[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 69 (Friday, April 19, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2907-S2921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  REFORMING INTELLIGENCE AND SECURING AMERICA ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                                Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 7888, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 365, H.R. 7888, a bill to 
     reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Senate Schedule

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senate will continue working today to 
pass FISA reauthorization. We are still trying to see if there is a 
path to getting this bill done quickly, but disagreements remain on how 
to proceed. The work is not done, so we are going to keep at it.
  We want to get FISA done as soon as we can, because it is very 
important for our national security. But, as everyone knows, any one 
Member can halt progress in this Chamber, so both sides need to fully 
cooperate if we want to get FISA done.
  So for the information of my colleagues, Members should plan to be 
here over the weekend if necessary to work on both FISA and the 
supplemental.
  The House is scheduled to take up the supplemental tomorrow. It would 
at last deliver critical aid to Ukraine, Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and 
humanitarian assistance. We will see how things go in the lower Chamber 
over the next day or so. And I hope the House gets this legislation 
passed without further delay.
  If the House sends us a supplemental package, the Senate will move 
expeditiously to send it to the President's desk. The President has 
said if Congress passes the supplemental, he will sign it.
  I hope the House gets this done very soon, because delay on this 
national security funding has cost America and cost our allies dearly. 
I met yesterday with the Ukrainian Prime Minister, who told me just how 
difficult the war has become for Ukrainian fighters who are now running 
out of ammo and air defenses and other basic needs. He told me that if 
America doesn't stand with Ukraine, they will lose the war. It is as 
simple as that.
  In the few months that the House has sat on the supplemental funding, 
the war has clearly turned in Russia's favor. Their army has grown 
larger. Their munitions stores have expanded, and they enjoy support 
from nations like North Korea, Iran, and China.
  Putin has long bet that sooner or later, American support for Ukraine

[[Page S2908]]

will wane. He said months ago on Russian TV that the ``free stuff'' 
from America is eventually going to run out. We dare not prove him 
right, because if he sees that the United States will not stop him in 
Ukraine, he may well conclude we won't stop him if he keeps going.
  And on the other side of the world, the Chinese Communist Party may 
look at America's abandonment of Ukraine and wonder if we will 
similarly show weakness in the Indo-Pacific. Imagine the kind of signal 
American inaction would send to our friends in Japan and in the 
Philippines. Imagine what it would say to the people of Taiwan. That is 
not the world we want to live in.
  Protecting democracy is not for the faint of heart. Sometimes it 
requires us to make difficult choices, but that is precisely what the 
American people sent us here to do. I hope we can finish the job very, 
very soon.


                                 Micron

  Mr. President, on Chips and Science, yesterday, I shared that 
Micron--one of the most important chip manufacturers in the United 
States and the world--is receiving over $6 billion from my Chips and 
Science law to help build two mega fabs in Central New York and one in 
Idaho. This is a monumental step forward for Syracuse, Upstate New 
York, and for the country.
  This is one of the largest single, direct, Federal investments ever 
for Upstate New York. We have had a number of chips funding 
announcements recently, but this is the very first one specifically for 
memory chips, which will become especially important as technologies 
like AI boost demand for these chips.
  Best of all, this award will lead to 50,000 new good-paying jobs, and 
it will help Micron reach its goal of investing well over $100-plus 
billion to make advanced memory chips here in the United States.
  So I will say it again because it is truly good news: With the Chips 
and Science law, we are rebuilding Upstate New York with good-paying 
middle-class jobs one microchip at a time, and we are rebuilding not 
just New York but communities from Ohio, to Texas, to Arizona and 
beyond, and the benefits in those States will spread as subcontractors 
and other suppliers around the country are called upon.
  Most importantly, the investments being made by Chips and Science 
will mean lower costs for American consumers in the long run. We will 
be less vulnerable to supply chain disruptions like the one we saw in 
COVID, which sent prices skyrocketing on all sorts of electronic 
devices. By bringing chip production back here to the U.S., we can 
avoid this in the future.
  This is precisely what I envisioned when I led the way on Chips and 
Science, working closely with bipartisan Members in the Senate and with 
the President and with Secretary Raimondo.
  Let me thank President Biden and Secretary Raimondo for helping make 
these investments possible. With their vision and leadership, we are 
bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. We are revitalizing middle-
class families. We are giving communities that have been left behind a 
second chance with new investments, new jobs, and new opportunity.
  Getting Chips and Science was not easy. It took a lot of convincing 
and persistence. But today, we are starting to see why that effort was 
worth it. One announcement at a time, America is securing its place as 
the leader in the global semiconductor industry in this century.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                               H.R. 7888

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the past 16 years, Federal law 
enforcement and intelligence professionals have used section 702 of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to identify and minimize foreign 
threats to U.S. national security. The carefully targeted authorities 
established back in 2008 are an essential tool for staying a step ahead 
of non-U.S. persons who seek to harm the American people, but unless 
the Senate acts today, those authorities will end tonight.

  Our friends in the House understood the threat. On a bipartisan 
basis, they spent months working to craft sensible reforms to guard 
against future abuses, made changes to adapt the program to meet the 
demands of new technologies, and took tough votes against amendments 
that may sound good but would actually kill the program. The House 
deserves credit for reforming and reauthorizing this essential 
authority.
  Now the Senate's choice is clear: We can pass the House's reform bill 
or, given the late hour and political reality, we can essentially doom 
the program to go dark. Pass the House's reform bill or give free rein 
to foreign intelligence operatives and terrorists to target America.
  Over the past few days, a number of our colleagues have drawn some 
puzzling conclusions about the House-passed bill that would allow us to 
prevent section 702 from lapsing. We have heard that overdue reforms to 
bring this portion of the statute up to date with modern communications 
technology amount to a massive new dragnet to surveil innocent U.S. 
citizens. We have heard that if the House-passed reauthorization became 
law, a coffee shop's public internet would become a vector for the bulk 
collection of Americans' sensitive personal data.
  Of course, the facts of the case are crystal clear. As I pointed out 
earlier this week, the Federal courts tasked with overseeing the 
appropriate use of section 702 authorities have already ruled that the 
fearmongering about new threats to U.S. citizens' privacy was 
completely unfounded.
  Yesterday, we even heard the Democratic whip suggest that a lapse in 
authorities wouldn't really mean ``going dark'' even though they expire 
at 12 midnight. This is absurd. Big tech conglomerates do not provide 
these critical communications to the U.S. Government because they want 
to; they do so because the law compels them to. When that compulsion 
disappears, who are they going to listen to--their customers or the 
FBI, asking nicely?
  Once section 702 expires, companies will stop complying. It will be 
up to the government to play a slow and painstaking game of Whac-a-Mole 
in court against an army of the most sophisticated lawyers in the 
country, and in the meantime, actionable intelligence will pass us 
right by.
  This is not a hypothetical. It has actually happened before. 
Following a similar lapse in authority during the Bush administration, 
Attorney General Mukasey observed that providers ``delayed or refused 
compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillance of terrorist 
and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives.'' He 
went on that this ``led directly to a degraded intelligence 
capability.''
  China is on the march. Iran and its proxies are pushing the Middle 
East to the brink of war. Russian spies are reportedly plotting 
sabotage against U.S. military targets. Suspected terrorists are 
exploiting this crisis at our southern border. This is not the time to 
voluntarily degrade our ability to protect the American people. This is 
not the time for facile arguments about issues this legislation 
addresses head-on.
  Today, power rests with the Senate. This is the end of the line. 
There is no one coming to relieve us of our duty. Just like the real-
world consequences America will face if the House fails to pass a 
national security supplemental, there will be serious consequences if 
the Senate fails to do its job today.
  The stakes of such an outcome are grave. The authorities in question 
today have quite literally been the only defense against would-be 
national security disasters. The year after section 702 was enacted, it 
was used to foil an active plot to bomb the subway in New York. As our 
colleague Senator Cornyn explained yesterday, section 702 was behind 70 
percent of the intelligence community's surveillance of the cartels' 
synthetic narcotics operations last year.
  The threats to America's security are flashing red. Our adversaries 
are as intent as ever on sowing chaos and violence, and a vote to send 
this critical legislation back to the House today is

[[Page S2909]]

a vote to make their job easier. The Senate must not let section 702 go 
dark.


                                SHOP Act

  Mr. President, on another matter, my Democratic colleagues like to 
complain about judge shopping. Of course, the real complaint is that 
regular Americans are succeeding in opposing liberal policies in court. 
We know this because when it comes to real-life judge shopping, our 
friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to be particularly 
bothered.
  I recently introduced a bill, the SHOP Act, that would stop the 
actual practice of judge shopping--that is, improperly steering a case 
to a judge or trying to knock judges off assigned cases because a 
litigant doesn't like them. The bill's language was based on an 
egregious and unethical pattern of conduct undertaken by two liberal 
advocacy groups in Alabama.
  Well, it seems the far-left Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is 
in on the judge-shopping game. The CFPB was recently sued in Texas over 
its credit card late fee rule. After a whole lot of procedural 
wrangling, the case ended up before the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in 
favor of the rule's challengers, 2 to 1. The CFPB and its allies didn't 
like that. Just days after losing, the Agency filed a letter with the 
clerk of the court, alleging to have suddenly discovered that large 
credit card issuers have a financial stake in the litigation.
  They didn't raise this when the case began, as required under court 
rules. Only afterward did they decide to take umbrage with the fact 
that the judge who ruled against them, Don Willett, has a son whose 
Coverdell education savings account includes a handful of shares in 
Citigroup.
  Urged on by an army of Arabella Advisors, the CFPB argued that even 
though the case before Judge Willett didn't involve Citigroup, he had 
to recuse himself in case it affected the value of that stock.
  In other words, after a judge ruled against them, the CFPB identified 
vague new parties-at-interest to ensnare the judge through his son's 
college savings account. What a tangled web they weave at the CFPB.
  To its credit, the Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct Committee 
didn't buy this absurd contention. They unanimously ruled that Judge 
Willett was not required to recuse himself.
  But in case anyone is wondering, this is what judge shopping looks 
like: Wait for a ruling against you and then argue late for sweeping 
recusal rules designed to target the judge you don't like and remove 
him.
  Under my SHOP Act, this kind of behavior could result in severe 
discipline for lawyers who engage in it.
  If any of our Democratic colleagues are interested in actually 
solving the problem of judge shopping, I hope they will join me as 
cosponsors.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 7888

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss what 
happened at the end of the debate in the House of Representatives on 
section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  Particularly, I am going to be talking about the sweeping new 
authorities that were slipped into the legislation at that time by the 
chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
  Then I intend to respond to each of the major arguments that have 
been given over the last couple of days in an attempt to justify these 
expanded authorities in that provision that was added at the last 
moment and why they do not hold water.
  The chair of the House Intelligence Committee called this amendment--
expanding all of these authorities--he called it merely technical. I 
want to explain why it is not just technical and how it passed the 
House with virtually no debate.
  As the Presiding Officer and I have talked about, this has never been 
considered--repeat, never been considered--here in the U.S. Senate, but 
Members of the Senate are now being told the same thing that came up in 
the House: Nothing to see here. It is technical. And it is all 
classified. So stop asking questions.
  Now, I have spoken to a number of colleagues here, and I have urged 
them to just read the plain language of the provision. When they do so, 
they will see for themselves that this is actually a very substantial 
and dangerous expansion of warrantless surveillance authorities.
  Under the provision, there would be virtually no limits to who can be 
forced into spying for the government. Any company that installs, 
maintains, or repairs Wi-Fi or other communications systems in any 
American business or home, for example, can be dragged into this. So 
can any other company that provides a service that gives its employees 
access to any communications equipment, which would include a server, a 
wire, a cable box, a Wi-Fi router, a phone, or a computer.
  There are lots of examples here. Every office building in America has 
data cables running through it. Tens of thousands of commercial 
establishments offer Wi-Fi to their customers. Under this provision, 
landlords, the companies that maintain the cables and Wi-Fi, and any 
number of companies whose employees have access to any of that 
equipment can all be forced to cooperate with the government's 
surveillance.
  Now, my view is there have been some pretty farfetched and misleading 
efforts to justify what the House of Representatives did at the last 
minute. So I am going to address each of the major arguments that I 
have heard in support of the House's dangerous expansion of 
surveillance authorities.
  First, supporters of this provision just wave away the actual 
language of the provision and simply insist that no terrible thing is 
going to happen. But nobody has ever tried to explain why the plain 
language of this provision wouldn't authorize the government to force a 
huge number of ordinary Americans and American companies to spy for the 
government.
  Second, the administration says it is going after a narrower set of 
companies, but, by the way, we are not going to hear anything about it 
because it is all secret. That is not how laws, especially surveillance 
authorities, ought to be written. I am a member of the Intelligence 
Committee, and I am familiar with these issues.
  The sky is not falling. If the government has a narrower intent, 
Congress can take the time to consider whether legislation is needed to 
actually address it. But jamming through a last-minute provision that 
dramatically expands surveillance authorities in a way that would 
affect so many Americans is just not right. I think it is 
irresponsible, and I think we ought to think through the implications. 
And anybody who thinks the government won't eventually use its 
authorities to the greatest extent possible, maybe they have been 
asleep for the last 20 years, but it is certainly a fact.
  Third, supporters of this provision spend a lot of time pointing to 
the exceptions, but the handful of narrow exceptions makes my point. It 
proves my point. If you are not on that short list, in effect, it is an 
admission that you can be forced to spy for the government. And the 
exceptions are clearly designed so as not to restrain the vast new 
authorities in any meaningful way. They are not even designed to work.
  For example, the exceptions do not include commercial landlords or 
any company that installs, maintains, or repairs Wi-Fi or 
communications cables. So even if the government can't force a coffee 
shop to comply, it can force its landlord or the company that maintains 
the coffee shop's Wi-Fi to comply.
  Fourth, supporters of the provision have said over and over again 
that section 702 only targets foreigners overseas. This is a red 
herring. The provision does not change the targeting rules, but 
it dramatically changes who can be forced to actually help the 
government. And you don't have to change the targeting rules to 
threaten Americans' privacy. If the government thinks that its foreign 
targets are communicating with people in the United States, they can go 
right to the source: the Wi-Fi, the phone lines, the servers

[[Page S2910]]

that transmit or store those communications. In my view, that is a 
stunning example of the government's ability to collect Americans' 
communications, with no changes in the targeting authority.

  Finally, this brings me to a letter sent yesterday by the Department 
of Justice, which the chairman of the Intelligence Committee placed in 
the Record. I urge my colleagues to read that carefully. It goes on and 
on about how the bill doesn't change the fact that only foreigners 
overseas can be targeted.
  The surest sign that you are losing an argument is when you try to 
change the subject, and that is what supporters of this provision and 
the Department of Justice are doing. The Department of Justice letter 
does not deny that the provision authorizes the government to force a 
broad set of Americans and American companies to assist with 
warrantless surveillance under section 702. In fact, the Department of 
Justice basically concedes that fact by promising that it will only 
apply the new authorities to certain companies on a secret list.
  The Department of Justice is in the ``don't worry anybody'' 
department. They are basically saying: We won't ever use these sweeping 
authorities you are handing to us.
  That commitment, in my view, is worth nothing. It is not even binding 
on this administration, and it certainly wouldn't be binding on future 
administrations. These FISA authorities, like all FISA authorities, are 
going to get used to their maximum extent. You can bet on it. The same 
Members of Congress who are touting this supposed act of restraint from 
the administration are going to be the first to demand that the 
government do more with these authorities.
  Now, secret promises are not law. That is just an obvious fact. 
Giving the government vast new power on the premise that intelligence 
Agencies are not going to use it is just out of sync with history.
  One other point about the Department of Justice letter: The 
Department of Justice has promised to tell Congress what is going on 
every 6 months. Not only is that inadequate; it would be a violation of 
the government's statutory obligation to keep the Congress fully and 
currently informed of intelligence activities. If they only update 
Congress every 6 months on something like this, they are basically 
thumbing their nose at the whole idea of congressional oversight.
  This provision is fundamentally damaging to democracy. Americans 
should not be forced to spy for the government without a warrant. 
Ordinary businesses, big and small, should not be made extensions of 
government surveillance in a way that is going to put their 
relationship with their customers at risk. We have actually heard from 
a variety of companies that are concerned about just that: their 
customers being concerned about their privacy being invaded as a result 
of this and companies being hurt.
  Americans shouldn't have to worry about whether the companies that 
service their workplaces, establishments they frequent, or even their 
homes are secretly spying for the government.
  My view is this is a breathtaking change that was added at the last 
minute by the House of Representatives, expanding surveillance 
authorities. Until a week ago, there was a debate about reforms of 
section 702, and I would say, having been involved in a number of these 
debates, it is appropriate to have views of differing opinion on what 
reforms are necessary. But at least everybody was talking about the 
abuses of section 702 and how to fix them.
  Now, all of a sudden, the Senate is being asked to dramatically 
expand the authorities of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 
a way that is almost guaranteed--almost guaranteed--to result in 
abuses. And my own view is that it is shocking that with no 
publication, no hearings, no processing of a piece of legislation, and 
a single week to think about it, the Senate is being asked to give the 
government sweeping new authorities that could fundamentally change the 
relationship in this country between Americans and their government.
  If the Senate passes this legislation today, my own view is the 
Senators are going to regret it. And when the eventual wave of abuses 
is exposed, nobody is going to be able to say now--given the fact we 
are airing specific responses to what the government said in an attempt 
to justify it, nobody is now going to be able to say they didn't see it 
coming. There are a number of us on both sides of the aisle who are 
pursuing an amendment to strike this dangerous provision. I am pushing 
very hard to remove this provision. It ought to just be struck--it is 
called section 25 in the House bill--and we are pushing very hard to 
see that is accomplished.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 7888

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate is currently debating the 
reauthorization of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act. I call this the most important law that most Americans never heard 
of. But it is an essential tool for our intelligence community to 
protect the American people against a whole array of threats, as I will 
try to explain.
  It is somewhat complicated, which means that it is important to make 
sure that we understand what the facts are and dispel any myths or any 
misconceptions about what exactly we are asking the Senate to vote on.
  Unless the Senate takes action soon, section 702 of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act will expire at midnight tonight. If that 
happens, the United States will lose access to valuable intelligence 
that is needed by our intelligence community to keep America safe. Our 
country's top intelligence officials have shared a number of success 
stories that demonstrate the far-reaching value of this authority. But 
the best I can tell, there is broad bipartisan consensus about the 
value of section 702. I have heard no one stand up and say: We should 
just let the authority lapse. And that is for good reason that you 
haven't heard that argument.
  Section 702-acquired information has helped combat terrorism, disrupt 
drug trafficking, thwart cyber attacks, prevent our adversaries from 
trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, and much more.
  Officials have also issued warnings that--in the starkest possible 
terms--about what a 702 lapse would do to our security missions. FBI 
Director Chris Wray said to allow 702 to expire would be ``an act of 
unilateral disarmament in the face of the Chinese Communist Party.'' So 
the stakes are extremely high.
  I am glad that the Republican-led House passed a strong 702 reform 
bill last week. This is not a clean reauthorization of the existing 
bill. This is a reform bill which corrects many of the problems that we 
have experienced with section 702 in application, including some abuse 
by FBI officials and others. It is designed to prevent that inadvertent 
abuse and to hold people who abuse that authority accountable.
  And to those who say, well, this reform bill has provisions in it 
that can be likewise abused by somebody who is intent on violating the 
law, I say there is no law that can prevent people from lying, 
cheating, and stealing. In other words, we could do our best to try to 
pass a law that protects the American people both in their privacy and 
their national security, but no one argues that we can prevent all 
abuses.
  But we could go a long way--and this bill does it--to close up the 
opportunities to do that and to hold people accountable who do abuse 
the law by exposing them, potentially, to long prison sentences. This 
reform legislation increases transparency, as I said, prevents misuse 
of 702, and strengthens accountability within the FBI.
  As Congress has debated this law, I have seen a lot of confusion and, 
occasionally, even some misinformation about this authority and the 
reforms being discussed. As the Senate prepares to vote on this bill, I 
think it is absolutely critical that we clear up a few of the most 
common misconceptions about section 702.
  The first myth I want to address is that 702 was unconstitutional 
because

[[Page S2911]]

it allows widespread surveillance of American citizens without going to 
court and getting a warrant establishing probable cause. I have heard 
some people say, under this law, the intelligence community can spy on 
the American people. Nothing is further from the truth. Section 702 
authority cannot be used to target any U.S. citizen, whether on 
American soil or elsewhere in the world. It is specifically aimed at 
foreign actors overseas that could pose a threat to the United States.
  We all acknowledge that any investigation into any American citizen 
would require a warrant establishing probable cause issued by a judge, 
an impartial judge. That is our basic protection under the Fourth 
Amendment. This, in contrast, is not about targeting Americans in the 
United States but rather foreigners overseas. Even if the foreigner is 
in the United States, then section 702 would not allow that collection. 
There would need to be a warrant.
  So the law contains robust safeguards to protect the privacy of U.S. 
persons and the House-passed bill includes even more provisions 
designed to strengthen those protections.
  This first myth stems from, perhaps, a misunderstanding about what is 
called incidental collection of U.S. persons' data. When I use the term 
``U.S. persons,'' I am including American citizens and legal permanent 
residents. That is why the generic term ``U.S. persons'' rather 
than ``U.S. citizens'' is used. For example, if an American is texting 
with a foreign terrorist who is a target of 702 collection, both sides 
of that conversation, that text, would be available. To be clear, 
though, the government would only see the American's communication in 
that one instance. Other texts, emails, and communications would remain 
untouched and require a warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court.

  Multiple courts have examined the constitutionality of this 
incidental collection. The Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth 
Circuit have all looked at it and said it does not violate the Fourth 
Amendment. The Eastern District of New York has, as well, as has the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
  I might just pause there for a moment and remind people that the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a court created by Congress 
composed of three Federal judges, article III judges, appointed by the 
Chief Justice, who review these practices and procedures on a regular 
basis.
  So you have three levels of oversight of these important tools. You 
have, at the Agency level, internal rules and regulations. You have the 
Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, on which I have the 
privilege of serving, that conducts oversight. Then you have the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that makes sure that this 
balance between security and privacy are protected.
  In every court that has looked at this issue, the court has 
determined that 702 complies with the Fourth Amendment insofar as 
incidental collection is concerned.
  Section 702 does not authorize spying on the American people. You 
know, it reminds me of a saying of Mark Twain. Mark Twain said: ``A lie 
can travel halfway around the world in the time it takes the truth to 
put on its shoes.''
  Unfortunately, some of these things get on social media, and people 
begin to believe them because they see it repeated, even though it is 
not true. This is a carefully crafted law designed to balance national 
security imperatives with individual privacy rights.
  Myth No. 2: Congress could strengthen privacy protections and 
preserve 702 by adding a warrant requirement. This requires a little 
bit of an explanation. I mentioned the text between a target, a foreign 
target, and an American citizen and the incidental collection--that is 
the communication between those two--that would be revealed by 702. 
Then it is added to a database that can then be queried or explored by 
subsequent actions by intelligence Agencies, including the FBI.
  Some would say: Well, in spite of the fact that no court has held 
that that incidental collection is unconstitutional or violates the 
Fourth Amendment, before the FBI or any part of the intelligence 
community wants to look at that lawfully collected data, it has to go 
to court and get a warrant. Again, this could require the government to 
show probable cause that some crime--maybe espionage, maybe some other 
crime--has been committed.
  All of the officials who served in positions of responsibility in 
making sure that this capacity continues safely and respecting the 
rights of privacy, as well as the security of our country, has said 
that adding a warrant requirement to look at information that you 
already lawfully collected would decimate the effectiveness of section 
702. This is unlike a traditional criminal investigation where warrants 
are issued based on probable cause because of criminal activity.
  Intelligence gathering is unique because it involves monitoring 
foreign actors to detect and prevent threats before they occur. In 
other words, regular law enforcement doesn't go in and try to stop 
criminal acts before they occur.
  Unfortunately, we are relegated to investigating and prosecuting 
crimes after they occur. That is the criminal law context.
  Intelligence gathering is very different because it is designed to 
prevent terrible actions from occurring in the first place, like the 
3,000 Americans that were killed on 9/11 when al-Qaida targeted the 
World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
  As Director Wray has said:

       In a technology environment where foreign threat actors can 
     move to new communication accounts and infrastructure in a 
     matter of hours--if not minutes--[section] 702 provides the 
     agility we need to stay ahead.

  Requiring a warrant for every inquiry into lawfully collected 
information in the 702 database would significantly hinder the ability 
to respond to emerging threats. Again, this is looking at information 
that every court that has looked at it has said is lawfully collected 
under the Fourth Amendment. Our intelligence community would be held to 
an impossible standard knowing the nationality and location of every 
single person that the foreigner and foreign land may be talking to 
before they could make any targeting decision.
  The Senate has before it an amendment that would hold that no 
person--so that would include the entire intelligence community--may 
access information of a covered person except in limited circumstances. 
A covered person is broadly defined and would include incidental 
communications of U.S. persons, something which is already lawfully 
collected.
  But the truth is, this amendment would hamper the 702 program in 
dangerous ways. If an amendment containing this language passes, the 
CIA or the NSA will be unable to monitor Hamas or ISIS terrorists 
abroad unless and until they can determine the national identities and 
physical locations of everyone that terrorist may be talking to, 
texting, or emailing with. It is an impossible burden.
  The Senate is already expected to vote on an amendment to the House 
bill that injects a different type of massive legal hurdle in the 702 
process. That would be similarly confining and limiting in terms of its 
effectiveness.
  This amendment would dramatically expand the role of an amicus. Now, 
in the law we talk about amicus curiae, ``friends of the court.'' That 
is what an amicus is. That is an outside person coming in basically to 
provide legal advice or a briefing to a court to help the court make a 
decision.
  And there already exists an amicus provision in the current law so 
that if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court needs input or 
expertise or advice on a complex matter, it could ask for that. That 
already exists.
  What this amendment would do, it would impose an amicus appointment 
on virtually every Foreign Intelligence Act title 1 matter and place, 
again, unworkable burdens on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court and on the intelligence community seeking access to that 
information.
  What that means, in practical terms, is that we would get bogged down 
in court proceedings and not just in front of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court. This amendment would allow an appeal of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court's decision presumably all the way to 
the Supreme Court.
  Can you imagine in a time-sensitive national security matter that we 
are going to basically take a timeout so we

[[Page S2912]]

can appeal a case up and down the Federal judiciary, potentially to the 
Supreme Court? Who knows how long the delay might be.
  The urgent intelligence request before the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court would become a means to gut section 702 through a 
series of legal delays. In effect, one actor who disagreed with the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's determination would have the 
ability to stop what is already a constitutional and lawful program in 
its tracks.
  This is a radical departure from the role of an amicus or friend of 
the court in normal court proceedings. The friend of the court, the 
amicus curiae, is there to provide expertise and help the court get it 
right, not to gum up the process or to become an adversary.
  As I noted, agility is key to section 702. It gives our intelligence 
professionals timely and actual intelligence to keep Americans safe. 
Expanding the role of the amicus to turn them into an adversary to this 
process would hamper the program and, I believe, make it far less 
useful.
  The House has already had a very thoughtful debate about this topic 
and I believe crafted a bill that expands amicus participation in a 
reasonable and productive way without shutting down the process.
  Finally, myth No. 3: There will be no impact if section 702 expires 
tonight at midnight because other directives will replace it.
  Well, like many misconceptions, this is based on a grain of truth. 
Earlier this month, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court renewed 
the annual 702 certification and procedure process through April of 
2025. Interestingly, as I mentioned, the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court, which includes three article III judges, lifetime-
tenured judges, regularly sign off on the practices and procedures 
under section 702 and have found them to be lawful and constitutional.
  And they have certified the current process through April of 2025, 
but that does not mean that the program can continue uninterrupted for 
another year. In the event of a lapse tonight at midnight, some 
communications and service providers will stop cooperating with the 
U.S. Government. That is exactly what happened in 2008 when the 
predecessor of section 702 called the Protect America Act briefly 
lapsed.
  The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence at the 
time wrote to Congress about the impact of a short-term lapse. They 
said:

       [Providers] delayed or refused compliance with our requests 
     to initiate new surveillances of terrorists and other foreign 
     intelligence surveillance targets under existing directives 
     issued pursuant to the Protect America Act.

  But they said, ultimately, the lapse ``led directly to a degraded 
intelligence capability.''
  None of these American-based companies are going to cooperate with 
the intelligence community unless they have a law in place that 
provides them a requirement that they do so and the legal protections 
that go along with that.
  Even though the Department of Justice could go to court and move to 
compel the companies to continue to cooperate under the current 
certification, litigation would inevitably lead to delays while vital 
intelligence is lost.
  And I believe that without 702, there is no way these companies will 
be required to or be willing to cooperate. And there couldn't be a more 
dangerous time to put this gambit to the test.
  Director Wray and the Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director 
Burns, all of the members of the intelligence community, the leaders, 
have said the number of threats facing America has never been greater, 
certainly not since World War II.
  Iran and its terrorist proxies are attacking Israel; Russia is 
continuing its assault on Ukraine; and China is fueling instability in 
the Middle East. Section 702 underpins our ability to predict and 
respond to each of these threats, and we would be flying blind without 
702.
  So 702 misinformation runs rampant, but here are the facts: 702 
complies with the Fourth Amendment. Every court that has considered the 
matter has reached that conclusion.
  Section 702 is invaluable because it gives the United States timely 
and actionable intelligence. Warrant requirements for a dramatic amicus 
expansion would undercut that capability.
  And finally, unless section 702 authority is extended today, our 
intelligence capabilities will take a hit. There is no question about 
it. We cannot count on these communication providers to keep providing 
information and cooperating once congressional authorization expires.
  In conclusion, I would say there is a lot on the line today, and 
Congress cannot, in good conscience, deprive America's dedicated 
intelligence professionals of the authority they need to continue to 
keep our country safe. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act is vital to our national security and must be extended 
as reformed in the House bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.


                    Federal Aviation Administration

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise, alongside my colleague Senator 
Warner, to comment on a near-miss incident that occurred yesterday at 
Reagan National Airport and what it means in the context of the FAA 
reauthorization bill that we are considering and will take up likely 
right after recess.
  The incident yesterday was a big warning light flashing red, telling 
Congress not to take steps that would weaken the safety of this 
airport.
  Yesterday morning, at 7:40 a.m., a Southwest Airlines plane and a 
JetBlue plane nearly collided while simultaneously attempting to cross 
the same runway. One flight was preparing to take off from runway 4, 
which is a smaller commuter runway, while the other was attempting to 
cross from an apron to the main runway, runway 1, that carries 90 
percent of the flights in and out of DCA.
  Yesterday was not an unusually busy day; it was a typically busy day 
on the Nation's busiest runway at DCA. And while the FAA is still 
investigating the incident, there is disturbing audio that is 
circulating that I hope every Member of this body will listen to.
  In the audio, you can hear air traffic controllers frantically 
yelling at each plane over the communications to ``Stop! Stop!'' before 
both planes were able to halt their movements and narrowly avoid a 
collision.
  We are all relieved that disaster was averted and that no injuries or 
damages occurred, thanks to the actions of the ATC professionals at 
DCA. But I am incredulous that in a discussion about reauthorizing the 
Federal Aviation Administration--a bill that is meant to make travel 
safer--some Members of Congress view this package as an opportunity to 
jam even more flights for their own personal convenience into a runway 
at DCA that is already overburdened and can't handle extra capacity. 
The gamble is exactly the opposite of improving public safety.
  The Federal Aviation Administration and the regional airport 
commission created by Congress, the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority, both agree that adding any flights--any flights--to DCA will 
increase delays due to the increased risk for incidents like this. Any 
flights into DCA will increase delays due to the increased risk for 
incidents like this.
  DCA is a fraction of the size of our other two regional airports, 
Dulles and BWI, and the length of its runways are shorter. In fact, two 
of the runways are so short that 90 percent of the traffic--800 flights 
a day--has to be put onto the main primary runway.
  Since 1986, Congress has recognized the capacity limits at DCA by 
restricting the number of nonstop flights that can originate out of DCA 
to airports outside of a 1,250-mile perimeter, with Dulles and BWI 
planned as the growth airports for the region's aviation needs.
  However, in the past and right now, during discussions about FAA 
reauthorization, certain Members in both Houses have attempted and in 
some cases succeeded in making changes to these rules that have 
disrupted the balance in the airport system by adding additional 
flights from Reagan to destinations outside the perimeter. These 
changes have produced significant stress on DCA's facilities and 
created frustrations for travelers, businesses, and local residents.

[[Page S2913]]

  We have been warning about this for over a year, but I hope that the 
incident yesterday may help Members finally take note of the evidence 
that the system is already overflowing its capacity, and we can't risk 
public safety by cramming more flights into and out of DCA.
  The House of Representatives passed their version of the FAA 
reauthorization bill with a floor vote that resoundingly rejected 
additional flights at DCA on a bipartisan basis.
  But, unfortunately, here in the Senate Commerce Committee, a package 
was produced that adds 10 more flights in and out of DCA without so 
much as an up-or-down vote on that provision.
  While some may point to other safety features in the FAA 
reauthorization bill to help avoid near-misses in the future, I can't 
stand by and assume that adding safety risks by allowing more flights--
my constituents will not tolerate that, and the 20-plus million people 
who fly into and out of DCA every year should not have to tolerate 
that.
  So to sum up, a provision was added to the Senate FAA bill in 
committee that had been explicitly rejected by the House of 
Representatives, that has been warned against by the FAA, that 
jeopardizes safety, that negatively impacts the performance of three 
airports, and the provision was negotiated by a committee on which none 
of the Senators who represent the region sits.
  This is unsatisfactory, and I am going to say to this body and then 
act in accord with what those air traffic controllers said yesterday: 
``Stop! Stop!''
  I yield to my colleague Senator Warner.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to first of all thank my dear 
friend and colleague from Virginia for his impassioned remarks. And I 
know that the Presiding Officer can't enter into these discussions, but 
as the gentleman who represents the neighboring State of Maryland, I 
think I can say, without fear of being contradicted, that the Virginia 
and Maryland delegations in the U.S. Senate are completely united in 
total agreement on this issue.
  As Senator Kaine just pointed out, I think it is amazing that there 
has not been more news coverage of it yet. I hope that the paper of 
record, the Washington Post, actually covers some of these items, but 
two planes came within 300 feet of colliding at DCA on the runway.
  Now, I am thankful there was no loss of life, but it is just plain 
unacceptable that this even happened. And, again, Senator Kaine said 
you don't have to take his word. You don't have to take my word. You 
can go online and listen to the audio from the control tower to 
understand just how frighteningly close we came to disaster. That we 
came so close to catastrophe yesterday makes it absolutely clear: It is 
just plain crazy that some are pushing to add even more flights to 
DCA's already overburdened runway.

  Let me go through some of the stats. DCA averages 819 daily takeoffs 
and landings from its main runway. That is more than any other runway 
in the Nation. That is more than any runway at LAX, Chicago O'Hare, 
Atlanta Hartsfield, at Newark--you name it. The most overburdened 
runway in America is DCA.
  Yesterday's near crash is a stark example of the burden this airport 
already faces. Again, how did we get here? Well, the airport was 
designed to accommodate 15 million passengers. Last year, 2023, in part 
thanks to, as my colleague said, over the years, chipping away on the 
perimeter rule--every 5 years when FAA comes up, people try to chip 
away. So last year, in part thanks to this chipping away, it broke an 
alltime record, DCA--25.5 million passengers. That is 10.5 million 
additional passengers beyond what DCA was designed for.
  What does that result in? Well, you have the near catastrophe last 
night, yesterday, but in 2022, DCA--Reagan Airport--had the third worst 
cancellation rate amongst the Nation's busiest airports. As of today, 
the current status, 20 to 22 percent of flights into and out of Reagan 
experience delays averaging 67 minutes.
  There are some who have argued that while Reagan is at capacity 
during peak hours, between 6 a.m. and midnight, additional flights 
could be added during nonpeak hours, after midnight and before 6 a.m.
  First of all, I said to my colleague, I have not heard any airline 
coming in and begging for a 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the 
morning flight, and, frankly, I would be very skeptical there would be 
much consumer demand. Unlike my colleague, who is a morning person, I 
am known to be a little bit more of a night owl, but you are not going 
to find me climbing on an airplane at 3 a.m. in the morning.
  Second, as we pointed out over and over, Reagan's runway is already 
the busiest runway in America. Any flexibility that still remains in 
Reagan's schedule after Congress has continually loaded it up with new 
flights over the years should not be made by Congress; it ought to be 
made by the operators of the airports in conjunction with the FAA to 
manage safety, timeliness, and delays.
  If we don't do this, if we end up with the Senate position that at 
least the Commerce Committee has floated, if we end up anything close 
to what the Senate Commerce Committee has advocated, near crashes such 
as yesterday would become much more common.
  For all the Members who already use this airport, think about that 
not only in terms of the overall safety but just how you climb on an 
airplane almost on a weekly basis.
  The so-called five new slots, which means you have to come and go--
that means 10 additional long-haul flights beyond the currently 
existing DCA 1,250-mile perimeter rule--would be flown almost 
exclusively, because they would go longer, with larger airplanes. 
Larger airplanes, again, take longer to taxi more people into the 
terminal, already straining Reagan's resources.
  Considering yesterday's near crash and an average of 819 daily 
takeoffs and landings already, why would we sacrifice safety or, for 
that matter, just the ability to get in and out of the airport in a 
timely manner any more?
  The safety of the flying public must be our primary focus. Yet we are 
now debating, as my colleague said, whether some lawmakers who want 
this added convenience are somehow more important than passenger 
safety. Incidents like this incident that happened yesterday, with the 
position of additional flights, would be happening on a much more 
common basis, would dramatically undermine the basic role of the FAA: 
the safety of the flying public.
  We should not take that action when the FAA reauthorization comes up.
  It is not often that we say in this body that we ought to listen to 
the House, but in this case, we ought to listen to the House. They had 
a full-flung debate on this issue, and an overwhelmingly bipartisan 
position came up with zero new flights out of Reagan.
  I urge my colleagues to prioritize the safety of the flying public 
and reject any changes to slot and perimeter rules at Reagan in the FAA 
reauthorization bill we will take up shortly.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Sudan

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, a year ago, artillery and gunfire erupted 
in the capital of Sudan. Smoke filled the air as people ran for their 
lives. It was the beginning of a vicious war between two armed 
factions: the SAF--the Sudanese Armed Forces--and the RSF--the 
paramilitary Rapid Support Forces.
  In the last year, there has been absolute devastation in Sudan. At 
every turn, unarmed Sudanese have been in the crosshairs. These armed 
groups have committed extrajudicial killings. They have 
indiscriminately bombed civilian targets, like hospitals. They have 
used rape and sexual violence against women of certain ethnic groups as 
a weapon of war. They have razed cities and towns, killing inhabitants 
and strangling commerce and trade. They have destroyed farmlands and 
forced farmers to leave, preventing harvests. They have looted 
humanitarian supplies, attacked aid workers,

[[Page S2914]]

and blocked aid delivery. The World Food Programme's Sudan director 
said this May could bring ``unprecedented levels of starvation.''
  According to the United Nations, more than 15,000 people have been 
reported killed, with an additional 10- to 15,000 in one town in Darfur 
alone.
  Eight million people have fled their homes. Twenty-five million, 
including 14 million children, need humanitarian assistance, very basic 
materials like food, water, medicine, and clothing.
  The president of Doctors Without Borders said:

       Sudan is one of the worst crises the world has seen for 
     decades.

  As I speak, the town of Al Fashir is under siege. Millions of 
civilians are trapped in that city, which is controlled by the SAF. The 
people in this town have no access to aid, and the international 
community has no plan to protect them should the RSF mount a full-scale 
assault.
  My colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator 
Booker, has just come back from the region. He gave us a firsthand 
account of the hunger, the violence, and the trauma the Sudanese people 
are facing. Last week, Samantha Power testified in front of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee about the imminent famine. Just this week, 
the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights released a report 
concluding that the RSF is committing genocide in Sudan.
  The evidence is clear and overwhelming. We must take action now.
  At this week's humanitarian conference in Paris, the United States 
announced an additional $100 million in aid to respond to the conflict. 
The United States has been the largest donor to date. The French are 
also saying they raised more than =2 billion. Money pledged is not 
money in hand, however, and we all need to do more.
  I am pleased that when the Senate passed the security funding 
supplemental, it included more than $9 billion in additional 
humanitarian aid. Part of that humanitarian aid would go to help the 
people of Sudan.
  I know there is bipartisan support for humanitarian aid in Congress. 
Yet, despite the heroic efforts of my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee, the foreign assistance budget for this year declined in some 
parts of USAID by as much as 10 percent. We need to expand the pie, not 
shrink it; otherwise, when we try to address one crisis, we have to 
take money from another emergency circumstance. We should not have to 
choose between saving starving Sudanese or saving starving Gazans. We 
should not have to choose between helping Haitians or helping 
Ukrainians. Every life is precious, and every day we wait matters.
  I hope my colleagues in the House who are still debating the 
supplemental funding bill understand that. There are so many reasons 
why they need to pass the supplemental. I would have hoped they would 
have taken our bill and passed it. They now have a different 
formulation of it. I hope they will get to as soon as possible the 
supplemental funding bill.
  Yes, it is critical for Ukraine--absolutely. They literally are 
depending on that supplemental to have the ammunition and support they 
need to defend themselves against Russia. It is important for our 
friends in the Middle East--for Israel. It is important for the Indo-
Pacific. It is absolutely essential, the humanitarian aid that is 
included in that supplemental, for the people of Sudan.
  Russia is relentlessly bombing and destroying Ukraine's oil and gas 
energy sector. Ukraine is running out of ammunition.
  Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said:

       Ukraine's survival is in danger.

  Any delay in the supplemental funding means the security situation 
gets worse, just as the humanitarian situation gets worse.
  Famine has been declared only twice in the past 13 years. Gaza and 
Sudan will be next unless we act.
  Famine-prevention efforts have a good track record. In 2017, we 
prevented three out of four potential famines after Congress passed a 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  America's strength is in our values. The global community depends 
upon our leadership. Our values demand that we don't stand by when 
people are starving. We have the capacity, and we certainly need to act 
and show that we live by actions on our values.
  Ultimately, the only solution to the crisis in Sudan is for the two 
sides to sit down and negotiate peace. We have to stop the warring 
factions, and we have to stop the outside countries' support that have 
chosen sides here and are adding to the civil war that is taking place. 
But in the meantime, they must allow unfettered humanitarian access 
throughout the country.
  As we mark the 1-year anniversary of the conflict, I want to say to 
the international community, to the Biden administration: My view as 
chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that we need to act 
now. We need other donors to step up and put their money where their 
mouths are now. We need to support Sudan's neighbors who are hosting 
countless refugees now. We need diplomatic talks to end the war in 
Sudan to resume now. It is time to set a date.
  Finally, to my colleagues in the House: You need to act now to pass 
the supplemental appropriations bill that we sent to you in mid-
February and provide a lifeline to the millions of Sudanese whose lives 
are on the line. We must not stand by idly and watch them perish.
  I urge us all to act with urgency.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Ambler Access Project

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I came to the floor of the Senate last 
night to talk about a big choice President Biden was going to make 
today. Unfortunately, he made the wrong choice for America, for our 
allies, for Alaska, for my constituents.
  The choice was whether he was going to make a big decision to shut 
down two of the biggest resource development areas in America, a place 
we call the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska in the Ambler Mining 
District of Alaska, some of the biggest deposits of critical minerals 
in America--in the world--and one of the biggest, most prolific basins 
for oil and gas in the world, where we in Alaska produce these minerals 
and these resources, which we need, better than anybody, with the 
highest environmental standards in the world.
  The President shut them down today--shut them down today. It 
certainly hurt American workers and benefited the dictators of the 
world. He won't sanction Iran for oil and gas, but he sure as hell will 
sanction Alaska.
  It is a little crazy. If you are an American watching: Why would we 
do that? I will get to that.
  It is a real disappointment, a dispiriting day in Alaska. I talked 
about how infuriating this was, particularly for my constituents, 
workers, Alaskans, but particularly for the Inupiat Alaskan Native 
people who live on the North Slope of Alaska. One of these rules--the 
National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska rule--directly impacts them.
  I am frustrated. Senator Murkowski is very frustrated. Congresswoman 
Peltola is very frustrated. We put out a press release denouncing this 
decision this morning.
  But the people who are really, really frustrated and, to be honest, 
insulted are these great Americans, these great indigenous leaders in 
my State because they are the ones this rule is going to impact. This 
rule is about the North Slope of Alaska, an incredible place. They are 
the leaders. They are the indigenous people who live there.
  As I mentioned in my remarks last night, the Biden administration 
just won't listen to them at all. You want to talk about cancel voices 
for indigenous Americans? The Biden administration won't listen to 
them. This group of great Alaska Natives, as I mentioned last night, 
have come to Washington, DC. These are the elected leaders of the North 
Slope where this rule was solely going to impact. They came to 
Washington, DC--flew 4,000 miles eight different times--to meet with 
Secretary Haaland to say: Madam Secretary, this is our land. Don't do 
this. You are going to hurt our future.

[[Page S2915]]

You are going to hurt our prospects to live. We have been living there 
for 10,000 years.
  Do you know how many times Secretary Haaland met with these great 
Americans--eight different trips to Washington, DC? Zero. Zero.
  So, again, I will just show this real quickly. It is really 
important. This is the area of Alaska that I am talking about, the 
North Slope, right up here. This whole area is the North Slope of 
Alaska. It includes ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. 
This is a rule that will impact this whole area. The size is about the 
size of Montana. We are a giant State.
  These are the leaders. We have a borough, mayor, and borough 
assembly. We have Tribal leaders, leaders of Alaska Native 
corporations. These are all the elected Inupiat leaders.
  This part of the State, that is where the rule was announced today, 
and every one of them tried to come here and say: President Biden, 
Secretary Haaland, don't do that to us. It is going to really harm us, 
and we know more about our land than you guys do. We have been living 
there 10,000 years.
  These are great Americans. Their voices were canceled. But I will 
tell you, when I saw the press release from the President of the United 
States today and Secretary Haaland today on this decision, I don't 
think I have ever been more disgusted in my 9 years as a U.S. Senator 
from what I saw from this White House, from this President, and this 
Secretary of the Interior.
  Here is why, Mr. President. You know me. I am a pretty calm guy. I 
don't use words like ``lying.'' OK. Here is what happened today. This 
administration won't listen to these great people--never did. So they 
are canceling their voices. Then, today, they are stealing their 
voices--stealing their voices. As I said, I have never seen anything 
more despicable than this. The Biden administration won't listen to 
these great Americans, but then when they put their press release out 
today, they are telling the rest of the country: We are doing this to 
benefit the indigenous people of the North Slope. That is in the press 
release. They won't listen to them because they don't want the rule and 
then they put the statement out today and they told the American 
people: We are doing this to help these great Americans.

  Stunning.
  Mr. President, that is what you call a baldfaced lie. So here is the 
statement from President Biden, himself, a couple of hours old, and he 
said:

       I am proud that my Administration is taking action to 
     conserve more than 13 million acres [of their land] and to 
     honor the culture, history, and enduring wisdom of Alaska 
     Natives who have lived on and stewarded these lands since 
     time immemorial.

  That is the statement of the President of the United States. That is 
a baldfaced lie because he is saying: I am the President. I am doing it 
to help these great Alaska Native people. And guess what. They were 
totally opposed to this rule, and Secretary Haaland wouldn't even meet 
with them.
  It gets worse. Here is Secretary Haaland's statement. She said: We 
are taking this action today to safeguard ``the way of life for the 
Indigenous people''--those people--``who have called this special place 
their home''--their home--``since time immemorial.'' That is Secretary 
Haaland.
  This is just unbelievable. Like I said, I have never seen anything 
like this. The Biden administration won't listen to the indigenous 
people of the very place they are going to do a huge rule on, 
negatively impacting their lives, and then when they put the statement 
out on why they are doing it, they tell the rest of the country they 
are doing it to help them.
  I have never seen such hypocrisy and lying from the President, from 
the Secretary of the Interior.
  And by the way, a little bit of an aside--it is not just lying, it is 
unbelievable hypocrisy--particularly as it relates to the Secretary of 
the Interior. When she announced these proposed rules to lock up the 
North Slope of Alaska, she said she was going to do it because of the 
``climate crisis and to deliver on the Biden administration's most 
ambitious climate agenda in history.''
  So that is their rule. We are shutting down the North Slope of 
Alaska, hurt these great Americans because of the climate crisis. We 
are going to go after Alaska and the Inupiat Natives. So that was the 
goal. Ignore their voices.
  But if Secretary Haaland was really interested in the climate crisis, 
I am wondering why she doesn't do more with regard to her own State--
her own State. What am I talking about here?
  In the first 2 years of the Biden administration, over half of all 
permits--9,000 Federal permits--to drill for oil and gas on Federal 
lands went to which State? Can anyone guess? Alaska? Hell, no. They are 
shutting us down every day. More than half--over 9,000 permits to drill 
for oil and gas on Federal lands--went to which State? You guessed it. 
New Mexico. Whose home State is that? Oh, my gosh, the Secretary of the 
Interior.
  Get this number. And, look, if there is anyone in the press 
listening, can you please write this story? I am going to get to that 
in a minute.
  At the beginning of the Biden administration, New Mexico--New Mexico 
is in the red, gray is Alaska. Alaska has been about steady for over a 
decade, about 500,000 barrels a day. That is a lot. We were a lot more 
at one point--steady. At the beginning of the Biden administration, New 
Mexico was about a million barrels a day. You know where they are now? 
Almost 2 million barrels a day. Whoa. Where are the radical 
environmentalists wanting to shut down New Mexico? Wait a minute. No 
one is touching New Mexico. They increased production under President 
Biden by a million barrels a day on Federal land. Where is our intrepid 
American press to write this story?
  Think about this one. Think about the flip side of all this. A 
Republican administration gets elected. They say we are going to shut 
down the oil production of a Democrat State. We are going to crush the 
Native people in that Democrat State. We are not going to listen to 
them at all. And then we are going to make sure that that home State of 
the Republican Secretary of the Interior is going to be drill, baby, 
drill on Federal lands--2 million barrels a day, increased by a million 
barrels a day. And what is this administration doing? Folks are 
shutting down Alaska. We are steady at 500,000. Drill, baby, drill for 
Secretary Haaland and New Mexico on Federal lands.
  If that story were happening right now, the New York Times, the 
Washington Post would be writing about it every day. They would be 
calling it a scandal. They would be looking for corruption. They would 
be calling for resignations. But this identical situation--I don't 
think the press has written about it once. No wonder the American 
people don't trust the media. It is such an obvious story of hypocrisy 
to write about and nobody does.
  I am digressing here. I want to get back to what happened today. As I 
mentioned, the President and the Secretary put out statements today 
saying: Well, we did this to help the Inupiat Native people of Alaska 
on the North Slope.
  It is a lie. It is a lie.
  Let me get back to this. It is simply not true. How do we know? 
Because I am going to do what the Biden administration didn't do. I am 
going to give voice to my constituents who live in this place that just 
got shut down today.
  Here is a press release from a group called the Voice of the Arctic 
Inupiat.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this press release 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From the VOICE of the Arctic Inupiat, Apr. 19, 2024]

 In Unilateral NPR-A Decision, Biden Administration Continues Trend of 
                  Silencing Indigenous Elected Leaders

       Anchorage, AK.--Today, Indigenous elected leaders from 
     Alaska's North Slope are unified in their outrage over the 
     Biden administration's decision to advance its September 2023 
     Proposed Rule from the Department of Interior (DOI) to 
     ``protect'' 13 million acres of our ancestral homelands and 
     waters located within the National Petroleum Reserve in 
     Alaska (NPR-A) from the very people that live there. The 
     federal government's unilateral mandates will stymy decades 
     of progress for the Indigenous North Slope Inupiat, who have 
     stewarded their homelands, which completely encompass the 
     NPR-A, for over 10,000 years.
       ``The federal government has again excluded the Indigenous 
     North Slope Inupiat from policymaking by issuing a final rule 
     for the NPR-A that does not reflect our communities' 
     wishes,'' said Voice of the Arctic

[[Page S2916]]

     Inupiat President Nagruk Harcharek. ``This is a deeply 
     concerning trend by an administration that regularly claims 
     to be the most Indigenous friendly government on record. Yet, 
     this administration's record does not live up to its own 
     rhetoric. As a result, the final NPR-A rule will hurt the 
     very residents the federal government purports to help by 
     rolling back years progress, impoverishing our communities, 
     and imperiling our Inupiat culture. To quote one of our 20th 
     century leaders, `There's not much you can do when your own 
     government says shut up. It hurts.' ''
       Over 95% of the North Slope's tax revenue is derived from 
     taxation on resource development infrastructure. These funds 
     support essential services, like schools, health clinics, 
     modern water and sewer systems, and world-class wildlife 
     management and research supporting Indigenous subsistence 
     traditions. The proliferation of these services is directly 
     connected to significant increases in average lifespan for 
     the North Slope Inupiat from just 34 years in 1969 to 77 
     years today--the largest increase of its kind in the United 
     States over that period.
       ``The DOI seems to believe that they care about this land 
     more than we do,'' said North Slope Borough Mayor Josiah 
     Patkotak. ``The elected leaders of the North Slope spoke in 
     unison in opposition to this rule and the rulemaking 
     process.'' To refuse to listen to our voices is to say that 
     you know better--better than the people who have been this 
     land's stewards for the past 10,000 years, and who depend on 
     its continued health for their own survival. We deserve the 
     same right to economic prosperity and essential services as 
     the rest of this country and are being denied the opportunity 
     to take care of our residents and community with this 
     decision. It is insulting and, unfortunately, representative 
     of the federal government's treatment of our Indigenous 
     voices for decades.''
       The North Slope Inupiat were not consulted by federal 
     officials prior to the Proposed Rule's announcement in 
     September 2023 and learned of the new restrictions through 
     the media. By excluding regional Indigenous communities from 
     the policymaking table, the administration produced a deeply 
     flawed rule that will impose dire economic consequences on 
     the North Slope Inupiat's communities and culture.
       ``On multiple occasions, the elected leadership of the 
     North Slope shared with administration officials our unified 
     opposition to this rule,'' said Arctic Slope Regional 
     Corporation President and CEO Rex A. Rock, Sr. ``The 
     Administration has chosen to ignore the consensus opinion of 
     Indigenous organizations from our region. As stewards of the 
     Arctic for millennia, the North Slope Inupiat know our lands 
     better than anyone else. Alongside our region's tribes, local 
     governments, and Alaska Native village corporations, we will 
     continue to fight to have our voices heard.''
       Local Indigenous elected leaders made every effort to 
     highlight the negative repercussions of the Proposed Rule to 
     the White House and the DOI, but they were stonewalled 
     repeatedly by federal officials more concerned with advancing 
     their proposal than listening to the legitimate concerns of 
     Indigenous people. DOI Secretary Deb Haaland herself ignored 
     or denied at least eight meeting requests from North Slope 
     Inupiat elected leaders, including an inexcusable decision to 
     deny a meeting during a recent multi-day trip to our home 
     state of Alaska.
       ``As the North Slope's federally recognized Tribe, we have 
     experienced a severe lack of process, meaningful engagement, 
     including a lack of notice for tribal consultation something 
     we are still waiting for to this day,'' said Inupiat 
     Community of the Arctic Slope Tribal Secretary Doreen 
     Leavitt. ``As a federally recognized tribe, we are required 
     to follow federal laws and policies when engaging in the 
     government-to-government relationship, but this 
     administration has failed to follow its own policies, 
     executive orders, and department consultation guidelines.''
       ``This rule, and the process by which it has been 
     finalized, is a setback for Olgoonik Corporation and the 
     future generations who intend to continue living on the lands 
     of their ancestors in our Inupiat community of Wainwright,'' 
     said Olgoonik Corporation President and CEO Hugh Patkotak, 
     the ANCSA village corporation from Wainwright, AK and a 
     private landowner neighboring the NPR-A. ``Today's final rule 
     was not something we asked for, wanted, or support. As the 
     neighboring landowner to the NPR-A, we are frustrated this 
     rule could impede responsible infrastructure and economic 
     development opportunities. I will reiterate what I've said 
     previously, when a government entity writes rules about the 
     area in which our people live and subside, they must come to 
     us first. That didn't happen here.''
       The 24-member Board of Directors for the Voice of the 
     Arctic Inupiat, which represents the vast majority of 
     organizations on the North Slope, issued a resolution 
     condemning the DOI's failure to follow its own guidelines, as 
     well as executive orders from President Biden himself, 
     outlining the department's legal obligation to consult with 
     federally recognized tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on 
     policies affecting their lands and people. Their position is 
     shared by many Alaskans from across the state, as exemplified 
     by the Alaska State Legislature's recent passage of the 
     bipartisan HJR20, which urged the federal government to 
     reverse its September 2023 decision on the NPR-A.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Let me talk a little bit about the Voice of the Arctic 
Inupiat. It is a nonprofit organization established in 2015 by the 
North Slope region's collective elected Inupiat Native leadership. It 
is dedicated to preserving and advancing the North Slope, the Inupiat 
culture, and economic self-determination.
  It includes local governments, Alaska Native corporations, federally 
recognized Tribes, and Tribal nonprofits across that entire North Slope 
region.
  The board of directors of the Voice previously issued a strong 
resolution in opposition to the Biden administration's NPR-A rule that 
went into effect today, impacting their ancestral homelands.
  Just because it is really important, I want to give a sense of how 
many people. It is literally tens of thousands that the Biden 
administration is ignoring. The Voice of the Arctic Inupiat constitutes 
the following communities and organizations: Point Hope, Point Lay, 
Wainwright, Utqiagvik, Atqasuk, Anaktuvuk Pass, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik.
  Members include the Arctic Slope Native Association, Atqasuk 
Corporation, the city of Atqasuk, the city of Kaktovik, the city of 
Wainwright, the Inupiat community of the Arctic Slope, the Native 
village of Atqasuk, the Native village of Kaktovik, the Native village 
of Point Lay, the North Slope Borough School District, the Olgoonik 
Corporation, the Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, the Arctic Slope 
Regional Corporation, the city of Anaktuvuk Pass, the city of Barrow, 
the city of Point Hope, Ilisagvik College, the Kaktovik Inupiat 
Corporation, the Native village of Barrow, the Native village of Point 
Hope, the North Slope Borough, Nunamiut Corporation, the village of 
Wainwright, and the Tikigaq Corporation.
  That is who is represented. That is tens of thousands of my 
constituents, and they are all against this rule. And they all live in 
the region where the rule is going to impact my State. And these are 
great people, by the way--whaling captains, veterans. Alaska Natives 
serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in 
the country--patriots. They love America. They are defenders of their 
culture. They are generous. They are humble. I am so honored to 
represent these great Americans as their Senator.
  So here is her letter, and I am just going to quote from it because 
it shows just what a travesty and what a bunch of baloney the President 
of the United States and Secretary Haaland's statements were today. 
Remember, they wouldn't meet with these people--these great people--and 
now their statements say: We are doing it on their behalf.
  So let's see what they said in their press release today--the elected 
Alaska Native leaders who, supposedly, had this rule done for them by 
Joe Biden's graciousness--a big lie. Here is the president of the Voice 
of the Arctic Inupiat, Nagruk Harcharek, who is a great American.

       The federal government has again excluded the Indigenous 
     North Slope Inupiat from policymaking by issuing a final rule 
     for the NPR-A that does not reflect our communities' wishes.

  Oh, I thought Deb Haaland and Joe Biden said it did.
  He continues:

       This is a deeply concerning trend by [the Biden] 
     administration that regularly claims to be the most 
     Indigenous friendly government on record. Yet, [the Biden] 
     administration's record does not live up to its own rhetoric. 
     As a result, the final NPR-A rule [issued today] will hurt 
     the very residents the federal government purports to help by 
     rolling back years [of] progress, impoverishing our 
     communities, and imperiling our Inupiaq culture. To quote one 
     of our [great] 20th century leaders, ``There's not much you 
     can do when your own government says shut up. It hurts.''

  That is the leader of the Voice in his press statement today. But 
Secretary Haaland and President Biden just put out a press statement 
saying: We did it to help that guy.
  It is a lie--a big lie.
  Let me get to some of the other leaders in this press statement. And 
by the way, if you are a national media journalist, can you please 
quote this, one of you guys, please? New York Times, you never--you 
never--listen to the voice of the Native people. You cancel them all 
the time. Washington Post, come on. Do your job. Quote these people. 
Don't just quote Haaland and Biden. It is frustrating.

[[Page S2917]]

  OK. Here is the mayor of the North Slope Borough. So, remember, this 
is a big borough--huge, actually. Like I said, I think it is bigger 
than Montana. Josiah Patkotak--I happen to know him too. He is a great 
American, a wonderful leader. Here is what he said--the mayor, 
remember. He is elected, the borough mayor. He is an Inupiat Native. 
``The [Department of the Interior] seems to believe that they [can] 
care about this land''--our land--``more than we do.''
  Mayor Josiah Patkotak said:

       The elected leaders of the North Slope spoke--

  Native leaders--

       in unison in opposition to this rule [during] the 
     rulemaking process. To refuse to listen to our voices is to 
     say that you--

  Federal Government, Joe Biden, Secretary Haaland--

       know better--better than the people who have been this 
     land's stewards for the past 10,000 years, and who depend on 
     its continued health for [our] own survival.

  This is the mayor of the North Slope Borough. He continues:

       We deserve the same right to economic prosperity and 
     essential services as the rest of this country [as other 
     fellow Americans] and are being denied the opportunity to 
     take care of our residents and community with this decision 
     [by the Biden administration.] It is insulting and, 
     unfortunately, representative of the federal government's 
     treatment of our Indigenous voices for decades.

  So, Mr. President--and I am talking now to President Joe Biden--don't 
keep calling yourself the most important administration with Indigenous 
people. You are screwing the people of the North Slope of Alaska.
  Let me continue. This is another leader, Tribal Secretary Doreen 
Leavitt, whom I also know, from a great family.

       As the North Slope's federally recognized tribe, we have 
     experienced a severe lack of [progress,] meaningful 
     engagement, including a lack of notice for tribal 
     consultation, something we are still waiting for to this day.

  From the Biden administration.

       As a federally recognized tribe, we are required to follow 
     federal laws and policies when engaging in the government-to-
     government relationship, but [the Biden] administration has 
     failed to follow its own policies, executive orders, and 
     department consultation guidelines.

  So that is the Tribal secretary. Let me give you a couple of other 
quotes. This is from the CEO of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, 
President and CEO Rex Rock, Sr., who is a really good friend of mine, 
like a brother to me.
  He says:

       On multiple occasions, the elected leadership of the North 
     Slope shared with [the Biden] administration officials our 
     unified opposition to this rule. The [Biden] administration 
     has chosen to ignore the consensus opinion of Indigenous 
     organizations from our region.

  Remember, this rule only impacts their region. He continues:

       As stewards of the Arctic for millennia, the North Slope 
     Inupiat know our lands better than anyone else. Alongside our 
     region's tribes, local governments, and Alaska Native village 
     corporations, we will continue to fight to have our voices 
     heard.

  Well, they certainly weren't heard at all in this case. By the way, 
in their press release, they give this narrative, just so you know I am 
not making it up. Here is what they said about consultation. This is in 
their press release. I hope the New York Times writes this story.

       Local Indigenous elected leaders made every effort to 
     highlight the negative repercussions of the Proposed [NPR-A] 
     Rule to the White House and the [Department of the Interior], 
     but they were stonewalled repeatedly by federal officials 
     more concerned with advancing their proposal than listening 
     to the legitimate concerns of Indigenous people [of the North 
     Slope.]

  They continue:

       Secretary Deb Haaland herself ignored or denied at least 
     eight meeting requests from North Slope Inupiat elected 
     leaders, including an inexcusable decision to deny a meeting 
     during a recent multi-day trip to our home state of Alaska.

  Wow. Wow. No kidding. I am like getting sick to my stomach here; I am 
so mad.
  Let me end with one more quote from another great leader, the 
Olgoonik Corporation president and CEO, Hugh Patkotak, whom I also know 
well.
  He says:

       This [NPR-A] rule and the process by which it has been 
     finalized is a setback for [our] Corporation and the future 
     generations [of Alaska Natives] who intend to continue living 
     on [our lands] the lands of [our] ancestors, in our Inupiat 
     community of Wainwright.

  There are private landowners neighboring the National Petroleum 
Reserve of Alaska.
  He continues:

       Today's final rule was not something we asked for, [was not 
     something we] wanted, or [is something we] support.

  This was imposed on them. But Joe Biden says they wanted it.
  He continues:

       As the neighboring landowner to the NPR-A, we are 
     frustrated this rule could impede responsible infrastructure 
     and economic development opportunities [for our community.] I 
     will reiterate what I've said previously, when a government 
     entity writes rules about the area in which our people live 
     and subside, they must come to us first.

  In this case, they never came to them at all--complete ignoring of 
the Alaska Native voices in my State.
  ``That didn't happen here,'' he concludes.
  So let me conclude. As you can tell, I am frustrated. Senator 
Murkowski is frustrated. Congresswoman Peltola is frustrated. The whole 
State of Alaska is frustrated.
  As I mentioned, this is now 62 Executive orders and Executive actions 
exclusively focused on Alaska, from the Biden administration, to shut 
us down. The vast majority of the people I am honored to represent have 
been opposed to every single one of them, but this one is the ultimate 
insult, because the President of the United States today used his voice 
to lie to the American people and say: I am doing this on behalf of the 
Alaska Native people who live in the North Slope region.
  That is a lie. And you just heard directly, and I hope the media 
writes it. But that is a lie. It is a sad and dispiriting day for me 
and my constituents, but, in particular, for the Native leaders of 
Alaska, whose voices were canceled. Secretary Haaland never listened to 
them.
  That was a press conference we all did with the banner: ``Secretary 
Haaland, hear our voices.''
  She didn't. By the way, that is her job--trust and responsibility for 
the Native people of America. She certainly failed on that today.
  But, as I mentioned yesterday more broadly, this administration is 
fine with sanctioning Alaskans--Alaska Natives, in particular--but, 
heck, Iran, New Mexico, Venezuela, Russia, it is ``Drill, baby, drill'' 
in their parts of the world.
  Both President Biden and Secretary Haaland didn't do their 
consultations and now have put out statements insulting these great 
people by saying that what they did today was to benefit them. It is 
going to harm them. You just heard their voices.
  I am not canceling their voices. I am trying to lift up their voices. 
We all know what is really going on here, and that is President Biden 
doesn't care about these people. He is taking direction directly from 
the far left, the lower 48, ecocolonialists--what we call 
ecocolonalists--lower-48 radical environmental groups that come up and 
try to tell the Alaska Native people how to live their lives, and who 
don't give a damn about the indigenous people of the North Slope of 
Alaska, and whom the President thinks he needs for his reelection. So 
he is appeasing them.
  He is certainly not listening to my constituents. Like the dictators 
in Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing, these ecocolonialists are overjoyed by 
this decision of the Biden administration to have shut down major 
resource development areas in America, while the Alaska Native people 
who have lived in the North Slope region for thousands of years are 
despondent, discouraged, and insulted.

  So am I. But we, collectively, will continue to fight this 
administration and, when we have to, like today, expose the lies that 
they are telling to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S2918]]

  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as I explained on the Senate floor yesterday, 
the House FISA reauthorization bill, known as RISAA, has a lot of 
problems--more problems than a math book. Not only are the bill's 
purported reforms mostly fake--and where they are not fake, they are 
woefully inadequate--but the bill itself actually expands FISA. It 
expands FISA surveillance beyond where it has existed in the past.
  In fact, RISAA authorizes the largest expansion of surveillance on 
U.S. domestic soil since the passage of the Patriot Act. Egregious 
Fourth Amendment violations against U.S. citizens will increase 
dramatically if this bill is passed into law as it stands now.
  Fortunately, there is one thing standing between where that bill 
stands now and where that bill could be soon if we enact it without 
amendment, and that is the U.S. Senate.
  Under article I, section 7, the same bill has to pass both Houses 
before it can be presented to the President for signature, veto, or 
acquiescence. RISAA, as amended by the Turner amendment, would allow 
the government to compel a huge range of ordinary U.S. businesses and 
individuals and other organizations, exempting only an odd assortment 
of entities, including hotels, libraries, and restaurants, to assist 
the U.S. Government in spying on American citizens.
  Currently, the government conducts FISA 702 surveillance with the 
compelled assistance of what are known as electronic communication 
service providers, or ECSPs.
  Historically, the definition of such an entity, of an ECSP, is 
including those entities with direct access to Americans' 
communications. Think, for example, Google or Microsoft, Verizon, et 
cetera.
  This new provision would allow the government to compel warrantless 
surveillance assistance from any provider of any service that has 
access to equipment on which communications are routed and then stored.
  This would include a huge number of U.S. businesses that provide Wi-
Fi to their customers and, therefore, have access to routers and to 
communications equipment.
  Now, apparently, this provision is a result of the intelligence 
community's ire at being told by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act Court, or the FISC as it is sometimes described, that data centers 
or cloud computing do not, under existing law, have to comply with 
FISA-compelled disclosures.
  House Intelligence Committee Members claimed that it was a narrow 
fix, a narrow fix that would allow the government to compel information 
from a single service provider--just one. Now, yesterday, right here on 
the Senate floor, my friend and colleague, the distinguished senior 
Senator from the State of Virginia and the chairman of the Intelligence 
Oversight Committee in the Senate spoke about this now infamous Turner 
amendment.
  First and foremost, Senator Warner admitted in that context that even 
he thinks the amendment could have been better drafted. This is, of 
course, putting it very mildly and indeed euphemistically. And instead 
of voting on correcting that language, language that could have drastic 
implications for the privacy and the Fourth Amendment rights of 
American citizens and grave implications for all kinds of businesses 
and other organizations in America, he would rather just pass the 
faulty, flawed, broad-as-can-be language passed by the House and then 
rely on promises from the intelligence community Agencies that they 
will not abuse this new expansion of their authority.
  How does that sound to you as an American citizen? To anyone within 
the sound of my voice, do you really feel good about agreeing to that 
when you hear from one of our intelligence-gathering bodies, hey, you 
can trust us? Sure, this language is broad enough; it has got loopholes 
in it. You could drive a Mack truck, a 747, and an Airbus A380 through 
the loophole side by side; but, trust us, we won't treat it that way. 
Is that a good idea? I think not.
  In fact, the entire premise of the Constitution--not just the Fourth 
Amendment but of the Constitution itself--is ``trust but verify.'' It 
is, we are not angels, we don't have access to angels to run our 
government, so we rely on rules. We don't rely on placing faith in 
governments. Faith is reserved for very different beings than those 
occupying the halls of the U.S. Government, whether they are in the 
intelligence Agencies or otherwise.
  As a Federal lawmaker who has been lied to repeatedly throughout the 
years by various elements within our government, including some people 
within the Department of Justice and the FBI on the abuse of the 
authorities, these very same authorities that we are talking about 
here, forgive me if I am not just willing to take the word of the 
intelligence community.
  We have a responsibility to our constituents, to voters everywhere, 
to Americans of every political stripe in every part of this country to 
protect them by getting this language right, by getting it right before 
it becomes law, not after when all we could say is, oh, we are sorry. 
Or, more likely, all that Members who support that could do is try to 
help them cover it up. That is not right.
  Second, my esteemed colleague has either been entirely confused by 
the protestations of the intelligence community, or he, like the 
Department of Justice, would like to confuse you as to what this 
expansion of authority actually means, what it does.
  They are suggesting that we are offended by this expansion, merely 
because it would allow them to target more individuals. That is not the 
problem, not at all. The problem is, rather, that this amendment is so 
broadly worded that it could subject any kind of service provider, even 
one providing services such as cleaning services or plumbing services, 
to participate in the secret, compelled disclosure process on which 
section 702 of FISA relies. Now, we are not concerned with new targets 
resulting from this legislation, as they seem to be suggesting quite 
mistakenly, but, rather, with the government conscripting any and every 
kind of service provider into its compelled disclosure scheme.

  If DOJ wants to override the decisions of the FISC through an 
amendment, it must be done through an amendment tailored to precisely 
that task. Unfortunately, the Turner amendment is about as well-
tailored as a muumuu or, better said, a tent--meaning there is no 
tailoring at all. They just threw it all in there. Like Prego spaghetti 
sauce, this thing is said to contain whatever they want it to contain.
  Again, Senator Warner yesterday acknowledged that this language was 
poorly crafted, but instead of taking this as an opportunity to amend 
it, to fix it so that it did what it was actually purported to be 
intended to do and to go no further than that and to incur no 
additional grave risk of further meddling, of creating problematic 
situations for law-abiding Americans everywhere, they suggest that this 
will be a problem for 2 years and then we can fix it or that it won't 
be a problem for the next 2 years because we can have faith and trust 
that they won't abuse it and then we can fix it for real. In fact, he 
is willing to work with anyone who thinks it is a problem to fix it 
anytime--just not now. He doesn't want to fix it now.
  If the job is worth doing, it is worth doing it right now, the first 
time, not just so that we don't have to go back and correct it later 
but so that it doesn't create problems between now and 2 years from now 
when he proposes we address it for real. It is worth doing right today 
because the stakes are high. There is no reason not to fix this now and 
a lot of reasons why it will be problematic if we don't.
  Now, let's talk about the statutory deadline for FISA collection for 
a minute. The administration acknowledges that under the law, it can 
and will continue to conduct FISA 702 surveillance collection even if 
702 temporarily lapses while we debate this. That is because the FISA 
Court has approved a certification within the last week or so that 
allows the government to continue 702 collection until April 2025.
  There is a provision of FISA that you might say sort of grandfathers 
in FISA

[[Page S2919]]

Court certifications even if the law itself expires, meaning the FISA 
702 collection program can continue in its entirety, without exception, 
until April 10 or 11, 2025, even if FISA 702 temporarily lapses between 
now and then, because all that matters was that FISA 702 was active, 
intact, not having lapsed as of the moment on April 11, just over a 
week ago, when the latest certification was issued by the FISC.
  Notably, the administration does not deny this. What it is saying 
instead is that companies will bring legal challenges and that they 
might refuse to comply with the government's directives to turn over 
communications.
  What I would like to know is, what is their evidence for this? The 
fact that a few companies briefly refused--briefly--to cooperate with 
the government back in 2008 when the predecessor to section 702, the 
Protect America Act, expired?
  Now, here is the problem with that argument: Those companies back in 
2008 challenged this, and they lost in court. The FISA Court ruled in 
2008 that surveillance could continue despite expiration of the law and 
that the companies had to comply.
  So this legal issue was itself settled on those terms 16 years ago--
not only that, but much more to the point here, Congress has actually 
made the law stronger, even clearer, even more direct since then, 
stronger on the government's side since then. The FISA Amendments Act 
includes language that wasn't in the Protect America Act saying that 
the FISA Court's approval remains valid notwithstanding any other 
provision of the law, including the sunset.
  You see, that language was added for the first time in December of 
2018 in the same legislation that FISA 702 was reauthorized until 
December of 2023. When we extended the effective date of FISA 702 back 
in December of 2023, extending it until tonight at midnight, that 
language was reupped. It was enacted again. So that same language is 
intact. There is absolutely no ambiguity here.
  So it is absurd what they are saying, really. I mean, why would 
companies risk fines of $250,000 a day to make a legal argument that 
the FISA Court rejected 16 years ago? This is simply not a valid reason 
for us in the U.S. Senate to rush to enact laws as deeply flawed and as 
detrimental to American civil liberties as this one.
  All I am asking for is votes on amendments. We have a reasonable list 
of nine amendments offered by a bipartisan group of Senators reflecting 
almost every point along the ideological continuum of the Senate. If 
Chairman Warner and Senator Schumer would just stop blocking these 
votes, we could finish consideration of FISA today; we could wrap this 
up today. The problem is, they know the American people agree with us 
on these amendments. A lot of these are really, really popular. They 
agree with reforming this program to stop the warrantless surveillance 
of themselves, of the American of people.
  So certain Members of the U.S. Senate are somehow afraid that these 
votes must not be considered, lest they pass, because they are really 
afraid of what would happen if--when they did pass. Think about that 
for a minute. They don't want us to cast votes on something not in 
spite of its lack of popularity but because of its popularity. That 
should concern us all.
  To that end, I am going to try to move these things forward. Let's 
see if we can resolve this. I would love to be able to resolve this 
tonight, get it done tonight, get it over to the House of 
Representatives, which is still here, still in town. It is really 
convenient because, as they set this up a couple of centuries ago, we 
both work in the same building. They are just down the hall. I will 
personally walk it down there to them if that would help.
  So I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the motion to 
proceed--I will hold on to that for a moment, and I will continue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks for an 
additional up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. So if that really is the concern--that is the concern I am 
hearing from some colleagues. A number of colleagues on both sides of 
the political aisle have been telling me--I have been talking about the 
need to vote on amendments. What a number of them are saying is: We 
can't do this because if we do it, it is going to expire, and if it 
expires even momentarily, it is going to be Armageddon; dogs and cats 
living together in the streets; stuff right out of the Book of 
Revelations; absolute chaos and pandemonium.
  So if that is the case, let's get it done now, but it is not the 
case. FISA 702 collection is not going to end. And these same companies 
that objected in 2008 and lost when the law was much less in the 
government's favor than it is now will remember what happened, and all 
they have to do is read. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the 
language passed in 2018 and again in December of 2023 to make clear 
that that collection may and indeed will continue.
  So in the spirit of moving this forward and getting it done tonight, 
I ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to H.R. 7888 be 
agreed to.
  I ask further that the following amendments be the only amendments in 
order: Lee No. 1840, Paul No. 1829, Marshall No. 1834, Wyden No. 1820, 
Hirono No. 1831, Merkley No. 1822, Paul No. 1828, Durbin amendment No. 
1832, and Paul amendment No. 1833; further, that the Senate vote on the 
above amendments in the order listed, with the Paul amendments Nos. 
1828 and 1829 and Merkley amendment No. 1822 subject to 60 affirmative 
votes required for adoption; that upon disposition of the Paul 
amendment No. 1833, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote 
on passage of H.R. 7888, as amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative 
votes required for passage and with 2 minutes for debate equally 
divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Virginia?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
appreciate my friend the gentleman from Utah's strong feelings on this 
bill. He has been consistent repeatedly.
  I disagree. I believe 702 is one of the critical aspects of our 
national security regime. Literally 60 percent of the information that 
appears in the President's Daily Brief is obtained from section 702.
  Again, I disagree with the gentleman as well in terms of the fact 
that we have seen--prior to 2008, when the preceding bill expired for a 
brief period of time, there are entities that said: We no longer have 
to participate with the government.
  I think that is a risk we cannot afford to take with the vast array 
of challenges our Nation faces around the world.
  I would also point out--and I know that for some of my colleagues, it 
has not been enough--the Senate FISA bill--the House FISA bill has 56 
separate reforms in it. As a matter of fact, through processes that are 
already at least partially in process, we have seen the FBI's 
noncompliance rate on their own queries of 702 drop from about 30 
percent noncompliant to less than 1 percent.
  We have reforms that make sure there are no further batch queries; 
that there is not the kind of effort where people could simply have the 
right to query the 702 database without showing a reason; making sure 
as well, as critics have pointed out, that should an American who is an 
elected official, a religious figure, a journalist--a whole extra set 
of reforms there as well.
  I believe we need to proceed on this. I know both sides are 
negotiating in good faith. I think those negotiations need to continue, 
and therefore I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful words that have 
been presented by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia, who also chairs the Senate's intelligence oversight 
committee. It is unfortunate that he is unwilling to have these 
amendments even considered--especially unfortunate because it appears 
to be predicated on the risk of FISA 702 lapsing. Unless we do 
something on this in the meantime, it is going to lapse at least for a 
period of time.
  As I made clear a moment ago, the language we adopted in 2018 and 
that we reupped in December of last year,

[[Page S2920]]

2023, makes abundantly clear that FISA 702 collection can continue 
unabated through April of 2025 based on the recertification by the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court I believe on April 11. That 
is allowed to continue for 1 year following the certification as long 
as FISA 702 was still intact and not expired as of the moment of the 
certification, which it was.
  But even if that were not the case, if what we are worried about here 
is the clock, look, I have drafted--and I can't speak for anyone other 
than myself, but I have drafted and would gladly accept, if that really 
is the concern, a short-term extension of FISA 702 if by doing so that 
would make the difference between us being able to consider these 
amendments, vote on them, and send it back to the House of 
Representatives without doing so under the threat of this amorphous and 
unsubstantiated fear that FISA 702 collection is going to go dark, 
which, of course, it is not.
  But, look, once again we do find ourselves at the mercy of Senate 
Democratic leadership, with the majority leader in particular acting as 
the doorkeeper of the Senate, only allowing access to the floor to 
Senators who wish to offer their amendments and only if those 
amendments are amendments that the majority leader knows he can 
defeat. He is so determined to block amendments that he is willing to 
obstruct the quick passage of this bill.

  Now, I just offered to speed up the consideration of the FISA 
reauthorization bill passed by the House--RISAA, as it is known--that 
many of its advocates desperately want to see passed before midnight 
today in exchange for votes on nine amendments--just votes, not 
guaranteed outcomes but just votes commensurate with, consistent with, 
what the rules of the Senate already allow, with nongermane amendments 
set at 60 and germane amendments set at a simple majority threshold. 
That is really not too much to ask, but Senator Schumer and the 
chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence wouldn't take 
the deal.
  Why? Well, part of it is the time issue that I mentioned that an 
entity no less rightwing than the New York Times just earlier this week 
pointed out that argument really doesn't hold water, and if it does, I 
am happy to agree to a time agreement to extend it. The only other 
reason I can think of is there is a fear on the part of those who want 
RISAA to pass in exactly the form that the House of Representatives 
enacted it. They are afraid that some of these amendments might 
actually pass.
  Now, six of these amendments are germane to the bill. So, yes, they 
could pass with a simple majority vote. And that is exactly why some in 
this Chamber won't allow these amendments to be voted on. They don't 
want reforms to the bill. They would rather let the bill expire instead 
of letting the Senate do its work and amend the bill in a manner 
consistent with the expressed desires and, indeed, the demand from many 
quarters among the electorate--left and right, east and west, north and 
south. That is a sad commentary on where we stand in the democratic 
process today.
  Now, some might say that we can't pass these amendments because that 
would send it back to the House and then the House would have to repass 
it. But isn't that how the lawmaking process is supposed to work?
  I mean, that is exactly how article 1, section 7, contemplates it. It 
is never meant to be super easy to pass legislation for a bicameral 
legislature, and that is, in fact, what we have.
  Aren't we supposed to vote on amendments, not just for a show or a 
head pat but to improve the bill to see whether or not the House will 
take the modifications, rather than just assuming, as if we were 
adopting some sort of House legislative Chamber doctrine of 
infallibility, that what they wrote must be treated as if it were 
carved into stone and that we can't touch it. That is nonsense. That is 
not how this works. It is never how it was intended to work. It 
certainly should not be how it works in this circumstance--and not with 
a bill like this, where Americans at every point along the ideological 
continuum have concerns about this.
  Now, there are a number of us in this Chamber who feel this way. I 
have some very good friends on the other side of the aisle with whom I 
frequently disagree on a wide variety of issues but with whom I agree 
closely on this issue. We are reflective of our constituencies and of 
the American people, generally.
  And the House is actually in session this weekend. They are in the 
same building, still in session. So it is standing by ready to actually 
take up our amended bill whenever we can get it passed, but Senator 
Schumer and Senator Warner are preventing us from performing one of our 
most basic duties. We have got one or two Members who are acting as 
doorkeepers to the Senate.
  Meanwhile, the other 98 Members or so are being prevented from even 
having our improvements to the bill considered. And many of these, if 
not most of them, are pretty widely bipartisan.
  So this sort of thing, when it happens, renders us something of a 
legislative rubberstamp. It is not something that we aspire to.
  So, look, like I say, it is unfortunate that we couldn't come to an 
agreement on this. So I just ask the question: If the clock is really 
the enemy here, why not just extend it?
  I stand ready and willing, speaking for myself, to extend the clock, 
whether it is for a few days or a week or--so that we can have time to 
consider it. I am willing to do that. If we won't do that, then maybe 
we are not really hearing the real reason for the opposition.
  (Mr. BENNET assumed the Chair.)
  (Ms. BUTLER assumed the Chair.)
  (Mr. WELCH assumed the Chair.)
  (Ms. BUTLER assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Welch). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Vote on Motion

  The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez 
Masto), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from 
Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Butler
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Ossoff
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Warner
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--30

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Daines
     Hawley
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lee
     Lummis
     Markey
     Marshall
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Padilla
     Paul
     Sanders
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Tester
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Blackburn
     Capito
     Cortez Masto
     Hagerty
     Manchin
     Schmitt
     Vance
     Warnock
  The motion was agreed to.

[[Page S2921]]

  

                          ____________________