The Senate rebuffed privacy concerns to pass a two-year reauthorization of a controversial key surveillance law early Saturday morning just moments after it expired at midnight.
Senators, in a bipartisan 60-34 vote, approved the program known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and sent it to President Joe Biden for his signature, the Associated Press reported.
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the president "will swiftly sign the bill."
"In the nick of time, we are reauthorizing FISA right before it expires at midnight," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said as final voting began 15 minutes before the midnight deadline. "All day long, we persisted and we persisted in trying to reach a breakthrough and in the end, we have succeeded."
Critics have warned that the measure could lead to a dramatic expansion of government surveillance of Americans. But supporters insist the law is necessary for national security.
The section of FISA allows the U.S. government to monitor the communications of non-Americans outside the country. But it also allows surveillance of communications of Americans when they're in contact with targeted foreigners.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL.) had been pushing a proposal that would have required U.S. officials to get a warrant before accessing American communications
Those concerns drew oppostion from both progressive lawmakers and conservatives, including former President Donald Trump, who urged on his social media account earlier this month: "KILL FISA," and claimed the law was used against him.
Proponents said the law is an essential tool for the country's intelligence community to collect information in an effort to thwart terror attacks, foreign espionage and cyber crimes.
"If you miss a key piece of intelligence, you may miss some event overseas or put troops in harm's way," said Sen. Marco Rubio, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"You may miss a plot to harm the country here, domestically, or somewhere else. So in this particular case, there's real-life implications," the Florida lawmaker said.
