State of the Union, FISA, Economic Growth
January 28, 2008
‘We have a chance to show Americans that we can work together on their behalf, to solve problems; to protect their security and protect their wallets’
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday regarding the President’s State of the Union address and the immediate need to pass FISA reform and a bipartisan economic growth package:.
“Tonight, in keeping with an old custom, the President will speak to Congress and the nation about the state of the union. Every president since George Washington has given these periodic updates because the Constitution requires them to do so. And while the Constitution makes no similar demands on Congressional leaders, there is no doubt that this year the American People are demanding something from us. They are looking for proof that Republicans and Democrats can come together to get a few things done on their behalf.
“Just one week into the session and we’re faced with a crucial test: two issues of vital significance to every American citizen. Will we reauthorize a terror-fighting tool that we know has made us safer; and will we put money back into taxpayers’ hands quickly enough for it to have a positive effect on the nation’s economy? It’s not an exaggeration to say that the choices we make on these issues will show Americans whether we’re serious about protecting them from harm and serious about protecting their wallets.
“So the question is this: Will we find a way to work together, or will we try to find a way to get out of it, and then blame the other side?
“We got off to a good start. Last Thursday night, millions of Americans were stunned to turn on their television sets and see the Democratic Speaker of the House and the House Republican Leader standing together on a stage behind the Treasury Secretary, nodding in agreement about an economic growth package they’d all worked out among themselves. It was the kind of scene many people may have wondered if they’d ever see again.
“For the first time in years, the parties had come together in good faith and responded swiftly to a pressing national concern. They sensed that the nation was impatient for action, and so they gave up a lot of the things they wanted in order to find common ground. House Republicans made major sacrifices. So did House Democrats. And now the nation’s attention turns us, to the Senate, to see if we’re capable of the same thing. Here’s our moment to show that we can.
“A number of senators have expressed a desire to add tens of billions of dollars in spending on contentious programs to this package. But we don’t have the time for ideological debates. In order for this plan to work, Congress needs to act at once. This is not the package I would have put together. In my view, the best way to stimulate the economy would be to lower marginal rates. But neither is it the package my good friend, the Majority Leader, would have put together. I gather from his public statements that he would prefer there be more spending on government programs.
“The Speaker and the House Republican Leader would have also built a package differently if they’d written it on their own. But they put their differences aside, because they know we’ll all get nothing if we’re not willing to make some serious sacrifices. The editorial writers at the Washington Post urged us Friday not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Low and middle-income taxpayers agree. They’re tapping their fingers, wondering if we can do it.
“Americans are also wondering if we can agree on something as fundamental as national security. And for good reason. We saw some worrisome signs last week that some of our friends are looking for a way out of what could be a good, bipartisan achievement on reauthorizing a terrorist surveillance program.
“They should remember that three years ago, following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, Congress came together to create the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approving the bill that established it by a vote of 89-2. The Director of National Intelligence was supposed to be the person who would ‘connect the dots,’ who would make sure intelligence gaps were closed, who could look across the entire intelligence landscape and tell us about our vulnerabilities before terrorists discovered them on their own.
“Last year, he did just that. The Director of National Intelligence came to Capitol Hill and asked us to either fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allowed us to monitor foreign terrorists overseas, or risk weakening this vital intelligence gathering tool. Our friends across the aisle put off action for months, before finally passing a temporary revision right up against the August recess. Then they delayed again last fall, pushing us up against the expiration of the temporary extension.
“Now they’re delaying again. There’s only one version of a long-term extension that agrees with the recommendations of the Director of National Intelligence, and that’s the pending Rockefeller/Bond substitute bill. This bill was carefully crafted on a strong bipartisan basis and reported out of the Intelligence Committee on a vote of 13-2.
“It’s the only version the Director of National Intelligence has approved. It’s the only version the President would sign. And therefore it’s the only one that has any chance of becoming law before the current extension expires on Friday of this week. The time to act has long since past. We need to approve Rockefeller/Bond, and we need to do it this week.
“Some of our friends on the other side say they won’t vote for cloture on the Rockefeller/Bond bill because they couldn’t amend it. No one should be deceived by this complaint. The amendments they want would transform it into a replica of the partisan bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last fall. In other words, allowing amendments would guarantee failure.
“Some of our friends on the other side say they want a one-month extension. Never mind that we’ve had 10 months to act already. No one should be deceived by this complaint either. The real reason for the one-month extension, of course, is to give members who vote in favor of it the political cover they need to vote against Rockefeller/Bond. This is another clever way to make the bill fail.
“Some of our friends on the other side say we’re wrong to insist that phone carriers who may have cooperated with the government in tracking terrorists be immune from lawsuits. The implication is that this is some kind of a favor for Big Business. But this advice is coming from the intelligence community, not politicians, because they know that we could never expect these companies — or any others for that matter — to cooperate in the future as long the threat of a lawsuit looms.
“Finally, some of our friends accuse us of being scaremongers for urging passage now. But the terrorist threat has not diminished since 9/11. It hasn’t expired. The Director of National Intelligence assures us it hasn’t. The memory of 9/11 tells us it hasn’t. Attacks in Madrid and London and Bali tell us it hasn’t. And the terrorists themselves tell us it hasn’t. The threat is real. And we can’t let success in preventing another one keep us from staying on offense with all the tools and resources we have.
“The bottom line is this: by voting for cloture on Rockefeller/Bond, members will guarantee that this important anti-terror tool does not expire. And those who vote against it are voting either to delay its reauthorization or to weaken, not strengthen, our terror-fighting tools.
“Fixing FISA is within our grasp. Will we come together and embrace the compromise approach that protects us, and doesn’t force companies to make a false choice between the good of the firm or the good of the country? Or will we go the partisan route? It would be a worrisome sign indeed if the first bill Democrats filibuster this year deals with national security. We must resist the mistakes of last year, and act.
“Last week we saw the kind of tough compromise that’s necessary when lawmakers are more concerned about making a difference than making a political point. Now it’s our turn. The Second Session of this Congress is young. But the choices we make this week will define us. And in my view, it’s a welcome opportunity.
“Here in the second week of the session we have a chance to show Americans that we can work together on their behalf, to solve problems; to protect their security and protect their wallets. This is a defining moment for the 110th Congress. Let’s put the mistakes of last year behind us. Let’s show that the United States Senate can get the job done.”
###
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday regarding the President’s State of the Union address and the immediate need to pass FISA reform and a bipartisan economic growth package:.
“Tonight, in keeping with an old custom, the President will speak to Congress and the nation about the state of the union. Every president since George Washington has given these periodic updates because the Constitution requires them to do so. And while the Constitution makes no similar demands on Congressional leaders, there is no doubt that this year the American People are demanding something from us. They are looking for proof that Republicans and Democrats can come together to get a few things done on their behalf.
“Just one week into the session and we’re faced with a crucial test: two issues of vital significance to every American citizen. Will we reauthorize a terror-fighting tool that we know has made us safer; and will we put money back into taxpayers’ hands quickly enough for it to have a positive effect on the nation’s economy? It’s not an exaggeration to say that the choices we make on these issues will show Americans whether we’re serious about protecting them from harm and serious about protecting their wallets.
“So the question is this: Will we find a way to work together, or will we try to find a way to get out of it, and then blame the other side?
“We got off to a good start. Last Thursday night, millions of Americans were stunned to turn on their television sets and see the Democratic Speaker of the House and the House Republican Leader standing together on a stage behind the Treasury Secretary, nodding in agreement about an economic growth package they’d all worked out among themselves. It was the kind of scene many people may have wondered if they’d ever see again.
“For the first time in years, the parties had come together in good faith and responded swiftly to a pressing national concern. They sensed that the nation was impatient for action, and so they gave up a lot of the things they wanted in order to find common ground. House Republicans made major sacrifices. So did House Democrats. And now the nation’s attention turns us, to the Senate, to see if we’re capable of the same thing. Here’s our moment to show that we can.
“A number of senators have expressed a desire to add tens of billions of dollars in spending on contentious programs to this package. But we don’t have the time for ideological debates. In order for this plan to work, Congress needs to act at once. This is not the package I would have put together. In my view, the best way to stimulate the economy would be to lower marginal rates. But neither is it the package my good friend, the Majority Leader, would have put together. I gather from his public statements that he would prefer there be more spending on government programs.
“The Speaker and the House Republican Leader would have also built a package differently if they’d written it on their own. But they put their differences aside, because they know we’ll all get nothing if we’re not willing to make some serious sacrifices. The editorial writers at the Washington Post urged us Friday not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Low and middle-income taxpayers agree. They’re tapping their fingers, wondering if we can do it.
“Americans are also wondering if we can agree on something as fundamental as national security. And for good reason. We saw some worrisome signs last week that some of our friends are looking for a way out of what could be a good, bipartisan achievement on reauthorizing a terrorist surveillance program.
“They should remember that three years ago, following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, Congress came together to create the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approving the bill that established it by a vote of 89-2. The Director of National Intelligence was supposed to be the person who would ‘connect the dots,’ who would make sure intelligence gaps were closed, who could look across the entire intelligence landscape and tell us about our vulnerabilities before terrorists discovered them on their own.
“Last year, he did just that. The Director of National Intelligence came to Capitol Hill and asked us to either fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allowed us to monitor foreign terrorists overseas, or risk weakening this vital intelligence gathering tool. Our friends across the aisle put off action for months, before finally passing a temporary revision right up against the August recess. Then they delayed again last fall, pushing us up against the expiration of the temporary extension.
“Now they’re delaying again. There’s only one version of a long-term extension that agrees with the recommendations of the Director of National Intelligence, and that’s the pending Rockefeller/Bond substitute bill. This bill was carefully crafted on a strong bipartisan basis and reported out of the Intelligence Committee on a vote of 13-2.
“It’s the only version the Director of National Intelligence has approved. It’s the only version the President would sign. And therefore it’s the only one that has any chance of becoming law before the current extension expires on Friday of this week. The time to act has long since past. We need to approve Rockefeller/Bond, and we need to do it this week.
“Some of our friends on the other side say they won’t vote for cloture on the Rockefeller/Bond bill because they couldn’t amend it. No one should be deceived by this complaint. The amendments they want would transform it into a replica of the partisan bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last fall. In other words, allowing amendments would guarantee failure.
“Some of our friends on the other side say they want a one-month extension. Never mind that we’ve had 10 months to act already. No one should be deceived by this complaint either. The real reason for the one-month extension, of course, is to give members who vote in favor of it the political cover they need to vote against Rockefeller/Bond. This is another clever way to make the bill fail.
“Some of our friends on the other side say we’re wrong to insist that phone carriers who may have cooperated with the government in tracking terrorists be immune from lawsuits. The implication is that this is some kind of a favor for Big Business. But this advice is coming from the intelligence community, not politicians, because they know that we could never expect these companies — or any others for that matter — to cooperate in the future as long the threat of a lawsuit looms.
“Finally, some of our friends accuse us of being scaremongers for urging passage now. But the terrorist threat has not diminished since 9/11. It hasn’t expired. The Director of National Intelligence assures us it hasn’t. The memory of 9/11 tells us it hasn’t. Attacks in Madrid and London and Bali tell us it hasn’t. And the terrorists themselves tell us it hasn’t. The threat is real. And we can’t let success in preventing another one keep us from staying on offense with all the tools and resources we have.
“The bottom line is this: by voting for cloture on Rockefeller/Bond, members will guarantee that this important anti-terror tool does not expire. And those who vote against it are voting either to delay its reauthorization or to weaken, not strengthen, our terror-fighting tools.
“Fixing FISA is within our grasp. Will we come together and embrace the compromise approach that protects us, and doesn’t force companies to make a false choice between the good of the firm or the good of the country? Or will we go the partisan route? It would be a worrisome sign indeed if the first bill Democrats filibuster this year deals with national security. We must resist the mistakes of last year, and act.
“Last week we saw the kind of tough compromise that’s necessary when lawmakers are more concerned about making a difference than making a political point. Now it’s our turn. The Second Session of this Congress is young. But the choices we make this week will define us. And in my view, it’s a welcome opportunity.
“Here in the second week of the session we have a chance to show Americans that we can work together on their behalf, to solve problems; to protect their security and protect their wallets. This is a defining moment for the 110th Congress. Let’s put the mistakes of last year behind us. Let’s show that the United States Senate can get the job done.”
###
