crimes, the crime of espionage. we're talking about foreign adversaries collecting information on american citizens that they can use to facilitate terrorist attacks, importation of dangerous drugs, ransomware attacks through cyber crime. the list goes onened on and -- goes on and on. i think a fair reading of the house's bill provides the sorts of bell-and-suspenders a -- belt-and-suspenders approach we need to reform the current practice, because of the very abuses our friend from illinois mentions. where i differ from him is the fact that we don't need to worry about acting on this bill by tomorrow night at midnight. tomorrow night at midnight, the most valuable intelligence tool that's available to

policymakers, including the president of the united states, will be eliminated. what i'm talking about is additional collection of that information. because, in fact, the very telecommunications companies that we depend on and we compel to participate in the collection process will refuse to cooperate if they are not compelled to do so as a matter of federal law. we know that because some have in fact sued to protest that cooperation and that compelling of cooperation. so, we need to think about not only what the program is now, but what -- but the blindness, the willful blindness, we will incur in the future unless we act on a timely basis. there is no reason not to vote on the amendments, including the

amendments from the senator from illinois. i certainly support the right of every senator to offer amendments to try to change the bill as they see fit. every single day information acquired through section 702 protects our national security missions, and i want to mention a few of them. but just think about the moment for a moment when president biden gets his intelligence brief each day, that's called the presidential daily brief. it's a compilation of the most sensitive information important for the president as the commander in chief to have access to. approximately 60% of the information contained in the president's daily brief is derived from section 702. so unquestionably it is a critical resource to protect our country not just for the

commander in chief, but for other policymakers, including members of congress who happen to be on oversight committees, for example, which i am privileged to be. one of the first things that comes to mind when we think about 702 of the foreign intlelligence surveillance act is because it applies only to foreigners overseas who are a threat to national security and so identified. the first thing we think of is counterterrorism. and it's easy to see why, because this authority was first created in the wake of 9/11, the worst terrorist attack america has ever experienced. 3,000 of our fellow citizens killed that day. section 702 was enacted in 2008 in response to threats posed by terrorist groups, and in years since it has helped over and over again combat terrorism and prevent further terrorist

attacks on american soil. last year, for example, section 702 helped the fbi disrupt a terrorist attack on critical infrastructure sites in the united states. in 2022, 702 data supported the planning of the u.s. military operation that resulted in the death of the leader of isis, the sequel to al qaeda. a terrorist organization that has designs not only on its adversaries in the middle east, but on americans as well. in 2020, information acquired through section 702 helped thwart a terrorist attack on a u.s. facility in the middle east. and the list goes on and on and on. the point is that section 702 is vital to america's counterterrorism missions, but its applications extend far more broadly than just on

counterterrorism. it's also a critical tool in the fight against fentanyl which took the lives of 71,000 americans last year alone. i've been to six high schools in texas where parents, grieving parents say their child took a pill that they thought was relatively innocuous -- percocet, xanax. i know we wish our kids never would take things like that, but they certainly didn't think they were taking a pill that would kill them, but that's exactly what happened because it was a counterfeit pill that looked like a regular pharmaceutical drug but it was laced with fentanyl and it took their life. 702 is a critical tool in combatting fentanyl which is the leading cause of death for americans between the age of 18 and 45. that's an incredible statistic. in one example the intelligence community obtained information under 702 that a foreign actor

supplied a pill press machinery to a mexican drug cartel to make fentanyl, which is what happens. the precursors come from china, they make their way into mexico, they're combined, and then processed through an industrial capacity pill press to make it look like a normal pharmaceutical. and then smuggled into the united states. that machinery, that pill press was capable of producing millions of fentanyl pills not per year, not per month, not per day, but per hour. we know that one pill can kill, so this machine alone could produce millions of lethal doses in one hour. the good news is that this information was uncovered,

thanks to 702, and was acted upon. and the pill press and other equipment were seized before they could end up in a cartel's drug lab. but this type of success story is not isolated. last year 70% of the cia's illicit synthetic drug disruptions stem from information gathered through section 702. i know we think of the cia as our intelligence agency, and it is one of our principal intelligence agencies, but one of their missions is a counter drug mission. and they were able to use section 702 to disrupt 70% -- comprise 70% of their synthetic drug disruptions just last year alone. this intelligence gathering capability is vital to our efforts to stop fentanyl and save american lives.

and there's no question that the fight against the fentanyl would take a major step backwards if 702 went dark. i want to reiterate our friend from illinois suggested that there's no worry about missing the deadline of tomorrow night for reauthorization. i just want to emphasize it is true that currently collected information could be queried. they could have a search selecter to look among information that's already been lawfully collected. but there would be no way that the telecommunications companies from whom this information is collected would cooperate absent a federal law compelling them to do so. as i said, some have sued and claimed that they should not be required to cooperate.

of course intelligence professionals uncover information about far more than just terrorism and drug trafficking. section 702 also helps the united states government stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 70% of the intelligence community's successful disruptions of weapons of mass destruction in the past two years have stemmed from 702. this intelligence also helps disrupt our adversaries' efforts to recruit spies or people they try to recruit here in the united states. 702 helps identify and respond to cyber threats. in 2021, you may remember the colonial pipeline ransomware attack, where cyber criminals froze the computer systems of the colonial pipeline and shut

it down, which supplied the major supplier of gasoline and diesel for the east coast. and they said we're not going to unlock that network until you pay the ransom. well, it was section 702 because the master minds of this effort were overseas, primarily in russia, that we were able to use 702 in order to identify those foreign actors in a way that allowed them, the fbi, to connect the dots and to dismantle that criminal network. every day america's intelligence professionals rely on section 702 to gather timely and actionable intelligence to keep our country safe. well, there's no question -- and i haven't heard any one of our members here in the senate say that 702 is not helpful, it's

not necessary. but they're concerned about privacy, and i am too. that's the balance we must strike between security and privacy. we need both. the fourth amendment to the united states constitution protects americans from unlawful searches and seizures. now that applies in every instance where there's an investigation, whether it's by the fbi or by the local police department. law enforcement cannot search your home or monitor your communications without going to a court and showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. but there's a lot of confusion about where that might apply in this context, because what we're talking about is not crime in

the sense that we are, our criminal laws ordinarily apply in america. what we're talking about is foreign espionage and hostile activities directed towards the united states that have not yet occurred. ordinarily in america, we don't do anything to try to prevent crimes from happening. we punish crimes once they've occurred, after we've investigated them and prosecuted them. but we don't want another 9/11 to occur. we don't want innocent americans to be killed in a terrorist attack. and it's not okay to say, we'll wait until the terrorists commit that act, and then we'll try to find them and punish them. we want to stop it. and that's where 702 is so important. and it is not true that 702 gives the authority of, to the

intelligence community to target americans. that's illegal. the senator from illinois mentioned a number of times where there was inappropriate and, frankly, illegal use of this information. and those individuals in some instances have been disciplined, some instances have been prosecuted. and that's appropriate. but what the house bill does is it takes, for example, fbi rules and regulations around the use of 702 and codifies them. in other words, it's not discretionary. it's not a matter of agency rules. it's a matter of federal law. and speaker johnson, i know sent out a long list -- and perhaps we ought to consider that more closely -- a long list of reforms that this bill includes that would make that sort of activity far less likely. i say far less likely because i doubt you could pass any law or

any rule that would prevent somebody from abusing them. but we sure ought to make sure that we minimize the possibility, and we ought to make sure that people who do so are held accountable. and that's what this fisa reform bill that the house passed does. again, this bill allows the intelligence community and the department of justice to obtain information on foreigners located outside the united states. so here's one of the questions or one of the issues posed by our friends who have a different view on this. and that is because when a former talks to a u.s. person, well, that should send off flashing red signs, or at least yellow lights. but federal courts, at least three federal courts, including the foreign surveillance court

say there is no violation of the amendment of unlawful searches and seizures of americans if that is incidental collection, incidental to the authorized collection of foreign communications of people overseas. and how is it that we could possibly expect anybody to get a warrant when we don't even know who these individuals are talking to until after the fact? what happens then is very important and is very different, and that is if the fbi or any law enforcement agency wants to go a step further and ask for more information about the american citizen or u.s. person, then existing law requires that they get a warrant. it requires them to go to court, foreign intelligence surveillance court, article 3 judges appointed by the chief justice of the united states supreme court, and to get a warrant based on probable cause

that this individual is a, is aiding and abetting a foreign adversary or has committed a crime, like espionage. but the fourth amendment to the constitution does not apply to foreigners who live abroad. where this issue raised heightened concerns is the incidental collection which i mentioned a moment ago. that is if a foreign target who lives abroad is communicating with an american on u.s. soil or u.s. person, like a legal permanent resident, intelligence professionals will receive both sides of that conversation. again, what i've said, multiple courts have sxind the constitutionality of this and in each case has determined that 702 complies with the fourth amendment. for example, the second

amend considered that question. the court determined, quote, the government may lawfully collect the e-mails of foreign individuals located abroad who reasonably appear to be a potential kwal threat to the united states -- potential threat to the united states. the court added that it does not need to seek a warrant to collect e-mails from that person or other persons once it learns those vindividuals are united states individuals or located in the united states. once this incidental collection has occurred, if the law enforcement agencies, like the fbi, want to go further, they have to get a warrant before they can collect other information about that american citizen or person. that is no longer incidental to the foreign intelligence

gathering to somebody overseas, that's a direct investigation of that person and it requires a warrant and probable cause. what i'm talking about in terms of incidental collection is not a novel concept. when a law enforcement officer executes a search warrant as part of a money laundering investigation, if the officer enters a home and sees illegal drugs, for example, in plain view, officers can seize that evidence even though it is not related to the warrant. that same principle applies here, the ninth circuit and tenth circuit has looked into this matter and the eastern direct as well. every court that considered the lawfulness of the 702 program found that it complies with the fourth amendment.

there's no argument, really, even among people who have different points of view, there is no argument that 702 is vital to our national security. the fbi and intelligence community rely on that authority to combat terrorism, prevent drug trafficking, prevent cyberattacks and much, much more. i believe that what's really being argued about here, which we ought to go ahead and lay on the table, is a lack of trust and how these rules are actually applied in practice. and part of that justifiable concern is based upon abuses in the past, and those ought toing investigated -- out to be investigated and prosecuted and those who violate the law ought to be held accountable. but what the house has done is proposed a reform bill which reduces, if not eliminates, the chance of making those same -- taking those same sorts of

actions and certainly has provided for accountability, including prison sentences for people who do violate those rules. so this proposal goes about as far as you can go without destroying section 702 to make sure that the privacy rights and the constitutional rights of american citizens are protected. while at the same time making sure that we can maintain this flow of valuable foreign intelligence to help protect the american people. this legislation codifies reforms that were implemented by the fbi a couple of years ago which have reduced noncompliance to about 2% of their queries. and these reforms have already proven to work. as i said the department of justice conducted a vee view last year -- review last year and found 98% of the queries

were compliant with the new and enhanced and approved rules. so i appreciate the sense activity that all of us feel about the constitutional rights of american citizens. none of us want to allow any violation of those rights. we were sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the united states, and i take -- i'm confident that each us want to be loyal to that oath, but at the same time we have a responsibility to protect the american people from the sorts of thets that -- threats that i've described. and allowing 702 to expire tomorrow night would simply blind not only the president of the united states, but us as policy holders, people responsible for protecting our great nation would blind us to threats that future collection under 702 could provide because

there is no way that these telecommunication companies are going to capito be a -- cooperate appear sent a federal law compelling us to do so. who would be the winner in all of this? well, let's call it out, a few winners if 702 goes dark, china, russia, and iran, and you might throw in north korea. it would limit our ability to understand the threats we are facing here in the homeland before it's too late. so there's a reason why, mr. president, the intelligence community calls section 702 the crown jewels of their ability to protect and defend the united states and the american people and it's absolutely imperative that congress reauthorize section 702 with these reforms before it lapses tomorrow night

and i'm optimistic that working together, we can get the job done. mr. president, i yield the floor and i heat the absence of a quorum. i beg your pardon. i withhold the request. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from texas, though we may disagree on some important aspects of this law, he has made a thorough presentation of his point of view. i hope those who are following this debate understand it because it is complicated. compla indicated to under -- complicated to understand and explain. there are a couple of areas i would like to express a point of view on the senator from texas's comments. number one, i'm in favor of keeping section 702 when it comes to its initial purpose, we still need it to keep america

safe and we need it in many different aspects. you mentioned the fentanyl situation, it's horrible. the most recent figures i received from the drug enforcement administration says over 100,000 fentanyl deaths, there are at least two cartels in mexico generating this, they are actively engaged and the drug enforcement agency is monitoring what they're doing. do we want to get into that business model and find out a way to thwart more fentanyl in the united states? of course. sign me up. there's a practical. let's assume for a moment that we decide that we want to know if someone involved in one of

these cartels is making a drop in the united states, we can use 702 because we are dealing with foreigners in a foreign land. that's the frem is of 7 -- premise of 702. if we intercept communications of someone in that cartel in mexico, the question is what do we do if the information they disclose in this conversation includes reference to an american? and what right do we have to go any further in questioning that american's involvement with the cartel? that's when we run into the fourth amendment as far as i'm concerned. it's a serious question as to whether or not we can asky questions about text, e-mails or phone conversations of the american whose name came up in the conversation that we intercepted a member of the cartel? that's where we probably have a difference of opinion. how far can we go? i believe if we go into an

inquire as to what that involvement is with the cartel, the fourth amendment applies. does the senator, through the chair, if the senator would like to comment on what i said so far. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to engage my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the senate judiciary committee, and a distinguished lawyer in his own right so this is his wheelhouse. but i think -- i appreciate the question because i think maybe there's a nuaunce here that either i misstated my position because i'm of the same mind you are when it comes to an american citizen who's mentioned in a communication with the foreign actor because it is his design to deal only with foreign

actors. what i was referring to was incidental communication, communication between a foreign actor and a u.s. person, and we call it a u.s. person because it could also be a u.s. permanent resident. when there's that contact between a target, foreign target and the american citizen, that's considered to be incidental collection and no court had said it violates the fourth amendment. but i agree with the senator that if in fact there's a mention of an american citizen in that communication and the law enforcement agencies want more information about that american citizen, they have to get a warrant. they have to go to court and establish probable cause in order to get that information because that's what the fourth amendment's designed to protect. i hope i've understood the senator's position. mr. durbin: i hope i understand

your position as well because i think we just reached a point of agreement and the question is where do we go from here? if a foreigner names an individual, that's incidental, if our agency decides to explore conversations, phone conversations, texts or e-mails-that named american citizen, i think we've both agreed at that point you've reached the fourth amendment protection that requires a warrant. all i've tried to do with my amendment is to condition that situation i just described to you to be protected in the law with three exceptions. i create three exceptions. an emergency situation. you can imagine, and i can too after living through 9/11, sometimes you have to move and move quickly and even a fourth amendment warrant may be questionable, and the second part is cybersecurity, and the third is when that american

citizen is asking to be protected for year something is -- for fear something is happening to them that they don't want to happen and so they ask the american government to go forward for that foreigner because they want that protection. those three things are built into my amendment. we may be perilously close to an agreement i. don't know -- agreement. i don't know. mr. cornyn: if the senator from illinois would permit me to respond. i think the two challenges i think we face. one is that i think the exceptions that you mentioned basically will reason that the status quo remains. because almost each of those three exceptions would be allowed under current law and so then the amendment would not really change much in the way of practice. i may be missing something.

but you mentioned cybersecurity, emergency situations, and the third is -- mr. durbin: consent of the person, the american. mr. cornyn: but here's the practical problem. the house of representatives has passed this bill and one particular important aspect of this is a warrant vote that was -- was on a tie vote and so this bill -- this law lapses tomorrow night at midnight and it's obvious to me that we're not going to be able to change this bill in a way that then could go over to the house and get picked up and passed before midnight tomorrow night. so basically what we're forced with is a lapse in these authorities during the interim and i'm not even confident that the house could even pass another bill even with these amendments. so i don't question the goodwill and the intentions of the

senator from illinois. i think he wants to do what i want to do which is to protect our country and to protect the rights of american citizens, but i think as a technical matter that the exceptions he has will walensky quo the rule -- will swallow the rule that his amendment would establish but perhaps even more basically by just through passage of time it would prohibit us getting this bill to the president's desk in time to keep these authorities in effect. there's no question that our world is more dangerous now than at any other time in the recent pass. i would say since world war ii, and so i don't think we could risk going dark by having this authority lapse on future collection either for the benefit of the commander in chief, the president of the united states, or the rest of us. i want to thank the senator for letting me present my point of

view. mr. durbin: i'd like to thank my colleague from texas and say to those who witnessed this, this came dangerously close to an actual debate on the senate floor, a bipartisan debate, that happens so seldom that those who witness it should probably call their friends. and seriously will i respect the senator from texas and though we may disagree on some aspects of this, i respect his presentation and thank him for answering questions. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that scott chamberlain

be granted floor privileges until may 16, 2024. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. barrasso. the clerk: ms. baldwin w.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota is recognized. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lift. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, next week the biden federal communications commission will take a pointless and destructive vote to reimpose onerous net neutrality regulations. like the obama fcc before it the biden if being footballing wants to -- the biden fcc wants to

assert broad new rules against the internet using rules that were designed, if you can believe this, that were designed for telephone monopolies back during the great depression. and if there were ever a solution in search of a problem, this is it. mr. president, we've tried democrats' heavy-handed net neutrality experiment before, and it didn't go very well. back in 2015, the obama fcc implemented the regime the biden fcc is planning to impose starting tomorrow. this opened the door to a whole host of new internet regulations, including price regulations. and broadband investment declined as a result. that was a problem for americans generally, who benefit when the united states is at the forefront of internet growth and expansion. and it was particularly bad news

for americans in rural states like south dakota. deploying broadband to rural communities already has a number of challenges, and adding utility-style regulations not meant for today's a broadband market acted as a further disincentive to expanding access. recognizing the chilling effect the obama fcc's regulations were having on internet innovation and expansion, in 2017, the fcc under chairman pai voted to repeal the heavy-handed net neutrality regulations passed by the obama fcc. the process expect was greeted -- the prospect was greeted with absolute hysteria from democrats. you would have thought that the sky was about to fall, so dire were their depredictions. we were -- predictions. we were told that the internet as we know it would disagree, that providers would slow speeds

to a crawl, that we would get the internet word by word. that our freedom of speech was threatened. but the repeal went into effect, and guess what happened? lo and behold, none of the democrats' dire predictions came to pass. as anyone who's been on the internet lately knows, the internet has not just survived but thrived. innovation has flourished. competition has increased. the internet remains a vehicle for free and open discourse. and internet speeds have not only not slowed down, they've gotten faster and faster. so where shall i might ask, is the problem that requires this new onerous regulatory regime? well, there isn't one. but, unfortunately, that's rarely enough to stop democrats, who seem to lose sleep at the thought of some aspect of

society not being subjected to heavy-handed regulation. in fact, of course, the federal government letter regulates the internet, but it does so using a light regulatory approach that has allowed the internet to flourish. but the biden fcc's new regulatory regime goes into effect, those days of flourishing may be numbered. as i said, the last time that these heavy-handed regulations were imposed, broadband investment declined. and there's good reason to believe that the same thing would happen this time. these new rules could also imperil the united states' position at the forefront of internet innovation. perhaps, most disturbing of all, the biden fcc's onerous new regulatory regime could spell the end of the free and open internet that it is supposed to protect. under the regulatory regime, the biden fcc is set to impose, the federal government would be allowed to block or prioritize

internet traffic or otherwise interfere with the free flow of information. it's not hard to imagine the biden administration using this new regulatory power to shape americans' internet experience for its own ends. this is an administration that attempted to manufacture a nonexistent voting rights crisis in order to pass legislation to give democrats a permanent advantage in federal elections. so it's not hard to see the biden fcc using its new powers to advance democrat interests or the biden administration's far-left agenda. mr. president, the biden fcc's new regulatory regime is a solution, as i said, in search of a problem. and it's likely to create problems where none exist. and on top of that as former members of the barack obama have pointed -- of the obama

administration have pointed out, it is unlikely to stand up in court because an existing law does not give the fcc the powers it wants to assume. that makes the fcc's upcoming vote even more pointless. the biden fcc should be focused on addressing real challenges, such as continuing our efforts to close the digital divide and to ensure that every american has access to high-speed broadband. but as the three-year crisis at our southern border demonstrates, the biden administration tends to ignore the real problems facing americans in favor of expanding government and advancing its far-left agenda. and so i expect that the fcc will vote next week to impose this heavy-handed new regulatory regime. while the result may be a foregone conclusion, i am hopeful that the biden fcc's

regulations will be struck down in court. and i will do everything i can here in congress to overturn them. because if the new biden regulatory regime is left in place, it may not be long before we'll be looking at the very opposite of net neutrality. mr. president, i yield the floor.

ms. murkowski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this was supposed to be a really great week for us in alaska. we had an opportunity to kick off the alaska resources day back here in washington, d.c. ed the leaders of ten of my home state's trade associations -- notably all women, which i think is worth commenting on -- they all flew back to washington, d.c., for resources day, and they and other industry leaders gathered to really celebrate the success

of the industries that are present in our state, everything from oil and gas to mining to seafood, tourism, and it was a good day spent educating folks about alaska's commitment to and real little our record, a very strong record, of responsible development to benefit alaska and to the nation. and it should have been a really great opportunity to reflect on how far we have come as a state, but instead of being able to focus on that, the big buzz was the reminder that we are really at the mercy of an administration that views us, views alaska, views alaska's resources as really nothing more than a political pawn in a reelection campaign. the rumors are out there, and there's more substance to them

now than there were a few days ago, but the biden administration is set to announce yet two more decisions to restrict and prohibit resource development in the state of alaska. this is -- this is almost get to be so routine that we're coming to dread fridays in the state of alaska, because that seems to be the day that at administration reserves to just dump more closures, more lock-ups, more shutdowns on us, on top of the dozens and dozens of initiatives that have already been imposed on us over these past three years. unfortunately, the decisions that are going to be unveiled tomorrow are probably some of the worst that we've seen from the administration, an administration that i think has just lost their way when it comes to energy and mineral

security. i'm going to talk first about the mineral security piece of it because we're going to -- we're going to see announced tomorrow the rejection of the ambler access project. mr. president, this is a private road. it is a private road that is neededed to access -- needed to access and unlock a region that we call the ambler mining district. there was a 1980 law under anilca, part of the balance that we struck on conservation. this was the big deal in 1980. but it was an effort to put into conservation status while still allowing for certain development. but under that law, we were guaranteed road access to the district. why is the district important in the first place? it was important back then, in the 1980's, but even more so important now because of the critical minerals that this country needs to break our

dependence on china and other foreign nations. this project is not new. this project was fully approved, and i think it's worth underscoring that, fully approved in 2020. but this administration says never mind all that. interior sought a voluntary court remand for ambler's approval on the very same day that president biden held a roundtable to discuss -- what? -- to discuss the importance of critical minerals and how this country needed critical minerals. he's saying that on one screen, and on the other screen you've got a remand, effectively putting the brakes on the ambler project. for the past couple years now, interior magnified the impacts of this simple private hall road so they could really find a way to just turn the tables, to turn this project from one that had

been approved to one that will be rejected. the second action that we are anticipating from interior tomorrow will be the finalization, the final rule, to shut down further access to our national petroleum reserve in the northwest portion of the state. this is a 23 million acre expanse. this is an area about the size of indiana. there's only a few hundred acres of this be indiana-size piece of the state that have ever been approved for any type of development. and it's exactly, it's exactly what the obama-biden administration had pointed to. they said to the oil and gas companies, go there, go to the national petroleum preserve in alaska. don't go to and war -- to anwr. develop there. now you have the interest in it. after approving exactly one

significant project in our petroleum reserve, the biden administration has now completely abandoned that approach. what we expect to see tomorrow is interior issuing just a sweeping rule to now cut off access. to add insult to without barely consulting the alaska natives who live on the north slope, failed to consult, failed to violate their own policy -- they didn't fail to violate, they violated their own policies, they ignored federal law. this is really tough for us in alaska, because this is not the first time now that this administration has just turned their eye to what the law requires. they ignored federal law, which requires an expeditious program of competitive leasing and development. so where there was once opportunity they're now creating uncertainty and restrictions

that will cut off access and halt future projects. again, never mind all that, the administration says, because it just doesn't seem to matter to them. that's what i don't get. not the rule of law. not the local people who support responsible development. not the state benefits or the national need. not even the international events and the crises that we're dealing with right now, at this moment, that should have prompted a gut check, and maybe folks within the white house saying maybe we should dial this back just a bit right now, given what is happening, given what is happening in the world. but none of that seems to matter as, once again, this administration makes two more politically motivated decisions against responsible resource development in alaska.

we need to be clear here. these were not fair processes. these were fate a come pli decided -- fate a co bhfrn pli -- decided well before the administration publicly announced it was considering them. here we are, under the administration there hasn't about, and there won't be, any new leasing in our petroleum reserve. there aren't any more project approvals in sight to help supply west coast refineries that have now turned to imports from abroad. and where are they looking for those imports? previously from countries like russia, but now, now at the direct expense of the amazon rain forest. which the environmental community calls the lungs of our planet. that's where california, believe it or not, is going to be looking to im -- to import.

nor will we be able to build the private, restricted-use ambler law that federal law explicitly allows for, that we need to access minerals crucial to our security, our economy, under the success of this administration's own policies. i think this is all because it's political year. it's a political year and this administration is putting partisan payoffs ahead of sound policy, and that is regrettable. it is mightily regrettable. setting aside alaska resources day, think about what these decisions say about the admini administration's priorities and the signals that they send to our adversaries. because i think sometimes we just look at these and think about them in the context of what people in our own country are saying. but what is the message that is being sent to our adversaries? we know, and they know, that we

are deeply dependent on foreign minerals. this is our nation's achilles' heel. i keep talking about it. especially as china dominates so many global supply chains. we imported at least 50% of our supply of 49 different mineral commodities last year, including 100% of 15 of them, and that has risen quite dramatically over the past couple decades. for many crucial commodities, it's still going up. why does the ambler district matter? it matters because it has copper, our top experts warn that copper is on the verge of a global shortage. it has cobalt, which we imported 67% last year, including from african nations where malnourished children dig it out by hand. we can't feel good about that. the ambler district has resources like gallium and germanium, which china in an

effort to show who's boss here recently cut its exports of. this was a clear shot across the bow to the west. about the only thing ambler doesn't have is access to a road, which it needs to facilitate the mining, which we need to facilitate everything from advanced munitions to electric vehicles. so let me assure you, we should want to mine in ambler, where it will happen safely under the highest environmental standards in the world, and we should stop outs outsourcing mining abroad, part particularly to these jurisdictions where there are no or very little environmental protections and we see horrific human rights abuses among workers. the administration's npra decision, again, that's our petroleum reserve, we shouldn't just talk in acronyms, npra means national petroleum reserve

alaska. this decision is just as reckless. the middle east is on a verge of a regional war thanks to iran, and the one thing standing between us and $200 a barrel oil is american producers who operate on state and private land. yet the president criticizes them. he criticizes them instead of thanking them for saving his administration. that's what's helping to keep a lid on some of these prices. it's one thing to conjure up a villain. it's another to let the real villain, which in this case iran, off the hook, and that's exactly what we're seeing happening right now. since taking office, president biden has relaxed sanctions on iranian oil exports, allowing them to do what? to produce more, to sell more, and thus to gain tens of billions of dollars. according to the foundation for the defense of democracies, as of last september iranian oil

revenues had increased during the biden administration by $26.3 billion to $29.5 billion. we know that those numbers have just grown today. what's iran using the revenues on? you don't need to guess. it's terror, it's regional destabilization, from the houthis to the national militias backed by the regime. we saw what that means, when iran launched more than 300 drones and policeles at israel. the attack -- drones and missiles at israel. this only failed due to the heroic efforts of a coalition that also includes the united states, france, jordan, and saudi arabia. we know what happens, we know what happens when iran is allowed to it -- to enrich itself. their proxies attack israel,

they attack israel, they fan the flames of regional war that could draw in global superpowers, and they continue their direct attacks on american troops present in the region to fight isis among others. the secretary of the navy testified this week that american militariships have been a -- militariships having -- have been attacked more -- those are our war ships. that doesn't even count the attacks on our basis. so deterrence has been lost. the administration's iran policy has failed. but how do they react? by suggesting that we don't go after iran's oil. reuters ran a story with the headline that said, quote, biden unlikely to cut iran's oil lifeline after israel attack. then political dished by saying why biden could leave iran's oil

alone. "the washington post" had a well-sourced piece about the biden administration telling ukraine to stop attacking russian refineries because they're nervous about the gas prices leading up to the election. i read these stories, and it drives me crazy. what does alaska have to do to get some recognition that we might just have a resource that not only we need in this country, but our friends and allies need? you've got a regime actively funding terror with oil revenues, another funding a catastrophic war against an innocent people, and on the other hand you have a state, part of the united states, that wants to responsibly develop its resources to build base infrastructure and provide service for some of its least well-off residents. and somehow, somehow out of that, the president has decided to relax enforcement of our

energy sanctions on iran and put it on alaska. that's what we feel like. we feel like those sanctions are on us directly. they don't want to hurt russian production, but they're not hesitant to hurt alaska. i think you can understand why so many of us are frustrated and really even angry with the biden administration with these policies. it is unfair to always be picked on anytime the administration needs to shore up its credibility with national environmental groups. we kind of feel like we're the giving tree at this point, except ironically we know this administration would never allow anyone to harvest the timber. we can't be the giving tree, that's pretty well off-limits too. at this time truly bad policy to sacrifice our jobs and revenues and deprive our country of steady, affordable supplies of domestic energy and minerals, and it's truly, truly bad policy to ignore the rule of law and

our strategic vulnerabilities. we'll all feel the consequences as we let some the of the worst people in the world produce and gain from their resources instead of the very best here at home. mr. president, no state or nation produces its resources, i believe, in a more environ environmentally responsive manner than alaska. no people care more about their surrounding environment than alaska. i know i've got my friend from vermont here, he cares passionately, and i know the people of vermont care passionately, but we've got a lot that we care passionately about. so i just ask the question -- to my colleagues, i ask the question of those in the administration, given a choice between china, africa, or alaska, for minerals, it should be alaska every time. given a choice between iran and russia and venezuela or alaska for oil, it should be alaska

every time. and i think most americans would agree, but it's deeply, it's deeply disappointing, and i believe harmful that those who hold positions of power in the biden administration are not among them. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and respect that my colleague from vermont has been waiting. thank you. test. mr. welch: i thank my colleague from alaska and really appreciated her remarks. mr. president, one of the rays of hope we have in this congress is the bipartisan accomplishment of the past several years to build out broadband high-speed internet across the country,

from vermont to alaska and everywhere in between. and that was because this congress on a bipartisan basis made a decision, a decision that is similar to what was made by this congress in the 1930's, when electricity was becoming widely available. we decided that it was absolutely essential for the well-being of our country and all of the citizens in urban and rural america, that they have access to high-speed internet. and we built out that broadband network that made it within reach. we also committed ourselves to a program called the affordable connectivity program, which is really modest but incredibly important. and what it understands is that you may be a person with really low income in pennsylvania or in vermont or in alaska, where the internet that has been constructed is right out in

front of your mobile home or your home, wherever it is you live, but you can't afford to connect. so having the internet cable go by but you can't connect your home means you don't have internet. in the affordable connectivity program, a bipartisan program, is used by 23 million households, by 4 million veterans, and it is the difference between them being able to connect and get the benefit of high-speed internet or not. and it makes such a difference because that internet is used by all of us. it might be to do your job. it might be to apply for a job. it might be for kids to do homework. it might be to get an appointment with a doctor through telehealth, something that is really important in rural america. that's the good news. the dangerous news is that the affordable connectivity program

that is that lifeline for our veterans, for our seniors, for our low-income folks, is going to expire in a matter of weeks. and we have the opportunity and, i believe, the responsibility to extend the affordability connectivity program, the affordability connectivity program so people can be able to maintain access. more than 23.3 million americans households have subscribed in the acp. about 26,000 households in my state of vermont. about 10.6 million subscribers are over the age of 50 and half the households that benefit are military families. in a 2023 survey of acp subscribers said 77% said they

use the program to schedule health care appointments and nearly 30,000acp subskriepers live on tribal lands. one of the keys to the bipartisan support is that this helps the citizens that all of us represent, whether you're in a red district or a blue district, red state, blue state, the folks we represent need access to the internet. let me just give a little example. i've got a chart here about the 23 million americans who use it. in texas, one in four households, what a difference that makes for those folks in texas. in indiana, one in four households. it was one in six in texas. kentucky, one in four households. north carolina and mississippi, one in five households.

in louisiana, every third household depends on the affordability connectivity program in order to be linked to the internet that goes right by the front of their house. so we have got to allow folks to continue to have that access to that vital program. so we need a supplemental appropriation from congress to make certain that that happens. if we let the acp run out, funding would have devastating effects on people who use the program. and p 7% of the -- 77% of the households who rely on acp say losing that would make them drop their program completely. $37, it costs more than that. this is like vermonters making $15,000 a year and having two kids. you don't have a big budget.

let me give a couple of examples. cynthia is a retired american who lives in florida. she is an acp subscriber. she told cnn, did a great story on that that, she connects to her granddaughter and her great-grandson on video calls every week. you know what? that matters. you're lonely, you've got grandchildren, you want to stay connected, you want to be in touch, that is a huge, huge part of her life. so let's not deny her that access. jonathan is a software engineer in my state of vermont. he's an acp subscriber, also spoke with cnn. what he said, you're taking away acp, away from the farmers that can check the local produce prices and be able to reasonably negotiate their prices with retailers. you're removing disabled people's ability to fill their prescriptions online. that really, really matters. i've also gotten messages from my constituents like leslie in

brandon, vermont, who said, and i quote, i was just informed by consolidated communications, the internet provider, that i'll be losing my acp benefit for my internet service at the end of april. what a shame. the internet is our way of communicating with our family members who live outside vermont, plus many other contacts necessary for our stay-at-home lives. i use the internet almost every day. that's why we have bipartisan support. when we, all of us, whoever it is we represent or whatever district we represent, listen to our constituents and they say to senator fetterman or they say to senator welch or they say to senator wicker or they say to senator vance, this access to the internet really matters, we share a common opportunity to help the people all of us represent. and, by the way, that helps bring us together when we're

working on solving the problems that we all share. and we've got bipartisan support to show for it. joining me on the afford abl connectivity program extension act is senator vance, senator cramer, senator roenz, senator marshall -- senator rosen and senator brown. many others expressed an interest when we find a way to come up with the funds to make certain it doesn't expire. and by the way, a lot of leaders came from eight of my republican colleagues who sent a letter to president biden encouraging the administration to fund the program, calling the acp an important tool in our efforts to close the digital divide. and i thank my colleague, senator wicker, senator crapo, senator tillis, capito, risch, and young for sending that letter to president biden. and of course, most importantly, it's really popular with the american people. a majority of republican voters,

62%, support the acp, according to a poll of the digital progress institute. that same poll found that 80% of rural voters support continuing acp. and, boy, does this matter in rural america. you know, in the roosevelt administration, there was a commitment, we're going to get electricity to the last barn on that last dirt mile in whatever rural town you lived in. and you know what? we made that same commitment here when we began extending broadband. but we won't make it real unless we can make certain that those people at the end of the road, on that dirt road can afford it. and that's what the acp does. so, mr. president, we need all of us, democrats and republicans, now to come together to pass our bipartisan affordability connectivity

program extension act and keep america connected. mr. president, i yield back. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you very much, mr. president. there is a very good chance that there will be good news this weekend for america's security, for european peace, and for a signal to be sent for strength and success for the alliance of free nations. yesterday afternoon the speaker of the house said that congress will soon send a very important message, and, yes, it's correct. the house will send an important message. in the next few days i believe congress will remind the tyrants of the world and the free people of the world that america stands strong and that america keeps its word. i commend speaker johnson for

doing the difficult thing but the right thing. he followed the admonition actually of the apostle paul. the speaker could have put his own interest above the interest of others, but he did not. the eyes of our friends and our foes have been on the house of representatives, and the speaker rose to the occasion. he recognized that this moment was too important to squander for political ex-speed alien is i. the world is -- expediency. the world indeed is on fire and this administration's weakness has fanned those flames. at the very least, president biden's drip, drip, drip approach has failed to douse the flames of the international fire. and make no mistake, russia, china, and iran with its terrorist proxies are working together, and they're conducting

war on two fronts. in israel and in ukraine. and i agree with a bipartisan majority of this senate and the house of representatives that america has an important role to play in both those conflicts. america is an exceptional nation with an exceptional task, to lead on the world stage and to make it clear that we can be counted on to keep our promises. at important moments throughout our history, there's always been a group advocating for american retreat. some of my friends today want the united states to withdraw to, stay behind our own safe walls, as if that were possible. but time and again the american

people have learned, sometimes with some difficulty, sometimes reluctantly, that retreating does not create safety. what happens abroad reaches our shores, whether we like it or not, it just does. like the speaker, i am a reagan republican. ronald reagan stands in history as a leader who achieved peace, peace through strength. in the next few days i believe we will work toward that goal by sending aid to our ally israel and by improving our ability to counter china in the indo-pacific. ibles believe we will -- i also believe we'll do that, achieve peace through strength by sending additional lethal aid to ukraine.

vladimir putin is a proven war criminal. if he's allowed to win, he will not stop in ukraine. ukranian people have proven themselves capable on the battlefield, remarkably capable. they have achieved remarkable wins against the russian dictator. they did so even this week. they simply ask us to give them the tools to keep doing that job. speaker johnson said we should be sending bullets to ukraine, not american boys. i agree. his son will soon put on the uniform as a midshipman, and my son continues his military service in the air force reserve. so this is douse. personal to me and the speaker of the house -- i recognize that

some of my colleagues disagree. i'm glad they'll be given a chance to vote their con sooibs as our -- conscience as our founders intended when they designed our system of government through their willingness to agree, disagree, and then come to a conclusion with each other. the system they built has remained sturdy. it has weathered contentious times at home and abroad. mr. president, some talking heads equate compromise with weakness. our founders did not do so and neither do i. momentous times, pe, /* perilou

times compel us to work together and it is not weak to do so. everyone this the house and then everyone this the senate will soon get to make their voice heard on this very important topic. when all is said and done, i hope and pray we will reassure our allies and remind our adversaries that america still stands for freedom and we stand for peace through strength. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. be mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this saturday marks a solemn anniversary in colorado. it's a solemn anniversary of a moment that shattered our children's sense of safety and has forever scarred our nation's memory. it's been 25 years this week since columbine high school shooting where 12 students and a teacher were murdered and many others were left with life-altering injuries. none of us left without the impact of that day. columbine changed our state forever. i think it changed the country forever. we all remember where we were

the day that it happened. i certainly do. and we remember the lives that were lost on april 20, 1999, 12 young coloradans who never had a chance to graduate from high school, go to college, get married, to start a family. rachel scott was killed when she was eating lunch outside with a friend. she was planning on going on a mission trip to botswana and dreamed of becoming an actress. she was 17 years old. and ray was 15 every year he saved money from his summer job to buy christmas presents for his family. just another american kid gunned

down on his way to lunch, still holding the dr. pepper that he had bought from the vending machine. ko kyle had just starred attending school for a full day. he would have been on his way home from school if the shooting had happened just a week earlier than it did. the youngest victim, steven kerna was only 14 years old, he dreamt at that age of becoming a navy pilot. kasi was a new student at columbine. after a few tough years of high school, she was finally thriving and exited for what happened next. isaiah scholz, 18 years old, a

senior about ready to grat yacht. he had -- graduate. he overcame a heart defect and was able to play football in high kal. matt was remembered by his parents as a wonderful role model for his younger siblings. he was just 16. lauren townsend was 18 and was the captain of the volleyball team. she loved to volunteer at the local animal shelter. john tomorlin was killed when h was 17 and he was in the library at columbine where he was trying to comfort other students. kelly fleming, she was 16, she was also a new student at columbine. she loved to write poetry.

daniel mouser was 16 years old, he was a boy scout and piano player who just mustered the courage to join the school's debate team, corey cougar was 18 and described as an all american kid who worked hard in school and someone his classmates loved to be around. those were the students that died that day, and we can't ever forget dave saunders or the contribution he -- he made. a father and teacher. he saved 100 students from danger before he was killed.

12 kids in the prime of their lives gunned down by killers who used the gun show loophole to purchase weapons they should never have owned. mr. president, the shooting at columbine high school, as i've said over and over and over again on this floor happened the same year that my oldest daughter caroline was born. she's turning 25 this year. she and her sisters and an entire generation of american children, maybe two generations really, have grown up in the shadow of columbine.

really the first of these types of school shootings and -- and the shadow of gun violence more broadly. and since columbine, my state, every state -- every state, but my state has endured one tragedy after another. one horrific murder after another. in 2012 a gunman killed 12 people in a movie theater in aurora, colorado, in 2019 a shooter injured eight students at highlands ridge. in march 2021, a shooter killed ten people at the king's super in boulder, two months after that, a gunman killed six people

at a birthday party in colorado springs and just over a year ago a shooter killed five people at club q, an lgbtq club in colorado springs that had been a refuge to so many people. columbine really is, i think, is a word that's etched into america's history and america's consciousness start of this. columbine is so much more than that as well. the kids in high school who are there this week. it's a place people still want to go. it's a place that people that were teaching there 25 years ago

still want to teach. but i think for a lot of america, certainly for me, there's sort of a before columbine and there's an after columbine. there's a moment when something like that happened for the first time in america and we couldn't believe it. it was so out of kilter with our experience as americans. and now we've had not just the shootings that i recorded in colorado and that i've come to this floor to talk about over the years, but so many others all across the united states of america. and nobody has carried this burden more than our children.

a generation of the people who are the pages on the floor here today in the senate. they are a generation of metal detectors, of active shooter drills and bulletproof backpacks, they live under constant threat of being next. and anybody who has raised children over the last 25 years in this country knows what it looks like when there's a report of another one of these shootings and you're sitting there on the couch with your son or your daughter sinking a little deeper into that couch and a little deeper into that couch, they're sitting up a little more closer, a little more nervous, a little more worried that you're going to be

next. i wish we could say that in marking this 25th anniversary and thinking about the contributions that people have made from the columbine community, both in colorado and across the country to help victims of similar school shootings to provide leadership that doesn't have anything to do with the shooting that happened at columbine except to know that they had another chance to be abe to make a contribution to their society, and we're grateful for that contribution, i wish i could stand here and say, well, over the last 25 years we had addressed this issue, that we were paying

attention to the concerns of our -- of this generation that's grown up in the shadow of columbine. i wish i could say that, but i can't say that. what i can report to you today standing here is that guns are the leading cause of death of children in america. unique in america -- uniquely in america. no other country in the industrialized world, no other country in the world is that true, and it wasn't true when columbine happened 25 years ago. 25 years ago car accidents were the leading cause of death for children. i can come here, i can report to you that since then, car

accidents -- car deaths and car accidents among kids over that period of time have decreased by 50% in this country. we cut it in half. drunk driving deaths are down 50% in america since columbine happened. child cancer deaths in the united states of america are down a quarter since then. congress has passed countless laws, they've made our roads and cars safer, we've passed historic legislation to reduce drunk driving fatalities, we've appropriated billions of dollars for cancer research. well, that's good. that's all good. but in the last 25 years, the number of kids that have died by guns in america has increased by

68%. if you take all of the people in this world who die by gun violence -- at least in the industrialized world -- that are age four and younger, 95% of the pooh emthat die -- 95% of the people that die from guns die in the united states of america. 3% die somewhere else. there's no other country, as i said, in the industrialized world where gun violence is the leading cause of death of children. only here in had the united states. there's no other country in the world where kids sit there on the couch watching television seeing another one of these events and wondering, as our children have for the last 25 years, whether they were going to be next.

you know, one of the really staggering things about that statistic, about the gun death being the leading cause of death among kids, when i first heard it, i thought to myself, that must be accidents of some kind or another. that must be people being careless with firearms, leaving them someplace or kids being careless with firearms. only 5% of those gun deaths are accidents. 65% are violent actions between a person and that child. 30% have been deemed suicides.

so 95% of them are, in effect, acts much violence of one -- acts of violence of one kind or another. 5% are accidents. it's hard for me to imagine that any other ratio like that wouldn't be like we wouldn't feel like we had a moral obstacles to address it. -- obligation to address it, a more obligation to fix it. i know that youngpeople that are here today feel that -- i no he that young people that are here today feel that we have abandoned them. i know they know this is a disgrace, that it's an indictment of our nation, that

it's an indictment of their prospects. that it is incomprehensible to them and to my daughters that we have nearly 200 times the rate of violent gun deaths as japan has or as south korea has, nearly 100 times the united kingdom. i wish i could stand here 25 years after columbine and tell you that we've addressed this. matters are much, much worse than they were 25 years ago. certainly from the perspective of our kids.

but we can't stop, we can't give up, we can't stop trying because it is a disgrace, because it is an indictment, because it calls into question what it means to live in the nation that's committed to the rule of law, in a nation that's committed to public safety and the safety of our citizens. i see the senator from connecticut, chris murphy, and i -- we've had many conversations about this over the years. no one has led more on this question than in the senate than chris. because of what happened in newtown and what has happened

throughout the united states. and i'm grateful for that. i'm grateful for daniel mazzer's dad, tom, who i saw again this week, having the good fortune to speak with him many times over the years. if you were alive today, daniel, his son, would be 40 this year. and to this day -- and yesterday, i think it was, maybe the day before -- when he comes to congress, tom wears the same sneakers that daniel had on the day he was killed at columbine. and tom has never, never given up. he's fought tirelessly to build

safer schools, to argue for stronger gun laws, to raise awareness around gun violence protection, just like the families from newtown who sat up in that balcony over there and saw the catastrophic failure on this floor that night, just like the kids from parkland who came to congress over and over again so that -- in an effort to say, we don't want one more kid in this country to be killed this way, we don't want one more life cut short, we're tired of living in a country that doesn't seem to care for us, we're tired of accepting odds that no other kid in america has -- or no other kid in the world has to accept for themselves.

tom told me that he comes to congress less and less these days because there are a lot of other me's out there now. there are so many other people that have had the same experience that tom has or his family have had. but i'll bet if he thought there was a chance, he'd be back here had and even if he thought there wasn't a chance. and he's made a huge difference in colorado. and i'm not singling him out either. i mean, many people that have been through this in the state have raised their voices to be able to accomplish the things that we've been able to do. but i think he sets such an incredible example for the rest of us, for anybody here who thinks that we should just give up. ten days after his son was

murdered, he was protesting the nra's annual convention, which was in denver, colorado, that year. and tom has been a fixture in the state capital in colorado, where because of him and because of other advocates across the state, as a western state, which has a long tradition of second amendment rights, we've been able to enact one piece of sensible gun legislation after another, while congress has failed, failed, failed, failed, after the massacre at columbine, we closed the gun show loophole. after the tragedy in aurora, we strengthened background checks.

-- and limited the size of magazines. in the wake of the shooting at club q, we raised the age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. if colorado can pass laws like that, there's no excuse for this place. and colorado needs this place to pass laws like the laws we passed in colorado. what sense is there to have -- i mean, it makes sense to have background checks in colorado. but think of how much better it would be if we had background checks that covered the entire country?

how much sense it would be if we limited the size of magazines the way we have in colorado, if we banned these weapons of war -- dim -- dim he it willing -- i'm telling you, young pages here, i guarantee you we're going to do that so i am day. i guarantee you we're going to do that some day and among many surprises we have as a society, when we look back from there, when we look back from that future, this is going to be one where we say to ourselves, what in the world were we thinking with these weapons of war on our streets and in our classrooms? -- in this country? what were we thinking when there were people here saying that that was just the price of

freedom? so i think we can do this. i hope it's not going to take another 25 years. in fact, i don't think it is going to take another 25 years. and i think it's because your generation is out of patience with us on this issue. i think your generation is out of excuses -- or thinks we're out of excuses and lame explanations, and like with so many other things, you know that there's an answer here. and if a state, like i say, if like colorado can do it, we can do it. and i've met with so many people

now over the years who have said in that instant my life changed forever, our family's life changed forever. we never thought it would happen to us. -- it could happen to us. i never thought i risked saying goodbye -- i never thought i was saying goodbye that morning for the last time. 25 years ago on that april day, our entire country was changed forever, but we haven't changed it for the better. and there isn't anybody else on planet earth who can do it

except for people that occupy these desks. and the desks down the hall in the house of representatives. so as we pay tribute -- and i hope we all will -- to the 13 lives that were taken too soon at columbine, we need to rededicate ourselves to freeing every american and especially our children from the threat of gun violence. and i would say to this next generation to -- i hope you will take inspiration from the work of tom mauzer and the work of the kids at pamland -- parkland and the moms who wear those red

shirts demanding that this country get better, and people all over this country who are acting out oth memories of their loved ones, not for the sake of their loved ones who are gone but for the idea and for the sake -- for the idea that it should never happen again. that's what people say. i'm always amazed when people come here to congress, when there's so many cynicism that's well earned about this place, and yet they'll come here and they'll advocate on behalf of their kids, kids that have died of fatal diseases. advocating for research that we can put those diseases in the rearview mirror. the strength it takes somebody

to come here who's lost a child under those circumstances. and i always say, i'm so grateful that you came. i'm so grateful you came because there are a lot of people who can't come here, who are in the same circumstance that you're in. thank god you're here, having this conversation. but it is almost impossible to imagine the strength that it takes to come here and lobby this body on the subject of gun violence when you've lost a loved one in america. when you know that, as the years have gone by, matters have gotten worse, we've become the leading -- where gun deaths have become the leading cause of death of children in this country, as opposed to to any other, and you still come. so i'd say to the young people here today, and to the young

people all over america, you can't give up. our hope is in you, and we have to deliver. and we will put this scourge of gun violence behind us. i know we will. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i

ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm going to come down to the senate floor right now and build on my senate colleague from alaska, senator murk murkowski's remarks she just made dealing with national security, the challenges we're facing as a country, authoritarian dictatorships on the march, and what the biden administration is actually going to do to my state, our state, senator murkowski and my state, tomorrow, what we've been told by the biden administration, hey, alaska senators, here it comes, more crushing of the state of alaska, and why this should matter, not just to my constituents, which it really does, they're going to be really upset about it, but this should matter to every american who cares about our country's national security, and energy security, and jobs and the environment.

so, mr. president, we all know the united states is facing very serious global, national security challenges. in fact, we are living in one of the most dangerous times since world war ii. i think anyone watching recognizes that. we had the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense testify in front of the armed services committee just last week. they said that. dictators in beijing, moscow, tehran, north korea are on the march. they're working together to undermine america's national security interests and those of our allies across the globe. that's happening. if i think pretty much everybody here recognizes that. at other times of dangerous global challenges and peril, the normal policy approach of democrat administrations, republican administrations, doesn't matter, has been to maximize our country's strengths

while undermining the strengths of our adversaries. that's how you beat them. here in congress, over decades, we've supported such policies. but the biden administration is not normal. indeed, this administration deliberately is undertaking policies to punish americans, undermine our core strengths, while continuing to empower our adversaries. now, okay, i know some of you watching, wow, that's a pretty big charge, dan. what are you talking about? well, let's get into that. what am i talking about? i have this chart right up here. the president is making a choice tomorrow. is he helping out with our dictatorship adversaries or help out working men and women in alaska and our country's national security? mr. president, let's take the example of iran. due to the successful

comprehensive approach to sanctioning iran's energy sector, by the trump administration, by the end of the administration, three years ago, iranian exports were down to about 200,000 barrels a day, leaving iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, the country that swears to wipe israel off the m map, by the end of the trump administration's massive sanctions policy against iran, they had about $4 billion in foreign reserves. for a country of that size, that's not a lot. $4 billion. what do we have with the biden administration? they start their appeasement policy of iran from day one, and one element of that was to stop enforcing these oil and gas sanctions. i don't know why. you know, appeasement, maybe we're going to get back into the

jcpoa they thought. jake sullivan, the president of the united states, they'll all admit it. here's the results, as a result, the amount of oil iran exports over the last three years has been up every year, and it's about over three million barrels a day. 200,000 barrels a day at the end of trump, three million barrels a day now. foreign reserves that the iranians have are about $75 billion. 4 billion at the end of trump, 75 billion right now during the biden administration. of course, the terrorist leadership of iran is using this windfall, as everybody knew they would, to fund their terrorist proxies -- hamas, hezbollah, the houthis. remember, you don't have those proxy terrorist groups at all if you don't have iran. iran funds them. they train them. they resupply them with mi

missiles. so these groups are not only vowing to wipe israel off the face of the earth, but aggressively targeting the u.s. navy, sailors, and marines in the red sea. so that's happened. china is buying about 80% of that iran oil. so they're being helped by this policy that the biden administration has to lift sanctions on the iranian oil and gas sectors. of course, china is also dominating rare earth and critical minerals throughout the world. hardly a day goes by without a story being published in the american media about the danger to america's economic strength, transition to cleaner energy, and national security that is posed by china's domination of critical minerals around the world. mining them, processing them. okay. so those are two important

trends. they're happening. iran's dominance on exporting oil and gas, the funding they get from that, the chinese benefit, they get oil at a discounted price, and china continues to dominate critical minerals around the world. so what is the biden administration doing to reverse these very troubling national security trends? they are undertaking policies that will make them much worse. tomorrow, the biden administration has let the media know, they started leaking this at the beginning of the week -- by the way, they let the alaska delegation know much later. they wanted the liberals in the immediate -- in the media to know. they're going to announce they're shutting down from further development two of the most important areas of energy and critical mineral development in america. the national petroleum reserve

of alaska, what we call npra, and the ambler mining district in alaska. so tomorrow, the biden administration is going to announce that it's sanctioning alaska. we're not going -- they're not going to sanction iran. they let china produce all the critical minerals they want. tomorrow they're going to sanction alaska, americans, my constituents. you can't make this stuff up. coming after the people i represent, and the terrorists in iran, hey, drill, baby, drill. it's nuts. it's an insult. let me give a little more detail, mr. president, on what this means. i talk about the national petroleum reserve of alaska. this is a part of the north slope of alaska, about the size of indiana. it was set aside by president warren harding in 1923 for oil

for the country, particularly the u.s. navy. they actually called it the navy petroleum reserve. then in the 1970's, congress called it the national petroleum reserve. this isn't anwar -- this isn't anwr. this is designated by this body for american oil and gas development, because we need it. this is one of the most prolific oil basins on the planet earth, estimates close to 20 billion barrels of conventional oil, 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. as i mentioned, one of the most prolific areas in the world for oil production. right next to existing infrastructure. by the way, mr. president, it is developed with the highest environmental standards in the world.

you think the iranians have high standards? you have the chinese do when they miner their critical minerals? you think the russians do? they don't. the place with the highest standards in the world on research and development is my state. hands down, everybody knows it. what does the biden administration do? drill, baby, drill for the ayatollahs. alaska, we're going to shut you down. tomorrow the biden administration sgth announce they are going to take 13 million acres off the table for development. that's a good idea, joe. that's a really good idea for the national security and energy security of our country. let the terrorists here drill. let putin drill. and you're going to shut down alaska. 13 million acres. let's go to the ambler mining district. it is considered one of the most

extensive sources of undeveloped zinc, copper, lead, gold, silver, cobalt, anywhere in the world. senator murkowski did a good job a couple of minutes ago explaining what we have in the ambler mining district in alaska, in america. again, when we mine in alaska, highest standards in the world by far, not even a close call. you think the chinese have high environmental standards when they mine? they don't. so this part of alaska, part of america is critical for the minerals we need for our renewable energy sector, for our economy of course to compete against china, and for our national security. f-35's have all kinds of critical minerals we need and rare earth elements. but tomorrow the biden administration is going to announce that they're going to reverse a previously permitted road -- by the way, a

seven-yeeshgs eis cost $10 million. that was permitted. tomorrow the biden administration is going to announce they're going to reverse that permitted road and say, ambler mining district, america, sorry, off limits. our adversaries will certainly be celebrating these national security suicide measures of the biden administration. it's only going to strengthen them. putin, xi jinpinging, the terrorists in iran, north korea. they're going to be like holy cow, i can't believe this, these americans have all this stuff in alaska and joe biden is going to shut it down. xi jinpinging will be like america will be relying on us for minerals. don't worry xi jin ping.

drill, baby, drill, you're going to sanction alaskans. mr. president, this is just insanely stupid policy. everybody knows it. i want to mention something else. these policies are also lawless. even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who don't always get it when it comes to american energy, alaskan energy, you should get it when we pass laws that say you've got to do x, y, and z. when we pass laws that say things like shall. the biden administration doesn't get it, especially when it comes to alaska. we passed in 2017 the requirement to do two lease sales for anwr. my state had been working on that for 40 years. the leases, the first one was done during the trump

administration. the biden administration came and said we're going to cancel those leases. no reason. lawless. but let me just give you an example. so they're going to take half of the mpra off the table tomorrow for development. 13 million acres, even though congress in 1980 directed the secretary of interior to conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing for oil and gas in the mpra. we're telling any excusable official you've got to -- any executive branch official you've got to develop the mpra. it's for america. tomorrow joe biden is going to say congress we don't need to you. that's lawless action number 1. lawless action number 2 on the ambler mining district is a real

shocker. even joe biden and his lawless administration have to be blushing on this one. by the way, there was some e-mails that, there was a foia request when they said we're going to cancel those anwr leases, even though congress said we had to do it. this is the biden administration canceling the leases. omb in e-mails back and forth between interior and omb and the biden administration, omb was like wait a minute, where do you get the legal authority to do that? this is the biden administration's omb. e-mails, deb haaland, they're like we don't care, we're going to cancel them. they're going to take mpra off the table. now with the ambler mining district, mr. president, the law is very, very clear. i'll read it to you. this is on the department of interior's website right now as we speak. their website says anilca, it's

a really important law, alaska national interest lands conservation act which was passed in 1980, mandates a right of way to the ambler mining district. senator stevens put that in here. congress agreed. there's secretary haaland's department of interior website right now. it says anilca requires that a right of way access be permitted across national park service lands for this project. the ambler mining project. that's what the department of interior website says right now. and then, mr. president, here's actually the language from a law. congress finds that there is a need for access for surface transportation across the western buck river unit of the gates of the arctic of the national wild will have reserve from the ambler mining district to the alaska pipeline haul road, and the secretary shall

permit such access. shall. i'd like to put this for the record, mr. president. so that's the law. the biden administration tomorrow is going to go we don't care about the law. we're going to take that off the table and reverse the eis and the road that you guys have tomorrow for good. again, who's going to benefit? who's going to benefit? well, i think these dictators are going to benefit. the ayatollahs, xi jinping, certainly the alaska workers aren't going to benefit. and that's a big issue, mrng. the presiding officer is my friend but i'm going to say something i said on the floor many times. when it comes to national democratic policy, when they have a choice between that guy or that woman building a

pipeline, the great men and women who built this country, their interest, because everybody wants to develop resources in my state -- that's the trans-alaska pipeline -- or the interest of the radical far left who's driving these policies to shut down my state, every time the national democratic leaders go with the radical far left, and they tell that young woman who's building that pipeline, good luck. sorry for your job that you just lost. so the working men and women of alaska, of america, because these are big projects, they're going to lose. but i'll tell you who else, mr. president, who's going to get hurt really badly by this, and this is a fact, by these decisions tomorrow. these great people. these great people. this is a picture of some of the

inupiaq native alaskan leaders from my state. they live on the north slope of alaska. they have been living there for thousands of years, thousands of years. they are fully, unequivocally against this rule that secretary haaland and the white house are putting out tomorrow. 100% against it. the tribal leaders, the burough leader, that's our new burough mayor, the north slope burough. the alaska native corporation leaders, they're fully against this. every alaska native leader who lives up there -- this is where they're going to do this, by the way. this is their homeland. and the biden administration tomorrow is going to look at them and go we don't care what you think. we don't care what your interests are. the radical lower 48 eco-colonialists are telling us what to do so you natives, tough

luck. let me tell you a story that's really infuriating. we held a press conference a couple months ago in alaska, led by these great alaska native leader. they're wonderful, incredible people. living in alaska for tens of thousands of years. they don't like this rule, so they've come to d.c. they came to d.c. eight times, eight different times, traveling over 4,000 miles. the leaders of the north slope where the biden administration is going to issue this rule tomorrow, eight times they came to d.c. flew here and asked for a meeting with secretary haaland to advocate, madam secretary, this is really bad for us, bad for our future, bad for our economy, bad for jobs. we do not want this rule. hear us. eight times they've come here. you know how many times secretary haaland met with them, the leaders of the north slope?

the inupiaq native leaders of the north slope. eight times they came to this city, flying 4,000 miles, guess how many times deb haaland, who has an indian trust relationship with these great americans, guess how many times she met with them? you know the answer. zero. zero. she came here -- they came here eight times. so we held a press conference with that banner. secretary haaland, hear our voices. she doesn't want to hear their voices. she doesn't want to hear their voices. she won't hear their voices. you want to talk about cancel culture, this administration talks a big game about we're going to take care of the indigenous people of america, the people of color, but guess what? there's a giant asterisk when it comes to that policy of the biden administration. not if you're an alaska native. not if you're an alaska nay

tichlt you want to develop your resources? we're not going to listen to you at all. eight times they came to this city. eight times deb haaland said, sorry, i'm not listening to you. i'm not going to meet with you. so guess what's going to happen tomorrow? the biden administration is going to issue a rule that every single one of these leaders is adamantly opposed to, and not one official in this administration gives a damn. let me give you a couple of quotes from these great alaska native leaders. this is charles lampy, the president of the kaktovik inupiaq corporation. this has been about the department of interior's actions. locking up their lands. these are their lands. it's not interior lands, not deb haaland's lands. here's what he said, quote, we will not succumb to

ecocolonialism and become conservation refugees on our own lands that they've lived in for 10,000 years. the inupiaq people have every right to pursue economic, social and cultural self-determination. my community unapologetically supports the leasing program in anwr. that's what he's talking about. many people try to steer the debate to caribou. the kaktovik, for them it's about our people and having an economy to survive. here's narook herechuk, heritage of the voice of the arctic, this great guy right here, talking about the npr rule secretary haaland won't meet him on. here's what he said, this rule is another blow to our self-determination in our ancestral home lands which we have stewarded over for over

10,000 years. that's him talking. not a single organization or elected leader on the north sloech alaska which encompasses this supports this proposed rule. none of them do. joe biden, secretary haaland, are you listening? none of these great alaska native people want this rule and you don't give a damn. he continues, in fact, everyone has asked the department of interior and secretary haaland to rescind the rule. these actions will foreclose on future development opportunities and long-term economic security for the north slope inupiaq communities. you can tell i'm a little mad, mr. president, because these great alaskans are being canceled. secretary haaland will not hear their voices.

they will issue a rule that locks up a huge chunk of their homeland. here's the bottom line, mr. president. the biden administration sanctions alaskans, sanctions them while the terrorists in iran and the communists in china get strengthened by their policies. no wonder authoritarians are on the march. you're sanctioning us, you're sanctioning them. the goal is to sanction the terrorists, not these great americans who you won't listen to. and when i say sanctioning alaska, mr. president, i'm not just talking about what we're going to see tomorrow, which, by the way, again, every american should be worried. they're going to shut down one of the biggest oil base inns in america and -- baseins in

america, for what? well, i think away all know for what. joe biden's kowtowing to the far-left radicals because he thinks that's how he will be relo relocated? what am i talking about why i talk about sanctioning alaska. here's how bad it is. my state, since the biden administration came into office has had 60 executive actions exclusively focused on alaska -- 60. tomorrow it will be 61 and 62. it hits every part of our state, every resource development project, every access to federal lands, every infrastructure project. we got a lot done during the trump administration, historic amount of things done for natives, for nonnatives, things

that we've been trying to get done for alaska for decades. during the trump administration, working with a republican congress, we got a ton done. the biden administration comes in and on day one -- day one they start their war on alaska. this is a tough -- this is a tough chart to read. these are the specific 60 executive orders and actions targeting alaska by the biden administration on day one. by the way, that's the president's first day in office, january 20, 2021. he issued ten executive orders and executive actions exclusively focused on alaska, ten. so this administration loves to sanction us. loves to sanction alaskans. and when that happens, mr. president, you're hurting the

country. we need alaska's resources, our oil, our gas, our renewables of we're proud of all of it. we have the highest standards in the world on the environment. so this is really bad for my state. by the way, i was in the oval office last year trying to convince the president not to keep crushing alaska, and i handed him this chart. at the time it was 46 executive orders, now it's 60, 62 tomorrow. i handed him that. i was respectful, i'm in the oval office. i said, mr. president, do you they what you're doing to my state? do you have any idea what you guys are doing? at the time it was 44 executive orders and executive actions, singularly focused, exclusively focused on alaska. i handed him this. i said, sir, this is wrong. you know it, i know it.

it's wrong. if a republican administration came in and issued 44 executive orders and actions, targeting little delaware -- sorry, it is little -- and you were still a u.s. senator, sir, you would be down on the floor raising hell every day. you know it and i know it because it is wrong. mr. president, let me end by saying this. it's not just wrong for alaska. it's not just wrong for alaska. it's wrong for america. the president is making a choice, not just whether to stiff the working men and women of our great nation, which he's doing with these orders tomorrow. not just whether he's going to hurt my constituents, which he is going to do tomorrow, particularly the native people, but whether or not to damage our national security even greater. when you shut down the great

state of alaska's ability to produce natural resources for america, you are hurting the country. it doesn't matter where you live. he's making a choice to favor these terrorists over these workers. to favor these terrorists over these great native people in my state. and here's the message that they're going to be sending -- the biden administration is going to be sending to the world tomorrow. they're going to be sending this message to the dictators in iran, in china, in venezuela, in russia, president biden's essentially going to be saying this, we won't use our resources to strengthen our country. sorry alaska, you're off the table, but we're going to let you dictators develop your resources, iran, to strengszen your -- strengthen your country. i'll end with this, mr.

president. i'll never forget a meeting i had many years ago with the late senator john mccain and a very brave russian dissident, vladimir kara-murza. many know who he is, putin has poisoned him twice, he survived those, but now he's in jail in moscow, and i worry about his life. a brave man, a wise man. senator mccain and vladimir kara-murza were having a meeting and i asked vladimir kara-murza what can we do to undermine the dictators around the world, and he looked at me and said, it's

easy, the null one thing -- the number one thing that the united states can do to undermine authoritarian regimes is to produce more american energy -- produce more american energy. we're not doing that tomorrow. the biden administration is going to tell the world that we're going to shut down alaska in terms of critical minerals and anymore oil and gas development. joe biden is fine with our adversaries producing more energy themselves, dominating the world's critical mineral supply, while shutting down our own as long as the far-left radicals he feels are key to his reelection are satisfied. so they're probably going to be satisfied tomorrow, and so are our adversaries, they're going to be gleeful, but certainly the people i represent, and i say,

mr. president, the vast majority of americans who understand these issues are going to be once again dismayed that this administration is selling out strong american national security interests and american strength for far-left radicals who he listens to more than the native people of my state or commonsense americans. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, over the last few hours, i listened to debates occurring on the senate floor over the foreign intelligence surveillance act, and specifically discussions surrounding section 702 of fisa.

discussions surrounding, among other things, that fisa 702 reauthorization, passed last week by the house of representatives. that bill that they passed last week is commonly known as resa. and under resa there are a lot of conversations going on about what does and what doesn't concern americans, what should or shouldn't concern americans. and under this bill that i'm going to be talking about today, resa, it's an acronym that stands for reforming intelligence and securing america act. like so many other bills that get passed by congress, risa has a really orwellian name. it purports to do something that on further inspection it doesn't do and in some cases it does quite the opposite of that. and so there's been a lot of

misinformation being pedalled by the purveyors of the cult of infallibility surrounding fisa and those who implement it. so i've come to the floor to dispel some of those myths. the first myth i would like to try to dispel today involves what exactly it is that we're talking about with fisa 702, and what exactly it is that some of us find objectionable. remember that under fisa 702, a collection that is supposed to occur under that section really doesn't trigger fourth amendment concerns. in fact, most of what they collect, i'll willing to assume and have reason to believe doesn't trigger fourth amendment concerns because it's there to collect information about foreign adversaries, operating on foreign soil, doing things

against american national security. we're not concerned about someone plotting a terrorist attack overseas as a non-u.s. citizen. we're not concerned about that person's fourth amendment, we are concerned about that person and what that person intends to do. but that person doesn't have fourth amendment rights, at least not rights cognizable under the u.s. system of government. and that's why congress was willing to enact fisa to allow for acquisition of intelligence on foreign targets operating outside of the united states. but under fisa's 702, there's some communications from some u.s. citizens that are, as we say, incidentally collected that

get swept up into the collection under fisa 702. meaning if you're a u.s. citizen and you're in the united states, then you have a phone call with -- and you have a phone call with someone, there's a possibility that that person is outside the united states and is not a u.s. citizen and might be under some sort of collection, some kind of fisa 702 collection effort. there is a possibility that when you talk to that person, that phone call is being recorded or that text message exchange or that e-mail threat is being collected by u.s. intelligence agencies. we call that incidental collection. there are a lot of people who have come down here and had the audacity to claim that the fourth amendment has no role to play whatsoever under fisa 702.

now, in a broad sense they have a point in that what fisa 702 was created to do, and i assume, i certainly hope, that the bulk of what it does, the bulk of what it collects has no fourth amendment protection attached to it, but some of it does and how you access that information after it's been incidentally collected by our government and stored in a u.s. government database under fisa 702, that maerlts. one of the lies i heard perpetuated on the floor this very day by the members of this body is that somehow the united states article 3 courts, federal courts, have concluded that fisa 702 collection just -- simply isn't a problem and therefore we

have nothing to worry about here. that's misleading. it is misleading to a profound degree, because in some instances, these arguments have been presented in a way so as to suggest we have no fourth amendment interest, no reason under the fourth amendment to care about the querying of a specific u.s. person, a specific american citizen to see whether or where or to what extent that person's private communications that are stored on the fisa 702 database exist, whether they exist and then what the contents of them are. in other words, if you want to search a fisa 702 database for a specific american citizen, you can figure out, first, whether there's information there and,

secondly, when you open it, you can read the contents of it. figure out what that person said, to whom, when they said it how long they talked, what else transpired. this is a question on which no federal court in the united states has ever given its blessing, much less said that there are no fourth amendment ramifications for this. in fact, some of the case law that's been cited or referenced, indirectly in some instances, directly in others, seems to suggest the exact opposite. each and every circuit that has addressed this has identified a distinction. you know, we've got in one step, the incidental collection of communications by a u.s. person, who knowingly or unknowingly was connecting with a foreign national located overseas who happens to be under surveillance under fisa 702. that is one question, a distinct

question. we've come to accept the fact that some of that's going to happen. it's not the collection itself that presents the fourth amendment injury that we can remedy and must remedy here. it's, rather, the second question -- whether the querying of 702 data in a 702 database for information on a specific american citizen implicates the fourth amendment; thus, requiring a warrant in order to search for that american's stored private but incidentally collected information. each circuit that has identified this second step of which -- to which i refer, after the incidental question, the querying, each circuit that's identified that as a separate step has acknowledged that it

presents different fourth amendment questions from the first step. and both circuits have declined to answer that question. it, thus, remains an open question, and it is my frustration with those who have come down to this floor and suggested, directly and indirectly, that this matter is closed, it's been considered and decided by multiple circuits no less that we've got nothing to worry about here under the fourth amendment. that simply is not true. let me read to you an excerpt from one of the cases most recently cited. this is the ruling from the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit, a case called the united states v. hosbarjani. you can find it at 945f-3rd. decided in to 19.

quote, querying the data does have important implications, those implications counsel in favor of considering a second amendment which must be reasonable. what kinds of questionrying -- what kinds of querying, you understand what procedures within the meaning of the fourth amendment and when if ever such querying of one or more databases maintained by an agency of the united states for information about a united states person might require a warrant are difficult and sensitive questions. we do not purport to answer them here or even to canvas all the considerations that may prove relevant of the various types of querying that may raise distinct problems. then another circuit, the 10th circuit, the 10th circuit where i've argued dozens of cases and

that includes my home state, utah, along with a number of other states in the west, decided another case that also recognized this distinction. this case was decided in 2021 and it's called united states v. maturov. it is found at 20-f4th 558. in this case, the 10th circuit says that mr. maturov's fourth amendment argument specifically on this point -- quote -- asserts the government unconstitutional queried 702 databases without a warrant. he contends that querying lead to retrieval of communications or other information that were used to support the traditional fisa applications.

but this is sheer speculation. there's nothing in the record to support that evidence derived from queries was used to support the traditional fisa applications. close quote. the 10th circuit then goes on to say, quote, the record confirms that the relevant evidence did not arise from querying. we therefore do not address mr. maturov's second fourth amendment argument. querying might raise difficult fourth amendment questions that we need not address here. so, like the second circuit court of appeals, the 10th circuit court of appeals also acknowledged that that's a different question, a second question, one that almost certainly raises fourth amendment questions, fourth amendment questions that weren't addressed by that corporate -- by that court. notice by the way some of the language used. this highlights some of the problem, some of the reason we

need to be concerneded about this. they said that there's nothing in the record to support where exactly that evidence came from. it's part of the problem, you see, with the foreign intelligence surveillance act court or the fisc it as it's sometimes known. it operates in secret. now, having the fisc operate in secret for purposes limited to communications involving foreign nationals operating on foreign soil undertaking acts hostile to the united states of america, that's one thing. but we have reason to be concerned when they operate in secret and don't have additional legal requirements to follow with respect to a query

specifically identifying a particular american citizen. we should all be concerned about that a we should be even more concerned about it given this feature that the 10th circuit acknowledged, which is that there is almost no way of knowing or approving what they might gain. it's one of the reasons why more exacting standards are required under the law. the second broad misconception that i want to try to dispel, that's been thrown around lot today -- and i suspect will continue to be thrown around a lot today -- is that somehow we are operating under a really, really tight time frame, a time frame that acknowledges that section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act is going to expire at midnight tomorrow.

and that if it does expire, which they're saying it will expire if we do anything but just rubber stamp this handfistedly drawn up and passed legislation from it the house of representatives without doing our own homework, without dotting the i's and crossing the t's and making sure they did their job right -- which they did not -- that at cost of that will be certain doom and gloom because fisa 702 collection will abroughtly seas at -- abruptly seas at exactly mid-night tomorrow night. -- cease at exactly midnight tomorrow night. i'd also make mention of the fact that we've known for month oz, since december, that april 19 at midnight this deadline was happening. and you've seen a deliberate

decision in both houses of congress, they have religiously, scrupulously avoided bringing it up until just days before that deadline occurs. so they've contrived the very deadline that they're now trying to use as leverage to manipulate our votes, to prevent us from doing our jobs, to make sure that the i's are dots and that the t's are crossed and that the american people's fourth amendment rights aren't being steamrolled. shame on them. i said, if i had more time i'd go into that. but i won't because there's another much better argument to make here. they're lying. they are lying when they say that fisa 702 collection will end abruptly at midnight tomorrow. it will not. and the reason we know it will not is because when they shamelessly reauthorized this thing in another 11th hour vote back in 2019, our foreign

intelligence agencies and the clever lawyers that, worked with them threw in language anticipating then that the next time around, that next time, you know, the bill came due late last year in 2023, that there might be a moment then of hesitation, because the truth would catch up to them by then that fisa 702 is rife with opportunities for abuse of americans' fourth amendment rights. recognizing that, they built into the legislative text that they dropped at the very last minute and passed by the thinnest of margins language to say that even if fisa 702 were to lapse, that as long as there was a certification by the fisc, the foreign intelligence surveillance act court, a recertification of the fisa 702 collection program broadly, not

specific orders regarding specific targets, just the program broadly, that that certification would allow for all fisa 702 collection to continue for 365 days following the issuance of that certification by the pic. -- by the fisc. even if during that 365 days, whether at the beginning or near the end of it, fisa 702 had lapsed. now, just last week -- in fact i believe it may have been a week ago today -- the fisc granted another fisa 702 program certification, and what that means is that because the language that was adopted in 2018 continued until december of last year, and in december of

last year it punted this issue forward to april 19 of this year. they reflected a -- they reenacted a version of that same language from 2018 into the 2023 short-term extension. so it says the same thinking. -- so it says the same thing. and because we got just last week the fisc certification -- that's fisc certification and all 702 collection -- remains lawful, 365 days into that, even if fisa 702 lapses statutorily in the meantime. mr. schumer: would my colleague yield so i can make a brief announcement about schedule? mr. lee: i would do so. mr. schumer: thank you. mr. president, we do not expect votes this evening but we're continuing to work on an agreement on the fisa bill. members should expect votes tomorrow. i yield back to my colleague and thank him for his courtesy. mr. lee: thank you.

i'm glad to here that we'll be -- i'm glad to hear that we'll be having votes tomorrow. we need votes tomorrow, for some of the reasons that i'm discussing. we shouldn't fear those votes. you know, a great song by blue oyster cult, "don't fear the reaper." we're lawmakers. it's what we do. we cast vote. we vote on amendments. we shouldn't fear votes. we shouldn't fear doing our job. i've heard it said many times, if you don't like fires and you can't stand being in their presence, then you shouldn't become a firefighter. and if you can't handle taking tough votes, for heaven's sakes, you shouldn't somebody a lawmakers a one of the reasons why people are fearing the reaper here, fearing amendment votes here, even though there's nothing to

fear, they're wanting people to fear those amendment votes because they say if we cast any amendment votes, if we depart in even the slightest degree from what the house in its supposedly infinity wisdom passed last week, with its ham-fisted draftsmanship and its man inlaichted -- manipulated, truncated approach to voting on amendments over there, if we depart from that even to the slightest degree it will be armageddon, dogs and cats living together in the street, armageddon stuff playing out in america. we're all going to blow up, we're all going to die because all fisa 702 graphics is going to come to -- collection is going to come to a halt. that's a damned lie and they know it, because they guaranteed that would not be the case. when i bring this language up to

them, they have the audacity to tell me, no, that's all great and everything, but the reason it would halt is because some of the service providers, the third party companies for whom they have to work to collect a lot of this information, they're not smart enough to realize what it says. so they're going to fight it, and some say they're going to sue us. yeah, good luck with that, good luck with that theory. in the first place, if they're relying on the fact they would sue the federal government in order to not have to participate with them, i really would like to see that, because it's never going to happen. if it did happen, they would lose. if they did try, it would take so long to do it, but it wouldn't do them any good, especially because they're wrong. the clock is in one sense t ticking, but we've got an entire

year left before fisa 702 collection would even stop at all. don't get me wrong. i'm not thrilled about that. that doesn't make me happy. it was a manipulative thing to do when they added it. it was a manipulative thing to do when they extended it, using the same language. but it is the law. if they want the benefit of it, which they clearly did just a few weeks ago, like three months ago, then you pick up that stick, you're picking up both sides of the stick. the fact remains that the law makes abundantly clear fisa 702 collection is not going to halt at midnight tomorrow. it's not going to halt until approximately april 10 or 11, 2025. now, that does not mean we

should wait until then to enact legislation addressing these issues, and we need not act until then. but it sure as heck means we can at least take the time to do our own work. there's a reason we have a bicameral legislative branch. washington described the senate as the cooling saucer. tea would come over, sometimes very hot, from the house, it would have time to cool over here. this tea hasn't had any time to cool. certainly not enough time to cool, much less be aired and understood by those whose rights may be affected by it. let's just do away with those lies at the outset. it is completely fake news. it's a complete darned lie to say that courts have weighed in and said that there's no problem

with u.s. person queries to go after a u.s. person's private communications incidentally collected under fisa 702 and stored on a fisa 702 database. i get it. that doesn't fit well onto a bumper sticker. nobody will have that embroidered onto a pillow, although someone should. but it's true. second, fisa 702 collection is not going to end tomorrow at midnight. it's not going to end for almost a year. let's get over ourselves, get over the lies and deal with the actual truth. let's talk about reesa again. i want to talk specifically about risaa and what it does. a lot of people voted for it in the house, it does so much good. i voted for it, even though i've got concerns with warrantless, backdoor searches on american

citizens. i've got concerned with that too, but it's done so much good, so many reforms, can't even count them, the reforms are so good. you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. nonsense. most of those reforms are fake. some are worse than fake. in fact, i can make an argument that risaa amounts to a net loss for fourth amendment privacy interests. those folks over there who tell themselves that to justify their votes, they're kidding themselves. absolutely kidding themselves. let's go through some of the reasons why. when it comes to backdoor searches of american citizens, a book of risaa is just a codification of preexisting, internal fbi procedures, the same procedures that continue to produce illegal queries of americans' communications. in fact, i've been here since

2011, on the judiciary committee the whole time, had opportunities to have conversations with fbi directors serving under three different presidents, different political parties. they've all told me variations of the same thing, don't worry about it, we've got procedures to stop it. you have nothing to worry about. in fact, you're kind of stupid for even assuming this is a problem. in any event, we at the fbi, we're serious about this stuff, and we've got procedures that will stop it. well, fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. fool me hundreds of thousands of times, that's not acceptable. not to anyone. look, risa fails to address the worst of worthless stow surveillance. it just -- 702 surveillance.

it just does. it codifies the prior fbi step of having prior approval from the deputy director of the fbi, not an article 3 court, a normal court, no the foreign intelligence surveillance act court, or the fisc. it has this requirement only for sensitive queries involving a u.s. elected official, a presidential appointee or app appointee of a governor, political organization, u.s. media organizations, and so forth. then for queries of religious organizations or batch queries, risa requires pre-approval again, internal fbi approval only, from, get this, an fbi attorney. what could go wrong? great. so the deputy director of fbi, the current occupant of the

legacy position once held by andrew mccabe, i'm sure that will make a lot of americans feel a lot better. i'm sure a lot of americans will feel a lot better also knowing the likes of peter szruk and lisa page will be involved in this. there are a lot of great fbi agents out there, rank and file agents, a lot of great work they do. top brass at fbi? not held in as high esteem as they once were. in fact, that's putting it really, really mildly, and indeed euphemistically. not just depending on your political leanings, but based on what they've done based on the number of times we've been lied to, based on the number of times

we as members of the united states senate and members of the public, the voting public, we've been given assurances that time and time again have turned out to be dead wrong. so it's as though under risa, hey, mr. fox, come on in. here are the keys to the henhouse. have fun. get stuff done and, you know, use your power and your keys responsibly. i'm sure you won't be tempted to do otherwise. what do they think, we're stupid? they think the american people are stupid? they're not. they should know better. shame on them. and shame on our counterparts in the house of representatives for thinking that this is anything but insulting to the american people. to say don't worry about it, we have fbi internal controls. fbi internal controls. we're putting the same darn people in charge of this. the same people who have manipulated and abused this over

and over again. we said, you're in charge now. you'll be employing the same sort of reviews you've employed on the honor system in the past, knowing full well that the american public can't see anything that you do. and we're supposed to trust you with that? this is crazy. this is the same fbi that approved the surveillance of president trump's campaign and has failed to prevent illegal queries year after year after year, even after denying that they don't happen. in all cases involving americans, but especially in these sensitive cases, outside checks and balances, actual checks and actual balances on the use of surveillance authority should be firmly in place. but alas, they are not. nothing like them. in addition to the narrow query

pre-approval requirements, risa c codifies additional changes to some of these internal fbi procedures regarding the abuse of 702 queries of u.s. citizens by its agents. these internal procedures have not stopped violations. thousands of which are occurring every year. in fact, we've had hundreds of thou thousands, until last year i think we had over dwaush it was in the hundreds of thousands -- it was in the hundreds of thousands, like 200,000 occurring several years in a row, until last year, when they ramped down a bit. in the meantime, all while telling us the same darn procedures they're now

codifying, putting the same people in charge, enforcing them with providing oversight, that they're in charge of making sure they comply with the same requirements they've already falsely been claiming to follow. so, what exactly is this going to stop? well, it didn't stop the fbi, with the same personnel, employing the same standard, from, i don't know, let's think about the guy, the unsuspecting guy, who wants to rent an apartment, unbeknownst to him the guy who owned the apartment was an agent who decided that he would run the would-be tenant through the fisa 702 database. or what about the agent who had some kind of an unparticularized suspicion or hunch, something

that wouldn't even most likely justify a terry stop, that his father might be cheating on his mother, and he therefore ran his dad through the fisa 702 database? or what about the unsuspecting 19,000 donors to a particular congressional campaign, all of whom were run through the fisa 702 database? or what about the member of congress who was run through the fisa 702 database? these are just a few of the people we know about, through some miracle we've been able to learn about the existence of those very, very inappropriate, very, very unlawful, very indefensible searches, searches approved against the backdrop of the same procedures, under the supervision of the same people, holding the same positions at the fbi. so forgive me if i don't think

that's necessarily going to change a lot. now, risa purports to rein in warrantless searches of america's information by ending the pract of querying data to find evidence of a crime unrelated to national security. however, such queries represent just a tiny fraction of warrantless fraction of americans' privacy. keep in mind, what we're talking about here are those deemed solely for that purpose. they're there so maniy for the purpose -- they're there solely for the purpose of looking for evidence of a crime. that was never a significant percentage of the problem. it was always a tiny, tiny portion of the problem. in any event, this is entirely within the fbi's own ability to circumvent just by recharacterizing the nature and purpose of the query in question.

in both of those, the fbi could have easily gotten around them by characterizing them differently than they did. this is not serious. this is not the kind of reform that the american people are demanding. certainly not the kind of reform that they deserve. now, when it comes to transparency and surveillance oversight, there are a number of purported reforms that many members of the house of representatives who voted for this are clinging to with all their might, insisting these do a lot of good, these fix the problem. let's look into that. let's look at what risa does to amicus. amicus, short for amici curiae, the plural of amicus curiae,

amici curiae a.m. -- amici curiae, it means friends of the court. amici curiae is a friend of the court. back in 2015, a bipartisan effort that i led on the republican side in the senate, called the usa freedom act, was passed by congress, signed into law by president obama. they imposed a number of reforms. it ended bulk metadata collection among other things. it also imposed some requirements related to the fisc allowing for the participation of an amici curiae before the fisc. in a number of circumstances. remember,

its members consist of life tenured judges. while serving in their capacity as fisc judges they sit in their courtroom without opposing counsel. only the government has historically been present in those circumstances. because of the sensitive nature of some of the issues that we've described today, we created in the usa freedom act provisions requiring the participation in a number of circumstances for amicus curiae. there have been no complaints about this not working well. none. i'm not aware of a single instance where amicus participation before the fisc has caused problems. and yet consistent with its

pattern and practice of scanning the horizon, looking high and low to find a solution in search of a problem, those loyal to the intelligence agencies on the house of representatives side put in place some very significant restrictions on amici. by limiting arguments amici can raise and those serving amici. not one complaint that i'm aware of has been raised on this. not one reason has been provided as to why they shouldn't do this. not one. they still said we've got to limit them. risa's amicus provisions will actually weaken oversight instead of adopting the reforms that passed the senate 77-19 in

2020 as part of the lee-leahy amendment which would have strengthened oversight by bolstering the role of amici. that measure passed in 2020 by the senate 77-19 was part of a legislative package expected at the time to move over in the house where it would have passed by correspondingly overwhelming bipartisan supermajority margins over there. but for the fact that that vehicle for reasons unrelated to the lee-leahy amendment caused that bill to stall out. 77-19, those are the margins by which this passed the senate just a few years ago. that lee-leahy amendment would have created a presumption that amici should participate in cases that raise critical issues such as those involving the first amendment protected activities of a united states citizen or any u.s. person. a request for approval of a new

program, new technology or a new use of an existing one, a novel or significant civil liberties issue with respect to a known u.s. person or a sensitive investigative matter while giving the fisc the ability to deny participation where there was some particularized reason why that would be inappropriate. amicus participation is critical especially so where you have this kind of ex parte proceeding. an ex parte proceeding is one in which only one side is represented by counsel. it's just the government lawyers and the judge or judges, without an amicus there's no one there to look out for, to protect, to advocate for the rights of the american public. risa requires the government also to provide only limited and

inadequate presentation of what we call exculpatory evidence, the type of evidence required by united states vs. brady in an ordinary federal court. by contrast, the lee-leahy amendment would have required a full presentation to the court of all material, exculpatory evidence that might come into play there. and this is absolutely necessary. why these guys chose to weaken that, i think is consistent with -- we can only surmise what the reasons might be, but i think they have a lot to do with the fact that of course no government agency wants additional responsibilities or additional burdens. this makes additional work for them. and that's the whole point. the whole point of the fourth amendment is not to make the government's job more efficient. i'm sure law enforcement, domestically would be a whole

heck of a lot easier if there were not a fourth amendment. that is not a reason to jettison the protections of the fourth amendment. and even though i'm sure some of the legitimate foreign intelligence gathering operations of our intelligence agencies would be made easier, less burdensome if we just threw all of these protections to the wind, if we pretended there aren't legitimate reasons related to fourth amendment interests to be concerned here, should that make it easier, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. it doesn't mean it's consistent with the letter and spirit of the fourth amendment. this requirement about exculpatory evidence as it's contained in risa just contains the mere veneer, potemkin village version of the real thing, just the illusion of protection. this provision draws near to the

fourth amendment with its lips, but its heart is far from the fourth amendment. fisc should be given all exculpatory material evidence before approving surveillance. we have to remember in december of 2019, the department of justice i.g. reported 17 errors and omissions in the fbi's fisa applications requesting authority to surveil president trump's presidential campaign advisor carter page. the steel doesier, an opposition research document which largely fabricated unsubstantiated claims. unfortunately the april 2020 memorandum from the inspector general to fbi director wray proved that this was not an isolated incident. after a sampling of 29 fbi applications for fisa surveillance of u.s. persons, he

found an average of 20 errors per application. the lee-leahy amendment that passed in 2020 with 77 votes in this chamber would have required that the government provide all of that material, all material, exculpatory evidence to the fisc since the u.s. person being surveilled is excluded from the fisa proceedings. next we'll turn to the, another provision that i think per persuaded, unfortunately, some members of the house of representatives to support this bill even though it lacked adequate substantial fourth amendment reforms. i'm referring of course to the protections directed specifically at members of congress.

the risa bill provides protections not available to others, specifically for members of congress. think about this for a second. one of the reasons why a number of people felt comfortable voting for it was because of the belief, the mistaken belief, as i'll explain in a minute, that this protects rank-and-file members of the house and of the senate. i don't believe it even does that. but even if it did, think about what that says. anyone persuaded about this is tacitly admitting, if not to the public, at least should admit to themselves that, number one, this is enough of a concern that they ought to be worried about it, such that they ought to provide some sort of language requiring accountability for when they do 702 questioner riss

on individual members of congress. they're acknowledging that there is a problem, that it can be abused. then they are providing a type of accountability available only to members of congress. that's kind of creepy. if this thing is bad such that it needs protection, why not make that protection or other similar protections available to americans broadly, to all americans? why limit this to members of congress? what it does is it requires notification not to all of congress, but notification to congressional leaders, meaning to the law firm of schumer, mcconnell, johnson, and jeffries, and to the top republican and top democrat of the house intel committee and the top republican and top democrat of the senate intel

committee. sometimes collectively we refer to this as the gang of eight. it requires notification to them if fbi queries the name of a member of congress, and risa requires prior consent from the member of congress in question, but only if it wishes to perform a query on that member for purposes of a defensive briefing. see, otherwise if it's not for the purpose of a defensive briefing, that member doesn't get notified. but the law firm of schumer, mcconnell, johnson and jeffries gets notified. and the intel bros, you know, the top head of the intel committee on both side of the capitol, they get notified too. nobody else does. now it's not like they're going to feel inclined to notify the

member. in fact, they probably are prohibited from doing so. who exactly does that protect? why is that a good thing? if the querying is being be done, so then you're allowing a tiny handful, eight members out of 535 sworn and currently serving members of the the legislative branch who have been elected by their respective states, eight of them, just eight of them get to know what they're doing about any and every other member of congress. how is that going to help anyone? in fact, how is that not something that could actually work to the disadvantage of those being surveilled except in the specific context of a defensive briefing? this is crazy. this is throwing gasoline on the fire. this is not, in addition to the giving the keys to the henhouse

to the fox, you're then dousing the whole thing with gasoline and then adding more gasoline to it after it's on fire. as much as anything, mr. president, these are fake ref reforms, and to the extent they're not fake, because they're available exclusively to members of congress, they're a slap in the face to our constituents who receive no such protections. none. including those protections shows that the drafters of risa knew that there is a problem. it shows that those who voted for it, who relied on this, to their detriment understand how invasive these questioner riss really -- queries really are. that's why they want to protect members of congress even though they're failing to do that here unless they happen to be in the gang of eight. that's why cher claiming

to protect -- why they're claiming to protect themselves. in reality it is not just self-serving, it is illusory. the consent requirement is flimsy at best, and there's an exception that quite arguably swallows the whole rule even where it might otherwise apply and the fbi can, based on the way it categorizes the search and question, it can get around the consent requirement in another circumstance where otherwise it might apply. this is fake, it's worse than fake, i think it would be a detriment to the fourth amendment and to most members of congress. and then we get to one of the big enchiladas in this, the

so-called turner amendment, drawn up and thrown into the bill at the last minute, ru rubber-stamped by the house, risa, this particular provision of risa authorizes the largest expansion of this type of surveillance on u.s. domestic soil since the patriot act. egregious fourth amendment violations against the united states and its citizens and will, i am confident increase dra dramatically if it becomes law. it covers a huge range of

individuals, secluding hotels, libraries, restaurants, cafes to assist the government in spying on u.s. persons. currently the government conduction 072 surveillance with electronic service providers or esc -- ecsp's. historically the definition of ecsp included those entities with direct access to americans' electronic communications. for example, google, microsoft, verizon, et cetera. this new provision would compel the government to hanyone that has access to equipment on which communication is routed and stored. this would include a huge number of whicheses that provide wifi to businesses and have access to

routers and communications equipment. this is part of the intelligence communication's ire, that cloud computing does not have to comply with fisa-compelled disclosures, they claim that it was a narrow fix to allow the government to compel information from a single-service provider. i don't buy it. the reason i don't buy it is because if that's what it was supposed to do, they would have written it differently. they didn't write it that way. they've got smart lawyers, they're smart people. they know exactly what they doing. even if they didn't know what they were doing, we know what they did and it is not good. the fix was deliberately written, you see, in really broad terms, to conceal the particular provider at issue. as written, the provision could be used to compel any service provider who could potentially

access communications equipment, including potentially janitors, people involved in repairs, plumbers to assist nsa in spying. nothing in the laboring wage -- language provides any backstop or limitation on the unfetterred use on this newly, dramatically expanded authority. moreover because these businesses and individuals lack the ability to turn over specific communications, it would be forced to give the nsa access to the equipment itself. the nsa would then have access to all of the communications stored on the equipment, including a trove of wholly domestic communications, it would be up to the nsa to capture only the communications of foreign targets.

no disrespect to the fine men and women who work at the nsa, but it is it one of the most impenetrable agencies that has existed anywhere, you have to transparency, no oversight this that's going to make any business, giving the nsa access to americans' communications on such a broad scale is a recipe for disaster and it is the narrowed focus of 702 on foreign targets. look, i've outlined some of the m myths surrounding this whole fisa 702 debate, explained that collection owner of 702 is not going to go dark if something doesn't pass immediately, we are not forced to accept lock, stock

and barrel without reviewing it and to improve it, make it better, to address the disaster that is the turner amendment, to address the hypocrisy and the sham that is the member of congress exclusive protection, to address any of the glaring omissions, including the failure to add any type of warrant requirement for commun communications -- private communication of u.s. citizens incidentally collected and stored on the 702 database. these are all lies that we can't improve any of those to improve these things because fisa 702 collection is going to end abrupdly, tragically at midnight tomorrow. we established this language

first adopted in 2018 and then reupped, renewed and reenacted in december of last year to extend this deadline to april 19. it makes clear that once the fisc has issued a recertification of the program, 702 collection can continue unabated, undisturbed even if 702 expires, and if that -- and that certification was renewed a week ago so we have a year before that ends. let's get rid of this nonsensical, unbelievable lie that's being told that we're all going to die if we don't do it. so what do we need to do? first, we've dwt to have -- we've got to have an amendment process. we've got to have an amendment process that, among other things, allows for a probable

cause warrant to be the backstop of any u.s. person query. we've got language that i support that's being offered in a durbin amendment that would require that, and it would attach it the moment they want to review the consent. they want to do a u.s. person query to figure out whether it's there in an emergency or some other circumstance for some reason before -- even if they do that, before they open it, before they review the substantive content after doing a u.s. person specific query they'd have to get a warrant. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to finish my remarks within the next 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. so we need a probable cause

warrant requirement. now, all of this sky is falling predictions about why that would be so bad to have a probable cause warrant requirement, they're really not addressing the facts here. l look, i think we would have been fine -- i think we would have been just fine if we had adopted what is known as the biggs amendment, the amendment that failed by a tie vote of 212-212, and it failed, i believe, because they gavelled it out when it was tied even though there were more members congress coming to the floor to vote. i was over there at the time who were believed to be intending to support it. they gavelled it out the second they thought they could get away

with it and make it fail. one of the reasons why it didn't get more votes is because of the scare tactics associated with that and overblown, exaggerated concerns that it would make it impossible. i heard members of the intelligence community argue that it would just necessarily bring an abrupt halt to everything we do in this area. it's just not credible. it's not true. even if that were true, let's just indulge that for purposes of this discussion, the same concerns are minimized by the wasn't requirement of the durbin amendment. and the -- in the durbin amendment, the requirement would be triggered not at the moment of the query itself but at the moment they want to open the results of the query. they could see whether the particular u.s. person, u.s. citizen addressed in the search

triggered some kind of response, but then before they could open the search results, read the comments of the e-mails, listen to the contents of the phone calls, read the text messages, whatever it is, then they would have to go and get a warrant. now, unless they make -- lest they make the same argument here and scare people again, because that's what they do, and they get away with it because they're the spy agencies, trust me, people are going to die unless congress does exactly what i say. that's what they say over and over again. you know, it's get really irritating when they say the same thing year after year. lest they gain any advantage here by coming up with that, just -- this would affect such a tiny, tiny portion of all, you

know, u.s. person queries or a tiny faction of queries on the 702 database and a tiny percentage of all u.s. person kweries, something -- queries, something like 1% or 2%, it would be implemented by the durbin's warrant requirement. according to senator durbin, i believe the estimate he provided was about eight queries a month would trigger that. that's not hard to comply with at all. those of us who have been prosecutors, no, it's not -- it's not hard to get a warrant, especially in a program as huge as fisa 702. to suggest that it's just unduly

oppressive for them to get up to eight warrants per month when querying specificallior the private communications of u.s. citizens on the 702 database? no. don't tell me that is unduly burdensome. that is not credible. so we need that amendment. it's not the only amendment we need, but we definitely need that one. without that one, i think this is -- i think this bill is -- is an absolute mistake without adopting that amendment. there are other amendments as well, one that i'll focus on is the amendment that i'm running, providing necessary reforms to the amicus curiae process and requiring the government to expose exculpatory evidence. it's the same amendment

basically, it is -- it does exactly the same thing as the lee-leahy amendment but it's introduced now as the lee-welch amendment, with a certain degree of poetic cemetery, i united now with the senator from vermont who took the place of our dear former colleague, senator pat leahy, and peter welch is now cosponsoring this measure with me, and eve introduced that as -- and we've introduced that as the lee-welch amendment, which would do as i described a moment ago. it would beef up the amicus curiae process, participation of which has been badly weakened and undermined by risa. and it wouldestore mg it just a little bit more like

the adversarial process that's the hallmark of our country's legal system designed to protect our individual rights. and it would require, among other things, that at least one of the court-appointed amici have expertise in privacy and civil liberties, unless the court found that such qualifications were inappropriate in a particular case. it also would require fisc to appoint an amicus in cases presenting a novel or significant interpretation of law or where there's significant concerns with first amendment protected activities of a u.s. person, a sensitive matter, a request of approval of a new program, new technology, or a new use of an existing technology or novel or significant civil liberties issues with respect to a known u.s. person. all these things are important,

and it's also important that they be required to provide the full panetta -- panoply of evidence before the fifshgs as they're going before the fisc in cases involving u.s. person queries under 702. it's really important that we have these reforms because, again, remember, we suspend what would otherwise be significant restrictions in this arena a we suspend those and because we suspend those and because this is a secret court, it is much more important to be careful. we still understand that because of the risks associated with it, it's still not a court that would operate in a public way. at least there'd be another set of eyes in there looking on it. a set of thigh in under some circumstances is allowed to be there now but maybe not as often as it should be, they will be weakened fundamental they just pass risa, reflexively.

it would weaken oversight very significantly, very dangerously. i'm about out of time, so i need to wrap this up. let me close by saying this -- we can't fall for the lie every time, and we seniorly is can't fall for the lie every time and then claim surprise when it gets abused again. the american people have seen is over and over again there is some risk in this. we like those things that have made us same -- safe. i don't personally know anyone who stays up at night worrying about 702 summer ofs of a foreign adversary operating on u.s. soil. that's just not a zone where fourth amendment interests are cognizable. -- in our legal system.

and it's not something that americans i know spend time worrying about. but they are worried when they learn that a number of innocent, unsuspecting americans have their own private communications incidentally collected or swept up in what might well be legitimate operations associated with fisa 702. it's the querying of their name, of their personal identifiers, their phone number, their e-mail address, of a known u.s. citizen looking for them. it is a great cause of concern to many. that's my principal folk focus. that's why i'm focus so heavily on the lee-welch amendment and on the durbin amendment, of which i am a cosponsor, requiring a warrant for them to access the contents of those private communications of u.s. persons when they're queried on

the fisa 702 database. it doesn't mean these are the only reforms necessary. there are a handful of our other colleagues who have introduced other reforms. one of them addresses the turner amendment, this breathtakingly broad expansion of fisa. it was written in a hand-fisted way. i understand that there is a legitimate reason for it. but the way it's written one has to wonder about what the subjective motives of those writing it may have been. but even if you assume for purposes of argument that they were pure, their draftsmanship sure wasn't pure, and we've got to fix that. we've got to fix that. there are some other amendments that also need to be considered. i'm not sure how i feel about every one of these amendments but, you know, when you get equity willed to the united states senate, one of the things that differentiates this body

from other legislative bodies, we pride ourselves on supposedly be the world's most deliberative legislative body. we need to act like it. our rules and nearly two and a half centuries of precedent and custom and practice are such that we're expected to vote on each other's amendments, even when we don't necessarily agree with them t even those amendments that i don't feel great about that i will oppose, perhaps even vigorously. the want them to have votes, too. we can't fall for the fake scare tactics telling us that armageddon will be upon us if we get past tomorrow night at midnight because it is just not true. nor can we fall for the lie that's been repeated on this floor today that federal courts have addressed this issue and concluded that this issue raises

no fourth amendment keynes. that's a lie. -- fourth amendment concerns. that's a lie. and to the extent that it's being spun innocently or just neglectly, then i guess in that circumstances, we wouldn't call it a lie. we would call it a badly, badly mistaken argument. but it's not something that should persuade us. just let us vote. we've got to end this practice of filing cloture and filling the tree with fancy senate parlance for preventing people from offering up amendments and having those amendments voted on. every time do you that you bolster the disproportionate hegemonic power of the law firm of schumer mcmcconnell, johnson and jeffries where you make them super-legislators and subordinating all of us, and

more importantly, those who elected us. i implore my colleagues to think about them, those who voted for us, and those who didn't vote for us, but those to whom we stand accountable, before reflexively enacting this again and i implore our senate majority leader to just let the people's elected lawmakers vote. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 213, s. 2958. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 213, s. 2958. a bill to amend the coastal barrier resources act to and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i further ask that the carper substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: is there further debate? there is none. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. schumer: i ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further

consideration and the senate now proceed to the consideration of s. res. 594. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 594, a resolution designating april 17, 2024, as national assistive technology awareness day. the presiding officer: without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 655, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 655, honoring the life of joseph lieberman, former senator for the state of connecticut. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed.

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: mr. president, finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned under the provisions of s. res. 655 until 11:00 a.m. on friday, april 19. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resumes consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar number 365, h.r. 7888, postcloture. further, that all time during adjournment, recess, morning business, and leader remarks counts toward postcloture time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under

the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, and pursuant to s. res. 655, the senate stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on friday, april 19, 20 24shgs and does -- 2024, and does so as a further mark of respect to the late joseph isador lieberman, former joseph isador lieberman, former today in the senate legislation reauthorizing section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act until 2026 allows u.s. government to collect digital communications foreigners located outside the country. however the program also captures communications of americans allows the fbi to search through the data without a warrant to this surveillance authority is set to expire tomorrow at midnight. watch live coverage of the senate when lawmakers return here on cspan2.

>> if you ever missed c-span coverage you can find it any time online at c-span.org. eddie is of key hearings, debates and other vents feature markers that guide you to interesting and is for the highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen we hit play on selected videos. the time i told makes it easy to quickly get an idea what was debated and decided in washington. scrolls through and spend a few minutes on c-span points of interest. ♪ will you solemnly swear and the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? like saturdays watched american history tv congress investigates it. we explore major investigations and our country's history by the u.s. house and senate. each week authors and historians will tell the stories, see historic footage from those periods and will examine the

impact and legacy of key congressional hearings for this week but to boot mccarthy area hearings whether communists had infiltrated the state department, the army and other federal agencies for the investigation resulted in the senate center of wisconsin republican senator joseph mccarthy for his actions. watch congress investigates saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on cspan2. ♪ sees bent as your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> do you think this is just a community center? it is by more than that. comcast is part of the 1000 committee centers to create wi-fi enabled so students from low-income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to