On the recordJune 1, 2015
Mr. President, I thank the majority whip for his comments and for his support of the extension of 215 and for what I think are some very reasonable changes to it. Some of what the Senator from Texas said took me back to some of the hearings I know the Presiding Officer was in where intelligence officials were asked about this transition. They were asked very simply ``Will it work?'' and the answer they gave was ``I think so.'' To an institution such as Congress, where our No. 1 responsibility is the defense of the country, ``I think so'' is not the answer on which you base the change of a program. Therefore, that is why there is a debate in Washington right now--now in the Senate, soon to be with the House--as to whether 6 months is sufficient time to be able to address it. I know the Presiding Officer of the Senate heard individuals from the Justice Department say: Well, if this does not work, we will get back to you on changes. One of the reasons this tool is in place is because we identified shortcomings in our capability to identify terrorists post-9/11. Let me revert back--and I hate to go to history, but on 9/11, as the majority whip said, there was the loss of almost 3,000 lives, American and international lives. Washington, New York--could have been this building had some brave passengers not found out what they were up to and stopped them. I remember those days and weeks and months right after 9/11 as a member of the House Intelligence Committee.…





