A bill to make title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 permanent, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Courtney Elwood to be CIA general counsel. This is an important job that got even more important in the past week. As I will explain, this position may play a crucial role in determining whether history is erased or preserved for generations of Americans to come.

As Senators know, last week the current chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee demanded that several key government agencies get rid of their copies of the torture report prepared by Senator Feinstein and her colleagues. I am going to take a few minutes to describe what this has to do with Courtney Elwood.

In short, it starts with the CIA's history of torture, which was carefully documented and sourced by the Intelligence Committee under Senator Feinstein's leadership. This is the issue that is being debated--the CIA's history of torture. That is why it is critically important that the CIA get back its copy of the report. If Courtney Elwood is confirmed, the decision on whether to do so may be up to her. Here is why: The CIA Director, Mr. Pompeo, who said at his confirmation hearing that he would read the report, has gotten rid of the CIA's copy. He did so despite the fact that the current chair of the Intelligence Committee had no authority to demand that of him. Mr. Pompeo got rid of the report despite a personal promise to read it, and he did this even though it may have violated the law. It certainly violated a fundamental principle important to the American people that in this country, we don't erase history.

Now, this can be fixed. The CIA can get the report back. It can do what Senator Feinstein told the government to do back in 2014, which is to distribute this report, read it, and learn from it. Will Director Pompeo get the report back on his own? There is no reason to think so. But if there is one thing Director Pompeo said again and again in his remarks during the confirmation process, it is that he told the Senate Intelligence Committee repeatedly that he is going to rely on the advice of his lawyers.

That is exactly where Courtney Elwood comes in. What will her advice be to Director Pompeo? What will she advise him about whether to allow this attempt to erase history to stand or whether it is going to get fixed and the report is going to be brought back? The Senate doesn't have any idea this morning. We do know that Ms. Elwood's responses to questions on the torture issue were troubling and that we need to look at those responses in a whole new light based on what happened last week.

Ms. Elwood said that she read the unclassified executive summary of the torture report, but based on her responses to questions, the 500- page executive summary was not adequate for her. It was not sufficient for her to conclude whether the CIA's interrogation techniques violated the law. Clearly, she needed to read the classified report. Ms. Elwood, in both her written answers and at her hearing, said that she would read the classified report. But now, because of what the current chair of the Intelligence Committee and the Director of the CIA have done, it is not going to be available. It is not going to be available for her to read.

Many Members of this body have spoken out about the torture report and the need for its lessons to be learned so this country never again engages in the kind of illegal, damaging program that Senator Feinstein has documented. But now there is an issue that goes beyond what the Senate has thought this was all about. Now there is an individual nominee for whom these lessons are critical. This nominee told our committee that she had not yet studied whether the CIA's torture techniques were legal. She told us she would read the report, and now the report is gone. What could be more troubling than that?

What is at issue here is one of the most disturbing and undemocratic events ever to take place in the U.S. Senate. The current chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee has told the executive branch to get rid of its copies of the report, and at least some of the agencies have sent their only copies to the committee. I am going to be clear: The current chair does not have the authority to do this.

First, in December of 2014, the full, final, classified report was filed as a Senate report. It is therefore not a committee document. Second, no one can retroactively change the status of a historical Senate report. The report was finalized, filed, and transmitted to the executive branch during the 113th Congress. Only in the 114th Congress did the current chair assume the chairmanship and begin to assert control over the report.

Think about the implications here. How can this body allow Members of Congress who don't like what a previous Congress has done to unilaterally try to erase history? How many other congressional reports would be at risk? There are other reports that have not yet been fully declassified. Should the Senate worry about whether or not they will be protected? Should Americans be concerned that the country's historical records are going to be erased before the public ever sees them?

My view is that this effort by the current chair of the committee is an

assault on one of the fundamental values of our democracy. In this country, we don't eradicate the historical record just because we find it uncomfortable. There is a reason insecure dictators do it, and there is a reason this kind of thing has never happened here. It is because we are a confident democracy that has always looked to our own history and all our flaws as we seek to build a better Nation.

We are better than this. I urge my colleagues to defend these principles. I urge them to vote against this nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the attacks in London last weekend exposed in a matter of minutes just how vulnerable free societies truly are. All it takes is a van or a knife and an unsuspecting bystander to turn a fun night out on the town into a horrific nightmare.

Of course, we shouldn't need any reminders, but let me give one yet again: We are at war with Islamic extremists. We have been for years, and I am sorry to say that there is no end in sight. It is easy to forget this as we go about our daily lives, but our enemies have not, and they will not. They have never taken their eyes off the ultimate target, either--the United States.

Yes, we are at war with a vicious and unyielding foe, and just as our enemy can attack us with the simplest of everyday tools, the strongest shield we have in our defense is just as basic: It is the intelligence--information--of knowing who is talking to whom about what, where, when, and why.

After the 9/11 attacks, our national security agencies developed cutting-edge programs that allow us to figure out what the bad guys are up to and stop them before they can perpetrate such heinous attacks. Very often, the intelligence they have collected has made the difference between life and death for American citizens. But one of those programs is going to sunset later this year. I am talking about section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is a program that collects information about foreign persons on foreign soil and, as a result, saves American lives.

Unfortunately, this and other programs were distorted in the public debate by a traitor, a disgruntled ex-NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, who now sits in the warm embrace of Russian intelligence services. Ever since his very damaging leak of classified material many years back, many Americans have grown doubtful about these programs and about section 702 in particular, which is why it bears repeating just what section 702 does. It allows our national security agencies to collect internet or phone communications from a source within the United States, like an internet service provider, but only under a very specific set of conditions. It cannot target American citizens--not even lawful permanent residents. It can't even target foreigners communicating on U.S. soil. It can target only people discussing a specific list of topics preapproved by the FISA court, which is made up of Federal judges with life tenure. We are not talking about what they are picking up at the grocery store or when they are checking in on the kids. We are talking about things like weapons of mass destruction.

It is true that this program occasionally does collect information about American citizens. That will be true of any attempt to stop any kind of homegrown terrorism. But if you are concerned about protecting Americans' privacy rights, then you should support extending 702. It puts in place a host of privacy protections to scrub raw intelligence of any unnecessary identifying information. To allow this program to expire on December 31 would hurt both our national security and our privacy rights.

That is why today I am introducing a bill that would reauthorize section 702 permanently, as is, with no changes. We can't tie the hands of our national security officials at the precise moment that our enemies are taking the gloves off around the world. Terrorists don't plan to sunset their threats to our way of life, so why should our important counterterrorism tools sunset?

I am glad to say that my legislation has the support of every Republican Senator on the Intelligence Committee, and I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the weeks ahead because we can't afford to let this program expire. It is not too much and it is not an exaggeration to say that American lives depend on section 702.

Mr. President, the attacks in London last weekend exposed in a matter of minutes just how vulnerable free societies truly are. All it takes is a van or a knife and an unsuspecting bystander to turn a fun night out on the town into a horrific nightmare.

Of course, we shouldn't need any reminders, but let me give one yet again: We are at war with Islamic extremists. We have been for years, and I am sorry to say that there is no end in sight. It is easy to forget this as we go about our daily lives, but our enemies have not, and they will not. They have never taken their eyes off the ultimate target, either--the United States.

Yes, we are at war with a vicious and unyielding foe, and just as our enemy can attack us with the simplest of everyday tools, the strongest shield we have in our defense is just as basic: It is the intelligence--information--of knowing who is talking to whom about what, where, when, and why.

After the 9/11 attacks, our national security agencies developed cutting-edge programs that allow us to figure out what the bad guys are up to and stop them before they can perpetrate such heinous attacks. Very often, the intelligence they have collected has made the difference between life and death for American citizens. But one of those programs is going to sunset later this year. I am talking about section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is a program that collects information about foreign persons on foreign soil and, as a result, saves American lives.

Unfortunately, this and other programs were distorted in the public debate by a traitor, a disgruntled ex-NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, who now sits in the warm embrace of Russian intelligence services. Ever since his very damaging leak of classified material many years back, many Americans have grown doubtful about these programs and about section 702 in particular, which is why it bears repeating just what section 702 does. It allows our national security agencies to collect internet or phone communications from a source within the United States, like an internet service provider, but only under a very specific set of conditions. It cannot target American citizens--not even lawful permanent residents. It can't even target foreigners communicating on U.S. soil. It can target only people discussing a specific list of topics preapproved by the FISA court, which is made up of Federal judges with life tenure. We are not talking about what they are picking up at the grocery store or when they are checking in on the kids. We are talking about things like weapons of mass destruction.

It is true that this program occasionally does collect information about American citizens. That will be true of any attempt to stop any kind of homegrown terrorism. But if you are concerned about protecting Americans' privacy rights, then you should support extending 702. It puts in place a host of privacy protections to scrub raw intelligence of any unnecessary identifying information. To allow this program to expire on December 31 would hurt both our national security and our privacy rights.

That is why today I am introducing a bill that would reauthorize section 702 permanently, as is, with no changes. We can't tie the hands of our national security officials at the precise moment that our enemies are taking the gloves off around the world. Terrorists don't plan to sunset their threats to our way of life, so why should our important counterterrorism tools sunset?

I am glad to say that my legislation has the support of every Republican Senator on the Intelligence Committee, and I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the weeks ahead because we can't afford to let this program expire. It is not too much and it is not an exaggeration to say that American lives depend on section 702.

Mr. President, in the critical debate about the balance between national security and rights to privacy, the truth must be paramount. Time and again, President Trump has misled the American public about national security matters, including torture, surveillance, and intelligence. Trump has claimed that ``torture works'' and that ``we should go much stronger than waterboarding,'' despite widespread evidence that enhanced interrogation techniques are not effective in acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees. Without any evidence, President Trump alleged that President Obama illegally wiretapped the phones of Trump Towers. Former FBI Director James Comey soundly rejected this conspiracy theory, a statement that likely played a role in his firing. President Trump repeatedly dismissed intelligence that Russia interfered in our 2016 elections and derided our intelligence community for its assessments. His rejection of truth, to stoke fear and resentment in the American public, is unethical and dangerous. It is a threat to American freedoms.

In this extraordinary environment, the CIA's leadership must not only provide objective and sound intelligence assessments to the President, it must faithfully ensure that the President is adhering to the law. The role of the General Counsel is particularly critical at this moment, when our sitting President has openly denounced or displayed alarming ignorance of existing laws on intelligence matters. As the CIA General Counsel's guidance is provided entirely in secret, with no public transparency, it is imperative that the American public have as clear an understanding as possible of the nominee's prior record of legal interpretation.

On this point, Courtney Elwood's history under President George W. Bush is troubling. At the Department of Justice, Ms. Elwood was involved in discussions regarding the legal justification for the ``warrantless wiretapping program,'' in which the Bush administration collected telephonic and email communications of U.S. persons on U.S. soil without a court order. The Bush administration, in memos that are now declassified, argued that the President has inherent constitutional power to monitor Americans' communications without a warrant in a time of war. Given the perennial nature of America's war footing, this argument afforded the President a virtually unlimited authority to surveil Americans. When asked for her views on this legal justification in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Ms. Elwood asserted that the program was ``carefully reasoned'' and that the Justice Department was ``thorough in its analysis.''

Ms. Elwood's record on torture is also cause for concern. While I was pleased with Ms. Elwood's testimony that the reinstatement of torture would be illegal under existing law, I am concerned with her prior work on cases involving the detention of enemy combatants, military commissions, and the constitutionality of national security programs under President Bush. For these reasons, I cannot support her nomination.

Mr. President, I wish to add my support this morning for Courtney Elwood as the next general counsel of the CIA--not that she really needs it. In her many years of public service and private practice, Courtney has earned the esteem of her colleagues across both parties and two administrations. David Kris, an Obama appointee, calls her ``a first-class lawyer.'' Ben Powell, a Bush appointee, calls her ``one of the finest lawyers of her generation.'' Caroline Krass, another Obama appointee, calls her ``an excellent choice.'' And Wan Kim, another Bush appointee, says she is ``careful, brilliant, and highly accomplished.''

In other words, you don't need me to tell you Courtney Elwood is a first-rate attorney. In fact, you don't need anyone to tell you that because her accomplishments speak for themselves.

She graduated from Yale Law School in 1994 and went on to clerk for both Judge Mike Luttig on the Fourth Circuit and then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court. After spending some time in private practice, she worked for 6 years in the George W. Bush administration, rising from associate counsel to the President, to deputy counsel to the Vice President, to Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General.

We are not talking about a rookie lawyer who is inexperienced in the ways of Washington or in the corridors of power. Her commitment to the law is unquestioned and unquestionable. She is just the person we need for this position.

The general counsel of the CIA will help Director Pompeo navigate the many twists and turns of the thorny legal terrain as our intelligence community defends our country against a wide range of threats: terrorism, cyber warfare, and good, old-fashioned espionage. We need people of the highest caliber serving at our national security agencies, and there is broad agreement that Courtney Elwood fits the bill.

I am happy to support her nomination, and I thank her and her family for answering the call to serve once again.

(The remarks of Mr. Cotton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1297 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.