[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 39 (Friday, March 7, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1732-S1733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE INTELLIGENCE GAP

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his courtesy.
  When the Senate debates the budget next week, we will hear a lot 
about the tax gap. This is the name given to uncollected taxes which 
some have said, if collected, could pay up to $300 billion in 
additional revenue to the Federal Treasury. I wish to talk about this 
in a minute, first of all to ask the question why it is, 
notwithstanding this so-called tax gap, we have not seen any money at 
all collected over the last year to fill that gap. But first I want to 
talk about the intelligence gap. This has to do with the critical 
information the United States should be collecting in pursuit of 
radical Islamists but is not because of burdensome and unnecessary 
legal restrictions--restrictions Congress has within its power to 
remove.
  To the Senate's credit, in a bipartisan fashion, the Senate 
Intelligence Committee passed out a bill that I hope the House of 
Representatives will vote on soon. That same bill passed by a 
bipartisan majority of 68 Senators. That is not easy, but it does 
demonstrate a bipartisan consensus in this body to make sure we have 
our eyes open and our ears open when it comes to foreign intelligence 
that could detect, deter, and even defeat future terrorist attacks 
against the United States and our allies.
  The intelligence gap is also closed not only by passing that 
important legislation which the House of Representatives has 
inexplicably sat on for the

[[Page S1733]]

last couple of weeks but also by providing protection against frivolous 
litigation against communications providers that have assisted the 
Nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on a voluntary basis.
  It is no secret that the Director of National Intelligence has noted 
that given this world of wireless communications, we need to adopt new 
means to intercept communications from foreign nationals to other 
foreign nationals which could well be directed through the 
infrastructure in the United States and which, unless we pass this 
legislation, we would not be able to intercept. The biggest problem we 
have, of course, is that their cooperation is entirely voluntary, and 
unless we protect them under this bipartisan Senate legislation from 
frivolous litigation, in the future not only will citizens--whether 
they be individuals or corporate--not cooperate, but we will be left 
with a fraction of the actionable intelligence necessary to detect, 
deter, and defeat those whose sole wish is the murder of innocent 
Americans.
  I quote the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
who said:

       What people have to understand here is the quality of 
     intelligence we are going to receive is going to be degraded.

  Those, of course, are not my remarks, and they are not the words of a 
member of the Bush administration; those are the words of Jay 
Rockefeller, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee. That is why this legislation passed out of the Senate with a 
strong bipartisan vote.
  I don't know about the political implications of the Democratic House 
leadership's failure to act responsibly, and I am not here to talk 
about politics, but I do know there are serious national security 
interests that we face, and threats, and the majority of Democrats in 
the House are not taking those threats seriously enough. So rather than 
taking a vacation from their duties, it is past time for the House to 
act and to do the responsible thing. I hope Speaker Pelosi and Majority 
Leader Hoyer will call up this important bipartisan legislation and 
allow an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Senate legislation that will 
make this Nation safer from the terrorist threats we face.
  Mr. President, I have other remarks I wish to make, but I see the 
distinguished majority leader on the floor. I want to make sure--if he 
has any housekeeping business he wants to take care of, I will be glad 
to defer to him for that purpose and then to reclaim the floor later 
on. I do not want to have him necessarily have to wait.
  I understand he is motioning for me to continue, and I will do that. 
I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much my friend from Texas 
allowing me to do that, but he should finish his statement, and I will 
do some wrap-up when he finishes.

                          ____________________