Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - June 20, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I can't quote Mr. Negroponte, but I can quote Benjamin Franklin who, in 1776, explained the unanimous decision of the Committee on Secret Correspondence for not telling their colleagues in the Continental Congress about a covert operation. And he said we find by fatal experience that Congress

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I was speaking of the vesting clause in the U.S. Constitution that gives the President with the executive powers----

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please read it. I would ask the gentleman literally to please read it, because I think it doesn't say what he says it says. Please read it.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I don't have the exact words.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask, would a page bring me the Constitution while we are talking?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. It is the vesting clause of the Constitution, vesting in the President the executive authority, coupled with his authority as Commander in Chief.

Now, let me just say to the gentleman, so we can make it clear, I have never argued that the President has this authority in all things, as some have suggested, to kill people, to do this, to do that. I have cited authority which suggested in the area of gathering foreign intelligence, which is about what we are talking.

Secondly, I would just say that the gentleman is right that we do have the power of the purse.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I don't argue at all that this is an inappropriate amendment to be considered, because this is the proper exercise of our authority to the power of the purse. What I have suggested is the arguments that the President is acting illegally or unlawfully are not appropriate, because he is acting under the Constitution, in my judgment.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. So the gentleman then agrees with this point. There is nothing inappropriate about this amendment. So while he believes the President is within his power to do this, does the gentleman agree that if this amendment is adopted by a majority, the President would be bound by it?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. He would be bound by it with respect to the expenditure of funds in this particular bill. I don't think there is any question about that.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So that if he can find, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate that. I take back my time. The gentleman knows the rules. The gentleman knows the rules. He may not know the Constitution, but he knows the rules. I take back my time just to say, so we understand----

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has again expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let us have the common ground. The question here, and I think I will accept this, we are not debating constitutionality here; we are debating what public policy ought to be. The gentleman from California agrees it is appropriate for us to consider it and agrees that, if it passes, the President is bound by it.

Now, I would yield to the gentleman. Are there other places the President can then find this money? Is that what the gentleman is saying? If the President were to be bound by this, would the gentleman suggest the President could then do this anyway in some other fashion? I would yield to him.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. This doesn't cover all expenditures of the President under all circumstances. This is limited to the funds that are contained in this bill, as you know, because it is an appropriation bill.

But could I mention one thing, because there has been some question about this. The FISA court of review issued an opinion in 2002 which stated: all the other courts that have decided the issue held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are beyond that. Look, I do not think the Constitution, I will be honest with you, I think people decide and then they pick the----

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Can we talk about----

MR. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am taking back my time. Let us debate the merits. Let us not hide behind----

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to make sure you understand. I want to make sure the gentleman understands that under this amendment you do not have to stop listening to anybody ever. We want to continue listening, and we simply require that 72 hours after that, we ask the executive to have another set of eyeballs take a look at it to make sure it is compliant. Does the gentleman understand this amendment does not stop anybody ever, as long as you go and have a warrant 72 hours after the intelligence gathering? Do you understand that is the purpose of our amendment? Because it is.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, that begs the question as to whether or not you can, in fact, effectively do that with the 72-hour limitation. There are those running the program that suggest that that is not possible, not because necessarily the limitation on going to court, but all of the work that needs to go forward before you get to the court to get the approval. That is what we ought to be talking about.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/