February 17, 2008
Op-ed

CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

WOLF BLITZER, Host: All right, thanks very much, Mary Snow, in Milwaukee, for us. Mary, thanks. We're going to have a lot more coming up on the presidential race shortly.

But there's other news we're following, including the issue of spying. Our country is in more danger of an attack. That's -- those specific words are how President Bush described the situation on Friday, as Congress, or the House, specifically, refused to renew a post-9/11 law allowing increased government electronic surveillance, House Democrats accusing the president of fear-mongering. And today, the law actually expired.

Is the United States really in more danger?

Let's discuss that and more with Democratic senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. He's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator, thanks very much for coming in.

U.S. SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI): Thanks, Wolf.

BLITZER: Quickly, though, before we talk about that, have you endorsed -- I don't believe you have, but I just want to be precise -- either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

They're both your Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

REED: I have not. They're both excellent candidates and are running determined races. But I have not yet endorsed either senator.

BLITZER: You have a primary coming up in Rhode Island on March 4th as well.

REED: March 4th.

BLITZER: Well, why not? Why haven't you decided to pick one of those two candidates? REED: Well, I think, first, it makes a great deal of sense to see how their campaigns emerge. And, also, I'm confident that either one of them will be excellent presidents.

And I'm simply waiting and trying to assess not only what my constituents will do in Rhode Island but also what develops nationally, in terms of one candidate emerging from the primaries with not only more delegates but with real momentum. And then the task is to unify the party and win in November.

BLITZER: As a super delegate yourself, you're a sitting member of the Senate, all members of Congress are super delegates. Almost 800 of them will be going to the Democratic convention in Denver at the end of the summer.

Will you go along, if necessary, if it comes down to this, with what the people of Rhode Island, the Democrats of Rhode Island, voted, or are you going to perhaps go against your own constituents?

REED: Well, I'll certainly take into consideration what my fellow Democrats do in the polls. But I believe, as a delegate, I have a responsibility not just to follow my constituents' lead but also to think about the candidate best prepared to lead the nation and to win in November.

But I certainly will be influenced significantly by my fellow Rhode Islanders.

BLITZER: Would it be appropriate if, when the dust settles, if it comes down to this -- and I know a lot of Democrats don't want to see it -- that the nominee is the nominee based on the super delegates, if, in fact, that person doesn't have the popular, the pledged delegates, the votes that the were actually coming in from Democrats out there in primaries and caucuses?

REED: Well, I think that the candidate who emerges with the most votes will have a strong claim on the super delegates. I don't think it will be automatic.

But we are all hoping for, and will, I believe, work toward a candidate that not only will have strong appeal across the primaries, but also strong support from the delegates.

And then the key task is not just getting a nominee, but getting a candidate that you can have, as a unified party, to win in November. That's our ultimate goal. It's important for the American public, as well as the Democratic Party.

BLITZER: Here's what The Washington Post wrote today about you.

I don't know if you saw this, but if you didn't, I'll read it to you and to our viewers -- Barack Obama's potential running mates -- "Jack Reed: This low-profile Rhode Island senator, the son of a school janitor, has some intriguing advantages. A West Point grad and an Army Ranger, Reed is a leading Democratic expert on military matters, a thoughtful and cautious wonk who is often mentioned as a future Pentagon chief. But like Obama, he opposed the Iraq war from the start."

Would you like to be vice president of the United States?

REED: I am running for my term in the United States Senate. I hope the people of Rhode Island give me the chance to serve six more years. And I would be honored if they would let me serve six more years in the United States Senate. That's my interest.

BLITZER: All right. Well, what about the vice presidency, if it came down to it?

REED: No.

BLITZER: You're not interested in that?

REED: No.

BLITZER: Why not? It would be, you know, the second most important job, presumably, in the country?

REED: I think I have an incredibly important job, now, as the United States senator representing the people of Rhode Island. I'm committed to doing it, and I think I can make a significant contribution to the country. I've always tried, for a long career, going back to West Point, to make a positive difference in the life of the nation. And I think I can as a U.S. senator. And I'm just working my way through that challenging assignment.

BLITZER: All right, in the last hour, Senator, we heard from Mitch McConnell. He's the Republican leader, or the minority leader, in the U.S. Senate.

He made the case that Americans are less secure today because the law involving domestic surveillance lapsed, the House of Representatives refusing to go along with the Senate in extending the law, letting it continue.

Here's what President Bush has to say about the refusal, among Democrats, largely, in the House, to go forward with an extension of this surveillance law.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You were in the minority, in the Senate, in voting against this surveillance law. Tell our viewers why you think the president, the head of national security, Mike McConnell, why Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, why they are wrong and you are right. REED: Well, first, the legislation passed last August allows the continuation of surveillance programs for a year. And, in fact, if there are additional targets that develop, they can use the existing procedures under FISA. You can actually initiate surveillance before you even have the court approval. You have 72 hours to do that.

And, in fact, honestly and logically, if the president really felt that this lapse would cause a harm to the security of the country, why did he insist the Republicans vote against an extension?

The logic would be, extend the existing legislation, which we were quite willing to do, for a period of time.

What the president is talking about is not the security of the country.

REED: It's two factors. One is retroactive immunity for telecom companies. That's important to them, but that's not central to our national security. We're not talking about prospective immunity. We're not talking about current programs. We're talking about looking back and protecting them.

And indeed, we weren't even -- many senators, myself included, weren't even allowed to look at the documentation which would inform our judgment about this immunity program. And the second issue, I think, is that the president prefers to talk about these issues rather than our economy that's sliding into recession, consumer confidence that has fallen to the lowest point in 16 years.

Real problems that are gripping the American families. And I think this is part of the policy of, try to ignore those pressing domestic problems and pick a political issue, not a substantive issue.

BLITZER: Well, listen to Admiral Mike McConnell. He's the director of national intelligence. No relation to Mitch McConnell. And he's making the case that today the American people are less secure than they were yesterday. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE MIKE MCCONNELL: The primary reason for retroactive immunity or liability protection for the carriers is to obtain their assistance. Quite frankly, we cannot do the job we have to do without the cooperation of the private sector. So, the situation we're in now with private-sector companies being subjected to huge suits, they're not inclined to give us assistance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: That's the retroactive immunity of the giant telecommunications companies. You can't accuse the admiral, Mike McConnell, of being a political hack. He's a professional.

REED: Well, I question the fact that he is raising these concerns about prospective operations of telecommunications companies. If they're following the law, which we were prepared to extend, if they're following FISA, then there is no potential immunity for them.

They're looking back several years ago when they were operating under circumstances that were yet to be disclosed to the American public and certainly not to the majority of senators. That's the issue. And, frankly, it's an issue that requires careful deliberation.

We were backed up to a point at which the law was expiring. The House was basically at a few hours away or days away from the expiration date, and yet the president insisted that the House could not fully deliberate. We could not have a conference.

If this is just an issue about immunity, a highly technical legal question, then why didn't we extend the bill? Why didn't the president allow the bill to be extended to existing legislation so that we could deal in an orderly manner with this very technical issue?

In fact, I do believe that we will get a resolution. I think the timing of this and the particular dramatization of it by the president is more political than it is substantive.

BLITZER: Senator Jack Reed, thanks very much for coming in.

REED: Thank you, Wolf.

###