Date: 2007-08-04
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. after listening to my friend from Texas. with whom I serve on two committees. I just must say that Im sure she misspoke when she said that we passed a bill on the floor yesterday that would have done all those things. If the gentlelady will recall. it failed on the floor because it was under suspension. and that recollection is about as accurate as the description ofthe bill before us that Ive heard from the other side. I am disappointed to hear the rhet� oric on this floor that scares the American people into believing that somehow were tearing up the Constitution. The fact of the matter is in 1978. when we passed the original version of FISA. we exempted from its consideration our capture of foreign conversations involving someone in a foreign country. The technology that was used at that time is different than the technology now. and what we are doing with this bill is making the law compatible with current technology. What is that section of the bill that weve heard our colleagues on the other side get so upset about? It is this section. section 105(a): Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States. And what the Director of National Intelligence has told us is the interpretation of current law forbids him to do that to a large extent. Now. we can spend hours on the floor explaining why. but thats the fact. He was not here trying to scare us. I am amazed that some of my friends on the other side would suggest that Admiral McConnell. with his distinguished career of service. 40 years as mentioned by the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. serving under Presidents Democrat and Republican. would be involved in scare tactics. He came to us and told us we need this because America is blinded in a significant degree by current law. If. in the capture of this information. we do come into contact with communication that involves someone in the United States. an American citizen. we go through a process called minimization. which means we get it out of there if it has nothing to do with the evil actor. We get rid of it. as weve done for 50 years in the criminal justice system. 28 years under FISA. But if. in fact. that individual is someone who is involved in terrorism. a reasonable suspicion that that is the case. then we get a warrant. Not only do we do that and maintain that in this bill. we beef up the minimization process. and we beef up the oversight. and we allow the FISA court to look at it and to approve it and to audit it. and in addition. we require reports to the committees of the House and. the Senate. How that is tearing up the Constitution I do not know unless you havent read the Constitution. unless you havent read the history of FISA. unless you havent read the means by which we have extracted communications around the world. All this does is bring the law up to presentday technology. It does nothing to tear up the Constitution. And please. talk about fearmongering. to stand on tlis floor and say that this allows the Attorney General or anybody else in the Federal Government to listen in to any conversation you have is absolutely untrue. No one should believe that. It hasnt been done in the past. Its not being done now. This law does nothing but bring us up to presentday technology. If you will look at the original FISA law. you will see that it specifically exempts from the definition of electronic communications these kinds of communications. but they used to be carried in a different way. and we captured them in a different way. We just want to capture them now under the technology that is currently used in the world. Thats all were doing. nothing more. nothing less. Lets not involve ourselves in fear tactics. scare tactics on the floor and suggest to the American people something which is occurring which has not. is not. and will not and cannot be done under this bill.