[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 39 (Friday, March 7, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1725-S1728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it has now been 20 days since the law that 
allows us to collect foreign intelligence abroad has lapsed. We are 
without the authority we need to collect intelligence against our 
terrorist enemy. The law expired February 16. The Senate passed a bill, 
a bipartisan bill, with 68 Senators voting yes, Democrats and 
Republicans. It was fashioned by the Intelligence Committee which 
passed it 13 to 2, a wide bipartisan margin, clearly a consensus that 
the United States must have authority for intelligence collection 
against our terrorist enemies. We passed that bill, sent it to the 
House of Representatives hoping that the House would act quickly, send 
it to the President for signature so we could get on with this 
important aspect of the war against terror. So far the House of 
Representatives leadership has not brought the bill to the floor of the 
House; this notwithstanding the fact that it clearly would pass. We 
know, because of letters Members of the House of Representatives have 
written to their leadership, that Democrats and Republicans together 
have more than enough votes to pass this legislation we in the Senate 
passed. Yet the House leadership sits on its hands.
  Three weeks ago the House leadership said it needed 3 weeks to get 
the job done. That 3 weeks expires Sunday. But the House is not even in 
session now. So today I rise to urge our House colleagues and 
especially the House leadership to step to the plate and pass this 
foreign intelligence surveillance act reauthorization to enable us to 
collect intelligence.
  I am going to, at the conclusion of my remarks, ask unanimous consent 
to put a variety of things in the Record. But I am going to refer to 
them now and talk a little bit about why this is so important.
  Let's start by stating the premise on which I think we all agree. 
This is something that does not divide Democrats and Republicans. We 
have some divisions about the war against terror. We have some 
divisions about the war in Iraq. But all of us understand, first and 
foremost, you defeat terrorists with good intelligence. You find out 
what they are up to, and you are, therefore, better able to stop their 
plans before they are able to execute them.
  Without this intelligence, bad things happen. We did not have the 
intelligence we needed before 9/11, and we all know what happened. 
Since then, a lot of changes have been made. Among other things, we 
have made changes to the law that enables us to collect intelligence 
abroad. As a result of all of those changes, we have not had an attack 
on the homeland.
  God forbid we should have such an attack, but if we did, the new 9/11 
Commission--whatever that would be called--would point the finger 
directly at the leadership of the House of Representatives for not 
reauthorizing this intelligence collection because every day that goes 
by we are losing important intelligence.
  As we found out through the 9/11 Commission after that fateful day, 
we failed to see things we could have known about that might have 
prevented us from suffering that attack on 9/11. But because of the law 
that existed at the time, because of the wall that existed between the 
CIA and the FBI, for example, they were not able to share this 
information. As a result, we were not able to intercept two of the 
hijackers.
  Well, now, today we have a situation where the law that enables us to 
collect this foreign intelligence has expired. There are two problems 
with that expiration. The first is that every day that goes by new 
intelligence is not being collected. You could have a terrorist in 
Afghanistan calling a terrorist in Germany, plotting some action 
against the United States, and because the call happened to be routed 
through a U.S. connection of some kind the law would not enable us to 
collect that intelligence. So every day we are losing intelligence.
  Secondly, because the telecommunications companies that help us in 
this effort have been sued by trial lawyers, we need to provide 
protection against these lawsuits. If we do not, there will come a 
time, in my opinion, that it will be very difficult for these 
telecommunications companies to continue to cooperate with the U.S. 
Government. Then, no matter what kind of law we passed, we would not 
have the support of the only folks who can help us collect this 
intelligence. So we need this legislation, and the House of 
Representatives needs to act soon.
  There was recently an op-ed that was written by Senator Kit Bond and 
Representatives Pete Hoekstra and Lamar Smith. It occurred in the Wall 
Street Journal on February 26. They point out, in this op-ed, that the 
intercept of these terrorist communications ``requires the cooperation 
of our telecommunications companies. They're already being sued for 
having cooperated with the government after 9/11.'' They go on to say:

       So without explicit protection for future actions (and 
     civil liability protection for the help they provided in the 
     past), those companies critical to collecting actionable 
     intelligence could be sidelined in the fight.

  They go on to say:

       It has already happened, briefly.

  They quote Director of Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney 
General Michael Mukasey saying:

       [W]e have lost intelligence information . . . as a direct 
     result of [this] uncertainty.

  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this article, dated 
February 26, 2008, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 26, 2008]

                 In Case You Missed It: Hard of Hearing

           (By Reps. Kit Bond, Pete Hoekstra and Lamar Smith)

       Are Americans as safe today as they were before Congress 
     allowed the Protect America Act to expire on Feb. 16?
       House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats say we are. 
     They go so far as to say that the Protect America Act--put in 
     place last year to overcome obstacles in the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that make it harder to 
     intercept terrorist communications--was not even necessary. 
     In the Washington Post yesterday, Sens. Jay Rockefeller and 
     Patrick Leahy, and Reps. Silvestre Reyes and John Conyers, 
     wrote that our intelligence agencies can collect all the 
     intelligence they need under FISA.
       That is simply false. We are less safe today and will 
     remain so until Congress clears up the legal uncertainty for 
     companies that assist in collecting intelligence for the 
     government--and until it gives explicit permission to our 
     intelligence agencies to intercept, without a warrant, 
     foreign communications that pass through the U.S. Here's why:
       Intercepting terrorist communications requires the 
     cooperation of our telecommunications companies. They're 
     already being sued for having cooperated with the government 
     after 9/11. So without explicit protection for future actions 
     (and civil liability protection for the help they provided in 
     the past), those companies critical to collecting actionable 
     intelligence could be sidelined in the fight.
       It has already happened, briefly. ``[W]e have lost 
     intelligence information this past week as a direct result of 
     the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act,'' 
     Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney 
     General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to 
     Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
       The old FISA law does not adequately protect the U.S., 
     which is why it was revised by the Protect America Act last 
     summer. The problem is that, although it has a few work-
     around-provisions, such as allowing intelligence agencies to 
     conduct surveillance for up to 72 hours without a warrant, 
     FISA ultimately requires those agencies to jump through too 
     many legal hurdles. Those include the Fourth Amendment's 
     ``probable

[[Page S1726]]

     cause'' requirements, protections never intended for 
     suspected terrorists' communications that are routed through 
     the U.S.
       It is true that the FISA Court approves the vast majority 
     of warrants sought by intelligence agencies. This 
     demonstrates that our intelligence agencies are professional 
     and painstakingly provide all of the necessary evidence to 
     establish probable cause to the Court. But in the fast-paced 
     intelligence world, and when dealing with foreign 
     communications, we need our agencies to be able to intercept 
     a far greater number of comunications--notably those of 
     foreign terrorists--than can be justified under the Fourth 
     Amendment.
       Telecommunications companies are for now, after intense 
     negotiations, cooperating with the government under the 
     assumption that protections granted to them under the Protect 
     America Act will be upheld in court, even though the law is 
     now defunct. But there is no guarantee that the courts will 
     do any such thing. There is also no guarantee that corporate 
     executives, under pressure from their legal counsels and 
     shareholders to limit liabilities, will continue to 
     cooperate.
       The cooperation of the telecommunications companies is 
     limited to intercepting communications of terrorists 
     identified before the Protect America Act lapsed. Until 
     intelligence agencies can chase leads involving foreign 
     communications, the U.S. will not be as safe as it was just a 
     few weeks ago.
       Further extending the Protect America Act is no way to 
     fight a war against a determined enemy that uses our 
     infrastructure against us. We need a long-term fix for FISA; 
     and that is what a bipartisan majority in the Senate tried to 
     accomplish earlier this month when it passed its FISA 
     modernization bill by a 68-29 margin.
       The problem is in the House, where Democratic leaders 
     prefer to play an obstructionist role instead of constructing 
     the architecture we need to fight an intelligence-driven war. 
     Instead of voting on the Senate bill, even though a majority 
     of House members stand ready to pass it, Mrs. Pelosi is still 
     sitting on it. She is now pushing for a ``compromise'' that 
     would gut many of the provisions that secure the cooperation 
     of telecommunications companies.
       Our troops collect intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan on 
     a daily basis. We must exploit quickly the leads they turn 
     up. Court orders should not be necessary to engage foreign 
     targets in foreign countries. The Senate bill must be allowed 
     to come to a vote in the House of Representatives without 
     further delay.

  Mr. KYL. Secondly, a letter was written to Congressman Hoekstra, the 
ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, and Lamar Smith, 
ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, dated March 6 
of this year, signed by Attorney General Mukasey and Admiral McConnell, 
Director of National Intelligence. I am going to quote a couple of 
lines from it:

       We write in response to your letter of March 5 concerning 
     the core surveillance authorities needed in any modernization 
     of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
       . . . As we have explained in prior correspondence, the 
     RESTORE Act--

  Which is the bill that had been passed by the House of 
Representatives earlier--

       . . . would seriously undermine these authorities and may 
     well reopen the gaps temporarily closed by the Protect 
     America Act. The RESTORE Act, or legislation similar to it, 
     is, in short, no substitute for the bipartisan Senate bill.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter of March 6, 
to which I just referred, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 6, 2008.
     Hon. Pete Hoekstra,
     Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on 
         Intelligence, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lamar Smith,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hoekstra and Congressman Smith: We write 
     in response to your letter of March 5 concerning the core 
     surveillance authorities needed in any modernization of the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). We 
     appreciate the seriousness of Congress's engagement in this 
     critical issue. As you note, much of the recent discussion 
     concerning FISA reform has centered on liability protection 
     for electronic communication service providers who assisted 
     the Government in preventing another terrorist attack after 
     September 11, 2001. The liability protection provisions of 
     the Rockefeller-Bond FISA modernization bill, passed by a 
     strong bipartisan majority in the Senate and now pending in 
     the House of Representatives, provide precisely the 
     protection from civil suits that our national security 
     requires. Although liability protection is critical to any 
     FISA modernization proposal, equally if not more important to 
     our efforts to protect our nation from terrorist attack and 
     other foreign intelligence threats are the carefully drafted 
     authorities that modernize FISA for the technologies of the 
     21st century. These authorities address the operational 
     aspects of conducting surveillance of foreign terrorists and 
     other threats overseas, and we urge that they not be altered.
       Over the past year, the Intelligence Community and the 
     Department of Justice have worked closely with Congress, 
     first to pass the Protect America Act last summer by a 
     bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate as a short-
     term measure to enable us to close dangerous intelligence 
     gaps and then to create a long-term framework for foreign 
     intelligence surveillance of individuals outside the United 
     States. Those months of bipartisan effort and of careful 
     compromise are reflected in the bill passed by the Senate, a 
     bill that we believe would also enjoy the support of a 
     majority of the members of the House of Representatives. 
     Title I of the Senate bill would preserve the core 
     authorities of the Protect America Act--authorities that have 
     helped us to obtain exactly the type of information we need 
     to keep America safe. For example, the Senate bill would 
     allow the Government to continue collecting foreign 
     intelligence information against foreign terrorists and other 
     foreign intelligence targets located outside the United 
     States without obtaining prior court approval. Initiating 
     surveillance of individuals abroad without awaiting a court 
     order will ensure that we will keep closed the intelligence 
     gaps that existed before the passage of the Protect America 
     Act.
       It is essential to our national security that any 
     legislation passed by the House of Representatives not weaken 
     the intelligence collection authorities provided in the 
     Protect America Act, which are preserved in Title I of the 
     Senate bill. As we have explained in prior correspondence, 
     the RESTORE Act, passed by the House last November, would 
     seriously undermine these authorities and may well reopen the 
     gaps temporarily closed by the Protect America Act. The 
     RESTORE Act, or legislation similar to it, is, in short, no 
     substitute for the bipartisan Senate bill. Even seemingly 
     small changes to the Senate bill may have serious operational 
     consequences. It is our firm belief that the Senate bill 
     provides our intelligence professionals the tools they need 
     to protect the country.
       Title I of the Senate bill also protects the civil 
     liberties of Americans. In fact, the privacy protections for 
     Americans in the Senate bill exceed the protections contained 
     in both the Protect America Act and the RESTORE Act. For 
     example, the bill would require for the first time that a 
     court order be obtained to conduct foreign intelligence 
     surveillance of an American abroad. Historically, such 
     surveillance has been conducted pursuant to Executive Branch 
     procedures when, for example, a U.S. person was acting as an 
     agent of a foreign power, e.g., spying on behalf of a foreign 
     government. This change contained in the Senate bill is a 
     significant increase in the involvement of the FISA Court in 
     these surveillance activities. Other provisions of the bill 
     address concerns that some have voiced about the Protect 
     America Act, such as clarifying that the Government cannot 
     ``reverse target'' without a court order.
       The bill substantially increases the role of the FISA Court 
     and of Congress in overseeing acquisitions of foreign 
     intelligence information from foreign terrorists and other 
     national security threats located outside the United States. 
     Under the Senate bill, the Court would review certifications 
     by the Attorney General and the Director of National 
     Intelligence relating to such acquisitions, the targeting 
     procedures used by the Government to conduct acquisitions 
     under the Act, and the minimization procedures used by the 
     Government to ensure that such acquisitions do not invade the 
     privacy of Americans. The bill would require the Attorney 
     General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct 
     semiannual assessments of compliance with targeting 
     procedures and minimization procedures and to submit those 
     assessments to the FISA Court and to Congress. The FISA Court 
     and Congress would also receive annual reviews relating to 
     those acquisitions prepared by the heads of agencies that use 
     the authorities of the bill. In addition, the bill requires 
     the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report at least 
     semiannually concerning the implementation of the authorities 
     provided by the bill and would expand the categories of FISA-
     related court documents that the Government must provide to 
     the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees.
       We remain prepared to work with Congress towards the 
     passage of a long-term FISA modernization bill that would 
     strengthen the Nation's intelligence capabilities while 
     protecting the civil liberties of Americans, so that the 
     President can sign such a bill into law. Congress has such 
     legislation before it--the bipartisan Senate bill--and the 
     authorities provided in Title I of that bill strike a careful 
     balance and should not be altered.
           Sincerely,
     Michael B. Mukasey,
       Attorney General.
     J.M. McConnell,
       Director of National Intelligence.

  Mr. KYL. The point of this letter, of course, is to urge the House to 
adopt the bill passed by the Senate.
  The next item I would like to have printed in the Record is a note 
from

[[Page S1727]]

the American Legion Commander, in which he urges, on February 25 of 
this year, that Congress pass the bill passed by the Senate. He pointed 
out that ``the National Intelligence Estimate noted that the United 
States will face a persistent and evolving threat over the next three 
years, with the main threat coming from Islamic terrorist groups and 
cells.'' And he says:

       It defies all common sense to give lawsuits a higher 
     priority than national security. The American people expect 
     Congress to protect America, not the lawsuit lobby. This 
     surveillance is aimed at terrorists who want to kill innocent 
     Americans. The government is not interested in phone calls 
     that you make to Aunt Sally.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that item be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    American Legion Commander to Congress: Pass Surveillance Law Now

       Indianapolis (February 25, 2008).--Congress should put 
     America's national security ahead of frivolous lawsuits, 
     American Legion National Commander Marty Conatser said today. 
     The head of the nation's largest veterans organization sent a 
     letter to members of the House of Representatives, urging 
     them to pass an important intelligence-gathering law 
     immediately.
       ``Since this war began, the Congress has done an exemplary 
     job of ensuring that the nation's fighting men and women are 
     the best-trained and best-equipped military ever in American 
     history,'' National Commander Marty Conatser wrote. ``Today, 
     The American Legion asks you to continue this precedent by 
     equipping the intelligence assets with the necessary tools 
     needed to provide these dedicated troops the very best 
     information available by timely enactment of S. 2248, The 
     Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA).''
       The bill had bipartisan support in the Senate but is stuck 
     in the House because leaders there do not believe 
     telecommunications companies should be protected from 
     lawsuits that arise from cooperating with surveillance 
     requests.
       Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Va., the Chairman of the 
     Select Committee on Intelligence, also supports the bill. 
     ``Unfortunately, much of the debate over this bill has 
     focused on liability protection for telecommunication 
     carriers, instead of the new civil liberties protections and 
     oversight mechanisms that have been included,'' Rockefeller 
     said in statement posted on his Senate web site. ``We should 
     not hold the carriers hostage to years of litigation for 
     stepping forward when the country asked for help and 
     providing assistance they believed to be legal and necessary. 
     The fact is, if we lose cooperation from these or other 
     private companies, our national security will suffer.''
       Conatser pointed out to Representatives that the National 
     Intelligence Estimate noted that the United States will face 
     a persistent and evolving threat over the next three years, 
     with the main threat coming from Islamic terrorist groups and 
     cells.
       ``It defies all common sense to give lawsuits a higher 
     priority than national security,'' Conatser said. ``The 
     American people expect Congress to protect America, not the 
     lawsuit lobby. This surveillance is aimed at terrorists who 
     want to kill innocent Americans. The government is not 
     interested in phone calls that you make to Aunt Sally.''
       With a current membership of 2.7-million wartime veterans, 
     The American Legion, www.legion.org, was founded in 1919 on 
     the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans 
     affairs, Americanism, and patriotic youth programs. 
     Legionnaires work for the betterment of their communities 
     through more than 14,000 posts across the nation.

  Mr. KYL. Finally, a letter was written by a bipartisan group of 25 
State attorneys general dated March 4, 2008. It is a letter directed to 
the four leaders of the House of Representatives. Among other things, 
these 25 Democratic and Republican attorneys general note the fact 
that:

       Passing [this legislation] S. 2248 would ensure our 
     intelligence experts are once again able to conduct real-time 
     surveillance. As you know, prompt access to intelligence data 
     is critical to the ongoing safety and security of our nation.
       As Attorneys General, we are our states' chief law 
     enforcement officials and therefore responsible for taking 
     whatever action is necessary to keep our citizens safe. With 
     S. 2248 still pending in the House of Representatives, our 
     national security is in jeopardy.

  They close by saying:

       We therefore urge the House of Representatives to schedule 
     a vote and pass the FISA Amendments Act of 2007.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 4, 2008.
     Re FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248).

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi1,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Roy Blunt,
     Minority Whip,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority 
     Leader Boehner and Minority Whip Blunt: We urge the House of 
     Representatives to schedule a vote and pass S. 2248, the FISA 
     Amendments Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation is 
     critical to the national security of the United States. Once 
     passed, S. 2248 will ensure intelligence officials have the 
     ability to collect vitally important information about 
     foreign terrorists operating overseas.
       Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller 
     (D-WV) authored S. 2248 to solve a critical problem that 
     arose when the Protect America Act was allowed to lapse on 
     February 16, 12008. The root of the problem stems from a 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') Court order 
     that jeopardizes America's national security efforts. Under 
     that decision, U.S. intelligence agencies must obtain a FISA 
     warrant before initiating surveillance involving suspected 
     foreign terrorists located outside the United States.
       The FISA Court's decision hinged on the fact that those 
     entirely foreign communications are frequently routed through 
     telecommunications facilities that happen to be located in 
     the United States. Because modem global communications 
     networks routinely route data through numerous facilities in 
     a myriad of countries, the nation in which the call 
     originates may be completely unrelated to the nation through 
     which that call is ultimately routed.
       A bipartisan majority of the United States Senate recently 
     approved S. 2248. But until it is also passed by the House of 
     Representatives, intelligence officials must obtain FISA 
     warrants every time they attempt to monitor suspected 
     terrorists in overseas countries. Passing S. 2248 would 
     ensure our intelligence experts are once again able to 
     conduct real-time surveillance. As you know, prompt access to 
     intelligence data is critical to the ongoing safety and 
     security of our nation.
       As Attorneys General, we are our states' chief law 
     enforcement officials and therefore responsible for taking 
     whatever action is necessary to keep our citizens safe. With 
     S. 2248 still pending in the House of Representatives, our 
     national security is in jeopardy. We therefore urge the House 
     of Representatives to schedule a vote and pass the FISA 
     Amendments Act of 2007.
           Sincerely,
         Hon. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas; Hon. Roy 
           Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina; Hon. W.A. 
           Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Hon. Bill 
           McCollum, Attorney General of Florida; Hon. Troy King, 
           Attorney General of Alabama; Hon. Talis Colberg, 
           Attorney General of Alaska; Hon. Dustin McDaniel, 
           Attorney General of Arkansas; Hon. John Suthers, 
           Attorney General of Colorado; Hon. Thurbert Baker, 
           Attorney General of Georgia; Hon. Lawrence Wasden, 
           Attorney General of Idaho; Hon. Steve Carter, Attorney 
           General of Indiana; Hon. Stephen Six, Attorney General 
           of Kansas; Hon. Doug Gansler, Attorney General of 
           Maryland.
         Hon. Mike Cox, Attorney General of Michigan; Hon. Jon 
           Bruning, Attorney General of Nebraska; Hon. Kelly 
           Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire; Hon. Wayne 
           Stenehjem, Attorney General of North Dakota; Hon. Tom 
           Corbett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Hon. Patrick 
           Lynch, Attorney General of Rhode Island; Hon. Henry 
           McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Hon. 
           Larry Long, Attorney General of South Dakota; Hon. Mark 
           Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah; Hon. Robert 
           McDonnell, Attorney General of Virginia; Hon. Rob 
           McKenna, Attorney General of Washington; Hon. Darrell 
           McGraw, Attorney General of West Virginia.

  Mr. KYL. So in conclusion, the bottom line is, we have a bill passed 
by the Senate Intelligence Committee 13 to 2, passed by the Senate with 
68 affirmative votes. I believe it was 28 or 29 negative votes--
clearly, a bipartisan effort. The President has indicated he would sign 
this legislation. It has now been 19 days since it has been sent to the 
House of Representatives which said it needed 3 weeks to get the job 
done.
  During that period of time, we have lost intelligence--we do not know 
how critical. We will never know because we will never gather it. The 
phone call was made yesterday or the day before or the day before that. 
It is gone now, and we cannot go back and get it. But what we can do is 
ensure that from now on we are going to collect that critical 
intelligence. Unless this legislation is

[[Page S1728]]

passed, the telecommunications companies that are critical to the 
collection of this intelligence are less and less likely to support our 
efforts. That is why it is critical this legislation, rather than some 
other version of it, be passed.
  Mr. President, I urge the House leadership to call up this 
legislation. Next week is the last week it can be acted on before yet 
another 2-week recess. The House recessed before without adopting it. 
It would be absolutely a dereliction of responsibility, in my view, for 
the Congress not to conclude its work on this matter and ensure that 
the President can sign this important legislation into law before the 
Easter recess; that is to say, by the end of next week, 1 week from 
right now.
  I urge our House colleagues to please--in fact, I implore them to 
understand the danger in which they have placed the American people by 
not acting on this legislation--the fact that we are not collecting 
intelligence today because the authority has lapsed--and that according 
to the people who know best, the Attorney General and the Director of 
National Intelligence, it is no answer to say that warrants that have 
previously been issued will continue in force. All that means is the 
actions that have been taken in the past can continue. It does not do 
anything about intelligence gathering today and tomorrow and the next 
day. And it does not do anything to assuage the concerns of the very 
companies that are critical to the operation of this program.
  So I urge our House colleagues to act on this legislation as soon as 
possible for the safety and security of the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________