Again, the debate is about a bill that the President has outlined in his veto statement is deeply flawed, deeply flawed in the content of what is in the bill as to what it directs the President to do and the limitations that it places on the executive branch in being able to conduct the war against radical jihadists effectively. But it's also clear that the message clearly outlines the deficiencies of what is not in the bill: the inability and unwillingness of the Democratic leadership to bring to the House the Senate-passed FISA modernization bill; a bill that reflects the values of the Speaker of the House; a bill that reflects the values of the current Speaker of the House when she was on the Intelligence Committee in 2001 when these discussions were under way that talked about what do we need to do to give our intelligence community the tools that they need to keep America safe so that we can better understand the plans, the intentions, and the capabilities of al Qaeda and other radical jihadists. That is where the Terrorist Surveillance Program took root.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the flaws in a bill related to the Terrorist Surveillance Program and FISA modernization.
Share
More from Pete Hoekstra
You get calls and request to meet with folks and… if they’re people that are working on issues that may have an impact on U.S. relations, there’s a good chance we’ll meet with them, just to get some kind of perspective.
I thought the Ontario ad campaign was outrageous, calling it the first time in the U.S.’s 250-year history that a foreign government has tried to influence the outcome of upcoming elections.
The bridge was not open when it was announced a couple of weeks ago by mutual agreement of the Canadian government and the U.S. government
Compared to a provincial government and Canadian taxpayers running (political) ads in the United States of America? You’re equating those two? C’mon, that’s not even close!





