On the recordAugust 3, 2007
I'm glad you do understand it. I would ask the gentleman from Texas to ask his Republican colleagues on the Intelligence Committee why they didn't share the bill with the Rules Committee Republicans. We cannot control what you do or do not do. And under the circumstances, Ms. Harman just made it very clear to you that the goalposts keep moving. You try to act as if you don't know that for a year and a half that this has been going on here in this intelligence community, working with this administration, trying to take care of this matter. Now understand this. First, you said on that side that Congress needed to clarify that the government shouldn't need a warrant to collect foreign-to-foreign communications. There was never any disagreement about that, and stop saying it to the American public. Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that. Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and consider retrospective immunity when we get back. Last night, not yesterday, not midnight to noon, and some people have gotten caught in the dark, last night, the congressional leadership was willing to make further changes for Director McConnell. He said that with those changes he would support the bill because it would, in his word, 'significantly' enhance America's security.
Source
govinfo.gov




