C-Span2
Mr. President, I am here to say happy 40th birthday to C-SPAN2, broadcasting democracy in the Senate to the American people.
I have to confess to you that, 40 years ago today, I voted no on the Senate being televised. I thought it would hurt the decorum of the U.S. Senate.
Whether it has hurt the decorum of the U.S. Senate or not, I am not going to make a judgment on that today. But I do tell you that, on reflection, I am glad that the Senate is televised to make government more real to the American people.
So I guess I would have to confess that I cast the wrong vote 40 years ago.
So now, for four decades, C-SPAN2 has served as an essential conduit between the U.S. Senate and the American people. Since its launch on June 2, 1986, C-SPAN2 has offered uninterrupted, unfiltered access to the debates, the votes, and the deliberations of the U.S. Senate so people in this country that watch the Senate on C-SPAN2 get the news unfiltered, directly to you, the American people.
The American people don't have to rely on biased journalists to get their news when it might really be distorted. And when I say ``distorted,'' too often at my town meetings in Iowa--and I had 12 of them last week--I hear people say: How come you can't get along? In other words, Republicans and Democrats don't seem to be talking to each other.
I always try to explain that there is more partisanship than there should be, but I also say there is not as much as you, as an Iowan, actually see because you see on television Members of the Senate always disagreeing. When there is agreement, you never see much about it.
So this is your opportunity to listen in the U.S. Senate, to get it unbiased, in a way that you would not from journalists.
Also, C-SPAN2 operates without any public funding or any government oversight. The continued success of C-SPAN2 is due to the funding that is provided by platform operators such as cable, satellite, and now even streaming services. These platforms should continue to make delivery of C-SPAN2 a priority, and I am sure they will because Americans then can watch Congress in action in realtime.
So I say once again: Happy birthday, C-SPAN2. Your coverage of the Senate helps democracy work and provides a true public service.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, as we begin our proceedings this morning, I want to take a moment to recognize a milestone here in the Senate.
On this day 40 years ago, C-SPAN broadcast the U.S. Senate for the very first time. On June 2, 1986, the American people were able to turn on their
And over the last 40 years, C-SPAN hasn't missed a beat. It has captured 43,830 hours of Senate proceedings, broadcast 169,000 speeches by hundreds of U.S. Senators who have served in these Halls, and captured the moments--large and small, historic and human--that make up the U.S. Senate.
On that first day 40 years ago, the Senate was considering an education bill, and what a fitting topic of discussion for C-SPAN's first day covering this Chamber. Education is C-SPAN's entire mission.
C-SPAN urges its viewers to ``make up your own mind.'' And for 40 years, C-SPAN has enabled the American people to make up their own minds about what we do here in the Senate.
It has helped countless American students see the legislative process in action, and it has ensured that what happens here is lost neither to the day's news cycle nor to history.
And I trust that C-SPAN will continue to offer the American people a front row seat to the Senate for many decades to come.
Mr. President, C-SPAN captures a lot of our work here in Washington, but just as important is the work that Senators do back in our States.
Last week, the cameras were off here in the Chamber, and Senators were back at home hearing from the people that we all represent.
I spent last week back home in South Dakota traveling around my State and hearing directly from South Dakotans. I had a chance to catch up with mayors of Webster and Lennox.
Mayor Danny Fergen of Lennox took me around the city. He showed me new housing developments in Lennox. I saw that city's infrastructure needs, and we went down Main Street to a few businesses--including El Mariachi restaurant.
I also spent some time up in northeastern South Dakota. As I mentioned, I met with the mayor of Webster Mike Grosek, and I dropped by a few local businesses that are benefiting from the permanent tax relief Republicans delivered in the Working Families Tax Cut.
I went to the Three22 Kitchen & Cocktails in Aberdeen and saw the Main Street expansion that the owners had undertaken, including the first rooftop lounge in the city.
I visited ``Quite Possibly the Coolest Store Ever!''--the Hitch'n Post--a family-owned business that has been an icon in Aberdeen for over 50 years and was recently named one of America's best western retailers.
And then over at the Meathouse in Andover, I had a conversation about the local agricultural economy with the ranchers who run that business and who take pride in their home-raised beef.
I have always valued the opportunity I have had lately to spend some time hearing from South Dakota's young people. This past month, I have been in classrooms in Winner and Rapid City and Sioux Falls, and we have had a number of school groups visiting Washington, DC, as well.
I attended the Dakota Relays at the beginning of May and then the State track meet this past Friday.
And last week, I had the privilege of speaking at Boys State at Northern State University and then at Girls State at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion.
It is always a pleasure to get to talk with young people and to hear what is on their minds and what their dreams are for their futures. And I suppose that is because, on any given day here in the Senate, that is what our focus as Republicans boils down to: cultivating a brighter future for young people and for all Americans, a future that is secure with greater prosperity and more opportunities to get ahead.
That is our focus here in the Senate, and it is what we continue to work toward every day.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, well, first, on the announcement of an attempted appointment of Bill Pulte: Trump's appointment of Bill Pulte to serve as Acting Director of National Intelligence is another Trump low. A guy who can file such baseless, political, and outrageous charges against political officeholders he doesn't like can't be entrusted to protect our national security. Pulte has already proven himself willing to act as a Trump puppet, and now Donald Trump wants to put him in charge of the Nation's intelligence, a place where integrity is demanded? A man who doesn't have an ounce of integrity is being put in that position, which demands total integrity, by Donald Trump.
The Director of National Intelligence is supposed to speak truth to power, but Donald Trump appears to have chosen Pulte because he speaks power's truth instead. Americans need an intelligence chief loyal to the facts, the intelligence, the security of the Nation, not the political interests of one man.
At a time of growing threats around the world, this nomination raises a fundamental question: Is the President looking for independent intelligence or political validation? His fiascos in foreign policy, most recently in Iran, show he doesn't listen to facts or intelligence. He is going to get in even more trouble with Bill Pulte in this very sensitive job.
The intelligence community exists to protect the American people, not to serve as another instrument of Presidential retribution.
Mr. President, now, on the slush fund, the only way to ensure Trump's $2 billion, taxpayer-funded giveaway to Trump's MAGA allies never sees the light of day is to abolish it by law. The only way to make sure that Trump's slush fund never sees the light of day is to abolish it by law, not to trust the word of a corrupt President who stands to benefit the most from it.
The same goes for the license Trump gave himself and his family to commit tax fraud with impunity. Any promise from Trump is worthless, and when it comes to ending his blatantly corrupt slush fund or his blank check to commit tax fraud, Trump barely promised anything in the first place. That is why the first amendment I will offer on the Republican reconciliation bill will be to ban Trump's slush fund permanently and to revoke his family's free rein to commit tax fraud forever. Trump doesn't get to make off with at least $100 billion his family owes on taxes, and he doesn't get to use your tax dollars to pay off the MAGA right--not on our watch.
Again, the only way to ensure his $2 billion, taxpayer-funded giveaway never sees the light of day is to abolish it by law, not to trust the word of the corrupt President who stands to benefit the most from it.
We need to set the record straight about what exactly the Trump administration did and did not commit to yesterday. Trump's Department of Justice put out a statement saying that it would abide by the recent court order that temporarily blocked Trump from using Americans' tax dollars to pay off his MAGA loyalists and billionaire friends and violent insurrectionists who maimed our Capitol Police on January 6.
Let's be clear. The Trump administration hasn't made any commitment to kill the slush fund permanently, nor has it pledged to revoke the broad immunity from tax audits that Trump granted himself and his family.
Can you believe it, America? Trump and his family still get to cheat their way out of paying their taxes and then use your tax dollars to line their pockets and give handouts to his billionaire cronies, criminals, and cop-killing insurrectionists?
Trump's slush fund is corruption at its absolute worst. America has seen a lot of corruption from this administration, but this corruption--I don't think we have seen anything like it in our entire history. Trump shook hands with himself, suing his own government, and then settling the case so he could steal your tax dollars, America--all at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet amid skyrocketing costs.
What do Republicans have to say? What do they have to say about this? What are our Republican colleagues saying about this god-awful slush fund? Well, after the DOJ's meek statement yesterday, one of my colleagues across the aisle said Trump's slush fund is ``a moot point.'' A moot point? Trump's far-right radical rewards program is anything but moot. Trump and the GOP didn't suddenly find their conscience. They simply hit a temporary roadblock. If Senate Republicans are truly concerned about Trump's corruption, then prove it. Ban the slush fund by law permanently.
If Republicans revisit their reconciliation bill this week, as I said, the very first amendment I will offer will be to ban Trump's slush fund permanently and revoke his family's free rein to commit tax fraud.
The corruption is so grievous that toothless Republican guardrails won't cut it. Democrats won't settle for half measures. We are going to kill this slush fund permanently, and we are going to bury it and bury it deep.
Mr. President, on Rubio coming to the Hill, Secretary Rubio has a lot to answer for when he testifies before the Senate today--on China, on giving kickbacks to Russia, on Ukraine, on withholding arms to Taiwan, on this administration's ridiculous rhetoric on NATO, on the disastrous gutting of foreign aid that is leaving Americans vulnerable to one infectious disease after another, on Iran, on foreign corruption. The list goes on and on and on.
And today, with all these questions, all these bungles, all these terrible--terrible--missteps that hurt America--today will be the first time Marco Rubio, the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, testifies before the American people since the start of Trump's disastrous war with Iran--first time. The war has been going on over 60 days. He is finally coming to the Hill to talk about it.
Yesterday, Trump said he finds the peace negotiations with Iran ``very boring.'' And that he ``couldn't care less'' if they are over.
I want to tell you, Donald Trump, who cares: our troops who are in harm's way; their families; Americans across the country who are sick of paying the immense costs of this disastrous war, including paying $4.50 a gallon at the pump. Secretary Rubio needs to answer whether he cares about ending this war.
I urge my colleagues as well to ask Rubio to address recent reports that the Trump administration left a loophole open for the past year and a half that allowed China to acquire, potentially, hundreds of thousands of cutting-edge American AI chips. These chips are essential to America's national security and to our economic competitiveness, but Chinese companies linked to the Chinese military have funneled them through foreign firms with seeming impunity.
By failing to protect this vital technology, the Trump administration has threatened our lead in the AI race and weakened our national security. Either the Trump administration failed to identify the loophole, suggesting gross incompetence, or kept it open willfully, which is very, very dangerous.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Kuhlman nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, last Monday was Memorial Day. It is a day that all around the country we honor those who gave their lives so that we can be free.
Some say Memorial Day is the saddest day of the year.
Our colleague Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas is a combat veteran, and he served as part of the Old Guard at Arlington National Cemetery. He has written a book. It is a bestselling book on the New York Times Best Sellers list. It is called ``Sacred Duty.'' In that book, he points out that Memorial Day is not the saddest; it is the most noble day of the year. They are powerful words, and they were on my mind last Monday in different cemeteries around the State of Wyoming.
I started in Douglas, WY, as I always do, at 7 a.m. They do a flag- raising ceremony. They take it all the way up to the top and then bring it down to hold its final position at half-staff. Then I went to Lander, WY, to the Mount Hope Cemetery, and then joined the ceremonies in Ten Sleep, WY. These are sacred places, and each year--Memorial Day--as I travel the State, I try to talk about something I have seen happen since the last year, because in each of these cemeteries, people gather in respect and in reverence.
We do this all around the country. You know, in Wyoming, I try to add a special touch to what has happened in the last year because we have tens of thousands of servicemembers and veterans and military families who serve our country, and they know what it means to serve and sacrifice on behalf of the American people.
This year, I talked about SSG Tyler Pickett from Saratoga, WY. I spoke about him earlier this year on the floor. In the year 2000, 26 years ago, he enlisted in the U.S. Army after graduating from Saratoga High School. It was something he had looked forward to doing all of his life. He became part of the legendary 10th Mountain Division.
He was deployed to Iraq. On June 8, 2008, he was killed by a suicide bomber in Kirkuk, Iraq, and the bomb, of course, was supplied by Iran. Sergeant Pickett was 28 years old.
I spoke at his services in Saratoga in 2008. He was a brave and beloved son of Wyoming. It is almost 18 years to the day since Sergeant Pickett gave his life for our Nation.
Earlier this year, I spoke with his mother Sheri Peterson. She is a Gold Star mother. She told me that after 18 years, she finally feels some relief in the loss of her son and the weight that her son's death has put upon the family. She said it was because now the Ayatollah Khamenei is dead, the person who is responsible for supplying the weapon that killed her son. She said: When you speak with President Trump, please tell him ``thank you'' from our family.
This is a Gold Star mother speaking. She knows that we have a President who remembers our fallen members not only with words but by actions on behalf of our Nation.
Stories like Sergeant Pickett's remind us of the cost of freedom and the debt we owe to these fallen heroes.
This year is the 250th anniversary of the founding of our Nation. We are about to celebrate that 250th birthday. Exactly 1 month from today, July 2, is the anniversary of when the Continental Congress officially voted to declare our independence. The Declaration of Independence was adopted 2 days later. That is why we celebrate the Fourth of July. That is the day our Nation was born.
America's central idea, the Declaration of Independence, is the root of every American idea. This is the document. This is instantly recognizable all around the world. You put it up, and people are like: Oh, there it is.
In many ways, it is a work of art, it is a masterpiece, and it beautifully expresses what we as America stand for. It has set us as a nation on a course of freedom, liberty, and greatness.
We don't read it enough. We really should. The central sentence is that we are ``endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.''
``Unalienable.'' That single world sums up the heart of this great American experiment. It means that we the people are the source of the power, and the power is on loan from us, the people, to the government, not the other way around.
Our Founding Fathers also deeply believed in a Creator. God is mentioned four separate times in this Declaration of Independence. You can't explain the majesty of this great country without the Supreme Being.
The Declaration of Independence is an inspiration to every generation of American. It belongs to us--to all of us.
You know, when we think about the Declaration of Independence, we think about freedom, and we think about liberty. A lot of people use those words interchangeably. They say: Oh, it is the same thing.
But it is not. Freedom and liberty are not interchangeable. Their meanings are different. Freedom is the ability to think and to speak and do what we want. Liberty refers to the rights and the privileges granted and protected by our laws. Thus, the difference.
I would say today, let us be worthy of our history and of our heroes and of our heritage. Let us live out the spirit of 1776. Let us carry on that spirit for the next generation. As we prepare to celebrate the 250th birthday of our Nation, I remain optimistic that our Nation's best days are ahead.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, on March 15, 2026, I made public an FBI agent's interview statement. That agent was involved in a conspiracy called Crosswind, which was a code-named investigation into former Trump adviser Walid Phares. That statement, made under penalty of perjury, exposes widespread abuses within then-Special Counsel Mueller's operation.
That operation is kind of history, but it leads us up to something more current. For example, the statement noted that multiple personnel were removed from then-Special Counsel Mueller's team because they ``saw concerning things and voiced their concern''--that word ``concerning'' meaning they knew something wasn't right going on in Special Counsel Mueller's team investigating the whole thing about Russia's involvement in the first election of Trump.
That statement--remember, that statement was made just this year-- noted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe referred to President Trump in a derogatory manner. In other words, were they unbiased in their investigations? And I think I will show you where they weren't very unbiased in that investigation.
A Justice Department attorney wanted to remove and water down McCabe's negative tone about Trump from McCabe's interview summary, so it looks to me like another coverup attempt.
The statement--and again, this is an FBI agent who served on Mueller's team and was under oath when he gave this statement--noted that Mueller's right-hand man Aaron Zelinsky exhibited clear bias against President Trump. And that political infection at the top trickled down to everyone else, because this FBI agent said the Mueller team created throughout the office space characters and cartoons that were very anti-Trump.
To wrap it all up in a bow, the FBI agent's statement discusses violations of security protocol, mishandling of classified information, and more potential FISA abuses.
For example, one Justice Department prosecutor is alleged to have brought a classified notebook to a meeting without the proper carrying bag. This prosecutor also was alleged to have traveled from her house, which means she had stored classified information outside of a classified facility.
This is the same Justice Department that prosecuted Trump for allegedly mishandling classified information. Remember, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, all in an attempt to ruin Trump politically, financially, and, of course, with the end goal that they were hoping to put him in prison.
Of course, the partisan media has neither reported these jaw-dropping findings nor the blatant and potential criminal FISA abuses. The FBI agent said the FISA on Crosswind shouldn't have been renewed, and other FBI personnel held that very same view. The agent's statement said: ``As the investigation progressed, the facts that we originally thought meant one thing were learned to mean something else. Per reporting from another agency and what we learned from the investigation up to the point of the third renewal''--
Meaning the FISA renewal--
``there were no corroborating facts that tied Crosswind to certain facts that we thought were originally true.''
This FBI agent--again, I want to remind you that he was under oath when he gave this statement. The agent then ``pointed out these specific corrections to the application''--meaning the FISA application--``in numerous instances throughout the FISA-certified copy process. This was circa 2018. I sent these edits to Kevin Clinesmith, who said, `We can't send this to DOJ.'''
That is the same Clinesmith who admitted to criminally altering an email connection with a FISA application during Crossfire Hurricane, which, as we all know, was yet another effort to get Trump and his associates, even if it meant breaking the law to get Trump.
The FBI agent also testified about Crosswind that there were overzealous thoughts and bias that permeated the investigation and a ``let's get him'' attitude.
Even with these known material defects and objections to filing the FISA renewal, then-Special Agent Walter Giardina ``signed it as Case Agent,'' according to this FBI agent's statement under oath.
If the statements by this FBI agent are true and accurate, the FISA application process described was a false filing intended to improperly target a known innocent person.
These are criminal allegations that the Justice Department and the FBI ought to fully investigate. In fact, this FBI agent implored the FBI to do just that. This agent encouraged the FBI to get copies of the FISA and the predicating documents.
This Senator asked for the same, and the government has failed to produce these important documents. And I don't know why they would be afraid to let this Senator have access to those documents, because transparency is going to bring accountability. And for the sake of justice and for the sake of exposing things that have been political weaponization in our government, they should be exposed so they don't happen again.
Now, Crosswind wasn't the only investigation this FBI agent gave a statement about. So this brings us more up to more recent months, at least the recent year and a half.
The agent also discussed the known defects of the case against Trump adviser Tom Barrack. The agent said the ``get someone'' attitude that led to the FISA renewal and search warrants also led to the investigation of Tom Barrack.
The agent's statement noted that these matters ``relate to ethical dilemmas.'' The FBI agent further stated that ``there was no authority for the [Special Counsel's Office] to open a case on Tom Barrack.''
Even the FBI Washington Field Office had, at that point in time, declined to open a case on Barrack, and yet this FBI agent said: ``Giardina didn't want to open a case on Barrack but wanted to keep people happy.''
So you do illegal things just to keep people happy. That is not right. And the fact that we have this FBI agent's statement to verify all of the wrongdoing that went on in this whole process, that is obviously no basis to criminally investigate anyone.
What the Biden Justice Department and the FBI did to Barrack and his staffer Matthew Grimes is worthy of note as another lesson of what the government should not do.
Barrack gave an interview to the government way back in December 2017 and June 2019. Grimes also gave interviews. It appears they cooperated. Then, years later--4 years later and 2 years later in another instance--the Biden administration Justice Department, in July 2021, decided to indict both Barrack and Grimes for acting as an agent of a foreign government, for obstruction, and for false statements.
They were arrested by more than 20 Federal agents going to their homes. At first, the government asked that Grimes not be given bail. The government said that he was a flight risk, among other things.
Grimes, a 22- and 23-year-old at the time the crimes were alleged to have occurred, was detained for 5 days and eventually released--can you believe this?--on $5 million bond. Barrack's bond was set--can you believe this?--at
Barrack and Grimes took their fight to a jury trial, and the jury acquitted Barrack on all nine counts. Grimes was acquitted of the two counts against him.
So I would like to share three quotes from that trial.
During the trial, the judge told the government:
Then a further quote from the judge also said, about some of the government's theories in the case, that they ``were right in line between barely permissible inference and impermissible speculation.''
And then there is the third, and last, quote from an alternate juror, who stated publicly after the verdict:
So that is what you have with political weaponization going on in the American Government.
So now, to sum up, year after year, my investigative work has exposed the overt bias by Federal law enforcement against Republicans. Here, the same political government Agencies were involved in Crosswind, the Barrack case, and Crossfire Hurricane. These cases went nowhere.
My Democratic colleagues never raised a finger about any of these abuses. My Democratic colleagues did the opposite and went on partisan television every day, falsely claiming crimes occurred.
And you can see from what I have said today and what the FBI's statements--the agents' statements--say, that there was no crime. But it appears the real crimes were committed by the Biden-Harris government investigators.
Now, bringing this today, and the responsibility of President Trump's administration, it is clear that this administration has a responsibility to fully investigate these matters.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes before the scheduled rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, today, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of confirming Katie Lane to serve as the next judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
I have known Katie a long time. In fact, she attended kindergarten through 12th grade in my hometown of Bozeman. In fact, we went to the same high school. I was a little ahead of her. We are both Bozeman High Hawks.
She spent her childhood summers skiing, camping, and hiking, which instilled in her a deep and profound love of the Treasure State and the values that truly make it the ``Last Best Place.''
But then she went on to do even bigger things. She went on to attend George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, where she graduated with highest honors. She then clerked at both the trial and appellate levels of the Federal judiciary for two Federal judges.
She returned to Montana to serve as the deputy solicitor general under Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, from 2021 to 2023. During her time in Helena, Katie worked zealously to defend Montana's laws and challenge Federal overreach. She litigated cases in both State and Federal courts on issues important to Montanans, including defending the Second Amendment, multiple land use and grazing rights cases, as well as defending Montana's coal industry.
As Montanans know well, Federal judges play a critical role in our daily lives. For many years, we have dealt with an activist judiciary that repeatedly rules against the interests of Montanans. That is why it is essential we pick principled, thoughtful jurists who are committed to upholding the Constitution and making decisions based on the rule of law, not on personal politics or viewpoints.
With this in mind, Senator Sheehy and I are confident that Katie is the right choice to serve Montana as our next Federal judge. Her values are rooted in Montana and grounded in the Constitution. Katie's distinguished record of public service and experience in both the Federal and State judiciaries makes her well-qualified to serve on the Federal bench. I am confident she will be fairminded; she will be principled; and she will bring honor, decency, integrity and--let's face it--a lot of smarts to the bench.
I cannot recommend Katie highly enough, and I urge my colleagues to vote today to confirm her without delay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Lane nomination?
Mr. President, 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.
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:
The nomination was confirmed.
(Mrs. CAPITO assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, do you remember when the ICE agents were in the city of Chicago? I can't forget it. Things were happening in the city I am honored to represent I had never seen before. We had these people who were kind of in uniform, but not really, wearing masks, carrying guns, and they were pursuing ``the worst of the worst.'' They were looking for rapists, murderers, terrorists, the criminally insane, child predators, on and on. And they certainly were looking for people who came into the United States and didn't have legal immigration status.
They frightened a community in a way that I had never seen before. People in parts of Chicago who had lived there peacefully, quietly, without any problem for years reached the point where they were afraid to go to the grocery store. They stopped going to church. They didn't know what was next for the ICE agents.
They patrolled the streets. They went after individuals. They arrested some. They detained others. There is one scene that is still in my memory. The scene was when they decided that there was someone living in a home who was an illegal person, they crashed down the front door and broke it down. They took this man out of the shower. They wrapped a towel, bathrobe around him, and took him off to be arrested. Turned out he was an American citizen. He had committed no crime. They were just wrong.
And people said: Wait a minute. You mean the ICE agents can crash down my front door? They didn't have a warrant from a court or anything to authorize it. They just did it. ``Can you do that in America,'' people were asking. It is a basic question. It is not clear, the answer, if you look at the conduct of this administration when it comes to the ICE operations.
There is one thing that is clear: this little book called ``The United States Constitution.''
Let me read you a section of it when it comes to your right as an American. Fourth Amendment:
Bill of rights, fundamental to who we are as Americans. Something we take for granted. It is my home. You are not coming into my home unless you have got some judge that has approved it and you have gone through the right process. You can't decide, just because you are wearing a badge, to crash down my front door.
Well, we have an interesting debate going on this week in the U.S. Senate that goes right to the heart of that amendment, the Fourth Amendment. Later this week we are expected to consider legislation to reauthorize a rather obscure area of the law, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.
What is this FISA all about? It is all about 9/11. I have been around the Senate for a few years, and I can remember the tragedy of 9/11, the thousands of Americans who lost their lives and the fear we had as to what was next, our determination to keep our country safe.
I am proud to be a Democrat, but I will tell you I think President George W. Bush, a Republican, handled that tragedy in a superb way. He led our Nation in a time when we needed leadership. He made it clear to us and said words that I still recall, that this war on terrorism was not going to be a war against the religion of Islam. He said it was a peaceful religion. I remember that pronouncement he made because it was considered to be courageous, politically courageous, for him to say that the group that attacked us, their religion should not be held against them.
I am not going to dwell on that, although I do want to salute President George W. Bush again for his courage in leading us in that moment.
But we decided also that we weren't going to be attacked again. No. We are going to prepare ourselves. We are going to defend ourselves. We are going to create Agencies of our government that have the authority, the power, and the resources to keep us safe. Never again; no 9/11.
And so we created a brandnew structure of intelligence Agencies in America. I have been in Congress for a number of years, familiar with the old way we did things, served on the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was going to be a new day, a new organization, and we were going to do everything we can to make sure that 9/11 never happened again.
We created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and that basically said: We are going to listen to and hear and pay attention to our enemies. We are going to stop them before they hit us.
Most Americans would say: Good. That is why we elected you.
For years, Congress--although despite this--has avoided confronting a fundamental flaw at the heart of our surveillance authority. Under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government collects communications of foreigners--foreigners--overseas without a warrant from any court.
But, in the process, the government, unfortunately, over the years collects millions of communications of innocent Americans--people they are not authorized to surveil.
Once collected, the government can search these communications without a warrant from any court. So here we have this question about the possession of your privacy as an American citizen being assaulted by your government, despite that Fourth Amendment.
Every American needs to understand that this law, which I referred to, allows the government to listen to your phone calls, read your private messages that have been collected under section 702. The government does all that without any court approval. They are not breaking down your front door; they are listening on your phone.
This is a fundamental flaw that I have worked to change for a long time. And over and over again, every administration--both political parties--said: Senator, don't lose any sleep. It is just a little problem. We will take care of it.
But the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on warrantless searches is not an optional decision by the government. That Fourth Amendment is a core safeguard of liberty guaranteed by our Constitution.
Every single Member of the Senate--Democrats, Republicans--raised their hand and took an oath. What was that oath all about? To uphold and defend this little book.
As detailed in a recent report by the nonpartisan Brennan Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the National Security Agency have abused section 702 for years--years. These abuses, according to the FISA Court, have been ``persistent and widespread.'' The government itself has reported hundreds of thousands of unlawful searches using this authority.
In other words, 702 is directed toward foreigners, remember? They are using it against Americans. They are collecting information about people who are not even covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
As further detailed in the Brennan Center report, the government has used section 702 to spy unlawfully on many people. Whom have they spied on? Members of Congress, congressional staff, judges, journalists, protestors, political donors, even women on dating apps. Go figure. That is going to make us safer in America?
Past attempts at reform have not solved the problem, and I have been at this for many years.
As the Brennan Center explained, ``The current system of section 702 oversight relies almost entirely on the executive branch self-policing to prevent, detect, and report abuses.'' In other words, the fox is watching the chicken coop. That is a flawed system under any administration. Under this administration, it is especially alarming.
The FISA Court has already raised concerns about how this Trump administration is using the powers that I have described to you this afternoon. But the Trump administration is keeping the latest opinion of the court secret from the American people. I have seen it. I invite every Member of the Senate to go and see it. I am not going to betray anything that is secret or confidential, but I guarantee you that if you will take time out of your busy schedule to go down to what we call the SCIF to order up a copy of a document--I won't be any more specific--and take the time--it will take you a little time to read it, your opinion of the role of FISA and the rights of Americans will be impacted for sure.
We can't wait to fix 702. Now is the time to do it. Now is the time to say we can have both liberty and security. I credit my colleague from Oregon Ron Wyden, who came up with that phrase, and it says it all. Can we be safe in America and still be free? Is it possible? I think it is.
This issue is even more urgent because of the Trump administration's disregard for the rule of law. The question before Congress is whether we will grant warrantless surveillance authority to President Trump and MAGA loyalists like FBI Director Kash Patel and the new--announced today--Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte for the rest of this administration.
I am not going to go into the suggestion of Mr. Pulte to head our intelligence Agencies. I will simply just say: totally unqualified.
The current administration has repeatedly targeted political opponents. We have seen it all across the board, including former Fed Chair Jerome Powell, former FBI Director James Comey, and New York attorney general Letitia James. It has attacked independent institutions like the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. I know that because I had a hand in creating it. We said if there is going to be all of this surveillance going after enemies of the United States, let us make sure there is a Board of five people who will be watching these activities and reporting the excesses to Congress if changes need to be made.
What did the Trump administration do to the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board I just described? They removed the three Democrats on the Board so it couldn't function.
The courts have a responsibility here as well. They fired career law enforcement officials and public servants at the FBI and the Department of Justice. They have cleaned shop. These people would have been responsible that a program like 702 be lawful and nonpartisan. They are gone, removed by this administration--so the watchdogs that we built into the system to make sure that no President, no administration, goes too far in the exercise of their responsibilities and duties.
Yes, we want a safe America, but, yes, we want it to be a lawful country too. We want it to abide by the Constitution, and those of us who swore an oath to uphold and defend it have the first responsibility.
In the hands of a government that has treated the Constitution as an afterthought, Congress should not place blind trust in the hands of an administration which clearly can use this surveillance power for political purposes.
It is not hard to imagine what this President and his handpicked FBI Director Kash Patel could do with unchecked surveillance powers.
Are my fears of Mr. Patel warranted? Read his words, his own book that he wrote about his view of government. And just for convenience, he provides not an index but a list of his political enemies--his political enemies. Now, this man is the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and has the power of the surveillance, which I have described to you. Trust him? It is not hard to imagine why this President chose him for political reasons.
What happens when the administration uses section 702 to spy on Americans, perhaps those who protested the murder of two innocent people in Minneapolis during the ICE raids? They used to spy on Black Lives Matters protestors. Is it hard to imagine that they would extend that to those who question the masked ICE agents' activity?
What happens if journalists have their texts and phone calls snooped on because they dare to report controversial news about this administration's misconduct?
Any Member of Congress who wants to ensure there are checks on this out-of-control administration should not vote to reauthorize the authority of 702 without meaningful guardrails. I want 702 to continue to be strong, to be legal, to be constitutional. We can make it such.
Department of Homeland Security (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, we both know that there are people in Washington who like to muddy the water to make it look deep. They don't want the American people to know the truth because, for these people to which I am referring, truth is a concept that does not interest them. Politics does.
Now, there has been a lot of controversy in and around the U.S. Senate for the last 2 weeks. If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that the Senate has been functioning like a broken arm with the bone sticking out. That is not anybody's fault, in my judgment, on my side of the aisle. It is certainly not the majority leader's fault.
So I want to try to refocus us on the issue. I don't really want to talk about the ballroom or the Anti-Weaponization Fund or any of the myriad of issues that my Democratic friends tried to inject into our discussion.
I want to talk about the issue, and the issue is this: Are we going to fund the Department of Homeland Security, or are we not?
Part of DHS, as we call it, as you know, Mr. President, is funded. But a very important part is not: the Border Patrol and ICE. We are paying them as best we can out of another pool of funds that is about to run out of money. Why are they not funded? Because my Democratic colleagues have refused.
At one point my Democratic friends agreed to fund Border Patrol and ICE. And then they changed their minds, and they said: No, we are not going to do it, which forced Republicans, if we want to see that portion of DHS funded, to proceed under what we call reconciliation where we don't need Democratic votes. I regret that that is the case, but we are doing what we have to do.
Why are we having this controversy? I don't get it completely. I don't. Unless you are industrial-strength stupid, you know that illegal immigration is illegal. And that is what our Border Patrol agents and ICE agents do--they enforce the law. And we have a problem with respect to immigration.
During the Biden administration, with the encouragement of some--not all, but with the encouragement of some but not all Democrats, open the borders. They said: Come on in. And about 8 to 12 million--some say 20 million--people did.
Some of them were good people and are good people. They are still breaking the law. Some of them who are here are not. They are rapists and they are murderers and they are sex traffickers and they are drug dealers and they are pedophiles.
We don't know which is which. We don't know where they are. And it falls to the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, in part through Border Patrol and ICE, to find out.
Now, why did this happen? Why do we now need Border Patrol and ICE more than ever? You know, I have thought about that a lot. It could be just pure, plain vanilla incompetence. It could be that the people that President Biden put in charge of immigration and securing the border were not qualified to play dead in a western movie. It also could be, and could have been, intentional.
I think some of my Democratic friends--not all of them. I am talking the Platner wing of the Democratic Party, the Mayor Mamdani wing of the Democratic Party, the Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party, the wing of the Democratic Party that is in control-- some of them believe that vetting people at the border is racist. They do.
It doesn't matter that every other country in the world vets people at their border. These members of the--whatever you want to call it-- progressive wing, loon wing, woketopus wing--whatever you want to call that wing of the Democratic Party, they think that vetting people at the border is racist.
There are other folks who support open borders for political reasons. I think they honestly think that if they admit a bunch of people into America in violation of the immigration laws or not, that it is a rich source of potential voters. We are not supposed to say that, but I really do believe that. Not much happens around here that doesn't have a political bent to it.
But regardless, we have a problem, and that is what we have to deal with. And that is what we are going to be voting on, I hope, in the next couple of days.
If you disagree with the law--this is America. You are entitled to disagree with it. I get it. Try to change it. Go change it. But you can't just ignore our immigration laws. They are not some second-tier statutes that you can ignore without consequence, that you can ignore when you think it is convenient. They are the law, and we have to enforce the law.
And more to the point, we have to clean up the mess that President Biden and some of my Democratic colleagues in the Platner wing, the Ocasio-Cortez wing, the Mamdani wing--whatever you want to call those Democrats who created it.
And more even to that point, we have to have Border Patrol and ICE officers to do it. We have to.
The other point I would make: We see the pushback by this wing of my Democratic friends' party. We see what is going on in New Jersey. It is despicable.
Look, you have the right to protest. That is as American as the NFL or baseball. You have the right to protest. You don't have the right to protest violently. And what we have seen at the Delaney Hall detention center: We have seen ICE officers and some Border Patrol officers; we have seen the protestors cursing at them and spitting at them and threatening their families and hitting them and scratching them and biting them and blocking ingress and egress in and out of the detention center. They are breaking the law, and they have been arrested.
I think the Border Patrol and ICE and the State law enforcement officials in New Jersey have shown a lot of restraint.
But what the protestors did--not all of them--was illegal. It was illegal. You can't hit a cop just because you don't like him.
And here is a free tip. I know you know this, Mr. President. Most Border Patrol agents, most ICE agents, most cops, they will leave you alone unless you do illegal stuff. But if you do illegal stuff, they are going to enforce the law.
So let me end as I began. We need to vote to fund Border Patrol and ICE. These men and women are running out of money. I am sorry that my Democratic colleagues have taken the position that they want to defund ICE. They have every right to believe that. I am sorry that they have taken the position they want to defund the Border Patrol. My Democratic friends have every right to believe that, but they are wrong.
I have the right to my opinion. And if they don't want to fund them, they need to go change the immigration laws. Until then, we have got to enforce them, and we are going to have the chance here in the next couple days.
And all we are going to be voting on--you are going to see all kinds of amendments and talking about everything in the world. All we will be voting on: Do we or do we not want to fund Border Patrol and ICE? Do we or do we not want to enforce America's immigration laws in accordance with due process and the rule of law? And that is the issue that is going to be before us.
And I am ready to saddle up and ride. I am ready to get to it. I am tired of all the rhetoric and the tangential issues. I am tired of all that. Let's get after it. Let's do the right thing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
