Date: 2011-05-26
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I know we want to get to a vote very. very soon and normally I would refrain from speaking on this except that because this is such an important issue and some of the things that have been stated on the floor are so patently untrue. there is an obligation for those of us who have been working on this issue for some period of time to make sure that the public is not misled by statements that have been made here on the floor. Number one. the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. We have heard statements on this floor that are absolutely not true. They are the same statements that were made the last time we had this on the floor. the same statements that were made when we reauthorized this a few years ago. And one of the most amazing things is there is a continuation of this argument that we havent done proper oversight. I dont know where you have been. but many of us on this side of the aisle have been in briefings and on hearings on these very issues seeking out the truth on these things. The canard that somehow we are tearing the Constitution up just does not stand any kind of inquiry whatsoever. The suggestion that somehow we are invading the civil liberties of citizens is negated by the language in the three sections of the bill that we have before us. And the argument that somehow. since we got rid of Osama bin Laden. we dont need this. is the most absurd at all. One of the lessons of our successful mission being executed against Osama bin Laden is that you need actionable intelligence over a long range of time that you can connect together with analysis to give you the information that you need. It doesnt fall from heaven. It doesnt come like manna. You have to go get it. We have carefully constructed these provisions to allow us to do the kind of work that is necessary not to collect the bodies after a successful terrorist attack has occurred but. rather. to prevent these terrorist attacks. One of the things people should keep in mind is that we have the intervention of Federal judges in these three different areas of the law. It is not something where the executive branch is allowed to go unfettered into looking for this information. Rather. they must justify it to an independent Federal court. and some say. oh my gosh. it is a secret court. It is a secret court because. in fact. there are certain secrets that must be maintained as we attempt as best we can to save this Nation and our citizens from those who would attack us. One wonders at times whether we have the sense of urgency that is necessary to continue with the efforts to make us safe. The fact that we have thwarted successfully terrorist attacks is not a reason to dismantle the means which allowed us to do that. It is. in fact. a reason why we should continue this. Any honest examination of the history of this Judiciary Committee and the Crime Subcommittee will reveal that we have done the oversight necessary to ensure that we have the tools to fight the threat of terrorism and at the same time preserve the civil liberties of American citizens. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the record. To suggest its unconstitutional is to somehow ignore the decisions made by every Federal court that has looked at this. But you can continue to make these statements. you can continue to confuse the public. you can continue to raise alarm where alarm ought not to be raised. With all due respect. while everybody is entitled to their opinions. they are not entitled to their own facts. They must take the facts as they are. And the facts are this is constitutional. it is workable. it is necessary. We have to do it. and we have to do it now.