On the recordApril 22, 2015
I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the rule, but not without trepidation. I will be opposing the underlying bill, but not without regret. The underlying bill could have done what we wanted it to do. It could have allowed for the exchange of information while protecting individuals' privacy. It could have limited that information to preventing a cyberterrorist attack. But, in fact, amendments that were offered on a bipartisan basis, a number of them, that could have limited this would have, in fact, allowed us to have the confidence that this information would be used only for what it was intended. Mr. Speaker, since 9/11, the government has begun to know more and more about what we are doing, who we are, where we live, where we sleep, whom we love, whom we do business with, and where we travel. And we have known less and less. Just a few days ago, the Ninth Circuit in northern California had to rule that the government had to turn over information in a usable format. It took a Federal court order to do so. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
