and seized over 1.8 million pounds of marijuana and 14,000 pounds of cocaine. Today, the Border Patrol uses state of the art technologies to aid in the performance of their duties. Infrared cameras, remote video surveillance, unattended underground sensors, and ground radar support their national strategy. Their special response teams and tactical units are specially trained for domestic and international emergencies and they have search, trauma, and rescue teams that provide humanitarian and rescue capabilities and perform countless rescues each year. The Border Patrol's mission is also supported by air and marine assets and personnel from CBP Air and Marine. Before coming to Congress, I was honored to serve as a Border Patrol agent for 26\1/2\ years, of which 13 were spent as sector chief in McAllen and, then, in my home district of El Paso, Texas. My time in the Border Patrol gave me firsthand knowledge of the vigilance and dedication that are constantly required of these agents. The task of protecting our Nation's borders is no small charge. Sadly, over the years, the Border Patrol has lost 105 men and women who courageously served our country. Let us take a moment to remember these brave men and women and honor their sacrifice. The Border Patrol lives by their motto ``Honor First''; so today. I ask that we honor the men and women in green for the work they have done and the sacrifices they have made.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I wish to inform my colleagues that the classified annex to H.R. 5959, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009, will be available for review by Members only during regular committee business hours. Staff are requested to call the committee to schedule a viewing appointment for Members. Members will be required to fill out the appropriate security paperwork to view the classified documents.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. David Plotinsky who recently left the House of Representatives to take a position with the Department of Justice. Mr. Plotinsky served in the Office of the General Counsel for 10 years, first as a law clerk while he was a student at Georgetown Law School and, since 2000, as an Assistant Counsel. Mr. Plotinsky provided frequent and invaluable legal advice and representation to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Our staff came to rely on his expertise and guidance in connection with many of their investigative and oversight activities, as well as in the Committee's interactions with the other branches of the federal government. Over the years, Mr. Plotinsky played a significant role in safeguarding the legal and institutional interests of the House of Representatives, and he served the House with great distinction. I know that he will serve the Department of Justice with that same level of distinction. On behalf of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I thank him for his many years of devoted service, and extend to him our very best wishes for his continued success.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 322, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel and reaffirming the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel. Israel sets the example for the nations of the Middle East, as the only true democracy in that region. For the past 60 years, Israel has been a sanctuary of democracy and pluralism in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes. Israel is the only country in the Middle East with free elections, a free press, freedom of religion, protection for minority rights and other safeguards typical of a free society. Like the United States, Israel is a country founded by immigrants. Since its founding, the tiny state has absorbed more than three million immigrants from more than 100 countries, including Jews from the former Soviet Union and those forced to flee from Arab countries. A haven for Jewish refugees from around the world, Israel has also reached out to assist Jews wherever they suffer from persecution and has made the successful absorption of new immigrants in society a top priority. The United States and Israel have formed a unique strategic partnership to meet the growing dangers in one of the world's most volatile regions. To support the U.S. war on tenor since September 11, 2001, the U.S. and Israel share vital intelligence on terrorism, weapons proliferation and other threats, at a level of sensitivity almost unparalleled among American allies. Thousands of U.S. armed forces personnel have utilized Israeli training facilities, and Israeli officials have shared ``lessons learned'' from their extensive combat experience with their counter-parts at the Department of Defense. With U.S. help, Israel is able to maintain its qualitative military edge for deterring aggression by its potential enemies. By collaborating with Israel, the U.S. has a reliable, democratic and technologically advanced partner in securing American strategic interests. This partnership includes: bilateral strategic agreements on military planning; ballistic missile defense and counter-terrorism; joint development of weapons and technologies; intelligence sharing; and combined military exercises. The U.S. and Israel have established a cost-effective partnership in the research and development of military technologies and know-how, and in identifying solutions to some of the most challenging technical problems facing both countries' military planners. Despite its small size, Israel is recognized as a world leader in the quality of its indigenously developed military technology. As such, the U.S. has incorporated Israeli equipment and technology into its armed forces. It is also important to note that the ties between Israel and the Jewish Community in the Sixteenth Congressional District of Texas remain strong. Through many community based programs, the Jewish Federation of El Paso strives to strengthen this connection through education, through scholarships for trips to Israel, and through financial and spiritual support for their Israeli family. The Federation's upcoming celebration of Israel's independence (Yom Ha'atzmaut) will be a unifying experience that will also help teach our younger generation about the incredible story of Israel. With my support of House Concurrent Resolution 322, I recognize the historic significance of the 60th anniversary of the reestablishment of the sovereign and independent State of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, and I extend my warmest congratulations and best wishes to the State of Israel and the Israeli people for a peaceful, prosperous, and successful future.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. That is correct.

Mr. REYES. I would be happy to oblige my good friend from Georgia.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am proud to rise today in support of H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill arms our intelligence community with powerful new tools to track and identify terrorist targets outside the United States. At the same time, it restores essential constitutional protections to Americans that were sharply eroded when the President signed the law known as the Protect America Act last August. We have put the security of Americans first and foremost, with close attention to their constitutional rights. We have also included provisions to allow companies that acted lawfully to make that argument to the courts. If they did nothing wrong, as they have said, then they will be immune from any lawsuit. Title I of this bill ensures that the government does not need to get an individualized warrant when it targets communications of targets overseas, the so-called foreign-to-foreign. This is the central problem that the administration cited with FISA in August, and we have fixed it. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not require individual warrants for foreign targets before surveillance can begin. It does require the FISA Court to ensure that the procedures that the government uses to identify foreign targets are designed to protect the rights of Americans. This independent front-end review is necessary to ensure that the rights of Americans are being properly protected before any violations occur. However, we also provide a generous emergency provision, at least 30 days, so that the surveillance can begin in an emergency before the government has to go get approval from a court. In title II, we address the issue of the lawsuits filed against the telecom companies who allegedly participated in the President's warrantless surveillance program. This bill allows the courts to carefully safeguard classified information under well-established protocols. This information that the companies may wish to use to defend themselves now gives them that opportunity. This will also allow the companies to defend themselves in a secure effort. If they are innocent, they will face no damage. If they broke the law, they will be held to account. But this issue will be decided by a court, the American way. Title III of this bill establishes a bipartisan national commission to investigate warrantless tapping. I believe that the Nation is deeply concerned about what has gone on for the last 7 years. And I also want to restore some of the trust in the intelligence community. Title III is designed to do just that, by bringing these things into light in a careful and bipartisan manner. The American people deserve to know the truth about what has happened. This provision makes that happen. This is an important step forward, Mr. Speaker. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the 110th Congress is not a rubber stamp for anybody, the Senate or the administration. I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, before I yield the balance of our time, I would like to insert into the Record at this point several letters of endorsement for H.R. 3773. Center for Democracy and Technology, Washington, DC, March 12, 2008. Re Vote ``Yes'' on H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act. Dear Representative: We are writing to urge you to support legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the House of Representatives will soon consider. The bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3773, is a responsible compromise between the House RESTORE Act and the Senate FISA legislation. This compromise includes most of the civil liberties protections in the RESTORE Act while also providing the intelligence agencies the flexibility they need to monitor the international communications of people believed to be abroad. The legislation would replace the Protect America Act (``PAA,'' Pub. L. No. 110-55), which became law in August 2007 and which expired a few weeks ago. Like the RESTORE Act, the compromise bill permits authorization of surveillance programs targeting persons abroad who may be communicating with people in the United States. The compromise bill makes it clear that the government does not have to make an individualized showing of probable cause for targeting any person reasonably believed to be abroad, unless that person is a U.S. citizen or green card holder. It provides intelligence agencies great flexibility in adding new surveillance targets to existing authorizations. The compromise bill also makes it clear that no order is required for surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications. The compromise bill includes no blanket immunity from civil liability for telecommunications carriers who assisted with illegal warrantless surveillance from October 2001 through January 17, 2007, but it does allow carriers to defend themselves against those lawsuits while protecting classified information. Unlike the PAA, the compromise bill includes significant civil liberties protections that merit your support. Prior Court Approval. Most importantly, the compromise bill requires court approval of surveillance procedures prior to the commencement of surveillance. Except in emergencies, the compromise bill bars the executive branch from commencing surveillance unless the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISA court'') has approved of targeting and minimization procedures designed to protect Americans. The targeting procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure that communications to be acquired will be those of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. The minimization procedures limit the circumstances in which a U.S. citizen or green card holder can be identified when information resulting from intelligence surveillance is disseminated. We are disappointed that under the compromise bill, the authorization for surveillance comes from the Director of National Intelligence (``DNI'') and the Attorney General (``AG''), and not from the FISA court, as would have been provided under the RESTORE Act. While we would have preferred the RESTORE Act approach, surveillance under both bills cannot commence unless the FISA court has first approved the procedures under which it would be conducted. Court Compliance Assessment. The compromise bill explicitly authorizes the FISA court not only to assess the adequacy of surveillance procedures at the front end, but also to assess whether those procedures are being complied with on a going forward basis. It provides that the court shall assess compliance with the minimization procedures it has approved, and it acknowledges that nothing in the bill prohibits the FISA court from having inherent authority to assess compliance with those procedures and other procedures it has approved. While the extent of the court's inherent authority is unclear, we understand that the Administration has agreed that the court has inherent authority to assess compliance. Prevention of Reverse Targeting. The compromise bill bars the targeting of a person reasonably believed to be outside the United States for the purpose of targeting a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States. A number of provisions support this bar. They help ensure that surveillance targeted at persons abroad will not be used to circumvent individualized court order requirements that protect Americans from unwarranted surveillance. The bill requires the AG, in consultation with the DNI, to adopt guidelines to ensure compliance with the reverse targeting limitation. Those guidelines must contain criteria for determining whether a ``significant purpose'' of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific, known U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident reasonably believed to be in the United States. Those criteria must in turn reflect consideration of criteria listed in the bill that tend to show whether a person in the U.S. has become of significant intelligence interest. The guidelines must be submitted to Congress. AG/DNI certifications submitted to the FISA court in connection with authorized surveillance are reviewed by the FISA court for completeness, and must attest that guidelines meeting the reverse targeting limitation have been adopted. The Inspectors General and the AG/DNI both report to Congress on whether the reverse targeting guidelines are being followed. FISA Exclusivity. The compromise bill takes a significant step toward the goal of clarifying that FISA is the exclusive means of conducting surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. It does this by cutting off the argument advanced by the Administration that Congress may implicitly authorize warrantless surveillance when it authorizes the use of force following an attack on the United States, or when it passes other legislation. Under the bill, such authorization would need to be explicit. Telecom Immunity. Unlike the Senate bill, the compromise bill wisely rejects proposals to grant blanket retroactive immunity to telecommunications carriers that assisted with illegal warrantless surveillance for more than five years following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Telecoms should be immune when they assist surveillance that meets the statutory requirements, and should face civil liability when they assist with requests for assistance with unlawful surveillance. The compromise bill preserves this incentive system, which helps ensure that telecoms prevent unlawful surveillance. In lieu of retroactive immunity, the compromise bill frees telecoms to present in court information tending to show that they complied with the law, even though such information may be subject to the state secrets privilege. It signals the courts that such submissions must be protected from disclosure and should be handled in accordance with the relevant provision of FISA, Section 106(f). The compromise bill also includes the following significant provisions: A December 31, 2009 sunset to prompt Congress to reconsider the legislation in a timely manner, and to encourage Executive branch compliance with reporting duties imposed in the legislation and with congressional requests for information; An Inspectors General audit of post 9-11 warrantless surveillance that may represent the best chance of shedding light on this surveillance, to the extent consistent with national security concerns; and A requirement for court orders based on probable cause for surveillance of Americans and green card holders who are believed to be abroad, in lieu of the Attorney General certification of probable cause now required by executive order. For all of these reasons, we encourage you to vote for the compromise bill when it is considered by the House of Representatives. It represents a responsible effort to preserve both liberty and security, and it is legislation the Administration would be wise to support. For more information, please see our latest policy brief on FISA legislation (http://www .cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2008/3) or contact the Director of CDT's Project on Freedom, Security & Technology, Gregory T. Nojeim, at 202/637-9800 x113. Sincerely, Leslie Harris, President and CEO. Gregory T. Nojeim, Director, Project on Freedom, Security & Technology.

Mr. REYES. That is correct.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I only have one more speaker remaining as well.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) who serves on our Intelligence Committee. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm not a lawyer, but I am told by lawyers that every lawyer learns to argue the following way: When the law is against you, they are taught to argue the facts. When the facts are against you, they are taught to argue the law. To a certain extent, that is what is going on here today. We just heard from the distinguished minority leader that he wants the House to go in neutral, put our engine in neutral and just vote on what the Senate has sent over. In other words, we want to rush to rubber-stamp what the administration wants. That's not going to happen. We also heard this morning that somehow my good friend from Washington State says they haven't had enough time to debate these issues, the FISA issue. I would remind my good friend that we had invited our colleagues on the Republican side to work with us, to go through a process, the process of setting up our ability to go to conference, and they refused. They refused to participate. So it is not a failure of getting enough time to participate in the debate; it is a failure of wanting to participate because the rationale is let's rubber-stamp what the administration wants, which is the Senate version. We also heard that somehow we are losing information. Somehow we are at a disadvantage because the Protect America Act expired. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would remind all of the Members that were here last night that I held up two documents, and one of those documents authored by the DNI and the Attorney General gave you the information that refutes that argument. We have done everything that the DNI has asked us to do in this bill. He wants us to give the intelligence community the ability to monitor foreign to foreign. This bill does that. He wants us to give the telecom companies the opportunity to state their case in order to get immunity. This bill does that. The third thing he wanted was to make sure that any time that there is an American involved or an American address or phone involved, that a warrant be secured. This bill requires that. This bill puts the FISA Court back in the process. That's the American way. I will close by saying that I come from a State that reveres the second amendment, our right to bear arms. But I would submit to all of you, my colleagues here, that that amendment would be irrelevant if we were to give the administration exactly what they want, and that is the ability to monitor anyone, any time, for any reason, because a weapon or a gun is not going to do you any good if the government knows your every move. The Senate version is their answer to give the administration exactly what they want. We took a different approach. Instead of being in neutral, we are telling the administration and, with all due respect, we are telling the Senate, let's reconcile our differences. We have given the DNI every single thing that he wants. And simply stated today, that dog is not hunting that would create an atmosphere of fear for America.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Anna Eshoo, who chairs our Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the secret session of the House is dissolved pursuant to the previous order of the House, the House stand adjourned.

Mr. REYES

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back on point by yielding 3 minutes to my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Service Committee.

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, continuing on this parallel universe, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who chairs one of our subcommittees, the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management.