Madam Speaker,  I rise in support of H.R. 3773, a careful and reasoned approach to electronic surveillance.

I approach this subject with two principles in mind – first, our surveillance must be effective.  Second, the rights of Americans must be protected.  On this second point there’s a real difference between the Senate and House bills. 

The issue is how both bills handle the calls of Americans.  Under the Senate bill, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General approve surveillance, and then they go to the Court, with no set timelines for ruling.  Under the House bill, the program of surveillance, not the specific individual targets, is submitted to the Court.  The government will essentially ask the court: “Is this method of handling the communications of Americans appropriate, careful, and most importantly, constitutional?” 

The approval of a program of surveillance allows the government to get approval before the intelligence community has an operational requirement.  Consequently, there will never be any operational sacrifice here.  If this bill were going to slow down intelligence collection, or cause operational problems, I could see where some might take issue with that.  But the simple fact is that the way this bill is drafted, there is no excuse for the government not to get the approvals in place in advance. 

I am all for strong intelligence authorities.  The beauty of this bill is that it combines that with care for our civil liberties, without sacrificing either.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back the balance of my time.