[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 10, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S946-S951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026--Motion to
Proceed
Mr. THUNE. So, Mr. President, I am going to move to proceed to
Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill
making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
Cloture Motion
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, a bill making further
consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2026, and for other purposes.
John Thune, Mike Crapo, Marsha Blackburn, Bill Hagerty,
Tim Sheehy, Roger F. Wicker, Susan M. Collins, Todd
Young, Jim Banks, Bernie Moreno, Jon A. Husted, Eric
Schmitt, John Hoeven, John Barrasso, Pete Ricketts,
Roger Marshall, Katie Boyd Britt.
Waiving Quorum Call
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
mandatory quorum call in relation to substitute amendment No. 4308 to
Calendar No. 343, H.R. 6644.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. THUNE. 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 executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I recognize the majority whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
War Powers Act
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today having just
heard the minority leader talk about the fact that the Democrats have
now filed five new War Powers Acts. Let's talk about that act and what
it all means and what the Democrats are trying to do here.
The War Powers Act was enacted in 1973. It was first used by the
Democrats. They first used it in 2018. So it sat for 45 years not being
used, and then they used it against President Trump in his first term.
There have been a total of 11 times that War Powers Resolutions have
been offered, 8 of them were from Senator Kaine and Senator Sanders,
all aimed at President Trump. We defeated one of these last week.
So now they have come out, and they have introduced five more, and
one of the Senate Democrats' loudest complainers about everything said
that it is basically symbolic. It is just symbolic what they are doing.
These are show votes. We know the record of the Democrats. Do you know
how many they introduced when Obama was President? Zero. Do you know
how many they introduced when Biden was President? Zero. Because when a
Democrat is President, Democrats forget about the War Powers Act--
ignore it completely.
So what is behind this charade of what the Democrats are doing? Well,
let me quote Senator Tim Kaine the Senator from Virginia, who was the
Vice Presidential nominee when Hillary Clinton ran for President,
because it is all about trying to control the Senate floor time. This
is what Senator Kaine said earlier this year. He said: Flood the Senate
calendar with privileged motions where I am taking the floor time away
from the Republican Party.
That is what this is all about. This isn't about advancing the needs
of the Nation. This isn't about helping people. It is not about
protecting Americans. None of that is true. It is about slowing down
the Senate, throwing instruments into the gears, all to try to create
theater--not to help protect our troops, not to help protect our
people, not to make the world safer. Not at all. That is what this is
all about. Their hand has been shown.
Iran
Mr. President, after 47 years of terrorism and torture and tyranny,
what we are seeing today that is Iran's murderous leadership, they are
dead. Their missiles, their launchers, their production sites--they
have been severely damaged. Since the start of the operation, missile
attacks from Iran have gone down by 90 percent. Over 50 of Iran's
warships have been sunk. This is a sign of success on the part of our
brave men and women in uniform.
For decades, American Presidents have pledged Iran would never
acquire a nuclear weapon. Thank goodness we have a President now in the
United States--President Donald J. Trump--who kept that promise. The
President has acted boldly; he has acted decisively; and this is where
so many others have hesitated.
What we see is Presidential courage and commitment to ensure that
Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons. What we have seen is American
peace through strength.
Iran is a terrorist regime, and that is why, today, Iran is still
terrorizing the world by trying to hold the world's energy supply
hostage. This regime is attempting to choke off the shipping of oil
through the Strait of Hormuz. In recent days, Iran has attacked oil and
gas facilities across the region and has targeted oil tankers in the
Persian Gulf. Remember, 20 percent of the world's oil supply goes
through the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, I understand why families are worried about the price of energy.
I agree absolutely with these families that I talked to this weekend in
Wyoming. This weekend I met with a group of ranchers. We were at the
Green River Valley Stockgrowers Association meeting. It was in Big
Piney.
Now, when the price of gasoline goes up, it is a concern to everyone,
and not just because of the cost of gas but also the cost of food
because it costs more to produce the food when energy prices are
higher. So we need to do everything we can to make sure we can get down
the price of energy for people who are not only having to just drive
but who produce in this Nation. And that is why Republicans are taking
action now to lessen the pain.
Fortunately, America is once again energy-dominant. It wasn't that
way in the past when American energy producers were being attacked by
the Democrats.
Wyoming is America's energy breadbasket, and we are no longer utterly
dependent on the Middle East for energy. We were in the past but not
anymore. And that is because of Republican policies that unleashed
American energy, and we have it in abundance.
America is now the No. 1 producer of oil in the world. We are setting
record numbers for production--almost 14 million barrels of oil every
day. That is more than double where we were 15 years ago.
[[Page S947]]
Now, with respect to what is happening in the Persian Gulf, there is
no question: Prices are going up, and Republicans are working to bring
gas prices back down quickly. I believe we are in a strong position to
do it because of the energy dominance agenda that we have.
At the same time, President Trump is determined to get energy flowing
again in the Middle East. He has announced that the United States will
provide risk insurance to oil tankers in the region. He also announced
that the U.S. Navy will escort cargo ships if necessary.
You know, this is very similar to what President Ronald Reagan did in
the 1980s. It worked then; it is going to work now.
The President's dynamic actions are going to get prices back down,
and what he is doing, in the long run, is going to keep prices down.
The real loser, of course, with what is happening in Iran right now is
communist China.
China is one of Iran's biggest allies and enablers. It buys most of
Iran's oil exports, and it buys them at a discount. It buys them at a
discount because it is buying them on the black market. So China has
been getting massive amounts of oil from Iran and paying a lower price
as a result.
What does Iran do? Well, it turns and uses the money to buy Chinese
air defense systems and other weapons, as well as fund terrorism. These
are the very weapons that our military is destroying and continues to
destroy today.
Operation Epic Fury is more than just a success against the world's
No. 1 sponsor of terrorism. It is a significant setback for our No. 1
adversary in the world.
President Trump is completely rewriting the global energy map, and he
is doing it in America's favor. Our Nation needs to continue to produce
more energy. That means oil and natural gas. It means coal, and the
President has been terrific in signing Executive orders on that. It
means uranium for nuclear power.
We all know affordable, available, and reliable American energy is a
source. It is a source of American strength, it is a source of American
safety, and it is a source of American prosperity.
In the meantime, Congress should take action to lower gas prices for
American families. I have introduced legislation to do that. It is
called the Pay Less at the Pump Act. It does exactly that. This
legislation repeals a harmful tax called the Superfund tax on crude
oil.
Well, where did this tax come from? Well, the Democrats--$12 billion
tax in their 2022 reckless tax-and-spending bill. Working families have
been paying the price ever since. It is unfair. It is what the
Democrats want to do. They always want to raise taxes.
My bill will lower prices at the pump and lead to more American
energy production. It is certainly good for my home State of Wyoming.
It is good for working families. It is good for our entire Nation.
Republicans promised to make America safer and more prosperous, and
we are going to continue to do both of those things.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic whip.
Iran
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was October 11, 2002--24 years ago.
There was a vote on this Senate floor. I was here. The vote was an
important one in the history of this country and maybe one of the most
important votes I ever cast as a Member of the Senate.
What was the question? The question before the Senate: Will we go to
war? Are we ready to invade Iraq?
President George W. Bush had told us that we needed to do it because
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which could obliterate our allies
and friends and eventually threaten the United States.
The vote took place at about midnight. The floor was full because of
the importance of the vote. I remember it well. Twenty-three of us
voted no--1 Republican, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and 22
Democrats. Three of us who voted no that night are still here, 24 years
later.
We invaded Iraq. What did we find? No weapons of mass destruction--
none. They searched long and hard, as the intelligence Agencies had
told us they were there and were a threat to the United States.
We stayed in Iraq for year after year after year afterward, and 4,500
American lives were lost in that war of Iraq.
I remember going to visit Walter Reed Hospital and meeting the
veterans who came back from Iraq. Most of them had lost a limb because
of IEDs. There were terrible stories of what they had endured and some
of them had scars from that war that they would never, ever live down.
There were many heroes, too, among our military. They did their duty.
Their Commander in Chief said: We are going to invade Iraq, and they
did.
One of those is my colleague in the U.S. Senate today, Tammy
Duckworth, who was a member of the Illinois National Guard and was a
helicopter pilot who was shot down over Iraq and suffered serious
wounds and injuries as a result.
I don't take anything away from the soldiers, the airmen, the
sailors, and those in the Coast Guard who did their duty. But the
reason we had a vote is because we said the American people have to
decide whether their sons and daughters will fight this war.
This isn't an idea that just comes to us new. This idea is written
right here in a little book called the Constitution of the United
States. In article I, the powers of Congress, section 8, the power to
declare war is given to Congress.
Now the Senator who just spoke, from Wyoming, is a friend of mine,
but I disagree with what he said. I do believe the American people have
a constitutional right to make the decision as to whether their
children will be called on to fight a war. That is not too much to ask.
We are now engaged in a war which, by definition, changes by the day.
There have been at least seven different explanations by this White
House as to why we are fighting this war. Yesterday, the President of
the United States, in the chaotic manner which has become so typical of
him, at one time said it is going to be a very short war in duration,
and then, later in the day, he said: We will make it a longer war. We
will fight to the finish.
We don't know where he is on so many things. He is an impulsive
Commander in Chief. I can't think of a worse combination. That is the
reality.
When Senators come to the floor and want to have an open debate about
the war in Iran, which we are currently engaged in, I will vote yes
every time. I believe the American people have an obligation to step up
and make the decision publicly as to whether or not we are going to
fight a war that is going to last for a long period of time.
The way they do that is through Senators and Members of the House. To
say that any President can take us to war anytime is foolhearted. We
learned that in Iraq. We shouldn't have to learn it again in Iran.
SAVE America Act
Mr. President, on a different topic completely, on Sunday, President
Trump said he would not sign any legislation until Congress passes a
bill that I believe threatens to disenfranchise millions of Americans--
to take away their constitutional right to vote.
Amidst a war in the Middle East and DHS funding negotiations, the
President of the United States now insists that the SAVE America Act
should be our No. 1 priority--our only priority. He made it clear.
Don't let the name of this bill fool you. The SAVE America Act would
not protect our elections. Instead, it would make it more difficult for
millions of Americans to vote.
To start with, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in the
United States. President Trump and his followers would have us believe
that it is commonplace, and that is why he ``lost the election'' a few
years ago.
Election officials are required to verify, now, under the law, all
registered voters' citizenship status. The system works. According to
the conservative Heritage Foundation--and you can look this up online--
from 2003 to 2023, 20 years--in 20 years, do you know how many non-
American citizens they caught voting in 20 years? Twenty-four. There
were 24 people who were ineligible for voting in a 20-year period of
time--20 years, 24 cases.
[[Page S948]]
The SAVE America Act would upend the past two decades of successfully
secure elections with untested, dangerous limitations on voter
registration.
Here is how it goes. You want to buy an airline ticket, and they ask
you for identification. You pull out your driver's license, if you have
one--simple. So why shouldn't we ask the same of voters? Well, there
are a couple of elements you should know.
The SAVE America Act does not allow you to use your driver's license
as identification. It doesn't allow you even if you have a REAL ID,
which you are supposed to have on your driver's license.
So the most common form of identification for Americans is ineligible
under this new law.
You have to prove where you were born. They will accept a couple--
three things. One is a passport. Do you have one? Half of Americans
don't have a passport. They don't own one. I do, but half of Americans
don't.
What would it cost for you to make sure you have a passport by the
next election in November? It is a $165 fee. That is one of the ways
that you can prove you are actually American, but it is not the only
way.
There is another way. Your birth certificate--have you seen it
lately? Do you have it in your home? Do you know where to find it?
And if you have a birth certificate which says your maiden name as a
woman--it doesn't say your married name--it doesn't work. It is
ineligible.
So this notion of proving you are an American citizen turns out to be
a lot more complicated when you actually read the proposal the
President is insisting on.
Suddenly, providing your driver's license, even if REAL ID compliant,
will no longer be enough to register to vote; nor would military IDs be
sufficient for servicemembers.
Men and women serving actively in the military, sworn to uphold the
Constitution, when they go to vote, they show their military ID and are
told by the election official, whoever it is: Sorry, that doesn't
qualify. We need a passport or we need a birth certificate.
Under this legislation, election officials would accept a limited
number of documents, and this could prevent millions of Americans from
being eligible to vote in November.
Why would the President of the United States be pushing so hard for a
bill which would make it more difficult to vote? Because he is worried
about the outcomes of this election. He thinks he is going to lose. And
he believes that more and more people who have limited access to the
identification requirements don't own a passport, don't have a birth
certificate, and are going to be ineligible to vote, and help his
chances to win the election in November. It is that simple.
Tens of millions of married women that took their spouse's last name
are going to have to spend the time and money to obtain an amended
birth certificate, if your State allows you to have one.
Why are we making it so complicated?
As I said earlier of the incidents of fraud over the last 20 years,
there are 24 cases of fraud in the United States of non-Americans
trying to vote--24 times in 20 years and in the millions and millions
of votes that have been cast.
Making America fill out more paperwork will not secure our elections.
This bill only makes it harder for women, members of our military, and
seniors to participate in the democratic process.
The President says he won't allow us to send any bill to him to be
signed into law until we pass this one, denying the right to vote to
millions of Americans in November. That is what the whole issue is
about.
Housing for the 21st Century Act
Mr. President, on a different issue, this week, the Senate is
considering the Housing for the 21st Century Act, a measure intended to
address the affordability crisis by boosting housing supplies and
making homes more affordable for Americans.
I want to speak to three amendments I filed to that bill and the
important protections they provide American taxpayers and consumers.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis spurred by lax lending
standards and subprime mortgages that went belly-up, Congress passed
the Dodd-Frank Act and created the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
Dodd-Frank placed guardrails on the financial sector to prevent such
a crisis from happening again. Unfortunately, the Trump administration
has gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while promoting
one industry over that almost exclusively.
Which industry is that? It is the cryptocurrency industry. This
administration is playing with fire--dropping lawsuits, hollowing out
enforcement, and curtailing investigations into bad actors, while
cozying up to crypto donors. If this administration refuses to act,
then it is on Congress to provide strong guardrails to protect
consumers and curb corruption.
Cryptocurrency is a highly risky, volatile, unpredictable asset. Take
the Bitcoin, the gold standard of crypto. It has fallen in value nearly
50 percent since setting a record-high last October.
And it is not just Bitcoin. The total value of the crypto market has
dropped from nearly $4.2 trillion in October 2025 to $2.36 trillion
today. All the gains from last year have been wiped out for investors
in that cryptocurrency.
Crypto has developed a troubling reputation for fraud, including
scams facilitated by crypto ATMs, which disproportionately target
senior citizens. In 2025, last year alone, the FBI received more than
12,000 complaints of crypto ATM fraud that resulted in more than $333
million in losses.
How does it work? A senior citizen gets a telephone call and is told:
You were supposed to show up for jury duty last month and you didn't
show up. Did you know there is a warrant out for your arrest?
The senior citizen says: I didn't know anything about that.
Well, that is a fact, the warrant will be served on you, unless you
pay your fine. I will tell you how you can do it and spare yourself the
embarrassment. Go to the crypto machine and feed in $10,000, and it
will all go away. The senior citizen worried that their family is going
to learn that they missed their jury duty or whatever it might be,
embarrassed at the prospect of discussing it with their kids just does
that, goes to the crypto machine.
Does that happen very often? Mr. President, 12,000 complaints of
crypto ATM fraud, $333 million in losses, seniors convinced by scammers
to plug money into the crypto machines.
And the President has used crypto to enrich himself and his family.
Fresh off returning to the Oval Office for a second term, Donald Trump
launched a meme coin that generated more than $280 million in profit.
President Trump issued a meme coin that generated more than $280
million in profit since he was reelected as President.
And his family's crypto firm World Liberty Financial has brought in
approximately $1 billion in revenue, the family firm. President Trump's
crypto dealings reportedly account for more than 20 percent of his net
worth. In 1 year, President Trump and his family have increased the
family fortune to the tune of $1.4 billion, primarily through crypto.
My first amendment would crack down on what some have called ``the
getaway vehicle'' for criminals. I am talking about crypto ATMs. You
might not know that they are there, but the next time you go to a
grocery store and look at an ATM machine, look what is next to it; it
is a crypto ATM machine so you can funnel money in and buy Bitcoins. I
am talking about crypto ATMs that are all over America, 30,000 of
them--30,000 of these machines. If you look at your gas station or your
grocery store, you are going to see them. They are being used by
criminals to cheat Americans, primarily senior citizens, out of their
life savings.
I have spoken before about how scammers are targeting Americans,
impersonating their banking institution that they can trust, and
scamming them into putting their hard-earned money into these crypto
ATMs.
Because of the untraceable and anonymous nature of crypto, once the
victim deposits cash into a crypto ATM, sends it to the scammer's
wallet, it is nearly impossible to recover.
My amendment would require crypto ATM operators to register with the
Treasury Department and report their kiosk locations. It also would
require
[[Page S949]]
crypto ATM operators to provide mandatory disclosure and fraud
warnings, impose daily transaction limits, and provide refunds for
customers who were scammed.
I have also filed an amendment that would prevent crypto companies
from receiving a taxpayer-funded bailout. Imagine, these crypto
operations don't pay deposit insurance like banks and savings and loans
and others. And when it comes to a crisis like the one we had in 2008,
that insurance becomes important to saving those institutions.
Currently, crypto is considering asking for that kind of protection
without paying any insurance premiums. If and when the crypto crash
occurs, American taxpayers should not be the ones on the hook for these
crypto ventures that are owned by President Trump and his family.
Mr. President, 2 in 3 Americans oppose a government bailout of the
crypto industry, while only 9 percent support one.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about all the 80-20
issues; this is a 90-10 issue. There should never be a taxpayer bailout
for crypto.
I have also raised serious concerns about crypto with the Trump
administration exposing the retirement accounts of millions of America
to crypto. You cannot discuss retirement security in the United States
without mentioning Social Security.
While the Social Security trust funds can only invest in government
bonds, I have filed an amendment to make it explicitly clear that the
trust funds cannot currently and can never invest in crypto. Social
Security ensures our seniors have food on their table and clothes on
their backs. It is backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, the safest asset in
the world, because of the full faith and credit of the United States
backing it up.
If the trust funds were exposed to the volatility of the crypto
market, the financial security, under Social Security, that our seniors
depend on could be pulled out from under them, rising and falling with
the swings of this risky asset.
Here is the bottom line: Do we want to expose the bedrock promise of
Social Security to risky assets like crypto?
If your answer is no, I hope you will support my amendment. It is
past time we put guardrails in place to stop fraud and corruption in
the crypto industry.
When the GENIUS Act came up for a vote last year, I voted no because
it gave Congress' blessing for President Trump and his family to
further enrich themselves with very little protection for consumers. As
Congress considers market structure legislation, I intend to submit
these amendments to the bill to fully place meaningful guardrails in
this industry.
The American consumer is not aware of what is going on with crypto;
it is time for them to open their eyes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Senator from Oregon.
Nomination of Lt. Gen. Joshua M. Rudd
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, yesterday, I rose to explain my opposition
to the nomination of Joshua Rudd to be the Director of the National
Security Agency and to lead Cyber Command. During his hearing, General
Rudd failed to demonstrate a bare minimum understanding of the
constitutional limits on NSA activities.
His responses to questions about privacy rights and transparency were
deeply troubling. He wouldn't commit to the Agency's past policy of not
purchasing and using very sensitive location data on Americans, and he
wouldn't rule out secretly violating public policies and guardrails on
NSA activities.
While I admire the nominee's many years of military service, he does
not have a background in national signals intelligence activities or
cyber operations that would qualify him for this position.
Now, he is not the first unqualified nominee. In fact, there are
currently no qualified, Senate-confirmed officials in charge of cyber
security.
The country faces serious cyber security threats. This is truly a
five-alarm fire. Yet the President keeps nominating officials to key
cyber security roles who have less knowledge of the topic than an
undergraduate computer science major.
General Rudd is the wrong person for the job, and I oppose his
nomination. But if the Senate confirms General Rudd despite his lack of
familiarity with basic constitutional principles, it is all the more
essential--truly important--that the Senate pass legislation to protect
against surveillance abuses.
So this morning, I am going to take just a few minutes to discuss why
the government's surveillance activities are dangerously broad and how
Congress can protect the privacy of Americans and protect the security
of our country.
I intend this morning to talk about three issues that are going to
come before Senators in the next 3 weeks. Let me repeat that. These
three issues will be before Senators very shortly. They are section 702
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, surveillance of Americans
by ICE, and the dangerous ways that artificial intelligence can be used
to surveil American citizens.
As most of my colleagues know, there is a section in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act--it is section 702--that expires in just
a few weeks. Congress is going to soon debate its reauthorization.
I have been doing this for a while, and I know how it usually plays
out. Opponents of reforming section 702 don't want a real debate where
Members can decide for themselves which reform amendments to support.
So what happens is there is an inadequate bill that is brought up,
magically shows up a few days before the authorization expires, and
Members are told: Holy Toledo, there is just no time to do anything
except pass that bill. And it is always said that if the Senators vote
for any amendments, the program dies, and terrible things that we don't
want to have happen will all happen, and it will be the Senators'
fault.
So this morning, I want to make sure that people know you shouldn't
buy into this. It is a disservice to our constituents and to the
constitutional responsibilities we all have. The Senate can have a
debate. The Senate can consider amendments on the merit.
One more point I will return to later: Senators should not accept
secret interpretations of the legislation they vote on.
The country needs to have an open debate about the surveillance
authorities that directly affect the privacy and constitutional rights
of Americans, and it is a debate that shouldn't exclude the American
people.
So, first, let's lay some groundwork for this discussion. This
important law is section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. It authorizes a warrantless surveillance program. The FISA Court
approves the overall program, but it doesn't review the individual
targets. Picking targets is up to the government. Targets do not have
to be suspected terrorists or spies; anyone the government believes
possesses foreign intelligence information is fair game.
The targets are supposed to be foreigners, but there are lots of
them. The most recent public data was for 2024 when there were more
than 291,000 targets, which is more than triple what it was 10 years
before.
Some of these targets are going to be talking to Americans, and the
communications of Americans are going to be collected by the
government. In many cases, these will be law-abiding Americans having
perfectly legitimate conversations. Journalists, foreign aid workers,
people with families overseas all could have their communications swept
up in the surveillance just because they were talking to somebody
outside the country.
We don't know exactly how many Americans' communications are swept up
by what the government calls incidental collection. That is because the
government refuses to tell us. But we know it is large; we know it is
increasing. So the question Congress needs to consider is how to target
foreign threats while protecting the rights of Americans.
Ben Franklin said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security
are going to lose both and deserve neither. But smart policies, which
are something I feel particularly strong about, give you both. They are
not mutually exclusive. Liberty and security--you can have both, but
you need smart policies.
With that principle in mind, the best way to protect the rights of
Americans
[[Page S950]]
is to ensure the government can't conduct searches for Americans'
private conversations in all that 702 data without a warrant. Smart
policies should include certain exceptions to the warrant requirement,
and the law should allow for warrantless searches in emergencies, but
as a general matter, the government shouldn't be allowed to comb
through all that collection of Americans' communications without court
oversight.
For years, there has been jaw-dropping abuse of these searches. That
has been done especially by the FBI. Some internal administrative
changes were made as a result. Two years ago, when Congress last
reauthorized 702, opponents of reform made a big deal about those
changes. But let me give you an example of how the changes from the
2024 reauthorization bill fell short.
There is a category of searches that is considered especially
sensitive. It includes searches for elected officials, Presidential
appointees, Governors, political candidates, American political
organizations and the people who lead them, as well as media
organizations and journalists. All are involved in this area.
So what did the last reauthorization bill do to ensure that the
government wasn't abusing its authority by combing through all those
communications to look for journalists and Governors and Senators? The
so-called big reform was to require the approval of the Deputy FBI
Director for those sensitive searches.
Until 2 months ago, the Deputy FBI Director was Mr. Dan Bongino. As
most of my colleagues know, he is a longtime conspiracy theorist who
has frequently called for specious investigations of political
opponents. This is the man whom the President and the U.S. Senate put
in charge of these very sensitive searches.
His replacement is Deputy Director Andrew Bailey, who is another
highly partisan election denier who recently directed a raid on the
Georgia election office to justify the conspiracy theories of the Trump
administration.
I don't know about my colleagues, but their so-called reform doesn't
make me feel better. I think we are all going to feel worse. But it is
even worse than it appears. The FBI has refused to even keep track of
all the sensitive searches the Deputy Director considered. The
inspector general urged the FBI to just put this information into an
easy spreadsheet, and they refused to do that. That is exactly how much
the FBI does not want oversight.
There are a lot of other reforms that are desperately needed to 702.
Later this week, I will be introducing bipartisan, bicameral
legislation to enact critical reforms to government surveillance--
including 702. I am not going through all of the reforms today, but
this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. And I especially want to point
to a new provision of 702 that urgently needs to be repealed.
Two years ago, during the last reauthorization debacle, something
really bad happened. Over in the House, existing surveillance law was
changed so that the government could force anybody with access to
communications to secretly collect those communications for the
government. As I pointed out at the time, that could mean anybody
installing or repairing a cable box or anybody who was responsible for
a Wi-Fi router. It was a jaw-dropping expansion of authorities that
could end up forcing countless ordinary Americans to secretly help the
government spy on their fellow citizens.
When the provision was introduced, the Biden administration knew it
had a problem. This was such a dramatic and disturbing expansion of
section 702 that the Biden Justice Department had to promise it would
only use these authorities in certain narrow situations.
My colleague from Virginia, who is my seatmate on the committee,
acknowledged that the law as written was badly flawed, and he vowed, to
his credit, to fix this overbroad provision at the earliest
opportunity. Unfortunately, it has not been fixed yet.
The Biden administration refused to tell the public when it would use
this dangerous, incredibly broad provision. The Trump administration
certainly isn't providing any details about it. So Congress isn't
having a real, informed debate about this staggering provision and
whether this vast and dangerous expansion of surveillance is justified.
I can tell you my view. This expansion of the government's authority
is not justified, and even if it were narrowed to the circumstances
that the Biden administration described in secret, I believe it is time
to get rid of the provision.
But here is the other thing: Whatever secret promise the Biden
administration made about using these unchecked authorities with
restraint, the current administration isn't going to feel bound by
that. So whatever the previous administration intended to accomplish
with the provision, there is absolutely nothing preventing the current
administration from conscripting the cable guy, tech support men and
women, and others to secretly spy on Americans.
The past 15 years have shown that unless Congress has an open debate
about surveillance, the laws that are passed cannot be assumed to have
the support of the American people. That is fundamentally wrong. Right
now, the government is relying on secret law with regard to section 702
of FISA.
I already mentioned that the provision that was stuck into the last
reauthorization bill could allow the government to force all sorts of
people to spy on their neighbors. I have explained the details of how
the Biden administration chose to interpret it and how the Trump
administration is going to interpret it and that it is all a big
secret. Americans have the right to be confused and angry that this is
how the government and Congress choose to do business.
There is another example of secret law related to section 702, and it
affects the privacy rights of the American people. For years, I have
asked various administrations to declassify it. Thus far, they have all
refused, although I await a response from DNI Gabbard. I strongly
believe that this matter should be declassified and that Congress needs
to debate it openly before 702 is reauthorized. The fact is, when it is
eventually declassified, the American people are going to be stunned
that it took so long and that Congress had been debating this authority
with insufficient information.
Now I want to briefly explain why our coalition is attaching all of
these other reforms to a section 702 bill. The reason is that no matter
how concerned the public is about abusive surveillance, trying to
address this problem with a piecemeal approach--pushing one specific
reform after another--would be impossible. So a comprehensive approach
that attaches these reforms to legislation reauthorizing 702 is the
most effective way to deal with the problems.
So let me stress, if you are concerned about ICE and CBP and how they
are collecting information on Americans--even as they terrorize our
towns and cities--supporting our surveillance reform legislation is the
one way you can do something specific about it now.
For example, our bipartisan reform bill takes on an issue I have been
working on for years. It is the government's purchase of private
information on the American people from one of the sleaziest industries
in America, which is the one run by the data brokers. Both ICE and CBP
have purchased and used Americans' location data--highly sensitive
information--that can reveal what medical clinics you go to, what
protests you are involved with, and the friends and family you see.
The Agencies have made various arguments to justify collecting these
records, including the false assertion that all Americans have actually
consented to location data being collected.
I want to emphasize that the government, in these cases, bought the
records of millions of Americans' movements without any warrant or
court oversight whatsoever. If the FBI wants to wiretap just one
person's phone or to obtain a week's worth of location information
about where that person went from a phone company, the Agency would
need to go to a judge and justify the surveillance. That is what the
Constitution requires. But if the government wants to buy that very
same location data about millions of Americans, the government
maintains that it doesn't need anything except a credit card.
In 2023, it was forced to shut down a program to purchase the
location data of our people due to scrutiny that had been done by the
inspector general and Congress, but last year, there were
[[Page S951]]
public reports that it had resumed this dangerous practice, and ICE is
currently stonewalling congressional oversight on it.
Location data is not the only sensitive information on Americans that
the government is purchasing without a warrant. Web browsing
information--what websites Americans visit--is obviously very private.
Just imagine the government looking over your shoulder all the time
when you are using your phone. It is almost equivalent to spying on
your thoughts. That is what happens when the government gets together
with these sleazy data brokers. And it is not just ICE; the Pentagon,
the IRS, Customs and Border Protection, the FBI, the Secret Service--
all of them have purchased Americans' location information or web
browsing information.
The government's purchase of all of this private information ought to
be enough, but I want to wrap up by talking about how artificial
intelligence could be used on these records.
Artificial intelligence tools are designed to comb through enormous
datasets, find patterns, and identify behaviors of interest to the
government. A few years ago, Americans may have believed that their
personal information would be overlooked in an ocean of data. Now we
know AI can be looking at everybody.
I have been warning for nearly a decade that data available for
purchase from companies was just as sensitive as information the
government collects directly. Creating AI profiles of Americans based
on that data represents a chilling expansion of mass surveillance that
must not be allowed.
As my colleagues are aware, the Trump administration decided to
single out one company over the weekend for punishment because the
company didn't want its artificial intelligence tool used for the mass
surveillance of Americans. The company's CEO said that if the
government's purchase of Americans' locations, web browsing, and other
sensitive data is currently legal, it is only because the law has not
yet caught up with the rapidly growing capabilities of AI.
That in a nutshell is the problem our bipartisan legislation will
fix--update the law to current realities and stop the government from
buying data on Americans from sleazy data brokers. It has to be
addressed in a section 702 reauthorization bill which Congress will
actually consider, because if legislators don't seize this opportunity,
technology will just get further and further ahead of the law, and
Americans will rightly have little faith that Congress is interested in
protecting their privacy.
Now, with this thought, I am going to close. We are considering a
nominee to be the Director of the NSA who refused to answer whether the
government needs a warrant to spy on people in the United States. He
would not commit to maintaining the NSA's policy of not purchasing
location data without a warrant. He wouldn't commit to telling the
American people if the NSA violates the policies and guardrails of
successive administrations that were made public. This nominee wouldn't
even promise to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee about these
matters.
I am urging my colleagues to oppose this nomination. Regardless, I am
urging that the issues related to privacy and the rule of law raised by
this nomination are considered in comprehensive surveillance reform
legislation.
I am part of a bipartisan coalition, and our bipartisan, bicameral
bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act, is going to be introduced
shortly. I would be glad to talk to colleagues, regardless of their
party and philosophy, about it, and I urge them to support the
legislation.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to suspend the
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCORMICK. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall vote begin
immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________