FISA Amendments Act of 2007

Floor Speech

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I don't know why any Member of the Senate would object to procedures we would employ within the bounds of the law to listen to communications of terrorists in order to detect and deter further terrorist attacks on our own soil or against Americans or our allies. That is what this legislation does. Unfortunately, I think we are beginning to see a dangerous trend on the part of the Senate: Never failing to put off until tomorrow what we could and should do today.

This legislation has been considered for an awfully long time, as we all know, in a bipartisan vote of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 13 to 2. In October, this legislation was voted out of the Intelligence Committee in a carefully crafted attempt to consult with the Director of National Intelligence, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and all other intelligence community members who might be impacted by this legislation. There has been opportunity after opportunity for input into this legislation by Members of the Senate. Yet we hear today there are those on the floor of the Senate who are saying: Well, let's not vote on this legislation now. Let's kick the ball down the road another month so we can have the same debate, the same discussion we have been having for all those many months leading up to this point. The only reason we are where we are today is because we were unable to get a lengthy extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in August. Because of objections by those on the other side who are complaining about this legislation again today, we were only able to pass this legislation until December and then another extension was granted until February 1, when this Protect America Act expires of its own terms. I would hope this body would continue to act in a strong bipartisan manner in which the Intelligence Committee has voted this bill out of the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13 to 2.

I appreciate the fact that this body tabled the Judiciary Committee's partisan substitute and sent a signal that bipartisanship and consensus may once again become ascendant in matters of national security in the Senate. I think we would see that as a welcome development. At a time when we are talking about an economic stimulus package and seeing cooperation from the Speaker and the minority leader in the House and the President of the United States on matters affecting the economy, why can't we get that same sort of bipartisan cooperation on matters affecting national security?

Today, the Senate is poised to move this critical national security legislation one step closer to the President's desk. Today's vote will tell us much more about whether this Senate is ready to set aside partisanship and willing to get the job done.

Members of this body will remember that in December we had to pass an Omnibus appropriations bill that affected all discretionary spending of the U.S. Federal Government because we had been unable to pass 11 out of the 12 appropriations bills that it was our responsibility to pass. Unfortunately, this Senate has an unfortunate recent tendency to put off things until tomorrow what we should and could be doing today, and we should not let that happen. We need to finish this legislation to give Members a chance to debate and then to vote.

I don't favor each and every provision included in the bipartisan compromise that is sponsored by Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond, but I do appreciate the fact that it is a carefully crafted compromise. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is the product of extensive consultation and negotiation with the experts in our intelligence and defense communities.

In other words, this legislation reflects the valuable and necessary input of the very men and women who are currently intercepting phone calls, text messages, and e-mails between al-Qaida and their operatives--those who wish to do America and America's interests harm.

The Senate has two choices today as the deadline for action rapidly approaches on February 1. On the one hand, we can show the American people that at least when it comes to matters of national security, it is possible to put partisanship aside and to get the job done in a bipartisan way. The other choice, which the majority leader has proposed, is we ask the American people for an extension, that we kick the can down the road for another month, only to find ourselves back in precisely the same posture we are in today: With no issues resolved and with the same old debates to be rehashed when we ought to finish the job today and follow the path of maximum responsibility.

I ask my colleagues: What excuse could there possibly be to put the tough choices off for another month? What justifies asking the American people for more time to get the job done when we know what the choices are and we have simply to make those choices by our vote today. We have had 6 months since the Protect America Act was passed in August of last year to get the job done. In that time, this legislation has been subjected to scrutiny by two Senate committees, and there has been significant time debating this legislation on the floor.

The fact is there is no acceptable excuse for failing to do our duty and our job. The excuses offered for delay are as compelling as the old school house claim that my dog ate my homework, I couldn't get it done.

I say no more excuses, no more extensions. It is time for Congress to come together in a bipartisan fashion in the national security interests of the United States.

It is specious to say there is no consequence to another extension, and it is the height of irresponsibility to argue that delay is the only responsible choice. As America's elected leaders, we have a responsibility to keep America safe. We cannot simply close our eyes and wish away the terrorist threat. It is easy this many years after September 11 to be lulled into a false sense of security as time takes us further away from that terrible attack on American soil. But it is undeniable that the threat from al-Qaida and Islamic extremists remains.

In the face of the very real threat of radical Islamic terror, Congress must be resolute and we must eschew attempts to split along partisan lines, and we must embrace bipartisan solutions to our very real national security problem. That is what a vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee bill would reflect: a bipartisan solution to a national security challenge.

That is why it defies credibility to argue that the responsible thing to do is to put the job off for another month. The majority leader's plea for an extension implies that the only two choices we have are, on the one hand, an extension for 1 month and, on the other hand, no bill at all. Neither of those is a responsible choice.

In fact, there is a third option, and that option is for the Senate to pass a consensus bill that has the bipartisan support of the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and a bipartisan majority of the Senate, experts in the intelligence community, and the President of the United States.

Let's be clear about what an extension means. An extension means further delay. It means putting off tough choices. It means not only to do so in a time of war but in a time of economic fragility, when we have other work we need to be doing on the floor of the Senate that is being taken up unnecessarily by repeating the same arguments over and over without any conclusion. It also means Congress has lacked the courage to relieve some of America's leading companies from the burdens and costs of litigation arising from their cooperation in the war on terror.

Let us remember the telecommunications companies that may have cooperated with our Government at the request of our President, and upon the certification of the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer, that what they were being asked to do was within the law. To continue to subject them to litigation for doing their civic duty, to incur ongoing expense and inconvenience and to risk information that is sensitive to our security coming out during the process is simply not a responsible option.

Some in Congress apparently think these companies should have second-guessed the legal representations made by the President and the Attorney General in the days and weeks and months following the 9/11 attacks. Some in Congress have argued that the companies had a duty not to cooperate, a duty to refuse to assist this Nation's intelligence community with tracking terrorists during wartime. That is, unfortunately, how far we have come in this debate and how off the mark some have come.

These companies, as every good citizen who cooperates with their Government to try to keep America secure in good faith, deserve the protection we are being asked to give them in this legislation. These costly lawsuits have not only put in jeopardy the future cooperation of these firms but also the critical national security concerns potentially exposed to the discovery process in civil litigation. It may be popular in some quarters to bash corporate America, but that rhetoric is sorely misplaced in this debate. The men and women who manage these companies made a good-faith decision to do their patriotic duty--to help their Government to track terrorists and to save American lives, and they should not be punished for it. They should be thanked for their cooperation.

For Congress to allow these burdensome lawsuits to continue this long is unfortunate and unjust indeed, but for Congress to continue to put off the tough choices and leave these companies in legal limbo is not only unfortunate and unjust, it is also irresponsible. Now is the time for Congress to decide the question--no more excuses, no more delays, no more extensions. Today, the Senate can choose a path forward, a bipartisan path on critical national security measures, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to move this bipartisan bill forward by voting for cloture at 4:30.

I yield the floor.

Source