Date: 2006-09-28
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I am not sure what bill I just heard referred to. As I read -this bill. as one of those who helped to write this bill. we have time limits in this bill. We have notices in this bill. We have requirements in this bill. This bill attempts to do what we should want to do. that is. base it on the expectation of privacy of the individual involved. This bill attempts to try and bring up to date the FISA law. a law that was established at a time when technology was far different than it is today. This is an attempt to try and bridge that gap that was created as a result of technology changing. " We set into motion by the law when FISA was first established and in accordance with those technologies which were then available. This is an attempt to allow us to still secure that kind of information that was always allowed under the FISA law. always anticipated to be under the FISA law. but which might be brought into question by the change in technology which has taken place. It also attempts to try and deal with that tension I mentioned before that exists as a result of the constitutional powers that the President has. that we have. and that the judicial branch has and. in an area of law where for many years. since the beginning of this Republic. the Supreme Court has found that the President has. not exclusive. but preeminent. power or preeminent authority. And there is a reason for this. It is the reason Benjamin Franklin talked about in the quote I gave earlier this evening. It is the reason for the kind of functions that take place in a wartime scenario. It is a recognition that you can have one Commander in Chief and that one Commander in Chief has. as part of his responsibility. the requirement to be able to obtain intelligence about the enemy. intelligence about the foreign power. So the question is. How do you construct a law which allows the President to exercise that responsibility and at the same time allows us to exercise our responsibility? There seems to be this idea where we say that there is an inherent power in the President. but then we dont recognize it at all. Or if he acts. and acts pursuant to that constitutional provision. what he has done is unconstitutional and illegal. And we therefore say. when we try to construct a law which wehope will cover most of the areas of activity by the President. where it will engender a greater spirit of cooperation. we say that what he did or if he asserts that authority. somehow that is unlawful or unconstitutional. We have prerogatives in the House of Representatives. There are areas of cooperation. There are areas where we have preeminent power. such as the House of Representatives is given the responsibility. and the authority to. begin any law which would take money from the pockets of our constituents. The President of the United States cannot do that under the Constitution. yet he does work with us in that regard. in many different ways even before he gets the final bill. What we have done here is to try to set up a structure which calls for the kind. of activity that will be reported to us on a regular basis. with time requirements that dont exist in current law today. It circumscribes some of the activities that otherwise are questionable right now. and it sets up a framework for cooperation. it seems to me. So I hear a lot of. and I have used this word before. but hyperbolehere on the floor. We have men and women of good will on both sides of the aisle that have differences of opinion on this. But to condemn this as somehow an effort for us. to give away our power. that somehow this allows the President to continue to act in an illegal way or to cover up previous illegal activity betrays a lack of understanding of the Constitution. of the structure of this House. and of activity of prior administrations. both Democrat and Republican. I would ask us all to support this wellcrafted bill.