[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 10, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2719-S2720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is now debating section 702 of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expires on Friday.
Last week, the Senate resoundingly rejected a bill that would have
continued the surveillance status quo.
It is clear the path to 60 votes in the Senate on section 702 runs
through real reforms. There is no reason why the Senate can't start
moving forward with surveillance reform now.
I and other colleagues have introduced comprehensive, bipartisan,
bicameral surveillance reform legislation, which would protect both
Americans' rights and national security.
We have been championing these reforms for some time, but I
understand the Senate is divided on the issue. So Senators are going to
need to get to work trying to forge a path forward.
So I am prepared to put some real offers on the table right now. So I
am going to start by asking unanimous consent to pass a simple bill
that makes one very important reform. It would require government
agencies to get a warrant before using section 702 to read the
communications of Americans. It contains a number of exceptions,
including for emergencies, and our analysis is that it would be very
feasible for the executive branch and the FISA Court to implement it.
Most importantly, it would finally bring section 702 in line with the
principles of the Fourth Amendment. Law-abiding Americans are getting
swept up in section 702 now, and this bill would require that
government agencies get a warrant if they want to read Americans'
emails, text messages, or other sensitive communications.
And let me note: A number of Republicans in both the Senate and the
House have sponsored or cosponsored legislation to create the kind of
warrant I am talking about.
This bill is only one part of my comprehensive surveillance reform
bill. It doesn't address numerous other concerns related to FISA or
other intelligence authorities and the sale of Americans' location
data. It is not a long-term solution by itself; it will, however,
extend section 702 of FISA for 9 months, well into next year.
So I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of S. 4738, that the bill be considered read a
third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is prepared to let
this essential foreign intelligence surveillance tool go dark unless we
accede to his demands. And frankly, the demand for a warrant to search
lawfully collected foreign intelligence makes no sense whatsoever.
Section 702 is probably the most important law most people have never
heard about. It protects American citizens by saying that only
foreigners can be the object of surveillance, but necessarily
sometimes, when the communication is between a foreign target and an
American citizen or a U.S. person, that call is documented in metadata,
so-called--time, place, and persons who have made the call. That is
lawfully collected intelligence.
What this requirement would mean is that the FBI, mainly, would have
to go out and try to prove the elements of a crime, a probable cause
that a crime has been committed, in order to get a judge to issue a
warrant to look at lawfully collected intelligence, which is basically
the metadata. If content is required or asked for by the FBI, they have
to go before a judge and establish why that is.
But one of the basic points of confusion is that some people think
that gathering intelligence is the same thing as investigating a crime.
It can be sometimes, but basically seeking intelligence is forward-
looking in order to prevent future acts, for example, of terrorism.
Criminal investigations look backward to see if a crime has been
committed and are subject to criminal penalties, which do include,
particularly with U.S. persons involved, all the constitutional
protections that U.S. citizens and U.S. persons enjoy. Foreigners do
not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection against this sort of
surveillance.
So first of all, I believe that this is misguided. We have heard from
the intelligence community that this requirement will slow down
collection of intelligence, including and during occasions where time
is of the essence. So courts have found that none of these queries
require or implicate Fourth Amendment protection. So the very
foundation for this argument has been rejected by the courts that have
reviewed it.
Senator Wyden's bill would be akin to asking police officers to get a
warrant every time they happen to look at legally collected evidence in
their evidence locker. It makes no sense whatsoever. Requiring a
warrant for every query of already lawfully collected information in
the 702 database would significantly hinder the ability to respond to
emerging threats.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate what my friend
from Texas is saying.
Let me be clear. The warrant requirements that I am talking about are
sponsored or cosponsored by Republican Members both in the Senate and
in the House. And my bill does not require a warrant to search
metadata. A warrant is only required to read the contents of Americans'
communications.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to respond--
Mr. WYDEN. Of course.
Mr. CORNYN.--what we are talking about is the contact between the
foreign target and the U.S. person or American citizen. We are not
talking about content. That would require another step to find that
content approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. So I
think there is some confusion about what is already collected and what
would seek to be collected but which would require another step.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, without continuing this well into the
evening, let me just say that I am quite certain that the senior
Republicans who have sponsored or cosponsored these ideas understand
what this is all about, and I believe we will continue this
conversation.
Mr. President, I am now going to move to another unanimous consent
request to pass an even narrower bill that is hard to see anybody
objecting to. It would not make any changes to surveillance law, but it
would significantly increase public transparency about the impact of
surveillance on Americans' rights.
It would create some new reporting requirements that would help
inform Congress and the public about surveillance activities that
impact American citizens. It would direct the executive branch to
declassify a March 2026 FISA Court ruling on section 702 that found
significant violations affecting Americans. The executive branch is
already legally required to declassify the report, and they have had 3
months to work on it; in my judgment, it needs to be redacted and
released in the next couple of weeks so they can inform the
surveillance debate here in the Senate.
The chairman and the vice chairman of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, which I am honored to serve on, called on the executive
branch to redact and release this court ruling by May 15, but the
executive branch simply disregarded their request. This bill also
extends 702 for 5 weeks.
[[Page S2720]]
On this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of S. 4740; that the bill be considered read a
third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, once again, the Senator from Washington is
objecting to a clean extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, section 702, which would prevent us from going dark on foreign
intelligence risks and threats to our country. As for the sorts of
things that he has talked about here, since 2024, Congress has passed
dozens of transparency and accountability reforms that have actually
worked. Congressional oversight, of course, is critical.
The Senator and I and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee are
here. We all serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that
performs important oversight functions to make sure that the balance
between privacy and security is the right balance. Indeed, the
bipartisan Cotton, Grassley, and Warner bill, which is available to us
to vote on, has almost two dozen additional protections included. We
should be taking up that bill, not threatening to go dark and create
dangers to our Nation.
Also, it is not just the program that expires on Friday. There is a
lot of oversight protection built into the current bill and past FISA
reauthorizations. If that goes dark, all of those previous protections
that were negotiated, that I know the Senator from Washington believes
in--those would go away. So, in addition to being in danger--the
American people and our national security--it would eliminate the very
sorts of privacy protections and transparency that the Senator from
Washington is arguing for here on an expanded basis.
Under those circumstances, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have served on the committee for many
years with my friend, and I appreciate him and don't want to give him a
hard time. I am a U.S. Senator from Oregon, though, and I think I have
been called the Senator from Washington.
Mr. CORNYN. I am sorry. I had a mental warp there.
Mr. WYDEN. Our friendship will continue.
Now, Mr. President, I think, at this point, my colleague has a
unanimous consent request that he wishes to make. Then I will respond,
and we will complete our business for the night. So my colleague, I
would say, ought to make his unanimous consent at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. I apologize to my friend the Senator from Oregon. I do
know the difference between Oregon and Washington, and I am not
confused about that.
Mr. President, there is a risk of this necessary and critical
intelligence tool not being extended. The President has called for an
extension for, I think, up to 3 weeks, July 2, in order for further
negotiations to take place so that, hopefully, there can be bipartisan
buy-in to the ultimate product that comes out of this.
To that end, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of the bill at the desk. I further ask that the
bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
I would only close my remarks by saying every day that section 702 is
in effect without reforms is a day that Americans' rights are,
unfortunately, under threat. If there is going to be an extension of
these authorities, there need to be some guardrails or at least some
transparency that would allow Congress and the American people to
understand the abuses that have taken place and the need for the kind
of reforms that I and, as I say, senior Republicans in both the Senate
and the House have been backing.
For those reasons, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, all we are asking for is an extension--a
clean extension--of the current law, which includes a lot of the
reforms that the Senator from Oregon has advocated for and gotten
included in the current state of the legislation. As I said, those will
go away if this program goes dark after this Friday.
Further, as for the authority to work with the various institutions
that are essential to collecting this foreign intelligence for the
safety and security of the American people, that will go away,
endangering the American people and our national security. In fact, 60
percent--60 percent--of the President's daily intelligence brief
contains 702 intelligence product. The Senator from Oregon knows that
well.
This is simply too big a risk for us to take to allow this to go
dark. All we are asking for is a little bit of additional time to
continue these negotiations in order to find consensus so that we can
continue to protect the American people while finding the appropriate
balance between our national security and individual privacy rights.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just very briefly before I leave the floor,
I only want to say to my friend that I am always interested in talking
to him about ideas, to bring people together and find some common
ground. I have said, as we have gone through this debate, that Ben
Franklin summed it up as, basically, liberty and security aren't
mutually exclusive.
We can figure this out, but we are going to have to start talking. We
are going to have to have some negotiations. I have enjoyed talking
with my friend from Texas and would be happy to continue it in the
future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as one last response, there is absolutely
no justification for risking this program going dark on Friday. These
negotiations can and should continue. That is how we solve problems
around here on a bipartisan basis, but we don't risk catastrophe with
our national security in exchange for demands that could well be
addressed during an extension until July 2.
So I regret we find ourselves in this situation. The clock is ticking
on our national security because this program will go dark come Friday.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
____________________