Floor Speech in Favor of Short Term FISA Extension

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object.

First, let me just set the context here. The senator from Oregon has always expressed hardcore ideological opposition to Section 702, which a large majority of the Senate and the House, under Democratic and Republican hands, across Democratic and Republican administrations, has always deemed a vital national security tool. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the senator from Oregon has never once voted to extend Section 702. Every few years, we come down here, and we have this debate.

So, let me just express how important it is. The president has said that Section 702, which I would remind everyone here is about foreigners on foreign territory, not American citizens, people who do not have Fourth Amendment rights. It's not just about catching jihadists or uncovering terrorist plots. The president, the commander-in-chief, has said this was vital for the Maduro raid, for Operation Epic Fury, for the rescue of missing troops. I think we should respect his position as the commander-in-chief, the consumer of this intelligence, and the one who employs it, a very similar call to what President Biden and President Obama made before as well. Unfortunately, it does expire tonight. And as even the senator from Oregon, a hardcore ideological opponent of Section 702, has granted in requesting a three-week extension, we shouldn't let it go dark tonight.

So, how did we get here? Yesterday, the House passed a three-year extension. That's what the president asked for: a three-year extension. Now, he wanted it to be a clean extension. The House adopted various reforms. About 90 percent of House Republicans voted for that bill. More than 40 House Democrats voted for that bill. If we were to vote on that bill today, the vast majority of Senate Republicans would vote for it. But there are enough Senate Democrats to block its passage today, which I recognize. We therefore need more time for negotiations. These negotiations are highly complex and technical. They've been constructive, but they must continue, and they must involve not only senators, but also members of the House, the speaker, the minority leader, the chairman and the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the chairman and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. I believe we're moving forward. I believe that we can get a bill passed that both preserves the operational viability of this program while addressing concerns of those who are not yet ready to vote for a three-year extension.

Therefore, we have proposed, say, a three-month extension, which would take us to the end of July and the August recess.The senator from Oregon thinks that's too long. A two-month extension should take us roughly to the Fourth of July recess. The senator from Oregon thinks that is too long. We'd even be okay with the 45-day extension. Give us until about the middle of June. Yet, here he is proposing three weeks, which in reality is two weeks, given the Senate and the House calendar, because we're out of session next week.

Now, he has said to me, "Well, we can talk about this over the phone," which I guess reflects his usual lax indifference to security matters. This is not a tax bill. This is not a healthcare bill. This is a highly classified intelligence program. We can't just text and chat about it on our phones. We need to be here in Washington in secure spaces. We're going to talk about highly classified details. For that matter, we need to be here in Washington so we can talk with the operational figures in the FBI, and the CIA, and the NSA, who run this program, who have the knowledge to tell us this reform will work, it preserves operational viability, and that reform won't work.

So, when he asks for a three-week extension, just realize that's a two-week extension, not a three-week extension. Now, he says that I just want to do "business as usual," and that's why I waited this long. Let me add that one of the key figures here is the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who, everyone knows, just suffered a terrible family tragedy. We held off introducing our bill in part out of respect for the vice chairman and his family, grieving about that terrible tragedy. I would suggest that we owe him a little bit of decency, respect, and grace, and that we can get to a good result if we take a little bit more time to actually have a thorough negotiation when everyone is ready to do so. And therefore, Mr. President, I object.

***

Again, let's be specific about what we're talking about here. The senator from Oregon keeps talking about a "short-term extension." I think most people with some common sense, people sitting in our gallery, would say, "You know what? A 45-day extension is pretty short-term."

When the House just voted for a three-year extension, is 45 days not short-term in the context of a three-year extension? Versus what the senator from Oregon has proposed, a 3-week extension, which is really a two-week extension, because again, we are in recess next week. We cannot discuss these matters on our cell phones, or by text message, or anything else. So, if we're open to a short-term extension, I would suggest that 45 days is fairly short-term.

The senator from Oregon also speaks about comity. I would suggest that comity also counsels that we give a little bit longer than two weeks for a grieving colleague who just had a terrible family tragedy. And finally, about this first matter, it is the senator from Oregon continuing his long-standing practice of grossly misrepresenting classified material in public for his own ideological ends. I yield the floor.

***

I'm ducking nothing. I'm pointing out the senator from Oregon's longstanding practice of distorting highly classified material in public. One of these days, there is going to be some consequences, and it may be why I'm the chairman of this committee. I yield the floor.