1950 to 1953, came back to emmitt to marry the love of his life, donna, and worked as a farmer, dairy deliveryman, mechanic, and truck driver to provide for his nine children. his family describes him as a loving father who taught the values of hard work and integrity. and to see the worth and light in others. but because emmitt received the third most radiation from being downwind of the trinity tests, don harris lived on poisoned ground.he ended up contracting cell carcinoma, skwaumous cell carcinoma, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and lung cancer. and eventually passed away in 2018. his daughter, vonnie, shared his daughter with the "idaho

downwinders", with my staff and me, in the hopes of finally righting the wrongs ever leave jouned winders -- downwinders behind. don was one of the thousands in gem county, idaho, alone, andon, who were unfortunately living in an area downwind of the trinity tests. this is not a matter just affecting conservative or liberal states. the bipartisan nature of the rica updates is because it affects people regardless of political affiliation. to be clear, the government's test of nuclear weapons caused this. it is our solemn duty to compensate those who have suffered because of these tests. the rica amendments ensure those who lived downwind of the test receive compensation from the government and provide support to uranium miners who worked

during the cold war. i've worked with my colleagues for the past 13 years to attempt to right these wrongs, and july's vote to include rica amendments in the national defense authorization act shows the wide spred, bipartisan support to help those who have suf suffered. but it's frustrating and discouraging that bipartisan support from both chambers of congress still cannot get this legislation enacted into law. while this speech is unlikely to bring the necessary updates back into consideration with this conference report, i'm committed to working with my colleagues to update rica to better reflect the realities of nuclear testing. i thank senators lujan and hawley and representatives moyeland and leger fernandez for their tireless work, as well as

the countless advocates who have shared their stories to achieve this necessary goal. this fight is not over, and i look forward to the day when we can celebrate the necessary updates and commemorate those who did not live to see it. thank you, madam chairman. i yield.

>> time is of the essence. democrats are still trying, still trying to meet our republican colleagues in the middle and reach an agreement. negotiators met yesterday afternoon. it was a productive meeting. real progress was made but, of course, they're still a lot of work to do. we keep working today to get, quote we will get closer to an agreement. the two words are used to describe each party in the senate continue to be relevant. democrats are still trying to reach an agreement. republicans need to show they are still serious about getting something done. democrats trying, , republicans need to be serious.

unfortunately too many republicans now seem more interested about flying home for the holidays than sticking around to finish the job. for months republicans insist that action on the borders of crisis that can't wait, but with the holidays around the corner they are suddenly save nevermind, this can wait until next year. if republicans said the board is an emergency, the nation be prepared to stay. crying fire about the board one day and saying we should go home the next is the definition of not serious. an emergency is an emergency. if you argue there's an emergency at the border, an emergency in ukraine, you can't pretend to be serious about solving them if you think we should go home. months ago the biden administration put forward a comprehensive plan to tackle border security. for weeks we implored our republican colleagues to get

serious offer a credible bipartisan proposal, not donald trump's extreme border policies as contained in h.r. two. weeks were wasted, and that who we are. progress is being made but progress must be allowed to continue, to be continued. yes, this is difficult, very difficult, but we were centered to do difficult things. if republicans are serious about getting something done on the border, why are so many any hurry to leave? to be not want to reach an agreement on border security? republicans should not be so eager to go home. i hope we can reach an agreement very soon to pass a supplemental through the senate. because the only people happy right now about the gridlock in congress are donald trump and vladimir putin. trump, putin is delighting in the fact that donald trump's border policies are sabotaging military aid to ukraine.

republicans should not be so content to throw their hands in the air and kick the can down the road. our friends in ukraine, after all, are not on our timeline. they don't get a christmas break on the battlefield. their fight against vladimir putin is a matter of life and death, and if putin prevails it will come back to haunt the united states and the whole western rural in the very near future. so if my republican friends cared at all about taking a stand against russian autocrats, they should get serious about reaching an agreement. if republicans care about defending democracy, about protecting freedom and preserving america's values around the rural, they should get serious about reaching an agreement. it republicans truly think the border is an emergency and if they support truly the cause of the great people as they claim, then they should get serious about reaching an agreement very soon. we are writing a a chapter in history this week will republican obstruction hand the

forces of jockocracy? will autocrats see america's inaction as a green light to keep going? will places like taiwan come next? or will we do what americans done again and again and again, throughout america's glorious history, and stand with our democratic friends in need? will we do what's necessary to keep the democratic order the use helped create after the second rural war? these are the stakes. senate democrats have made clear which side of history we want to be on. we want to stand with president zelensky and a brief people of ukraine. we want to stand for democratic order. we hope, we hope our republican colleagues are ready to do the same. ndaa. as soon as later today the senate will approve our annual defense authorization act, one of the most important bills we passed the jew to protect the american people and ensure our long-term security.

last night senators overwhelmingly voted to end debate on the ndaa by 85-15. that's a strong sign of support and it shows you the momentum for finishing the ndaa quickly here we will work today to reach a time agreement with republicans to finish the job on the ndaa, as soon as today. at a time of trouble for global security, doing the defense authorization bill is more important than ever. passing the ndaa enables us to hold the line against russia, stand firm against the chinese communist party, and ensure that america's defenses remain state of the art at all times. now the ndaa process here in the senate is precisely the kind of bipartisan cooperation the american people want from congress. when this bill came before the senate in july we had a robust debate an amendment process. we voted on dozens of amendments on the floor and even included more in our manager's package. both sides at input. both sites had a chance to shape the bill and in the in the

senate version of the ndaa passed in an overwhelming 86-11 vote with majorities significant majority from both parties. and after a lot of hard work reconciling the ndaa with the house version to the conference process i am please the final version of the ndaa has many of the strongest privations of the sin its original bill. we will give our service members the pay raise they deserve. we will strengthen our resources in the indo-pacific to deter aggression by the chinese government. and give critical resources for training advising and capacity building for the military in taiwan. and we will approve president biden's trilateral u.s.-uk artist joe you nuclear submarine agreement. this historic agreement will create a new fleet of nuclear powered submarines to counter the chinese parties influence, chinese, as parties influence in the pacific. i upload my colleague senator reed in the armed services committee as well as ranking member worker for the excellent

leadership pushing this bill over the line. i commend all conferees for the good work over the past few weeks and thank you to my colleagues on both sides for uniting to get the ndaa done. when we finish our work in the senate i urge speaker johnson in the house to move this bill quickly. as i've said repeatedly, we begin the month of december with three major goals here in the senate before the end of the year. first, we had to end the unprecedented month-long destructive blockade of hundreds of military nominees. we have done that. second, we needed to pass the ndaa. as far as we have for decades on a bipartisan basis. we are going forward on that today. and finally, an artist of all, we must reach an agreement on a national security supplemental. democrats are still trying to reach an agreement on the supplemental. we urge republicans to show that they are still serious about getting something done. i yield the floor, note the

absence of a quorum. >> today, , senate republicans e still working in good faith on order policy changes that will allow the senate to pass a national security supplemental. i'm hopeful that democrats, both here and at the white house, are beginning to recognize how committed we are to addressing the crisis at our southern border. i'm hopeful that we can reach an agreement and address two national security priorities. meanwhile, the challenges were facing at home and abroad are not solving themselves. as of today u.s. personnel in iraq and syria have faced at least 92 attacks from iran backed pact of paris since october, bloating just last week against the u.s.

embassy in baghdad. meanwhile, iran's houthi proxies are escalating the threats against shipping vessels in one of the basis checkpoints of international maritime commerce. iraq and its terrorist network are not deterred. they believe they could try to kill americans with impunity. and yet last week leading senate democrats joined the failed effort to withdraw america's presence in syria. three members of the democratic caucus leadership cast votes to retreat, to retreat in the face of an embolden terrorist threat. so did the chair of the foreign relations subcommittee that deals with the middle east. it's time for our college get serious about the threats we

face. fortunately the fin is on track to pass the long-awaited national defense authorization act. i'm grateful to ranking member worker and chairman read re extensive work required to bring this much, must-pass legislation across the goal line. this year the armed services committee considered 445 amendments and another 121 e adopted here on the floor. and thanks to the dedicated efforts of many of our colleagues on the side of the aisle, the building produced -- a host of national security issues where the biden administration approach continued to fall short. this year's ndaa recognizes the need to strengthen america's position and strategic competition with china through targeted improvements in

critical capabilities and long-range fires and at the ship weapons to modernizing our nuclear triad. i authorized further investments in the defense industrial base, and expand efficiency and accountability of the assistants degrading russia's military in ukraine. it will turbocharge cooperation with israel on future missile defense technologies and ensure our closest allies in the middle east can access the u.s. capabilities to engage when it needs them. it will give america's men and women in uniform a pay raise. it will focus the pentagon more squarely on tackling national security challenges instead of creating new ones with partisan social policies. and in my home state of kentucky

it will advance important issues to expand production of bluegrass army capital and reduce u.s. on light on competitors for materials critical to our defense. of course congress can't fix the biden administration's weakness on the rural stage by ourselves. we can equip a global superpower but we still need a commander-in-chief who recognizes that he is leading on to president biden should be focused on restoring really turns against iran back to terrorists, not interfering with the internal politics of the democratic ally they are attacking. israel is a modern, mature and independent democracy. i imagine neither israel's leaders nor its citizens appreciate president biden's -- to democratic donors about the wartime coalition government. in fact, foreign influence in our own politics used to be

something washington democrats loved to condemn. so i would recommend that the te president focus on the task at hand, imposing meaningful consequences in iran, and giving israel that time, , the space, d the support it needs to defeat hamas. this week the senate will move the national defense authorization act one step closer to becoming law. i hope that will mark the first step towards giving the national security challenge that america faces the urgent attention it requires. but it will still fall to congress to pass supplemental national security appropriations in a full-year defense funding to ensure the investments we authorized this week deliver real progress in making america stronger and more secure.

on another matter this morning the judiciary committee is examining another slate of president biden's nominees to join the federal bench. over the past three years our colleagues on the committee have met and considered an alarming rate of nominees whose conduct or lack of legal qualifications make them so wildly unfit for confirmation that they had to be withdrawn. from the first circuit nominee known best for helping defend an elite prep school against the victim of sexual assault, the district domine with the american bar association was expected not qualify for judicial service, and fortunately today's nominees include yet another head spinning example of the biden administration radical approach to filling the federal bench.

the president's nominate to serve as circuit judge for the third circuit court of appeals. since graduating from harvard, he has spent his career in private practice, but for years he also served on the board of rutgers student organization that facilitates and amplifies grotesque anti-semitic activism. for example, on the 20th anniversary of september 11, the center for security of rights at rutgers law school hosted a speaking engagement for ringleader of recent calls for intifada in the united states and a convicted supporter of palestinian islamic jihad. for those who need reminding, palestinian islamic jihad and hamas are holding hostages, including americans in gaza as we speak.

american jews are facing and n estimate wave of anti-semitic hate, and this wave is emanating from campus organizations across the country like the one he guided and supported at rutgers. did the biden administration really asking the senate to give life tenure on the court of appeals to nominate with an extensive record of condoning terrorist propaganda? i would urge our colleagues on the judiciary committee to take a very close look at his nomination and reject it.

six turned congressman on the foreign affairs and house intelligence committee. good morning to you. >> good morning. >> what your assessment at this point of a new aid package moving from ukraine before the holidays and what did you think of president zelensky's visit? >> i think unfortunately the odds are long at this juncture. seems like the senate is still stuck in the border

conversation. that's a shame. incredibly important for president zelensky to be on the hill making the case for this is inflection point in the war between russia and ukraine and we've got to stand by ukraine because it doesn't end indet ukraine. we can't let vladimir putin and russia win this war. i think it's incumbent important for us to get that aid. we'll sorely work with the pentagon and the dod and our european allies to make sure ukraine has what it needs. i hope one of the first things we do when we come back after the break is get that aid package and. >> host: u mitch and congressional republicans stuck on the border conversation. why can't we do both of these things at the same time and how far apart by democrats and republicans when it comes to the border conversation? >> guest: i think we have to do the border. we have real issues on the southern border. i think the president recognizes that as well. i would hope we could negotiate

on the things we agree on like additional border security. there are probably necessary reforms on the asylum process. in addition we need more judges, immigration judges and more personnel down there on the southern border. >> host: senator alex padilla from your state of california, statement he put out yesterday concerned that the white house might be moving closer to the republican position on these border issues. he wrote with give the concern the present would consider advancing trump era immigration policies the democrats fought so hard against and that he himself can paint against an exchange for a two allies the republicans support. the statement goes on but what are the trump era immigration policies is referring to? what a democrat so concerned about? >> guest: there is a concerned you shut down the entire asylum process. the district i represent has a largest number of afghan refugees who grab a large

number, large palestinian-american community. there is conflict around the rural. we do need to provide asylum to individuals that are feeling -- sleeving. the should be compromise on who are the legitimate folks seeking asylum versus those that are just come across the border for other reasons. >> host: talking with congressman ami bera democrat member, select intelligence committee. he's with us until the top of the hour at 90 and eastern. start calling it if you have questions for him. 202-748-8001 republicans. 202-748-8000 democrats. independence 202-748-8002. congressman, our viewers know later today the will be a vote to formalize the impeachment investigation into president biden. your thoughts of what these investigations have found so far. is it anything that is codger i that made you looking into?

>> guest: no, there hasn't been anything that risen to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. even chairman comer who runs the house oversight committee has his own witnesses come in and make the case that wasn't any evidence that would rise to the level of impeachment. i think we find ourselves in this horrible place where impeachment, cinches come things like that are just becoming routine. they really should be the exception. you hate to see if the democrats and white house republicans move impeachment are also do wane when republican is in the white house, there's an impeachment. we debated for a long time the trump impeachment. there was a lot of heartburn about whether we should of done that or not. >> host: who's to blame for impeachment the coming routine? come off the presence it would be two impeachments. >> guest: january 6, let's set that would aside because that 30 was an insurrection at a think you saw the first bipartisan impeachment in our history.

i think we've got to get back to actual legislative, getting things done. you talked about the border. we got a hot war going on in europe and that we got the middle east. we have to make sure we get aid to the middle east, to israel but also make sure this doesn't become a broader war in the middle east drama talk about getting things done. the clock ticking on the time left before congress recess for the rest of the year to get things done. remind viewers what section 702 is an effort to reauthorize the program. >> guest: section 702 is a unique tool that our intelligence committee or community uses to keep our country safe. we have made incredible reforms to protect both the civil liberties but also to give our intelligence community the tools they need when you look at counterterrorism, bad actors and that individuals abroad. so that provision expires at the end of this calendar year. if that did expire that would

make incredibly unsafe. it would damage our national security. i do think in the defense authorization bill that's coming up we will extend current 702 waivers. i think march or april. hopefully that will give us time to come up with the right bill that both allows the intel community to do the work but also protect the civil liberties of americans. >> host: about 20 minutes left. funny of calls are ready. we'll get right to them. nathaniel in mississippi is on a line for democrats. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, c-span. >> host: good morning. >> caller: hello. i've been watching c-span over 15 years. i watch other news. i do not watch fox news and maxed is a suffolk and because i don't believe what they say. but i appreciate what you are doing out in california. i want to know why every time a democrat and republican have an election of the democrats win,

why they always go to the border? when trump was in the why, why he didn't close the border? i know y'all be working with them back and forth and they come up, you'll come to the table, first thing they do is they come up with something else like move the goal paul further. i don't think that's right. but appreciate what you're doing and keep doing what you're doing and keep fighting because you claim -- and they need help. because like they say, ecpa and take over ukraine he's going to keep going keep going and keep going. >> host: nathaniel in mississippi. back to the border question, congressman. >> guest: i appreciate that sentiment. look, we are a nation of immigrants. my parents came from india in the 1950s legally. we've got border challenges but we've also got to fix a broken immigration system. we really do need folks coming

in helping contribute to our economy in a legal way. we also are going to feel incredible pressure with climate change. you see folks coming up from central america now and putting real pressure on the border. i would hope democrats and republicans could come together and negotiate compromise and come up with a reasonable immigration system that both recognizes legal immigration, gets through the backlog but also recognizes some of the concerns and threats at our borders. >> host: laramie, wyoming, this is a gordon independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thanks for your service with c-span. thanks, representative, for being there. i was wondering if the representative may have read the 87 page report that chuck grassley and ron johnson put out in september 23 of 2020, and the democratic response to that

report. >> host: what was a a report , gordon? >> caller: it was on the report that grassley and johnson put out was on the alleged crimes that biden and his son are possibly guilty of on receiving money from ukraine, china and russia. >> host: did you read that report, gordon? , i read part of it and it is really comprehensive. it's 87 pages. that's quite a bit. and also -- >> host: let me give the cards e congressman a chance to respond. >> guest: i did not read the report. the legal process is taking place and playing out. we have seen some new allegations come out against hunter biden. we are just watching the process play out. i would let that process play out. and again i'm a a firm believn the rule of law. at this juncture i've not seen

any evidence that president biden committed in high crimes or misdemeanors or anything that rises to the level of illegality. but again i would say let the legal process play out and we will see where it ends. >> host: to chicago, john, republican. good morning. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to ask a general question that may be specific to but i don't know him personally but regarding him, all of our caucus, all of our senators, and the president, biden, he claims to be a christian man and a christian and a catholic. here's my point. want to ask you, are you a christian man? number one. yes no? >> guest: i may unitary universal personal faith and person that people believe in god. >> caller: okay, so faith. to set that aside. these been in congress they are making an oath before country the united states of america, the matter was earlier, a a pn

that was in our military, i will ask my question to you. most of these people do not understand truth about they don't know their lord jesus and he died for the and shed his blood for our country. >> host: what is your question asked what's your question, , john? >> caller: so the question is, if he believes in a different way, probably of his own faith, but there is a a god that's at our whole country, we stood behind this with the constitution and her independents. >> host: that is john in chicago. is anything you wanted to? >> guest: know, other than certain this this is a time got to dig deeper and find her faith can find things that bring us together, find civility and again, as a unitarian i look at all faith traditions. there's something that binds us together in terms of god. >> host: winston in virginia, life for democrats, you are

next. >> caller: i served in the marine corps for about six years, and so i was originally pretty supportive of some of the initial calls for israel having the right to defend themselves and everything like that, but there's something set of been troubling from the past few weeks that kind of comma. i was wondering if these things have been brought to your attention? so does a "new york times" story about bibi netanyahu giving suitcase of cash over to a mosque in order to separate them from the west bank. the israeli government yesterday was saying that they do not want a palestinian state, and the u.n., they voted for a ceasefire overwhelmingly yesterday but the u.s. in the security council vetoed a call for ceasefire. and with all of the amount of

debt that is been going on and really from what i've seen is that the only time there's been hostage exchanges is when there is a ceasefire. i'm not sure how one could still argue to just freely give weapons to israel, and especially we are seeing there's white phosphorus being used on such a condensed civilian populace. so i'm not sure how one could square this because it's kind of looking like genocide to me. >> guest: first, thank you for your service. i agree with you, you are raising a lot of very interesting points that are getting debated here. so let's look at october 7, 1st. obviously a mosque attack israel and it is a war going on between israel and hamas. that said, we have to do everything we can to protect innocent palestinian civilians,

anything legitimately we can debate how israel is prosecuting this war against hamas could they do it anymore targeted way? could they do it using intelligence, et cetera? i think that is being debated and you hear president biden talk about that. at times were certainly talk about that in congress. one of the things i'm most worried about now as a doctor is this imminent humanitarian crisis that is unfolding. lack of clean water, lack of food, lack of just basic medication. you are seeing rapid diarrhea, colorado, respiratory illness. i really fear many more innocent palestinians could die of incredibly preventable causes. so we've got to open up border crossing can get image and aid into gaza. these are noncombatants and get that food and water, you know, basic humanity and supplies to those individuals to prevent those deaths. and yes, i'm not a big fan of

prime minister netanyahu. i was in israel in may and in july, and i think there needs to be some actions taken. you have started your president biden push a little bit more strongly on trying to lay the groundwork for a two-state solution. i think that's the only path forward if you want to find peace in the middle east is a two-state solution. >> host: what were you doing in israel in may and july? >> guest: i was there with intelligence committee in may, again taking a look at the security in the entire region. then again with armed services in july, again looking at more specifically israel and the security situation. >> host: how much did those meetings focus he majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, i ask that -- i ask unanimous consent that at 5:00 p.m. senator paul or his designee be recognized to make a rule 28

scope point of order and that if raised, senator reid be recognized to make a motion to waive and if successful all postcloture time xierd and a vote on the adoption of the conference report. finally there be two minutes equally divided before each voice vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so moved. mr. schumer: thank you.

>> caller: all that money had to come from somewhere for some reason. i don't know that they have any skills that would, where they could get an honest paycheck out of that. so that money was given to them for some reason and you're not curious about that? i find that kind of writing we have people in congress that wouldn't be curious about it or want at least to investigate it. >> guest: so from my perspective i've not seen any of that evidence against president biden. obviously the legal process is taking place and unfolding against hunter biden.

i would say let that process play out and we will see where it leads. again, i'm not in the majority, so it's up to the majority if they want to pursue investigations, that's certainly the right of the oversight committee. i would go back to the committee hearing though when german commerce own witnesses and oversight committee said hey, there's does not in evidence youth arises i crimes and misdemeanors or any evidence of that suggest we should start an impeachment inquiry. again that that will take place and we'll see where it goes, what does that terming high crimes and misdemeanors? >> guest: high crimes and misdemeanors would be as example be what happened generous six like the total disregard of the constitution, peaceful transition of power. i would consider that a high crime. >> host: mike, dallas, republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning, sir. there's a couple questions i would like to ask you. the first is we all heard donald trump say something about him

being a dictator for just one day. all the republicans had to contend that statement. but i'm hearing hillary clinton, jamie raskin, people from pbs that got fired saying that republicans need to be reeducated. now, how is that process going to go forward? added to rethink i want to be reeducated. are you really going to shoot me down in front of my grandkids? >> guest: yeah, so so i am very worried about that statement that former president donald trump said about being dictator for a day. i think we ought to take that very seriously. obviously i am not a trump supporter. i am very worried about where the dialogue has gone in our body politic. i think that's the most important question. how do we come together as democrats and republicans, as americans, how do we defend her

own democracy? i didn't vote donald trump in 2016 that i certainly believe he won that election. i voted to certify that election in 2016. same thing, president biden won the election in 2020. it's going to be a very contested election in 2024. let's see where this plays out but let's protect and uphold the rules of a constitution and our democracy. >> host: just a few minutes left. this is great in coral springs florida. independent. >> caller: yes good morning to you john and to congressman baird. i have a question for you. i constantly hear how congresspeople and senate people talk about getting things done. as an independent voter i voted for both democrats and republicans but the house of representatives has lost a lot of time this year between kevin mccarthy and finding a new speaker mike johnson and things did not get done. i believe in accountability.

i'm wondering why people feel that they should go away on their vacations when work has not been done. i believe in accountability and i think that personally the people of the united states deserve to have these things done, and that they should hold themselves accountable in congress to get these bills taken care of, the ukraine and the israeli requirements that need to be looked at. why do people feel that they should go and take their time and go on vacation? the time that -- >> host: got your point. we run short of time period. >> guest: i absolutely agree with greg. let's get these bills done, if we can get them done let's get them done pick up is going to take time to negotiate, that's probably not accept a should've gotten a things done back in october when the president said as the supplemental bill. i think part of the challenge in congress right now is you've got

extremes in both parties on the far left and the far right. i believe most members of congress are a little bit centerleft and a little bit center-right, and would love to work together to the prom is leadership sometimes is beholden to the extremes of the party, and you just saw that with former speaker kevin mccarthy being ousted by eight republicans. we've got to fix this and find a way to make congress more functional and work better treatment how would you describe your politics? are you centerleft? >> guest: my politics are centerleft. one of the founders of the problem solvers caucus really do think we've got to figure out how to work together as democrats and republicans, especially since they're such a majoris. do it we can get things done is with the other parties vote. >> host: has the problem solvers caucus solved problems? >> guest: it's certainly tried to come together with proactive solutions. you see a lot of the problem solvers are the ones that will

cross party lines and so forth. again, with narrow majority is right now the republicans have feisty majority. it's really hard to get things done with your party only. in that case why not reach across the aisle and see if you can't get folks to work together? [inaudible conversations] type for one or two more calls, this is marvin, democrat from ames, iowa. good morning. >> caller: good morning. good morning, representative. first of all, they must understand we need to understand here in this country that we're giving too much responsibility to you guys, giving you too much to do. honestly and truly they are dissecting your not give you enough time to concentrate on anything. and get anything done. on top of that, also please pay attention that if they really want to stop the war with israel and hamas, you draw a line and put the u.n. on the other side and say this is the end of the line. we don't go to father. they are not trying to solve

stuff. they're trying to create more mess. it's up to you guys to get together and start concentrate on what needs to be done. with that i'm going to let you go. have a good day. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: thank you for this comes. i think we're trying to solve problems. but these are incredibly complicated issues. when you think about the tension and melodies, , that's been goig on for millennia and so forth last week we had the foreign ministers in saudi arabia, cotter, jordan and turkey at a met with us on a foreign affairs committee but also secretary blinken. we are starting to think about how do we end this war and and what does the day after look like what we really have to think about what's a better future? is not good to be easy but we'll have to try to work toward that with the countries in the region. >> host: to that call the statement, are you overworked as a member of congress? >> guest: one more time? >> host: are you overworked? >> guest: no.

there's a lot going on in a rural right now and being on intelligence committee i certainly see the threat to our national security but also the threats around the rural. yeah, we are working really hard, there's a lot going on but you got to get this done. again, the burden of american in the sensible nations will high on his right now. we have got back worse in the rural. also try to prevent a third war in china but we got to do the work. >> host: we'll let you get to the worker the house come in and just about an hour. we always appreciate the time. >> guest: thanks, john.

test.

test. test. test. test.

test:

>> the subcommittee on oversight and investigations will come to order, and without objection, the chair is authorized to

declare a recess of the committee at any time. i do want the take a moment, point of personal privilege and then offer that up to my colleague, mr. green, as well. but i want to acknowledge somebody who has been an integral part of our team here at the oversight subcommittee, and that's rachel caldall, our chief oversight counsel for the past few months. she previously had been with the ways and means committee. she's going to some other place a little north of us, i hear it's on a campus. some other building over there where they might do some important stuff too called the senate, and she is going to be going over to the senate banking committee. and we deeply appreciate your service, rachel. you've been a pleasure to work with. you've been an amazing professional in how you have worked through some tough issues, and we just want to say

thank you on behalf of myself if personally, sean is, my team and the entire committee. we just want to say thank you for your service. and we know you're not going far, and i'm sure our paths will be crossing again. sos blessings and all the best -- so blessings and all the best to your future. with that, i'm e happy to acknowledge my colleague as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and this is one of these moments of bipartisanship. i'm honored to acknowledge the outstanding work and would wish her well as a well. thank you, rachel. >> and as a former staffer, i know you're only as good as the people you surround yourself with, and she's been, she's been excellent. so thank you again. with that,s this hearing is entitled moving the money part two, getting answers from the biden administration on the iranian regime's support of or terrorism. and without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to

submit extrain yous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. i now recognize myself for 5 minutes to give an opening statement. the assistant secretary rosenberg deputy special envoy paley, thank you for appearing before our subcommittee this morning. your testimony is senate to this subcommittee and continues to investigate how the iranian regime accesses money around the world due to relaxed sanction enforcement and waivers. so additionally, we hope that you can shed light on why a new waiver was necessary for the iraqi electricity sales and how the biden administration monitors compliance of sanctions around the world. and as i said during our last hearing, i don't believe this topic should be partisan. however, i do believe in accountability. it is vital that our oversight work is informed with the collaboration and testimony the directly from a agencies in an open and transparent setting, not behind closed doors. so, again, thank you for your willingness to be here today.

as we documented in our previous hearing, iran continues to be a leading state sponsor of terrorism, facilitating white range of attacks and illicit activities around the globe, and we are seeing these reports daily regarding our open troops in the region. october's attack on our ally, israel, is a stark reminder that in order to prevent further atrocities, we must increase not relax pressure on the iranian regime. iran sanctions have been a significant component of u.s. policy since iran's 1979 islamic revolution, and history tells us that they work. for example, the previous administration's max if mum pressure -- maximum pressure campaign cut exports from campaign, significantly reducing iran's ability to fund attacks against americans and our allies. europe, indeed most of the civilized world,

does not require three covid vaccines for adolescents. we're admonished by those on the left to follow the science. the science is pretty clear on this as well. the fda committee on vaccines as well as the cdc committee on vaccines voted, and they said that it would be advisable, not a mandate, but it would be advisable to give a booster vaccine to those 65 and older. adolescents were never addressed in this. in fact, one of the members of the committee, paul offit is a renowned scientist, infectious disease, he's pro all vaccines, pro the covid vaccine. i think he probably doesn't even have trouble with mandates and yet he said the risks to the vaccine for add respect he -- adolescents are greater than the risk of the disease. we address diseases based on the individual and who they are and what their risks are. you base the risks and benefits of treatment versus the disease. the risks of covid, particularly in 2021 for a 70-year-old were

maybe a thousand times more than for a teenager. in fact, when we looked at some country statistics, the entire country of germfully had no deaths -- germany had no deaths among healthy children in the ages of 5 to 17. if you take out children who are very, very ill in our country and look at only healthy children, there's no measurable risk of dying from covid in our country for the youth. and yet we still have a policy here, and this policy originated not with scientists, nor with the scientific committee, the policy that they're adhering to here to force our senate pages to have three vaccines actually comes from political appointees in the biden administration. it's not just a fact or a matter of whether or not the vaccine is of benefit to them. it's also a question of whether or not the vaccine is actually potentially harmful to them. we do know that there is a side effect of the vaccine, particularly in young people.

particularly boys but it can happen in girls primarily between the ages of 14 and 24. we know that that risk increases with each success if vaccine -- successive vaccine because kids have a stronger immune response. we know this because even the cdc recommended that if you've just had covid recently, you shouldn't get a covid vaccine because you've already got a heightened immune response from the disease itself. but we know with certainty that none of the vaccine committees recommended that senate pages have three vaccines and yet that is still the policy. we finally have come to the realization that almost everybody either has been vaccinated or had covid and that actually natural immunity is about five times more potent than the vaccine. we finally have come to a sensible policy with regard to our military. we're no longer mandating the covid vaccine in the military. and yet one of the few places left on the planet where we're mandating it is in the senate.

admittedly, there's not that many senate pages but should we be lacking in science and ignoring the science to force them to do something that is actually potentially dee la terious for their health. even the counsel for -- council for the district of columbia voted that student -- some on the other side were saying we need to force the senate pages to take these three vaccines because that's what the d.c. schools are doing. the doc schools are no longer doing this -- you d.c. schools are no longer doing this. you can't say we need to vaccinate them to save the old senators. that's not true. it doesn't stop transmission. we do believe that still for vulnerable crowds, vulnerable age groups, over 65, that there may be some reduction in

hospitalization and death. there is no pleasurable benefit for adolescents, and there is a greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine, admittedly still not a high risk, but about between four and six out of 15,000 of an inflammation of the heart. we do know the risk for a child or adolescent, a senate page, dying is zero. if they have particular health problems, and they want to take a vaccine, nobody is stopping them, but we shouldn't be mandating something that the science doesn't support. so just before thanksgiving, the mayor of d.c. signed the legislation that gets rid of d.c.'s mandate. there is no more excuse that the d.c. schools are requiring this. the council and mayor of one of the most liberal cities in the united states are all of one mind -- we've had enough of covid vaccine mandates. we've had enough of students missing school for noncompliance. and we've had enough of kids falling behind their studies for

the sake of a misguided mandate. yet, to become a senate page, you still to this day must get a covid-19 booster shot. this requirement in the senate persists despite the fact that study after study demonstrates that the risks posed by the vaccine for young and healthy people are greater than the risks popesed by covid. in addition, all sides acknowledge that the vaccines do not prevent transmission. study after study shows it makes no sense to mandate covid vaccines for teenagers who are healthy, and that such a mandate could be dangerous. a myocarditis study published last year in the journal of american medical association "cardiology" examined 23 million people, ages 12 and up across denmark, finland, norway, and sweden. this study of 23 million people

found after two doses of an mrna vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher compared with being unvaccinated and higher after the second dose of the vaccine. almost all of the myocarditis came after the second vaccine. with each vaccine, it increases the rink, because the kids, or younger people, make an amazingly strong immune reaction to the vaccine. the risk was highest among males age 16 to 24. that's why many of us argued till we were blue in the face that mandating it for our young soldiers was wrong and actually malpractice. when we did succeed in removing that mandate, that was passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. yet the same rink exists for the -- the same risk exists for the pages and the mandate continues. this is why germany, france,

finland, sweden, denmark, and norway all restrict the use of mrna vaccines for covid for young people. yet the policy for senate pages bl blindly commands vaccines for young, healthy people. a study published in december 2020 -- 2022 in the journal of medical ethics found for 100,000 doses of mrna, up to 14.7 cases of myocarditis may be caused in males age 18 too 29. up to 80% of those with pericarditis continue to struggle with cardiac inflammation, more than three months after receiving a second dose. also in december 2022, dr. persaud and dr. benjamin knutsen published a review in the journal of medical

investigation that examined 29 studies across three continents. six of the studies showed that after two doses of mrna vaccine, more than 1 in 10,000 males, ages 20 to 24, experience myocarditis. a study the same month found that regardless of sex, among those ages 5 to 39, myocarditis or pericarditis occurred in one in every 50,000 after a first booster. with statistics like that, why would anyone think it's a good idea to insist upon boosters for our young pages in early teenage years. it is the height of malpractice to subject young people to the risk of vaccination simply to satisfy the hunger for mandates. even the bureaucrats are finding they can no longer credibly impose covid mandates, there is a growing movement among scientists and doctors across

the country to think more rationally about this. we've always had this. for example, the flu vaccine was never mandated on children. children survived the flu and developed immunity. how long does immunity last? curiously, they found a woman who survived the spanish flu, who was still alive a couple years ago. she still had antibodies to the spanish flu, although it had been nearly a hundred years since she was infected. we know people that are sars, the first sars in 2002-2003, still have antibodies nearly 20 years later. people have learned to live with covid. even the d.c. council, which governs one of the most lynn ral -- liberal, mandate-happy cities in the country knows their constituents will no longer tolerate mandates, particularly on children. the covid-19 mandate remains. will this continue indefinitely? if so, based on what data?

if someone can come five years from now say i've had covid 15 times, the last eight it was minor cold symptoms, yet you're still mandatingthat i take a vaccine that doesn't stop transmission, has no benefit for hospitalization or death to young people. when they approved the booster for kids, they could not come up with data showing reduced hospitalization or death. why? because young people aren't going to the hospital or dying from covid. they simply haven't from the beginning and they don't now. the only way they could true to prove efficacy, and not really efficacy but to prove some effect from giving a booster is they said if you give these kids a vaccine, they will make antibodies. quell, my response is you can give them a hundred vaccines, a thousand, they make antibodies every time. that's proof of the way vaccines work, but ittent do mean you have to or -- it doesn't mean you have to or need it.

public health measures should be backed up with proof that the benefits outweigh the burdens. there's no evidence of that when it comes to vaccination or booster mandates, especially for teenagers, who as a group are less vulnerable to this virus than in i senator. in fact, it's little known but absolutely true, the seasonal flu, or influenza, is more deadly for covid for people in the young category. the category and age of the senate pages, the seasonal flu is more deadly than covid. this isn't to downplay covid. but just to say covid had a very targeted mortality and lethality. its target was generally over 65. it was also those who were obese at almost any age. but it specifically was not fatal for young, healthy people. i merely ask that the senate open its eyes to what several other countries are doing, what the rest of the country sees,

that covid vaccine mandates on children are harmful, counterproductive, and must be put to an end. that is why i ask unanimous consent that the senate pass my resolution to end all covid-related vaccination mandates for pages who serve in the chamber. therefore i ask, mr. president -- madam president, unanimous consent that are the committee on rules and administration be discharged from consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 336, further that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. murphy: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. madam president, this is the third time that senator paul has made this unanimous consent request. ity the third time that i will come down to the floor to object. we can continue to use the senate's time to have this don't

and argument, or we can use our time more wisely to focus on topics that matter a little bit more to the american public than the vaccination policy for senate pages. i wish senator paul would stop dragging these hardworking senate pages into his relentless campaign against vaccines vaccine science. i think it's pretty unsavy these -- unsavory. these young men and women do a good, important job tore for us. to be dragged into the mill of senator paul's focus on trying to unwind and undermine vaccine science, he don't think it's good for the senate. i don't think it's good for the nation's public health. cnn reported earlier this year that covid-19 is a leading cause of death for children in the united states. it's a fairly low mortality rate.

senator paul is right. but there are children all over the country that have died from covid-19. that is a fact. it is one of the leading causes of death for children over the course of the last four to five years. and so i do take seriously the idea that as adults we have a responsibility to protect the health and the safety of young people who come work for us, especially minors who are here under our care and protection. we owe a special duty of care to young people, students who come work in the united states senate. no, i do not think that the senate should micromanage senate employee health policy or the policy related to the health care and health care security of our pages. i think that we should allow that decision to be made by profes professionals. we're not vaccine scientists.

we are not spending the entirety of our day thinking about the health care security of the workforce here in the senate. but i have two other reasons why i continue to object to this, and i will continue to come down and object to this resolution. first, senator paul says that the existing vaccine is not effective against transmission. i won't dispute the fact that this vaccine is not primarily being used to prevent transmission. but this a permanent resolution. this resolution doesn't agree only to this moment in time. it doesn't apply to this vaccine or to this strain of covid-19. if next year there was a strain of covid-19 and a vaccine that was more effective against transmission, then there's no method by which we could require senate pages to be vaccinated as a means of protecting the rest of us.

so, the facts that senator paul references are relative to this strain and this vaccine, but this a permanent resolution that controls the senate and senate health policy permanently. but more importantly, all of the facts that senator paul references in terms of the low risk to children are all conditioned by a phrase that he, to his credit, continues to reference, that there is a low risk for young and healthy children. he said if you take out sick children, if you just take out sick children, then there's really nothing to worry about. i don't think senator paul has access to the medical records of every single page that's working for us. neither do i. but i can take a guess that there are probably young people who come work for us who have

preexisting conditions, who have underlying health complications that might actually make them more significantly at risk. and senator paul will say, i don't think you can write the risk to the pages off by saying that if you're healthy, you're fine. you don't know the medical history of all these young people. there can be, and likely is, a risk of serious health complications. even if you come to the conclusion that that shouldn't be the responsibility of the senate to require the vaccine, this resolution is permanent. even if you get a future vaccine that is more effective against transmission, this resolution controls.

so, i will continue to come down here and object to this. i continue to be saddened by the fact that senator paul brings our pages over and over again into this debate that he wants the senate to have over vaccine science, and for that reason i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from kentucky. mr. paul: nothing in our proposal bans future vaccines, so it's a spurious argument to say that somehow this would prevent a future vaccine. ten years from turn. now ebola erupts. nothing prevents that. he mentioned that the teenagers might have a president of the united states's preexisting condition. we don't know that. you're rate so nothing in this resolution prevents anyone from getting a vaccine. the i would recommend you ask your doctor. ask your doctor and your parents

and decide whetherst whether or not you need a vaccine. so there are no real arguments here being made. it is important to know that no one would be prevented from getting a vaccine and no one would be prevented from having a new vaccine policy later on. the question of who is dying from this is an important one because the question is whether healthy kids, whether the risks of the vaccine are greater than the risks of the disease. this is something people can have different conclusions on, but the science shows at this point that the risks of the vaccine are greater than the risks of the disease for healthy kids. if your kid is not healthy or has had a kidney transplant and you want to talk it over with their doctor, by all means they can get a vaccine if they want. but realize that the other kids getting vaccines is not protecting your child because the vaccines don't stop transmission. and this is admitted by everyone, even the biden administration admits this. everyone admits they don't stop

transmission. so what we're doing here is going against all science. we're going against all freedom. we're taking the freedom away from our senate pages and their parents to make this decision. and we're actually using faulty science. the two main committees that have looked at this voted to recommend this for only people over 65. where the evidence was that in that age group, the risks of the disease were greater than the risks of the vaccine. i acknowledge that. for children, teenagers, for adolescents, it's the opposite s the risks of the vaccine, while small, actually exceed the risk of the disease, which are virtually zero, if not zero, for healthy kids. and so i find it elitist, i find it the height of arrogance that some people will want to make those decisions for others.

in a free country, each individual should be allowed to make these decisions. you shouldn't have some nonscientist senator coming forward and saying, you must do as i tell you, particularly when all the science actually goes against that at this point. but even if you disagreed with my point of view, i'm not here to tell you you have to take my point of view. go get a vaccine for your kids, if you want. but the interesting thing is, people are smarter than you think they are. if you look at the statistics on vaccines, there will be people lamenting, oh, if we only had had more people vaccined, we would have done so much better. it is not true. over age 65, it's somewhere swoon 97% and 98% of people over 65 decided to get vaccinated. people are smarter than you think. people see someone their age dying, oh, i might get vaccinated. you know how many people are getting vaccinated that are

teenagers? it is about 3%. they may have have already had the test. what we do know from looking at millions of people in large studies that if you've had covid, your protection from the going it again or getting seriously ill is about five times better than the vaccine. now, that's not an arctic for not getting the vaccine if thank you -- if you are in a risky category. the other thing is the current senate policy and page policy isn't taking into account the fact that if one of the pages had covid two weeks ago and now they want to be a page, we won't let them come up, are they advising getting a vaccine and they've only had covid two weeks ago? i don't think there is lea any allowance against that? that's against medical advice to take a vaccine very quickly after you have already had covid because the immune response is so extraordinary, that's when

you get this overlap or overlay which causes an inflammation of the heart. so what i would find today is that the flatter of society wants you to do what you're told. the flatter doesn't believe in com come and continue to yes, i come back until some sense is finally jogged into the minds of those who want you to just blindly do as you're told. don't think about it. don't make your own decisions. do as you are told. i think that will eventually backfire because there is a lot of people out there who made the decision that, a you know what? i am ape not vaccinating my child because it is still under emergency use. it has some unknowns and i know my kid has already had covid. i don't see any kids dying from covid unless they're extraordinarily ill. when the senator says, oh, they are a he a leading cause of death among children, they all

have significant other terminal illnesses. none of them are healthy children dying from covid. entire countries have released their statistics. there is even more that the government is hiding from us, frankly. the vast majority of people over 65 took at least two vaccines. 97s%, 98%. if you've taken two vaccines and gotten covid twice, which is the average person over 65 because it doesn't stop transmission, what are your risks of going to the hospital or dying? that's what you want to know. downed to take a -- do you need to take a vaccine over three months? tell me and i'll make a rational decision based on that. cdc won't release this because the cdc have become salesman for big farm if a. big pharma had a complaining that they are not making enough money because you are not rushing out and getting another

vaccine. s wouldn't you want to know, am i going to get sick and die if i've already had two vaccines? there ought to be a little more consideration for freedom, and i bring this up for the senate pages because i do care about their medical freedom and right to be left alone, and this is not the end of this debate. mr. manchin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: are we in a quorum call? i ask unanimous consent at that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination -- i call up number 108, nicholas guertin to be an assistant secretary of the navy, that that the senate vote on the nomination without any intervening a action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session.

fer sfler objection? -- the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense. nicholas guertin of virginia to be an assistant secretary of the navy. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. manchin: thank you, madam president. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:{$} the clerk: ms. baldwin.

>> it creates the necessity for

us to work diligently to insure humanitarian aid is in a number of circumstances restricted and we have great clarity on the fact that it shall be used for humanitarian aid and not diverts. >> thank you, ms. paley. >> thank you very much is. i would reiterate what assistant secretary rosenberg said on support of humanitarian issues which echoes support across multiple administrations for addressing humanitarian the issues and also having these humanitarian carveouts in our legislation that allow for with the proper due diligence humanitarian transactions to go to people across the world including in areas where we have very strong disagreements about their policy approaches. since october 7th president biden and secretary blinken have emphasized their support for israel and israel's right to

defend themself including against ran january-back -- iranian-backed terrorism. at the same time, president biden and secretary blinken have also emphasized the focus on humanitarian support to gaza. >> thank you. my e colleagues on the other side of the aisle allege that president biden has weakened iran sanctions, but my understanding is that president biden has increased sanctions since the trump administration. in fact, the two transactions of waivers that are the focus of this hearing are actually carried e over from the trump administration. can you please confirm that these are the same sanctions waivers from the trump administration that have been continued by the biden administration? is that true? if enter thank you very much. yes, in terms of the waiver with regards to iraq and iraq's purchases or electricity from

iran, this is the 20th renewal across administrations. so this administration has been very clear about our support for iraq, and that's what this waiver is about. i'm happy to get into more detail. and as ms. rose. burg said -- >> time has expired. i'll let you finish the sentence, but the gentlelady's time has expired. >> o.k.. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, yield back. >> and with that, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, is recognized for 5 minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. what's happening today is that this subcommittee under the leadership of our young chairman is trying to ask questions with because as you know as required by law, a report -- there's a report that was issued to congress. there was only one sentence in the report regarding the payment transfer of authority in the most recent november iraqi

electric waiver. so i've got a copy of your statement here, and the statement says the secretary also a certifies that france, italy and oman faced exceptional circumstances, exceptional circumstances preventing them from significantly reducing their petroleum products, purchases from iran. well, looking i get it with france. but italy has reserves of 1.3% what it already uses. i don't know what the exceptional and significant is there. oman has proven if reserves of 79.4 times its annual consumption. and yet this secretary has chosen to fool the united states congress into believing

significant and exceptional rather than providing the data and information. so the problem is, is that we've been around for a while. and, remember, the obama administration five different times argued the case they could only give iran cash, billions of dollars. and the only way they could do it was in cash. well, we know that you can't follow the cash. with we don't know where that went. the obama administration if argued, oh, but we're for, we're for the israelis but kept giving billions of dollars to cash. hamas only makes, has about $500 million a year, and yet these

administrations from, granted, the democratic side, give withs of dollars -- give billions of dollars cash to the iranians where it's just slush money. just go give it out. there's no way to follow the money. mr. paley, there is no explanation in this report as to why it necessitated payment transfers. i gave you two minutes. i'd like for him to answer the question of what should have been in here in this report. >> thank you very much, mr. congressman. and thank you for the opportunity. >> i'm sure you're delighted with it. >> we welcome the opportunity because at the heart of it, what this waiver is about is our support for iraq. across administrations we have issued and renewed these waiver- >> then why did you blame oman and exceptional circumstances

and significant? why did you use those terms for someone that has 79 times what their an gruel needs are? -- annual needs are? >> thanks very much for the question. so over time multiple administrations are are approved and renewed these waivers to allow iraq to continue to purchase electricity from iran. over time money has accrued in these accounts that are in iraq and that are subject to all of the restrictions that have remained in place because we have not lifted any sanctions against ranch over -- iran. over time, as this money has a accrued, iran has sought to use it as a point of leverage over iraq and pressured iraq to release this money, to give it back in certain ways, and iraq has stood firm. so we, with this waiver and with the previous waiver, have sought to stand firm with iraq as it continues to prove its energy

independence, but work with iraq to get these iranian funds out of the restricted accounts in iraq where iran is able to leverage iraq to release this money or transfer it in a way that would potentially not be subject with all the restrictions that are in place -- >> well, i think your use of terms and hiding, in my opinion, behind this need for humanitarian and support iraq and all these things, we are dealing with america's greatest terror, and that is the iranians, and you're giving them cash. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> thank you. gentleman's time the has expired. with that, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. garcia, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for the witnesses' presence today. i echo e many of the comments made by some of my colleagues in condemning the rise of

anti-semitism, islamophobia and the hate of all forms here in the united states and abroad. everyone in this room and and across the world saw the gruesome images and heard the heartbreaking stories of those impacted by the october 7th attack on israel by hamas. attacks like these reinors force that the united states -- reintoes that the united states must maintain its steady leadership abroad and has only strengthened during the biden administration. terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah are financed by iran, there's no question about that. making u.s. sanctions on iran critically important. we heard testimony today that places focus on two sanctions' waiver withs granted by the united states earlier this year. i want to inquire specifically further about the $6 billion in iranian funds transferred from south korean banks to qatar. ms. rose. ing berg -- rosenberg, the

secretary told congress that the u.s. is and qatar have agreed to effectively block the funds that, and that on a case-by-case every case the money would be spent under the current arrangement would be denied for the foreseeable future. would you provide specific examples of oversight mechanisms in place with the humanitarian channels in mace to prevent any funds from being used for terrorist financing? i know that i think mr. hawley said that not one penny has been spent. >> thank you for the question. it is the case that there have been no transfers out of this, from the $6 billion sum held in qatar's financial institution. so i'll offer an explanation of the measures in place to prevent the city version to nonhuman iftarian purposes. nonhumanitarian the purposes. there's three levels of controls

on these restricted funds. so in the fist instance, the financial institutions themselves apply their own know your duster the -- customer and due diligence requirements for the funds. in certain instances, they have adopted a policy to prevet potential recipients of funds. these would be firms engaged in agricultural activity, med e sip and medical -- medicine and medical device supply companies, for example. so they've also, these firms, the financial institutions have also adopted a policy of only letting existing account holders be in the position to receive the funds which is to say those that have already been onboarded and setted for customer awareness. that's one level, is the intensive and enhanced due diligence at the financial institution. on top of that comes the

restrictions from the european, european union. so these are the kinds of controls, know your customer and anti-money laundering controls incumbent on institutions that operate within the e.u. this is because, as noted previously in questions with the chair, the funds are in euros which means that there's a necessity to, when clearing euro transactions, be in line with european policies on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism. so a second layer of controls has to do with european if standards. a third level of controls has to do with the united states and the restrictions that we and the treasury department place on these accounts, on these restricted funds. i will note that there's no u.s. nexus to these funds, nor has there been at any point.

nevertheless, we have imposed our own restrictions on these accounts in these institutions, in these qatari institutions, and this involves our own anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism restrictions. it requires the financial institutions to notify the u.s. treasury department whenever they seek to enpage in any transfer -- engage in any transfer. and back to the original point, no transfers have so far occurred. >> no transfers have occurred. >> that's correct. >> and, mr. paley, are you -- do you cop cur or have anything to add to ms. rosenberg's response? >> i concur with her response, thank you. >> all right. and you said earlier that not one penny has been spent. >> that's correct. >> not one penny. >> correct. >> i think it's worth repeating because that seems to be a point that some don't seem the hear, and i want to make sure that the public heard that. not one penny has been spent. >> exactly. not one penny has been spent --

>> all right. well, thank you, and i see my time's running out. i yield back. >> gentlelady's time has expired. with that, the vice chair of the committee, mr. rose from tennessee, is acknowledged for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. and thank you to our witnesses for being with us today. mr. payly -- can paley, how has the placing of u.s. special envoy to iran robert malley on unpaid leave affected your office's ability to effectively function? >> thanks very much for the question. so as the end deputy special envoy for iran at the state department, i'm in charge of the day-to-day implementation of our iran policy at the department, and nothing has changed in terms of our implementation of that policy. we work across the department and across the interagency to continue to advance president biden and secretary blinken's focus on countering iran which remains a top adversary and

state sponsor of terrorism. >> can you provide any clarity as to why mr. malley's security clearance was with suspended? >> unfortunately, i'm not in a position today to speak to personnel or security clearance issues. >> is that something that perhaps you all could answer in a classified setting? >> i know that the department is engaged with this committee and other committees on certain issues related to this case, but today, again, i'm not in a position to speak to security -- >> if it's possible to get more clarity on that, in that setting, we'd certainly appreciate it. >> we will certainly take the question back. thank you. >> all right. in september the department of treasury established what it called a humanitarian channel in qatar. i think we're all familiar with that action to administer $6 billion in iranian assets from south korea. it is described as a way to, quote, further facilitate the flow of humanitarian assistance to the people of iran. assistant secretary rosenberg,

why did treasury decide to create a, quote, humanitarian, unquote, channel as -- and is this a common mechanism for treasury? >> thank you for the question. as to the why, i'd be very happy to defer to my colleague given that the creation of this particular mechanism was pursuant to a deal on the exchange of detainees from, between iran and the united states. i will defer on that. with regard to is this -- is there precedent for this, in the last administration there was the an effort to establish, there was an establishment of humanitarian channels to pursue the same goal which is to say to take iranian funds, highly are restricted, and that could be used only for humanitarian purposes subject to intense vetting akin to what i just described in the prior questioning.

so there is precedent for this. this is another example that builds on lessons learned and is in a different jurisdiction. >> so practically, and i'll let, mr. paley, i'll let you clarify as well, but is there a stark the difference between a humanitarian channel and other escrow accounts that are available to iran for humanitarian trade purposes? either one of you. >> i can answer that. so it is the case that there's special conditions around a humanitarian channel which is to say the establishment of such a channel is exclusively for, is designed and established exclusively for haw mantarian -- humanitarian payments. and as i was noting before, it can be the case that person potential recipients of the funds are prevetted.

they can only be customers of an institution. it's designed for that purpose. generally speaking, the u.s. law policy and sanctions allow for payment as well as for other countries subject to -- and other programs to be able to pay for humanitarian transactions. but this is a particularized channel established with conditionality around it even though it could be permitted to pay for humanitarian goods in a different account but subject tn account established exclusively for finish. [inaudible] >> and give us a sense of what data treasury is relying on to the insure that the humanitarian channels are the most effective way to get the appropriate assistance to iranian citizens. how are you measuring that? if what are the data sources that you use to measure that?

>> that's an interesting question. i would offer that our highest purpose here to, and the purpose that guides our policy overall is to insure that iran does not have access to money it can use for terror and destabilization. and if so -- >> our time is expired, but i would appreciate it if you might if expand on that photographed for the record. -- for the record. thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. with that, the ranking member from texas, mr. green, is recognized for five minutes. >> i reserve and ask that you go to to the next member that's available for questioning. >> we're -- sorry, mr. green, we're going to have you, this will be our last, this is our last. so it is -- unless we are willing to do a is second round are, which i'm happy to do. i know there's more questions. >> mr. chair, i would refer you to committee rules, and i'll quote, the chair a shall so far

as practicable, defer to the ranking member where are the to the -- with respect to the minority members. i reserve and i ask that you go to a member who has prepared to speak op your side. >> happy to end game in this conversation about our rules -- engage. you have control of your side of the aisle. you, if you don't have any more members, you are the last one so, therefore, it's your turn. i have more members on my side, so -- and that's the discretion of the chair. so i'm not doing anything funky with the rules, it's your turn. [laughter] so i know you'd like to have the last word, but that's not, that's not how this works. we have more members over on this side. the majority if is going to get the last word. so the gentleman if can bypass his ability to have a question.

i'm happy to go to a second round of questioning was i know i certainly have is more questions. so would the gentleman agree e to a second round? >> the gentleman would ask that the chair adhere to the rules, and in so doing, respect my right to pass. and i appreciate your highly technical terminology of funky, but -- [laughter] this is, in my opinion, something that is appropriate under the rules. >> the gentleman will understand that i am ad hearing to the rules -- adhering to the rules which is you get to determine you had the ranking member go first. you always nicely defer to your minutes and always go last op your side of the aisle. if we are ending this hearing, it is the majority's not only right, but because we have enough people over here as we alsoer the nate, the -- alternate, the gentleman from pennsylvania going to go last.

so it is, it is the ranking member's a choice as to whether he wants to claim his 5-minute time. [inaudible conversations] we have, we have, we have deferred to the ranking member on his side. we have given him the ability to choose to have their full ranking member -- [background sounds] hold on. please tell me that you recognize how foolish and childish this is. >> well, i recognize -- >> no, sir -- >> allow me to respond to that. it was not necessary for you to use the term foolish and -- >> okay. so the chair shall -- >> hold on just a moment. i have been very respectful of you, now you will reason me. -- respect me. respect me -- >> gentleman knows i have full respect finish. >> well, then foolish and childish is not the way to address a member of congress.

>> excuse me, sir. i was with actually referring to the staff behind us that was interrupting our proceedings. >> well well, i will defend the staff. i don't think you referred to the staff -- >> actually, i did, as i turned around a -- enter well, you can do it, but i would say that's inappropriate -- >> okay. so would the gentleman hike to proceed, or would you -- >> the gentleman, the member, i, reserve. >> so the gentleman, just to be clear, the ruling of the chair will be that the gentleman is forfeiting his five minutes. the gentleman from pennsylvania will be recognized, and that will be the end of the hearing. that is your choice -- >> and i appeal the radioruling of the chair. >> that is your choice -- >> i appeal the rulingses of the chair. >> i haven't done anything yet. i'm giving you your options. or we can continue on with a second round. i'm happy to go back if you would hike to get the ranking member or ms. garcia, any of your other members here, happy to do that. but either i am a going to

recognize you for your five minutes, or i'm going to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes, and when the gentleman from pennsylvania is done, the hearing is done. >> so -- >> what is your choice? >> may i ask you a question? would you be so kind as to receive a question, mr. chair? >> absolutely. >> your contention is that the gentleman from pennsylvania would be the very haas person? >> unless we have, unless we have more members op our side or your side show up. >> would you hold for a moment? >> happy to. [no audio]

[inaudible conversations] [background sounds]

[inaudible conversations] there are [no audio]

[background sounds]

[inaudible conversations] [background sounds] if.

>> all right. for the fine focus on c-span that are -- folks on c-span that are rivetted by what has been going on with the discussion of our committee rules, tradition is that we also aer the nate -- alternate majority to minority. the majority always starts, the majority always closes. that, that request has been to be changed. i have, i had -- have an understanding with the ranking member now that we will be, at his request, running through the rest of our committee members, the republican committee members. he will then claim the last five minutes of questioning at which point i will grant him an extended time for a closing remark, at which point then i will have that same amount of time for my closing remarks to end the hearing. so after a lots of, lots of back

and forth, it is now the gentleman from pennsylvania, mrr five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so, mr. paley, do you think the $6 billion -- and ms. rosenberg -- will be used only for humanitarian purposes, you pretty much stated, that right? even though the iranian president said they will use it for whatever they want, whenever we need it? do you not believe, as the iranian president not to be trusted at his words? >> i would certainly not believe everything that the iranian president -- >> okay. so the iranian president should not be believed in this case, or do you just pick and choose when you believe him and don't believe him? >> we don't is trust the iranians. we view them as an adversary -- >> okay. so why do you think then the aid would not be used for other purposes. do you understand what the term feng if bl means? you probably do, you're pretty educated, right? do you know what fungible means? okay, so if iran has $50 million

and they were going to use that $50 million for food and then they get a new $50 million and, they can use the new $50 million for food and use the old $50 million to buy weapons for terrorists. you get that, right? sir? why would you think that's not going to happen if you don't trust them? >> thanks very much for the question. so i have full confidence in the due diligence measures that assistant secretary rosen berg has outlined for this money. >> there's an expression, if i may, there's a bridge in brooklyn that i'd like to show you and see if you're interested in. that's just absurd, and i think you know it. and in your memoirs, you'll probably write it that way. what about the $10 million from iraq? if that's not fungible either? that will be highly monitored, and we'll watch where every penny goes? >> in terms of the due diligence, both of these sets of funds can only be used for humanitarian transactions.

>> [inaudible] in theory. in weak theory. against a regime that we dent trust, that we know is bombing american forces as we speak. $6 # billion you say, we love saying not one penny, not one penny if, not one penny. okay. is that permanent? if is that permanent, not one penny of that $6 billion will go to iran? >> as we've said, we do do not expect this money to go anywhere anytime -- >> okay. but can you guarantee it's not permanent -- it is permanent? >> what we've said, and this is based on u.s. law -- >> it's not. so really we should have said not one penny yet has gone to the iranian terrorist regime. that's more of a correct statement. are the sanctions that a iran -- we're stating that the sanctions on iran now are are stronger than during the previous administration even though iran's reserves went from $4 billion to god knows where, $80 billion, even though that is a

fact, you're going to sit there and tell me, tell us, tell the world that the sanctions today are stronger than they were under the previous administration each though -- even though there's been a reversal of fortune? >> so this administration, we have not lifted any sanctions against iran and, in fact, we have actually -- >> yeah, but enforced -- >> -- [inaudible] s of sanctions. >> is it true that the amount of oil exported from iran is nearly ten times what it was four years ago? >> we continue to closely monitor oil exports -- >> i'm asking a question. true or false? is it true that the amount of oil being exported from iran is nearly ten times more than it was four years ago? >> the oil -- >> even though you didn't change the sanctions? >> mr. chairman. >> is that true? >> mr.man, the oil exports from iran have fluctuated over time. there are a variety of reasons for that, but what does remain in place is all of our sanctions which we continue to enforce. >> the sanctions respect

working. clearly. in fact, they're one-tenth what they were in terms of enforcement. the international atomic energy agency found many violations, okay, i was there, of the -- [inaudible] taking place in iran. many vegases. can iran be trusted to abide by those so-called rules that are trying to be worked out with the biden administration with no prize inspections in place? -- surprise inspections in place? >> thanks for the question. so the biden administration has been clear that we will never let iran get a nuclear weapon. one of the things that we have done is continue to encourage our partners and allies to press iran to cooperate more fully with the iaea. we engage regularly with the iaea, and this is one of our top priorities. >> i hope so. do you agree that iran is the primary supporter of terrorism and number one support per of hamas, hezbollah, houthiings and

behind the nearly 100 attacks on american forces in the last two months? >> we have minced no words about our concerns about iran's support for terrorist groups. >> okay, thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired. and per the ranking member's request, we will once again go the a republican member on this side. gentleman from iowa, mr. nunn, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation. i know everyone in this ram is committed to protecting -- in this room is committed to protecting the united states. and i appreciate your public service and the bipartisan work on this committee to hold iran accountable. this is work that needs to continue here, and this is one of the reasons we're in the financial services committee today, because on october 7th the attack on israel was one of the most heinous elements that we've seen. is and we can all agree that iran was one of the primary if funders for this attack to occur by hamas. challengingly, the united states has stalled in phrasing iran assets though.

the $6 billion in illegal oil sale is, we have been good on this committee and i'm proud to lead the commitment that we will never transfer that money to iran. however, they are considering to move a unprecedented amount of oil out of the country for sale through a ghost armada. we've been briefed on this both in a class tied -- classified and unclassified level, we understand this amount of new funding, over $0 million -- # 400% increase since these tough sanctions that we've talked about have actually increased. and it's precipitated a number of threats to the renal not just to israel, but our own forces in the middleal east, areas where i have flown multiple combat operations out of, have received over 100 attacks in just the last weeks alone. and during my time as a counterintelligence officer, i personally witnessed the shady tactics of the iranian regime and their work work to combat u.s. interests in the rage as well as our allies -- in the

region through nefarious relationships with hamas, hezbollah, the houthi rebels, and ultimately, through the iranian las vegas pollution their guards corps. so let's get started. i want to talk to you, ms. rosen burg, talk to us about, first of all, how the iranians are getting -- you work on treasury, how they're able to get oil out of iran through these sanctions using ships that fly under false flags. >> thank you very much for the question. iran uses a variety of methods in order to try and earn money. i appreciate -- >> talk to me specific create about the ships. let's get to it. >> using obscured means, front companies, a network of lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. of ofma do we want a government surveillance state in the united states of america?

movies like "-gagica" where citizens are tracked through their dna, or "minority report" where citizens are tracked through their retina scan, warn us. but we don't need to depend upon movies and fiction to understand what a surveillance state means because we have right now a real-life government surveillance state in china. china's government surveillance state already tracks more than one million uighur citizens through facial recognition. as cochair of the congressional executive commission on china, i've had a front-row seat to how china uses facial recognition technology to track and to enslave a million people. and i've watched with some alarm

as the united states government has begun to expand its own use of facial recognition technology tied to databases. especially because there's never been a debate, let alone a vote, here in the u.s. senate about whether or not we want to have a national facial recognition system controlled by the government. we've never had a debate related to the risks that that involves in terms of its potential threat to our freedom and to our privacy. so i want to force there to be such a debate. i want to force there to be a vote. a government with power to track us everywhere we go is a real threat to privacy, a real threat to freedom. that's why senator john kennedy and i have introduced the bipartisan traveller privacy protection act to curtail the

use of facial recognition technology by tsa. step by step, slowly, steadily tsa is expanding its system of facial recognition technology, and let's just take a look at what that's looked like. in 2018, tsa began with a three-week test of facial recognition where passenger photos and data were deleted immediately. then in 2019 they did a second test, but they allowed the photos and data to be stored for up to six months. by 2020, we're talking about the ability by the tsa to hold photos and data for up to two years. in 2021, we're now talking about tsa beginning to match facial recognition photos against the customs and border protection

database. all of these steps taking place really with no recognition by americans that this program is starting and expanding in this fashion. certainly no discussion here in senate committees and senate floor about this steady expansion. ultimately what the tsa is aiming at is a world in which your face is your driver's license. your face is your passport. well -- and that means a massive database, a massive tracking of americans wherever they g -- they go. this summer, the tsa announced plans to expand from the current 25 airports where facial recognition technology is used to 430 airports across the

country. so no matter where you live, this system of tracking citizens is coming to your community. in fact, as we see the geographic expansion, we're also seeing that technological expansion. tsa administrator david pell cass ski said in april of this year, a few months ago, at the south by southwest conference -- and i quote -- eventually, we will get to the point where we will require biometrics across the board. what he's really saying here is, right now we are allowing some opt out from the use of facial tote tows at the -- photos at the airport, and i'll have more to say about that in a moment

because it is difficult to opt out. everyone will have to be scanned everywhere in the tsa system. requiring facial recognition should set off alarm bells for everyone. once you've built the infrastructure of a data abase d the cameras, then it's easy, tempting for the government to use it in the name of security. i'm reminded of benjamin franklin's warning that those who would give up essential liberty deserve neither liberty nor safety. as i know, there will always be a story about some bad guy hiding out in some town somewhere who gets caught on a camera and might not have gotten caught otherwise. but allowing the government to know where you are at all times is an enormous price to pay.

it is a price paid in the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom. that's why it needs to be debated, and that's why we need to put a brake on the system until we consciously lay out what we consider acceptable for the use of such technologies. we really don't know how a future government will use or misuse this technology, but we do know how it's misused in nations like china. you know, passengers, as you go to the airport, are confronting a long line in which they -- they see a lot of signs that i'll slow you in a moment. but what they don't understand is when they get to the front of the line, the tsa agent is going to go like this, directing you to step in front of the camera. well, many of us in this chamber have experienced that because when you travel through reagan national, that's exactly what

happens every day, every week. i was pretty surprised to see that show up with no signage saying that this was an opt-in program, which is the way the tsa had originally described it. but they changed it to an opt-out program. again, without clear debate or laws here in our chamber being discussed and being passed. as you stand in the line, and these are pictures thattive a sean in previous trips through reagan national. the things they want you to know have these big signs like this. you are entering an area where all persons and property are subject to additional screening. okay, well, good to know you might trigger an alarm, you might have additional screening. or -- hey, a you got any questions or comments? is here is now you reach us for live customer service

assistance. or firearms, including shotgun chokes are not allowed through security checkpoints. all firearms must be declared. okay, fine. these are things they want you to know. there are actually about seven of these different signs at reagan national as you stand in line. but there is no sign saying, and when you get to the tsa check-out point, you have an option to check out, to opt out of the program. no clear sign like this. so i brought the head of tsa in, had a conversation about the fact that they are not informing citizens, and as a result of that, there is now some information, some information but not adequate information. now, here is a chart -- or a picture that i took, and as you're directed here to the

check-out -- and you can see the driver's license -- the sign is set sideways so nobody can read it -- until the moment that you are stepping up to the caresol, and then you arer what the tsa agent is telling you to do o i found this a little humorous that they put out these signs after i gave them a hard time. but a they placed them deliberately so people couldn't see them. and let's take a look at what that old sign said. service-service biometric identity verification technology. paving the path for a safe and secure travel experience. well, these type of signs are very different than the signs i just showed you. they're very detailed and this is only when you actually reach

the kiosk. nobody has a chance to read this entire thing and realize what it's about. it doesn't say facial recognition at the top. it doesn't say, remember, you have two options here in nice big print. you have embedded in this -- yeah, embedded in this there are some details. right down here it says photo capture is optional. but you would have to read through this and understand what it is talking about. meanwhile, the tsa agent is just saying, get in front of the camera. so that's really not a sufficient way of educating citizens and having a true opt-out or an opt-in program. now, they've got a new sign. now, this one also doesn't say facial recognition. and if you look down here and see what's highlighted, use your physical i.d., use your eligible digital i had, these are not about opting out. now, they're about how to

actually use facial i.d. but there is a little tag down here at the bottom. if you decide to opt out of facial matching, notify the officer. well, nobody in the three seconds or two seconds you have as they motion you to step forward where you can actually see this sign is going to read this whole document and go, oh, ^ what this all about? hidden at the bottom? it is completely clear that ts is a has no intention of having an opt-in program. they're hiding all the information. -- about the fact that you have that right u now, because of my complaints to the tsa, because of my advocacy, i said, a you know, you need towed have signs on the way in that allow people. then you need to have a sign by the camera. they didn't have any signs on the way in. but they did do a little sign

right by the camera at the last second. it says, you may opt out of facial i.d. validation. please -- in speaker m{l1}c{l0}carthy print yet -- in smaller print, please inform the tsa officer. see additional information on blue signs nearby. referring you over to read a more complex document. again, none of this makes sense if you want to give people real information because this is the last second as the officer is pointing you to step in front of the camera. the sign looks pretty large in this chart, but it's actually a little kind of five by eight sign, again to my point u this sign also says your photo and limited biographic information will be eliminated after your transaction. well, if you hear that, your photo and limited biographic information will be deleted after the transaction, it sounds

like it will be deleted immediately. but what you is the real policy? that they can retain your data for two years. that's a big difference between a sign that implies it'll delete it immediately and the fact that they're going to keep your data in a database for two years. -- up to two years. it's outrageous. -- it's outageous had that t.s.a. continues to shuttle people through it's system not telling people that clearly it's optional, not telling people that they're holding ton their biometric data. and, worse, the agents are not at all clear about opting out because i have repeatedly opted out, tried to opt out, and so i have the experiences to share with you. here's what happens. you get four or five feet out waiting for the next person to leave because there is a line saying, don't go there. then they motion you forward and they immediately -- tsa agent

points to the camera and on the far side of the camera is where you have to put your driver's license in, forcing you to step in front of the camera. and so you say i'm choosing to opt out, officer, and they say get in front of the camera because they're not really familiar with what that means because nobody is informed so nobody is doing it. and you say no, there's an option to opt out, and i'm choosing to opt out. then you have to explain it to the tsa agent. so i'm giving you my driver's license but not stepping in front of the camera. you have to reach under the camera, slide it in there, take it out, bring it back, hand it to the officer. they look at the photo of your screen taken of your driver's license, they compare it to your face. all very good. or they say you stand over

there. so twice of the several times i've attempted to opt out, i've been directed to stand over there in a rather hostile fashion while they went and found somebody to address the fact that this passenger is refusing to do what they say and step in front of the camera. and eventually it gets resolved, but the first time it included, and you, sir, are going to hold everyone up at this airport. well, well, thank you very much. it's supposed to be possible just to opt out and hand you my driver's license. stand over there, sir. don't move, all of which i'd be happy to share with you on a recording because it is legal to take photos when you're in line at tsa. this is not okay. the massive expansion of state surveillance which will create a national surveillance system here in america with the potential for great abuse by the

government has to be debated here, has to be addressed here in the senate chamber. we need to put a halt on this expansion of this technology, and we need to do it soon. s let me be clear, the legislation that senator kennedy and i are proposing would not affect customs and border protection. so don't tell me some terrorist who had come into the country would have been caught because of facial toinl but we didn't have it. what i'm talking about is creating a surveillance state or stopping a surveillance state inside the united states of america, not at the borders. what the legislation would do is guarantee that you can move about freely without being tracked everywhere by the government. and let me also note that the tsa has been refusing to share

their air rate from their initial studies. in many facial recognition systems, there's a lot higher air rate for people with brown or black skin, but they won't share that data. they just say oh, it's accurate. they say only has a 3% error rate. i'd like to see the breakdown on that. 3% error rate means they have 68,000 people a day who erroneously are addressed through this computer system. then they try to say this will be a more efficient system, it will be faster. they still have to have the agent right there. i've watched it go faster for individuals, tsa agents who are both grabbing the driver's license and then comparing it to the face, go faster than it does in the photo system. so, they'll make arguments, but

i think we need to thoroughly campaign those arguments. they'll make arguments about a slight increase in security. they'll make arguments about a slight increase in efficiency. but at what cost to our privacy? what cost to our freedom? and are those arguments actually even valid? they won't release the data. i don't want america to be a fissiles state. i don't want to be like a surveillance state like the dna portrayed, with irises under the minority report movie. i don't want it to become an american surveillance state like china using facial recognition. and in china, that facial recognition is used to track and control their citizens, including enslavement of more than a million ethnic uighurs. i don't want america to become a surveillance state because we ignore the issue and let it just

gradually expand, never debating it and never voting on it. so i urge my colleagues, senator kennedy and i will be encouraging folks to join us in this bill, the traveler privacy protection act. let's say no to this steady expansion without a debate and without a vote. the steady expansion of the american government surveillance state. thank you.

mr. merkley: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. madam president, i come to the floor again to discuss two u.s. attorney nominations which have been on the calendar for weeks.

rebecca c. lutzko, nominated to be u.s. attorney for the northern district of of ohio. and april perry, nominated to serve as u.s. attorney for the northern district of illinois. on several previous occasions i've had to come to the floor to request unanimous consent for the senate to take up these noncontroversial, bipartisan nominations and confirm these law enforcement nominees. each time i've come to the floor asking for this, the junior senator from ohio has objected. he says that he ran for office to fight the criminals and not the cops. it turns out to be a hollow promise when he's holding up criminal prosecutors at a professional level in two major parts of the united states, one of them his own state. our communities desperately need top federal prosecutors in place

interested in stopping fentanyl? i am. thousands of people are dying. who's going to prosecute those cases? the u.s. attorneys, 93 of them across the united states. but you can't prosecute the case if you don't have the u.s. attorney there to lead the effort, coordinate the effort with other branches of government. you can have an interim in there and i'm sure that person will do as good a job as they can, but it isn't like the permanent person that you need as u.s. attorney. here we have two that have been chosen by the junior senator from ohio to stop, one from his own state. u.s. attorneys lead the nation's efforts to prosecute violate criminals and protect our communities from violence, terrorism, and more. the u.s. attorney for the northern district of ohio is no exception. while the entire nation has been impacted by the opioid epidemic, ohio has been hit harder than almost any other state. over the course of one year, from april 2022 to april 2023, more than 5,000 ohioans lost

their lives to drug overdoses. that number is shocking. 5,000 in one year. on average, every day 14 ohio families lose a loved one to drugs. the u.s. attorney for the northern district of ohio could, as we speak, be tackling this drug crisis with community stakeholders like the toledo metro drug traffic force. instead her nomination has been languishing on the calendar here in the senate for months because one senator, the junior senator from ohio, has promised, i guess, the former president, donald trump, that he would do his best to get even with the department of justice for even considering holding donald trump responsible for his conduct. it would be laughable if it weren't so damned dangerous. because senator vance is not just harming the united states and he's not just harming his own state, the precedent he's setting will undermine public

safety across the nation for years to come. as i've stated before, the senate has a long history of confirming u.s. attorneys by unanimous consent. they don't even have roll call votes. when it came time for the trump u.s. attorneys, no votes were required. democrats in control for most of that period of time said to the president and his administration, you pick the u.s. toattorneys. the junior senator from ohio does not agree with that. before president biden took office, the last time the senate required a roll call vote on a u.s. attorney was in 19 # 5. -- 19756789 at the beginning of a new presidential administration it's customary for all u.s. attorneys to reside in mass. that's the ordinary course of business. as we learned in the senate, you can change that if you want to and you want to run the risk of not bringing someone new to fill a position if it's that important. that's why during the trump administration, 85 of president

trump's u.s. attorney nominees moved through the senate judiciary committee. democrats allowed trump's nominees, every single one of them to be confirmed by unanimous consent, many of whom we fwhot have chosen -- would not have chosen personally but that was the tradition we held to. it would not have been realistic to force a floor time debate on every single one of those nominees and still expect 85 u.s. attorneys to be confirmed and on the job in a timely manner. that tradition and the logic behind it obviously escapes the junior senator from ohio. so we respected our colleagues and respected the need for leader in the u.s. attorney's office. the democrats put public safety and the needs of law enforcement ahead of the obvious politics of the day but now the senator from ohio is setting an unfortunate standard putting us on a path of requiring cloture and confirmation votes for every u.s. attorney nominee, something everyone here knows is not feasible. does this sound reminiscent of

another republican strategy from another republican senator in the state of alabama? he held up, i believe, 400 military promotions for months at a time. he was angry about a new policy in the department of defense after the dobbs decision. to protest that, he literally put a brick on 400 nominees for promotion in the u.s. military. finally, finally two weeks ago he relented. we still have 11 to take care of. but to think of the hardship caused those individuals and the fact that we didn't have leadership when we should have for our national security is an indication to me of how this strategy of just stop the train, i want the world to get off, is not a sensible one. so what will happen in the future? when inevitably dozens of u.s. attorneys are left to function without senate-confirmed leadership? public safety will suffer and we're setting a terrible precedent. to get angry with the administration and try to require a roll call and a vote,

at least one, maybe two, on each nominee is unnecessary and it's not logical and it doesn't follow the precedent of the senate. all because one senator has decided that because donald trump is facing indictments and prosecution in various parts of the united states, he wants to protest by hurting the selection of u.s. attorneys in his own home state of illinois and the state of -- his home state of ohio and the state of illinois. we have before us two highly qualified nominees to lead the respective u.s. attorney's office. until we confirm them, law enforcement agencies in both illinois and ohio will be held back from doing their best to fight crime and our drug crisis in this country. when the senator from ohio was asked why he was doing this and what his goal was, he was very explicit. i will hold all doj nominations. we will grind the justice department to a halt,

quote-unquote, june 13 of this year. well, i can tell you we just had a hearing with the director of the fbi and he talked to us about the battles he's fighting, the terrorism tlets across america since -- terrorism threats across america since october 7 in israel. are we going to have the department of justice on the job with professionals doing the best they can or are you going to let it grind to a halt? grind to a halt. those were his words. well, i hope we have some common sense on the situation. and i hope we do it right now. i ask unanimous consent that at a time be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, calendar number 314 and 315, two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on each nomination, upon the use and yielding back of time the senate

proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: reserving the right to object and with respect to my colleague from new york, my argument here is very simple. mr. vance:}and it's this. the department of justice under joe biden and merrick garland's leadership has become a weapon for political intimidation as opposed to an instrument to prosecute justice in this country. my colleague from illinois says that donald trump has asked me to do this. he of course has no evidence for this fact. i never had a conversation with president trump to this effect. what i have said publicly and privately and to anyone who will listen is that the department of justice should be about justice and not about politics.

this hold policy which covers two nominees right now and maybe a third coming up to the department of justice is simply to say that this cannot go on. we are a republic, not a banana republic. so long as merrick garland prosecutes not just donald trump but any number of political opponents from catholic fathers of seven to parents protesting peacefully at their school board meetings, so long as the department of justice focuses on citizens exercising their rights rather than criminals who are violating the rights of others, i will continue to object and i do object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. durbin: madam president the presiding officer: the senator from illinois mr. durbin: i keep hearing this argument over and over again, weaponizing the department of justice. his complaint is the department of justice has decided that donald trump, an american citizen, should be held responsible for his own conduct. why would he argue that any citizen in this country is above

the law? i didn't choose that -- concludes to make that strategy or even support it publicly, but i can't argue with the decision by the attorney general nor the state of new york, nor the state of atlanta who believe that donald trump did things that he should be held accountable for. he will have his day in court like every american citizen. he should not be put in some saintly status that he can't be touched. and to think that in order to show my protest to any policy, i want to see the department of justice of the united states grind to a halt, does the senator have any idea what he just said? to think that we would stop the court proceedings, wee would stop the prosecutions, we would stop the war against drugs, we'd stop the war against terrorism, have them grind to a halt because i'm mad that the former president is being in my mind harassed by this administration. this is irresponsible conduct. it's dangerous conduct. and it's a terrible precedent to set in the senate that we would

say to any individual you have the power to stop a nominee who's been found to be acceptable on a bipartisan basis through the senate judiciary committee. you know as well as i do these nominees come before the committee and both staffs, democrat and republican, tear through them to look for any flaws, any reason to stop the nominations. these two, his home state and illinois both passed the bipartisan test and they were on their way to do a job for america, making it a safer place to live. and he stops them because he doesn't like the way donald trump is being treated. is that a fact? he admits it on the floor of the senate. it's hard to explain to the senator. he's new to the senate, relatively new to the senate, that some of the traditions in the senate are worth keeping. the fact that we gave 85 u.s. attorney nominees to donald trump as democrats and did it without a single record vote is an indication we were trying to help his administration do their job. why won't the senator from ohio let the biden administration do

their job and keep his own state safe? i yield the floor. a senator: madam president the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that adam coldwell in my office be granted floor privileges until december 31, 2023 the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. i yield. a senator: madam president the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts mr. markey: madam president, before i begin my remarks, i ask unanimous consent that the following legislative fellows in my office be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the congress. oliver stevenson, alexander swanson, and martin wolf.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. two weeks ago our nation surpassed 38 mass murders, the highest level since 2006. since then at least three additional mass murders have occurred. this harrowing record serves as another forceful call to action for congress. we must act today to end gun violence, and that is why i rise today in support of my 3-d printed gun safety act. i rise for those festival goers in las vegas. i rise for patrons of pulse nightclub and club q. i rise for the children in sandy hook, yew value day -- uvalde

and lewiston. i rise for all those whose names do not dominate the airwaves. i rise and rise again. there is no conceivable reason to further delay another gun violence prevention vote in the united states senate. senate republicans are blocking the will of the american people and exposing americans to unnecessary bloodshed. this month the gun violence archive reported just under 40,000 gun-related deaths in the united states this year, including over 22,000 suicides. additionally, over 1,500 minors under the age of 18 have been fatally shot. i rise today for the 40,000 families whose lives are forever changed because republicans refuse to take action on gun

violence. 40,000 families. this congress unfortunately has no shortage of brutally tragic stories to remind us that the most vulnerable among us will continue to suffer from firearm violence if we fail to act. and we need to act now, and we should have acted a long time ago to pass commonsense legislation that keeps guns out of dangerous hands. there is a long list of commonsense bills that democrats have introduced this congress to prevent gun violence, but republicans have not allowed a vote on a single bill. none of the bills have ever seen debate on the floor of the united states senate. just last week republicans blocked votes on a bill requiring safe storage of firearms and on a background checks bill which is supported by nine out of ten americans.

experts continue to point to the availability of guns as the primary cause of the rise in gun violence in our country. it is unconscionable for my colleagues on the other side to continue to ignore this realty. we're now faced with a terrifying new source of gun violence, 3-d printed firearms. 3-d printing is an easy, quick method for people to obtain a firearm who otherwise would be prohibited from doing so. middle schoolers with access to their school's computer labs could print them. convicted domestic abusers could print them. and it's not only 3-d printed guns, but also gun components, 3-d printed components including silencers, scopes and braces which include lethality for those who are harmed by them. 3-d printed components can turn

a semiautomatic firearm into an automatic firearm. these guns present modern and unique challenges and some 3-d printed guns are entirely plastic and evade metal detectors. this increases safety risk in public venues secured with metal detectors such as airports, courts, concert halls and government buildings. 3-d printed guns are not typical serialized and therefore are not readily traceable and that increases the burden on lowell law enforcement as -- on law enforcement. it's imperative we put an end to the proliferation of these deadly weapons. so how can we do it? we need to stop this problem at the source readily available online blueprints. and currently the online sharing of blueprints is legal in all but two states in our country. my bill, the 3-d printed gun safety act, would change that. my bill would make it unlawful

to intentionally distribute 3-d printer files that can produce firearms or any related parts. this change is commonsense and constitutional and it will save lives. a world where 3-d printing instructions for firearms are freely accessible is a world where anyone can have a machine gun in minutes printed out. i understand and appreciate that we do not all share the same views on gun violence prevention, but thousands of americans have already died this year due to republican obstructionism on sensible gun violence prevention reform. we must end the stranglehold the national rifle association, the nra has on congressional republicans. it is time to make nra stand for not relevant anymore in american politics. that's what has to happen. that's the revolution we need in this country. i thank senator mendendez,

representative moskowitz for their partnership. i thank brady, every town, giffords and march for our lives for their advocacy. i thank the many organizations and organizers on the ground who are in every state helping families and communities to heal from the devastating impacts of gun violence. and i thank my democratic colleagues who have staunchly supported every action that has come to this floor in an attempt to put an end to the scourge of gun violence. gun violence is tearing apart republican and democratic communities alike all across this country. stand with us on the right side of history. today we can start the long progress that we're going to need of national healing right here in this chamber, and i ask my colleagues for their support for this bill today. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce be discharged from further consideration of s. 1819

so that the bill can be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. if i may amend that, just to correct instead of the committee on commerce, it would be the committee on judiciary. and i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1819 and the 3-d printed gun safety act of 2023, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. and i further consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: reserving the right

to object. mr. budd: i oppose the bill because it is a solution in search of a problem. first and foremost, people have made their own firearms since before america's founding. this is not a new issue in need of emergency legislation. second, firearms manufacturing is already very highly regulated. for example, in the 1988 undetectable firearms act made it unlawful to manufacture, transport, sell or receive a firearm that cannot be detected by a conventional metal detector. and even if someone violates this law with 3-d technology, the bullets themselves are detectable. third, this is an extremely technical process, requiring high-level technology and ex stepsive time commitment, not to mention extreme financial cost. simply put, 3-d manufacturing of firearms would be an entirely ineffective way for a criminal

to obtain a firearm. fourth, this bill would be an unconstitutional infringement on the first amendment speech rights of law-abiding hobbyists and firearm enthusiasts who simply want to share specifications about unique or antique firearms. at the end of the day, we don't have a device problem. we've got a people problem. this bill represents another attempt by some to use fear and misunderstanding to layer more federal regulations on an already highly regulated industry. if we share the goal of keeping our fellow citizens safe, a better approach would be to enforce the laws already on the books and fully fund and support the police and reverse the soft-on-crime policies of democrat-run cities. therefore, in that is how we ensure public safety. madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i raise a point of order that section 7902 of the conference report to authorize h.r. 2670, the national defense authorization act , violates rule 28. mr. reed: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: pursuant to rule 28, paragraph 6, i move to waive all applicable points of order and ask for the yeas and nays.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays have been ordered. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i'd like to begin my remarks by focusing on what we're debating and what we're not don'ting. we really need -- and not debating. we need clarity on this point of order and what it is about. to be perfectly clear, what this

point of order would do would be to simply remove from the national defense authorization act the nongermane reauthorization of a surveillance authority, section 1702 of the foreign -- section 1702 of the -- section 702 that has a well-documented history of abuse, including the reauthorization in the ndaa that violates rule 28 of the senate rules governing conference reports. this particular provision was air-dropped into the national defense authorization act notwithstanding the absence of any predicate for that provision, either in the house version or the senate version of the bill, which of course the cop presence committee -- the conference committee was created to iron out. it was created to iron out the differences between those two bills, because it was in neither provision. the senate parliamentarian correctly concluded this is a nongermane addition to the

measure, and as such it's subject to a rule 28 point of order. what this means is a practical matter today, that this comes out, it comes out unless 60 senators make a deliberate, conscious choice and make that choice by voting to waive rule 28. they'd be saying, yeah, it's not ger germane, yeah, it wasn't in the house version or the senate version, notwithstanding that, we want it in there anyway. for the reasons that i will articulate now, that would be a grave mistake, a grave mistake on multiple levels. as i make that explanation, i do want to clarify at the very o outset what i'm not asking for, what is not my objective here. my onnive is not to see -- my objective is not to see our ability to collect the substance of communications from our

foreign adversaries under section 702 of fisa. that's not it. not trying to make the whole program go dark. i'm talking about the fact that we need much-needed reform in this area, because section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act has been widely, severely abused over a long period of time, to the point that hundreds of thousands of american citizens have become victims of what i refer to as warrantless backdoor searches. okay, the way it works under fisa 702, it allows our intelligence-gathering agencies to go out and scoop up information, bits of information, recordings, phone calls, records of things like text and e-mail exchanges and other types of electronic communications. and store them in a database. insofar as those are directed,

as section 702 orders are supposed to be under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, directed at foreign nationals operating on foreign soil, we're not concerned about them. the fourth amendment is not there to protect them. it's not there to protect our foreign adversaries operating on foreign soil. no, it's there to protect the american people, the american people against their own government. the fourth amendment has been around for a long time. it's been on the books in the united states since 1791 when it was made part of the constitution, and it provides, in essence, that you're entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in your person, in your papers, in your home, that the government can't just come in and search and seize your papers, your personal effects and communications.

not without a warrant, a warrant that has to be based on evidence of probable cause of a crime and that describes with particularity the things to be searched, the items to be seized, and so forth. well, new to this country as a matter of u.s. constitutional law as of 1791, it actually goes back a lot farther than that. these were things that evolved over many centuries, under british law, and with good reason. it was with good reason, it was on that foundation of centuries of british common law experience that we adopted the fourth amendment into our constitution, and it matters that we follow it. it matters that we follow it in every circumstance, in every -- and every american ought to be concerned about deviations from that, especially whereas here, there's a pattern and practice of abuse, of going after

americans' communication. how does that happen? in a database full of communications collected on and from and pertaining to our foreign adversaries on foreign soil, how do the rights of american citizens fend up being threatened by that? well, here's how it happens, when they collect all of that stuff, on some occasions foreign nationals communicate with friends, relatives, business associates, i don't know, perhaps intelligence targets, what whatever they may be, who are in the united states, who are united states citizens, some of those conversations, by phone, by text, e-mail, whatever electronic means end up being, as we say, incidentally collected and placed into the 702 database. one of the biggest things we're concerned about here is that on literally hundreds of thousands of occasions, innocent law-abiding americans have been subjected to what we call a

backdoor warrantless search, whereby someone at the fbi or another agency emptiers in -- enters in information. they know that bob smith has a certain phone number or a certain e-mail address or some other identifier. they know that bob smith is a u.s. citizen, and they go in and search for communications in the 702 database pertaining not to a foreign terrorist, not to an agent of a foreign power outside the united states, not to a foreign adversary in any way outside the united states, but to bob smith, the law-abiding american citizen. in that circumstance that's a problem, it's a problem to go into that without a warrant. that stuff is there not just for the government's curiosity, it's there not for some voyeuristic pleasure-seeking impulse on the part of federal agents. no, it's there to protect the ups united states from

foreign -- protect the united states of america from foreign adversaries and to allow us to track our foreign adversaries and what they're doing. in order to go into that dat database, they should have to get a warrant. now, deep down folks at the fbi appear not to disagree with that, at least in the sense that they try mightily to convince us that they're already preventing warrantless backdoor searches of american citizens' private communications on that database. in fact, they've been doing this, i've been in the senate along with my friend and colleague, the junior senator from kentucky, we've both been here for 13 years. entirety of that time, i searched -- surfed on the senate judiciary committee. the entirety of that time, i have questioned fbi directors

and other people within the government, asking them about what happens with this 702 database particularly as it relates to private communications, they're scored in the 702 database of american citizens, and searches involving american citizens, over and over and over again, for 13 years, like deja vu all over again. i get the same variation of a same set of answers -- don't worry, you got nothing to worry about, we have really good procedures in the united states government, we follow those procedures, we take them seri seriously, we're professionals and we will not mess with your information. and again and again and again, every time they make that promise it's like it's a curse, because it gets worse every single time they say it. every single time i ask them more questions designed to delve into what they're actually doing, and every single time, including my most recent interaction with the fbi director, christopher wray just

last week, it becomes clear on closer examination that they're not really stopping these things from happening. just last week, director wray home run the audacity to tell me oh, this is all stopped now because he adopted some new procedures, like i hadn't heard that one before. when in fact some of the examples he pointed to for things that supposedly happened only after he had adopted these procedures and all the bad stuff stopped after those procedures, turns out some of those things had happened after he adopted those procedures. no surprise to me. no surprise to anyone who followed this. no surprise to anyone who understands human nature. those who within government exercise power that doesn't belong to them. so, we shouldn't be reauthorizing this, not in the ndaa. not only is it not germane, not

only was it not in the house or senate version, madam president, it's not even necessary. why? okay, when you look at this statutory text, statutory text adopted by the united states congress in the foreign intelligence surveillance act amendments of 2017, which i think took effect in early 2018, they make abundantly clear that they were written in such a way as to provide for this very circumstance, meaning the circumstance in which we're approaching now the scheduled expiration of section 702 of fisa at midnight on december 31, on new year's eve. stroke of midnight, it's now new year's day. fisa expires. those who are in favor of waiving this point of order and disregarding the senate rule 28

that should require us to strike this unnecessary, overbroad, and manipulative extension of fisa 702, they would have us believe armageddon would immediately be upon us, dogs and cats living together in the streets, apocalyptic stuff we've never experienced. why? because 702 would have gone dark. the problem with that argument? it's not true. it flies in the face of statutory text adopted by this congress the last time we revised fisa 702. that language makes clear even if fisa 702 expires during that time period because there was a certification granted by the foreign intelligence surveillance act court known as the fisc, issued on or about april 12 of 2023, and those certifications are designed to

carry forward 365 days, we've got at least until the end of the day on april 11, 2024, before communications would no longer be collected under section 702. because again, we have the certification that's in place. that certification together with the language that was passed the last time we extended fisa 702 inadd viededly -- inadvisedly without major statutory reforms, but we did include that one, we made that the case. so it's not going to go dark. if senator paul's point of order under rule 28 succeeds, and if we're able to thwart the effort to waive that, and it would take only 41 of to do it. only 41 of us would have to stand behind that to prevent them from getting 60 to waive it, if it happens it's still not

going to go dark. wouldn't go dark unless and until we haven't extended fisa 702 before april 11, 2024. it begs the question, madam president, why in the sam hill did we have to put this thing in here if it wasn't necessary? i've got a sneaking suspicion, i know why some might hope it happens that way. for the same reason that it's not going to make 702 collection go dark as of 12:01 a.m. on new year's day. this measure, the 702 extension buried within the 3,000 or so pages of the national defense authorization act would give them a bright and golden opportunity to make this not a four-month extension of fisa 702, but a 16-month extension of section 702. in other words, if you think, if you read through the statutory text that we adopted the last

time we reauthorized 702 and you wanted this to extend and you wanted to make sure that we delayed and delayed and delayed, a period of time in which congress would be forced to make a decision, a decision that could result in serious reforms to fisa 702, what would you do? you'd pass this very thing. you would waive senator paul's point of order under rule 28, then you'd probably wait until april, i don't know, 10th or 11th of 2024. you'd go back to the fisc, the foreign intelligence surveillance court, and you'd ask for a new certification, a certification that would do what? move it forward another 365 days. we would now be punting until april 2025, well after the 2024 election cycle had run to its end before having to address

this. that's what we're dealing with. now let's back up a minute. let's say that there are some within the sound of my voice who might disagree with my interpretation of the statutory text we adopted the last time we renewed section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. they'd be wrong because the text is really clear. but let's just assume that for a minute. let's accept that premise for purpose of argument here. even if that's the case, we can still strip out this poorly written measure and replace it with another free standing measure not adopted as part of the ndaa, one that i prepared, one that i'm introducing along with me lead democratic cosponsor, oregon democratic senator ron wyden, that would reauthorize section 702 until mid-march. it would reauthorize it with

instructions that say if during that time period the fisc issues a new certification, that certification may not be read to authorize further collection under 702 if during that time period fisa 702 were to expire. this makes a huge difference because if we do it this way, rather than through the national defense authorization act, as senator wyden and i have proposed doing, then we'll actually have a force moving event. we'll actually have a real opportunity for the house and for the senate fof an open, honest, robust, roiling debate about the nature and extent of the abuse we've seen under fisa 702 and we'll be in a great position at that point to adopt real reforms. real reforms would require you to get a warrant. if you want to collect information specifically on americans in the fisa 702 database, you need to get a warrant. you just do. the government may not like it

because governments never like anything that makes it more difficult to do what they want to do. but our law enforcement agencies do it all the time. they do it because they have to, because it's the law and it's the constitution. and we don't deviate from that. it's bad. somehow these intelligence-gathering agencies and the fbi think that they're exempt when it comes to fisa 702. no american should be comfortable with that in recent experience and long-term experience have both taught us that there is a grave risk in doing that and simply ignoring it and simply presuming that the human beings that operate in this environment will always have their best interest at heart. and yet they want to push ahead with this measure saying that the sky will fall. it will not. we could immediately -- i'm absolutely convinced if we succeed tonight, if senator

paul's point of order succeeds, and it's not waived, i'm confident that within 24 hours we can and we will adopt this free standing measure to make sure that 702 doesn't go dark, even though it wouldn't go dark otherwise, even though we won't need it, we're willing to do that. we're just wanting to clarify one thing which is that we still have to have this debate, we still have to have a force-moving event in the next few months that works out the kinks, that reforms the system, that requires the government to get a warrant if they're going after an american. it's not too much to ask, not at all. we had proposals that are ready to do that. i've got a bill that i introduced with senator wyden, the government surveillance reform act. there's a counterpart to that in the house of representatives passed out of the markup in the judiciary committee last week that contains these and other reforms, reforms about having to get a warrant, reforms that

would impose some consequence to those government agents who abuse the system. unless you think even for a moment that these abuses are contrived, fictitious or a figure meant of our -- or a fig minute of our imagination. they are not. we need to support this point of order. we need to not waive it. waiving it is lawless. waiving this particular point of order would contribute to more circumvention of the fourth amendment. in the spirit of english parl men -- parliamentarian john wilkes in 1763, he stood up to the government of king george iii and said you're not doing this. he sued the officers who were

carrying out in effect a warrantless search of his homened the use -- home under the use of a general warrant, in some ways looks like a 702 collection of a citizen. in other ways it's different because they didn't have the technology that we've got now, but same principle applied. he sued the king and his ministers and he won a large money judgment. he got all this as a result, and he was surged as a result and he was jailed in the tower of london as a result of his publication of a document known as north britain number 45. it criticized king george iii and his ministers for among other things using general warrants, warrants that said find people who did bad stuff. search them, seize their papers, possessions, them if necessary. make it happen. no probable cause, just go do it. number 45, a reflection of north

britain number 45 quickly became synonymous on both side of the atlantic with the cause of liberty and with john wilkes himself and with the cause against warrantless searches and seizures and the use of general warrants which might as well be warrantless searches and seizures. john wilkes would be appalled by what he sees today, and the american people, just as they heralded him an ocean away in the 1760's and 1770's after this happened, just as he was celebrated all over england by remembering him by the number of 45, they were celebrating him then too. so too today the american people will be pleased because they will have reason to celebrate that nother longer subject to these warrantless searches because they are wrong. once again, lest you be convinced even for a moment that this is hyped up, it's not.

now look, if you're comfortable with the government under the pretext of looking for foreign surveillance and without any kind of warrant, let alone evidence establishing probable cause, let alone something that would satisfy the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment, if you're comfortable with the government violating civil liberties of the american people this way, if you're comfortable with them violating the liberties of at least one sitting member of the united states senate -- could be any of us -- letting the civil liberties of at least one sitting member of the house of representatives. it could any of them. not sure who it was. with them violating both republicans and democrats, with them violating sichl liberties of 19,000 law-abiding innocent

americans whose only common thread was the fact that they all happened to have donated to a particular political campaign, if you're okay with these and hundreds of thousands of other egregious violations of the letter and spirit of the fourth amendment, then by all means, you should feel free to go ahead, go ahead and support the motion to waive. but if you're not okay with any of those things and don't think anyone is immune from them, if you're not okay with any of these things, it is illogical, it is irrational, it is insane to do anything other than to oppose the motion to waive the point of order. so i'll close just by asking the question, why would they want to do this? those who are so dug in and making this even harder for the ndaa to pass in the house, you know, because of the fact that they airdropped this thing into the ndaa at the last minute

sparked such a controversy over there, they're having to bring it up under a procedure known as suspension of the rules. suspension of the rules requires them to pass it with 290 votes instead of 218. it would make it infinitely easier for this thing to get passed and passed quickly over there if we would just listen to senator paul, if we just sustained rather than waiving foolishly the motion, the point of order that he's making under rule 28. they're wanting to avoid not only changing 702 and making the federal government answer to the people according to the u.s. constitution, they're unwilling even to mace the music -- to face the music of this debate, a debate that is long overdue, a debate that we should have had and culminated in reforms through legislation in 2018 and it didn't happen and shame on us for not making it happen. some of us tried, we were overcome. but the american people are not

going to take this any more, nor should they. if you're not comfortable with those kinds of abuses, and i think we should all be uncomfortable with this sacrifice of liberty on the altar of fear, uncertainty, doubt, and dogged secrecy, then support senator paul. support him in his meritorious point of order and oppose the motion to waive that point of order. the american people expect 702. more and the constitution demands it. thank you. paul paul madam president. -- paul paul -- mr. paul: during the 1906's, the fbi spied on martin luther king and on vietnam war protestors, the response by congress was to pass

something called the foist foist, or -- foreign intelligence surveillance act, or fisa. it was passed to limit spying on americans. it was supposed to be a reform, but as far as the foreign intelligence surveillance act allows government to spy on u.s. citizens without a warrant, it is unkunl. as dr. -- unconstitutional. as dr. john tyler pointed out, the fisa text, the constitution's text and the relevant conclusion by the supreme court demonstrate that fisa and its secret ex parte, these courts with unconstitutional for three reasons. first the secret ex pa tai courts -- ex parte violate article three. courts aren't originated just to say this is a pronouncement,

there has to be a dispute. in the fisa court, it's more about having a generalized comment. second fisa violates the fourth amendment liberties from unreasonable searchs and seizures, third fisa and its secret ex parte courts violates the fifth and 14th amendment. dr. tyler goes on to say lastly the supreme court ruled that national security does not require secret courts or justify ignoring the fourth amendment limits. this unconstitutional government spying has been further authorized by adding section 702 to fisa. there are broader authorities supposedly to surveil foreigners abroad. time has proven again and again that america's intelligence agencies cannot be trusted with this immense power and

responsibility. sectionsome p 702 -- section 702 expires at the end of the year and yet the senate doesn't have it time to debate it. members of congress anticipated using this deadline as an opportunity to not just make meaningful changes but to better protect america's civil liberties. it doesn't appear to be allowed to happen at this point. everything's rush, rush, rush, let's pass it without debate. they have known for five years that it's going to expire at the end of the year, they just wanted to punt it hoping never to debate it. extension of 702 robs congress of the ability to make reforms now and any time in the next year. that means that once again the intelligence agencies that ignore the constraints on their power will go unaddressed and unpunished and the warrantless surveillance of americans in violation of the bill of rights

will continue. using 702, americans's communication content and mehta data is swept up and kept in government databases without a warrant. law enforcement agencies then access americans's communications once again without a warrant. noerndz, your text -- in other words, your texts, e-mails and phone calls are collected into a massive government database without a warrant and searched by thousands of different employees without a warrant. as judge andrew napolatano points out, the constitution requires probable cause of a crime to be demonstrated to a judge before a judge grants a warrant. that was the law of the land until fisa. but now fisa has a special court that meets in secret, the foreign intelligence surveillance act court, and it authorizes judges on that court

to issue search warrants based on a lower standard of probable cause. the fourth amendment says you have to prove to a judge probable cause of a crime. this says you only have to prove probable cause and then association with a foreign entity. this is contrary to the constitution. this is not the fourth amendment. the constitution requires that warrants be issued on probable cause that a crime has been admitted. but as judge napolatano makes clear, the standard is lower, it is not probable cause of a crime, probable cause of association with a foreign agency, but even that standard morphed down into probable cause of speaking to a foreign person which morphed even further down of speaking to any person who has ever spoken to a foreign person. all of that happened in secret and without congressional approval. with this week in standard to

order surveillance, these fisa judges who meet in secret grant 99.97% of all warrants. they're a rubber-stamp for whatever they want to do. the left-leaning brennan center for justice further explains why a law designed to protect the fourth amendment has led their dissolution, they state that dramatic shifts in technology and law have changed the role of the fisa court since its creation in 1978. the fundamental changes not only erode america's civil liberties but they likely violate article 3 of the u.s. constitution which limits courts to deciding concrete disputes between parties rather than issuing opinion on abstract questions. according to the brennan center, today's fisa court doesn't operate like a court at all but more like an arm of the intelligence establishment. the fisa court's wholesale approval process also fails to

satisfy standards set forth by the fourth amendment which protects against warrantless searchs and seizures. some people issued warnings about the destruction of civil liberties and constitutional rights at the time. at the time then-senator joe biden stayed that -- stated that he was voting no on this section 702, this expansion of fisa powers. senator joe biden said it would be a breathtaking and unconstitutional expansion of the president's powers and it is wholly unnecessary to address the problems the administration has identified. then-senator biden added that he would not give the president unchecked authority to ease drop on whomever he wants in exchange for the vague and hollow assurances that he will protect the civil liberties of the american people. boy, i wish that joe biden were still around and remembering his comments about fisa.

patrick he'dington of the -- edington of the cato institute has dedicate -- i didded indicated -- dedicated his time, he said that fisa has a massive drag net in history and we have documented evidence of repeated systemic abuses of this authority. even the fisa court itself in 2018 held that the fbi's procedures for accessing americans communications that are incidentally collected under 702 violate both the statute and the fourth amendment. even the fisa court which rubber stamps these warrants like there's no going away says that they believe that they are violating the fourth amendment. but these warrantless surveillance on americans goes on. in 2021 alone the fbi conducted

3.4 million warrantless searches of america's communications. like the spying on martin luther king and vietnam war protestors, the fbi targets individuals for their beliefs. the fbi accessed the 702 database to look at 19,000 political donors. they accessed the records of those involved with the protest on january 6, they accessed the records of a member of congress and black lives matters activists. you might think, oh, i've got nothing to hide, no big deal. you might think if you avoid political activity, you can avoid the long arm of the government, but think again. if you call a mer can't in -- a merchant in englandand or ee -- england the government can search you without a warrant and

without due process. that's not all. the federal spies can then capture you'll the -- all the communications of the person you subsequently reached out and all the americans they reached out to. it goes on and reaches it's tentacles out such that it gathers millions of communications. imagine a senate or congressman who talks to a prime minister overseas, their communication is in the database. to allow this to happen, imagine all of the people who are international business that make international phone calls, their phone calls are in the database. it would be one thing to chekt this to look -- collect this to look at terrorist activity, the fbi can search anybody's name. we told the fbi you have to list why you're searching the dmam and -- name and they didn't do it. they go around some of the rules by saying let's search 1,000 things and call it one inquiriy.

you -- query, we need controls and congress needs to do their job. we have five years to do it and then we air drop it in and say sorry, we don't have time to think about this, we dront have time to reform it, we don't care america's privacy, that's what the majority who will vote to drop this in and turn the other way will do. it would be bad enough if the fbi limited itself to viscerating the fourth amendment and searching the private communication of americans, it's far worse than that. the fbi abused the immense power to fisa to subvert a presidential campaign. in its zeal to investigate whether carter paige, the fbi sought to obtain permission to conduct electronic surveillance on page, not by going to a real judge in public and article 3

court, but by going to a secret judge. imagine the chilling effect if you can try to get beyond the politics of whether he's a republican or democrat, image the government investigating political campaigns. how can anybody think that's a good idea? to eavesdrop on paige, they needed an approval by the fisa court that he was associated with a foreign government. the secret court that grants 99.97% of warrants gave it to him. they rely on information they were given by the trump opponents campaign. you have something called the steele dossa which was given to the fbi, it was opposition research. colin -- clint's presidential campaign was -- but the fbi

didn't verify the claims made in the dossier. the fbi was able to spy on an american citizen because it presented the opposition research as evidence to obtain a secret order on a campaign operative. this was fraud. this was an abuse of power. it was an attempt to undermine a republican presidential campaign. people talk about election interference, my goodness, what could be more of an interference in a campaign than a secret order from your intelligence agencies to spy on a political campaign? the order was ultimately found to be misleading. and you would think this would have led to scandal, you would think this would have led to punishment, but in one really was ever punished for this. even "the new york times" described the effort to wiretap

carter paige as a dysfunctional and error ridden process. but these are noterors, they are not honest mistakes, it is abuse of power. the audacity to dupe and manipulate the secret fisa court demonstrates the arrogance that results when a secretive one-sided process all but assures these agencies will never be challenged. and what are we doing? the senate will sweep this under the rug, we have no reform. they've known for five years this is coming up and they will not do a thing to reform it. since the fbi evaded the rules, we should not be surprised that carter page was far from the only victim of the abuse of fisa authorities. a subsequent department of justice review -- reviewed in 29

other fisa cases had 20 mistakes per application. special down john durham looked into the alleged collusion between donald trump in russia revealed that some fbi agents viewed the groundless counterintelligence campaign against a republican presidential candidate. despite the abuses, despite the years of calls for reform, the senate is presented with a defense bill that continues the status quo. in five years they've had no time to debate this because they don't want to. they want rubber stamp this and look the other way. not one is included in the conference report that would address the neglect of the bill of rights. the only thing this conference report ignores -- rather the only thing this conference report ignores is the long record of abuse of the 4th

amendment. the 4th amendment is no mere limitation of government power. the 4th amendment is fundamental to the concept of american liberty. today the elected representative, of our country whose founders overthrew a king who claimed a mandate good heaven to rule his empire could not muster the courage to tell his own law enforcement agencies that we will not tolerate the evisceration of the bill of rights, nor the destruction of our electoral process. why would any senator vote to waive this point of order? how can you look your constituents in the eye and justify your vote to empower government at the expense of america's individual rights? do not fall for the hollow and cynical retorts from the other side who inevitably argue that the world is on fire. those who make the lazy and predictable argument that government is your only shield from threats always fail to mention that government itself is often the threat. i think it's high time we quit

letting fear overrun our constitutional duty. the members of this body should do themselves the honor of standing by their oath to the constitution, to protect our civil liberties and the integrity of the congressional conference committee process. we must strip this extension of domestic spying authority out of the defense bill. mr. reed: madam president the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island mr. reed: i yield back all remaining time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on the motion to waive. the yeas and nays are previously

ordered. the learning will -- the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. the clerk: mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt.

mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. the clerk: ms. collins.

mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin.

the clerk: ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven.

mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly.

the clerk: mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy.

mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer.

mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance.

mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in

the affirmative -- barrasso, blumenthal, capito, casey, cornyn, cortez masto, duckworth, fetterman, fisher, gillibrand, hyde-smith, kaine, manchin, peters, reed, risch, rosen, schumer, scott of south carolina. shaheen, smith, tester, warner. senators voting in the negative -- lee, marshall, merkley, paul, schmitt, wyden.

the clerk: mrs. britt, aye. ms. baldwin, no. the clerk: mr. tillis, aye. mr. durbin, no.

ms. butler, aye. ms. hassan, aye. ms. cantwell, aye. mrs. murray, aye. ms. warren, no.