Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - June 20, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in offering this amendment.
I think we should all be able to agree on a couple things. This is an extremely important issue. It should be beyond partisan politics. We should use all our means to intercept communications from al Qaeda for our national security. We should also abide by the rule of law.
The rule of law is not an a la carte thing. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you like and which laws you don't like. We don't say to the American people when we pass statutes in this Congress and they are duly signed by the President in accordance with the Constitution, pick the ones you like to comply with and ignore the ones we don't like.
Well, this President and any President should not be held to any different standard than the American people when it comes to abiding by laws duly passed by this Congress and signed by the President in accordance with the Constitution, and that is what this debate is all about.
The amendment is very simple. It is so straightforward, I am just going to read a portion of it right now. ``None of the funds made available in this act may be used to engage in electronic surveillance in the United States except as authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'' and other chapters cited here.
In other words, comply with the laws passed by this Congress and signed by the President.
Now, we have heard from our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee to trust us, this is a needed program. A lot of us haven't had the benefit of that information. But I would say, many of us have not disputed the need for the program.
Maybe we should have this program. We certainly want to intercept any communications from al Qaeda. But it does concern me that the members of the same Intelligence Committee cannot tell us whether or not the program as it is currently configured is complying with FISA. That certainly is not a classified thing, whether or not it is configured to comply with FISA. The fact that the members of the Intelligence Committee cannot tell us whether it is configured with FISA or not is troubling.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely. If it complies with FISA, it is fine.
Now, what is troubling is the Attorney General was asked way back why he didn't come to Congress to seek changes to the law to accommodate this program, and he said he considered that possibility, but then he didn't think Congress would pass it. Well, if that is your conclusion, you don't get to just say, well, I am going to ignore the law and circumvent it. You have to work with Congress.
What is really troubling is I think all of us here, if we heard the same information that members of the Intelligence Committee say they have access to, would also conclude it may be a necessary program. But if it is, let's put it within the confines of the law. That is all this amendment does.
Yes, it authorizes electronic surveillance. We want it to authorize electronic surveillance. But we want to authorize electronic surveillance within the confines of existing law, and if existing law can't accommodate that program, let's come back here, let's pass a statute and change it.
Those who say FISA hasn't been changed, it is outdated, the fact of the matter is we have made eight changes to FISA since its enactment in 1978. We can make more changes to FISA right now to accommodate this program.
But let's just make it clear: If you don't think you can get a law passed by the Congress, you don't get to choose to ignore it. It is not an a la carte system. Our Constitution is based on the rule of law. We can protect the American people, we can intercept al Qaeda communications, and we can do it in accordance with the rule of law.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
I am pleased to join with my colleagues Mr. Inslee and Mr. Jones in offering this amendment, and the issue here is really straightforward: Are we going to require the Department of Defense to comply with guidelines established by this House and this Congress, or are we going to allow them, one more time, to ignore the will of Congress and roll over us here in the House of Representatives?
Here is the situation. Back in 2004, this House passed the defense authorization provision that allowed the Defense Department to go out and set up a new personnel system, but we did it with certain guidelines. We wanted to provide the Department of Defense with greater flexibility, but we also wanted to ensure fairness to the employees.
Here is what happened. The DOD took the flexibility part, and they ignored the portions requiring fairness to employees. They ignored the provision that required, for example, an independent entity to arbitrate certain disputes between management and labor. They ignored the provisions that said you have to have a merit system protection board that has an independent judgment, instead of allowing the Defense Department to essentially overrule the decisions, at least on a preliminary basis, of an independent merit system protection board. So they made a number of changes to the congressional intent.
As my colleague Mr. Inslee said, you do not have to take our word for it. Just listen to what a Federal judge said, and that is Judge Emmet Sullivan. He is the first person in the District of Columbia to have been appointed by three United States Presidents to three judicial positions, and he ruled in favor of the employees who brought a case and challenged the administration's decision on this. He said it was ``the antithesis of fairness'' the way DOD had set up its system and determined that it was outside the scope of what the Congress had mandated.
Now, they have ruled. That ruling came down in February. We have had a Federal judge, therefore, stick up for the Congress. The question is, are we going to stick up for ourselves? Did we mean what we said back there? A Federal judge has looked at the law and said, clearly, the DOD provisions are outside the scope of what we intended. Anyone who takes a fair look at what this Congress said to the administration and to the guidelines that we had in setting up the system would reach the same conclusion.
Let us not once more roll over. A Federal judge has done the right thing. They said the administration should not roll over the will of Congress. Let us not allow them to do it. Let us make sure that we do not spend taxpayer money on a system that a Federal judge has said is outside the scope of what Congress intended.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/