Press Conference with Rep. Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Hoyer (D-MD), House Majority Leader; Rep. Reyes (D-TX), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Statement
Press Conference with Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Majority Leader; Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and The Protect America Act
Copyright ©2008 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.
REP. HOYER: Thank you very much for being here.
Before I begin, let me first extend my sincere condolences on behalf of the entire House -- I know I speak for Nancy Pelosi, our speaker, and John Boehner, our Republican leader -- in extending our condolences to the families and loved ones of those who were killed on the Northern Illinois University campus yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers today are with them and those who are injured, and the entire Northern Illinois University campus. A tragedy that all of us lament and too often is happening on the campuses and schools. We don't know the rest of the circumstances, but we are deeply sorry for the loss that has occurred.
Now earlier today I met with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committees to discuss our process for moving forward with legislation to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Chairman Conyers was there. Chairman Reyes was there. Chairman Rockefeller was there. Chairman Leahy was not there, but he has been in communication with us.
We had a very positive, productive meeting. I can tell you that we have every intention of working with -- without delay to resolve the differences in the bills passed by the House last November, known as the RESTORE Act, and the Senate bill that was just sent to us two days ago.
Let me say we have repeatedly urged the White House and Republicans in Congress to work with us on this matter. Unfortunately, though, the president and the Republican leaders seem intent on manufacturing a political issue. This morning the president repeated the -- in my opinion -- unsupportable and in some respects irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps the Senate bill.
Let me be clear. This representation, in the opinion of ourselves and many, is absolutely incorrect. In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and our intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation. If the Protect America Act, temporary legislation passed last August, expires, we will still have in place the requisite legal justification not only for the administration and our intelligence community to act to intercept communications we deem to be dangerous to the safety of our people but also to give the communications company -- companies that would cooperate with us the necessary legal protection.
Now let me go back to outside individuals who are in support of the contention I have just made. Particularly let me reference Richard Clarke, the former chief counterterrorism adviser for President Clinton and President Bush. This is not a partisan but an expert -- many have seen him on television -- an expert on terrorism issues and on the security apparatus of the United States.
He said this. Quote, "Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire" -- would not cease if the Protect America Act expired.
"If this were true," he went on to say, "the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen."
Mr. Clarke is exactly right. As I said on the floor today, as I said on the floor yesterday, as Chairman Conyers represented, as Chairman Reyes has represented, and as Senator Rockefeller agrees, and as Harry Reid indicated yesterday in his letter to the president, the intelligence community continues to have the tools necessary to pursue the already authorized under the Protect America Act interception of communications and to pursue any new targets with FISA Court approval, which can be done, as the administration officials in charge of this effort have admitted, in minutes -- not hours, not days, but in minutes -- and the FISA Act currently now in effect or in effect tomorrow, in effect now, but would have the opportunity for them to act immediately and receive approval of the courts within 72 hours after acting.
If the president believes his own rhetoric -- that is to say that we will be in a less-secure position as a result of the act, the Protect America Act, going out of effect -- his veto threat contradicts that contention.
We believe the president's rhetoric is inaccurate, but it's also divisive and an attempt to stampede the House of Representatives to rubber-stamp legislation by appealing to the fears of the American people. That, we do not believe, is either productive or good for our security, or a message to send to those who might harm us.
I want to send another message to those who might harm us. We still have in place every capacity to intercept and find out your plans, and we will act swiftly and decisively against them, because there is no division in this country on our commitment to protect America, Americans, our values and our ideals.
We will not, however, be stampeded by false assumptions or appeals to fear. Rather, we will fulfill our highest duty to protect the American people and to protect the principles that make us proud to be Americans and as our oath entails, protecting the Constitution and laws of this great country. We will do so in a thoughtful but expeditious manner that the American people expect and deserve.
Chairman Conyers and Chairman Reyes have already, subsequent to our meeting at 10:00, been working. They will talk about contacting their Republican counterparts, ranking members, on working over the next few days to see if we could proceed -- not if, we're going to proceed -- to effect an agreement, both on Title I, which I think is less contentious, and Title II, which is more convention -- contentious -- Title I, as all of you know, being the security procedures to effect interception of communications, and Title II being the question of immunity.
I'm now very pleased to yield to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, one of the very must senior members of the House of Representatives, John Conyers of Michigan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HOYER: And I'd like to ask Chairman Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who headed up our Border Patrol on the Texas border before coming to Congress, who knows a lot about not only border security but national security, who has been working so hard on this legislation and who, along with John Conyers, was the author of the RESTORE Act that passed the House of Representatives some three months ago. Chairman Reyes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HOYER: Let me just say one thing in closing. Admiral McConnell today, in an op-ed, posited that the reason the act was needed was to give immunities for the telecom companies because they wouldn't cooperate if we hadn't passed that bill. In fact, they get the protection under the authority that has already been granted, and they get the protection under FISA if a court order is issued. In fact, that is the practice in the United States of America.
If you're looking for a murderer or a rapist, some other kind of domestic terrorist, and you want to intercept their communications, you get a warrant. We do not protect, as has been made very clear, foreign-to-foreign communications, nor should they be protected. And they will still be accessible. But I am absolutely convinced that the telecom companies, patriotic companies that they are, given an order from a court in the United States of America, FISA Court or any other court, will in fact follow that order, as they have in other cases.
We think that's the appropriate process, and we hope that that would continue to be the case.
Yes.
Q If the law expires tonight, and you say that the intelligence community has the weapons that it needs to assure that everyone is safe, why bother then to work on extending or creating a new law to give them those weapons? And if that isn't the case, then to what percentage or what degree does the safety or the intelligence weapons diminish by not having one in place versus the other?
REP. HOYER: Okay.
First of all, the Protect America Act is a temporary stopgap. This is a permanent -- what is pending -- the RESTORE Act was a permanent legislation for the purposes of affecting a response to the technological changes that have occurred. Admiral McConnell is absolutely right on that issue, and there is no disagreement on that issue.
The Senate bill is also a permanent statute. The RESTORE Act, which was passed, excuse me, the Protect America Act, which we voted on in August, was given a short time frame, extended for 15 days, but that was not the permanent fix. This is.
Secondly we do believe and would reemphasize that they have all the tools that they now need. This administration finds it inconvenient to go to court. They would rather act unilaterally without oversight. We believe that that's neither necessary nor proper constitutionally. There are some differences between the Senate and House bills, but both of them involve the use of the FISA Court, as was contemplated.
Q Mr. Leader, Leader McConnell says you can and should go ahead and pass the Senate bill, because the votes are there on your side of the aisle, and that if there are concerns about the legality of what the telecommunications companies and the administration did in years gone by, you could, as Congress, could investigate that.
And Chairman Conyers, could you talk about, are you thinking about another way of addressing that retroactivity issue?
REP. HOYER: Let me respond to Senator McConnell.
Senator McConnell, let the RESTORE Act come to a vote on the Senate floor, and see whether or not a majority of the members of the United States Senate are prepared to vote on the RESTORE Act.
If the argument is, there is a majority on each floor, we challenge them to have the RESTORE Act, which got a majority of the members of the House voting for it. So our responsibility is to try to come up with legislation, between the two houses, on which there can be a consensus that is to agreement between both houses. Not only is that our process, it is constitutionally required. And the way to do that is to have a conference.
Unfortunately, once again, as has been the practice in the United States Senate of the Republican Party, the refuse to go to conference, as you know. They tried to go to conference. We're prepared to go to conference.
Now, the Senate has not, in almost every matter that we have sent to them, had the votes to go to conference, so that we're in a position where we are now working informally. We did not try to go to conference, because the Senate hasn't had the practice of going to conference. But we would hope that they would do so.
But there is, I think, a majority for the RESTORE Act on the floor of the United States Senate. So --
(Cross talk.)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HOYER: We're not going to go there, but let me make a positive comment, that I've had some positive conversations with the White House which, notwithstanding their rhetoric publicly, indicates to me that they would like to see a resolution. And they're prepared to have some discussions, which indicates to me, they understand that the legislative process is a give-and-take process.
Q When was that correspondence?
REP. HOYER: No, it wasn't correspondence. Conversations, communication.
Q When was that?
REP. HOYER: Yesterday and the day before.
Q Mr. Hoyer, you place the blame on the Republicans in terms of not letting the extension pass. But the vote that was held on the floor was not passed mostly by the virtue of the 34 Democrats and liberals and progressives that joined in with the Republicans. That was really the turning point. You have a problem --
REP. HOYER: That's a very interesting premise. That's -- you're spinning the Republican argument.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are 435 members of the House. 34 Democrats voted no. How many of you think that if 34 Democrats vote no in a House of 435 that they can defeat something?
100 percent without exception of the Republicans chose, by their rhetoric, with which we disagree, to apparently, from their belief, put their country at risk by not extending the Protect America Act. Now, we don't think they did so by doing that, but we think the extension was the absolute way to, irrespective of whose opinion you believe, to protect against that.
They chose to, to a person, reject an extension. Why? Because they wanted to play, in my opinion, the politics of fear and brinksmanship.
Q It sounds like you're looking for common ground; you're looking for a compromise. Do you think it would be -- I know you don't want to get into details. But could the final product, you believe, include some sort, some form, some limited form of immunity?
REP. HOYER: There's a good try, but I don't want to get into details. (Laughter, cross talk.)
It was a good try. I thought it was, you know, sort of good. You sort of softened me up, and then -- (laughter).
Now, why don't I want to get into details? This is a very serious matter, but why don't I want to get into details? Because clearly this is an issue of real disagreement substantively.
This is not a political issue. It's a substantive issue of, what does the Constitution require of us? And what does the law require of us, in terms of granting immunity, as the chairman points out, to -- if immunity is required, it's required because perhaps there was wrongdoing. If there was wrongdoing, we ought to know, as you've heard me say, what the wrongdoing was before we grant immunity for it. That's the issue we're pursuing.
Q If the substance of today's meeting was a framework for going to conference, then obviously nothing's going to happen for at least 10 days.
REP. HOYER: The framework was today's meeting. And as you heard, I don't know whether you've had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Hoekstra yet.
Q Yeah, I have.
REP. HOYER: I know you talked to him yesterday. I don't know whether you talked to him today. But this meeting that we had at 10:00 in my office was to make sure that we were starting -- we have some days between now and when we go back in on the 25th. I'm hopeful that we use every one of those days to achieve agreement.
Q So obviously, nothing until at least the 25th.
REP. HOYER: Well, we're not -- we won't be --
Q I mean, obviously be resolved --
REP. HOYER: A, our premise is there is no risk. The FISA Court authority -- the authorities under the Protect America Act are in place now. Nothing happens to them. All the authority that they have today, they will have on Monday, under the authority already granted.
Secondly, we believe that we can use every day, and very frankly, if we went to conference, nobody believes the conference would be an overnight conference, because there are serious issues here. But we don't want to wait until the 25th to start addressing these issues, because we want to act as expeditiously, quickly, as we can. So Chairman Conyers, Chairman Reyes, Chairman Rockefeller -- Chairman Leahy was not there, but we know that he is in agreement with that -- want to use that time to get to where we can pass legislation that will have the support of both houses and the signature of the president of the United States.
STAFF: One more question. One more question.
Q In terms of this moving-forward conferencing process --
REP. HOYER: Yes.
Q -- I mean, at what point do you bring the Republicans into that?
REP. HOYER: As I -- let me reiterate, and I'll take another question, because I think this is sort of a repeat. Chairman Conyers indicated he's got a call in to Ranking Member Smith now, so we want to bring them in right now.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. HOYER: Let me tell you what my hope is -- and we discussed this -- is that the eight principals -- it is very important for the staff, who know all the details and know the principals' objectives, to work out a detail so the principals could come together and reach agreements. But I'm hopeful the principals will meet in the near term, all eight of them, Republican and Democrats, sitting down --
Q What do you consider the near term? Like Monday? Tuesday?
REP. HOYER: I don't know what the discussions will be, what they -- as soon as they can.
STAFF: Last question.
REP. HOYER: If that's -- if they're all here this weekend, maybe this weekend. If Monday, Tuesday, the chairman and Chairman Reyes and --
REP. REYES: You have availability (in the House ?).
REP. HOYER: Yeah. All indicated. And for that matter, you know, we have telecommunications available --
Q (Laughs.)
REP. HOYER: -- for which none of them will need immunity. (Laughter.)
Q How do you know? (Laughter.)
REP. HOYER: (Chuckling.) Until I know the substance.
Good question. You're getting the message.
Q Is it now just between members -- I mean, you say you just got the Senate bill, you know, this week. Do you need more information? Is it now just, you know, back and forth, trying to figure out, or you need more information?
REP. HOYER: I have got a call in -- and I'm not sure I have the call; I'm not sure it's been made, because I've been in and out. But I will be talking to hopefully Mr. Bolten this afternoon. And Chairman Conyers can speak to this, but the Senate Judiciary Committee got full access to the documents that have been made available. They were made available to the Senate months ago. They were only made available to us two weeks ago. They were made available to all the members of the Intelligence Committee. They've been made available to all the members of the Intelligence Committee in the House.
However, as Chairman Conyers will observe, they've only been made available to half the members of the Judiciary Committee. We don't have any understanding of that, because all of the members of the Judiciary Committee have responsibility.
So in terms of made available, not yet to all the members of the committee. I don't know whether that was a White House misunderstanding of our request. I mean, I don't want to place aspersions, but we're going to hopefully have that happen. So the answer to your question is not yet.
Q And just as a quick follow-up, how many pages do you -- have you received already? The people that have been given the information, the documents -- how many pages, approximately, is that?
REP. HOYER: Can we --
REP. REYES: A bunch. (Laughter.) There was a --
REP. HOYER: I don't -- I didn't count the pages, but --
REP. REYES: There's a --
REP. HOYER: It's a stack like that. See, we're just -- I didn't even look at him.
REP. REYES: (Laughs.)
REP. HOYER: There are a lot of pages to review, and --
Q And the bill expires tonight, at that magical moment when --
REP. CONYERS: You know when -- at midnight.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Q It's Sunday. So Sunday would be the first day the act would expire.
STAFF: It's tonight. Tonight.
REP. HOYER: It's tonight, the 15th.
Q Okay.
REP. HOYER: Today's the 15th.
Q So it's Saturday.
Q So 12:01, Saturday.
REP. HOYER: Well, if it expires the 16th, it's tomorrow.
Q That mysterious time each week when Friday becomes Saturday.
STAFF: Twelve-oh-one -- (off mike).
REP. HOYER: Twelve-oh-one on the 16th.
Q When tonight runs out.
Q (Off mike) -- the White House -- (off mike).
REP. HOYER: But again, I want to reiterate -- I want to reiterate -- the president is saying something radical is going to happen tonight at midnight. It will not. All of the authorities that have given by the Protect America Act, that have been requested by the administration, presumably as late as this morning, if there are items of which they're concerned -- and they mention of Hezbollah's threat, other threats in Pakistan or other places -- presumably the administration has been on its -- on the job and have asked for whatever authority they needed.
Nothing will expire tonight except the statute itself. All of the authorities to intercept communications will be still in full force and effect for at least six months and possibly a year, depending upon when those authorities were asked for.
Thank you very much.
Source