A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter".

Madam President, in just a few weeks, an important but controversial surveillance authority, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will expire. This extraordinary authority was initially presented to Congress as a temporary emergency counterterrorism tool more than 15 years ago. As is often the case with temporary emergency authorities, section 702 is now used for a wide range of foreign intelligence purposes, from countering Russia to stopping the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

Just last month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that data collected using section 702 allowed the Agency to foil several attacks in recent years, including attacks that would have crippled U.S. critical infrastructure and even threaten the lives of our U.S. servicemembers. And the authority has helped the U.S. uncover atrocities committed by Russia during its ongoing assault on Ukraine.

I have had demonstrations of the 702 authority, and there is no doubt in my mind that it is a valuable tool for collecting foreign intelligence. But this authority raises serious constitutional concerns, as it allows access not just to communications by those who are foreigners but also to the vast databases of Americans' communications without the customary search warrant required by the U.S. Constitution.

This powerful tool--this effective tool on foreign surveillance--has been used, in my mind, improperly to spy on American protesters, from Black Lives Matter to MAGA loyalists.

The FBI has imposed new limits on the authority of FBI agents to search the communications of Americans. But even after implementing these reforms, the FBI still conducted over 200,000 warrantless searches of Americans in just 1 year--more than 500 searches of Americans per day.

Democrats and Republicans alike are rightly concerned. Our Founders understood the danger of unchecked government surveillance and had the wisdom and foresight to enshrine protections for American citizens in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to our

Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure, particularly those without a warrant based upon probable cause that had been approved by a judge.

I have long raised concerns about section 702's lack of sufficient safeguards to protect these rights, and I have consistently voted against the extension of section 702 without changes. However, I have also said that I would support section 702 if it includes sufficient safeguards to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over FISA, I have evaluated proposed reforms and carefully considered the administration's views. I have also heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Existing legislative proposals of the House and Senate go too far for some and not far enough for others.

That is why, today, I am introducing what I hope will be a compromise bill that tries to bridge this divide to protect both our security and our Constitution and guaranteed freedoms.

The Security and Freedom Enhancement Act, or SAFE Act, would enhance our national security by reauthorizing section 702 for 4 more years, while also protecting Americans from warrantless surveillance.

The SAFE Act would require the government to demonstrate to a court that it has probable cause before reading or listening to the private communications of Americans that have been swept up by section 702. Basically, in just a few words to describe the process, if one of our intelligence or law enforcement Agencies suspects that a foreigner is engaged in conduct that is threatening the security of the United States, they call up the records of that foreigner, and if it turns out that foreigner has communicated with an American citizen, the question is, What do you do next? Can you, in any way, monitor that conversation or come up with an investigation of the documents of that American with or without a warrant? That is the fundamental question we are facing here. So the search starts in the right direction, to a foreign source, and ends up dealing with an American--an American, obviously, who has constitutional rights.

The SAFE Act would require the government to demonstrate to a court that it has probable cause, before reading or listening to the private communications of Americans who have been swept up in section 702. However, this requirement will not prevent government agents from searching 702 databases to determine if foreign targets are communicating with Americans, nor will it prevent agents from accessing the communications of those foreign agents.

But if the government wants to review the contents--the contents--of Americans' communication, it would first be required to demonstrate to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it has probable cause to do that.

This would not be overly burdensome because a warrant would only be required in cases where the government actually reviews the content of American communications. They estimate that the incidents of American content are 1.58 percent of all 702 searches of Americans.

The SAFE Act also would not require a warrant in cases involving exigent circumstances or cyber security attacks to ensure that there will not be any delay that jeopardizes our national security.

This approach is based on recommendations by the independent Private and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which we created after 9/11 to ensure that our counterterrorism policies do not violate the constitutional rights of the American people.

The persistent and widespread violation of existing limits on section 702 underscore the importance of court approval, which we will propose.

Better compliance measures within the executive branch are helpful, but they are no substitute for checks and balances by the judicial branch, as the Founders intended.

The SAFE Act, which I am introducing, is a sensible, moderate compromise between more robust reform proposals that address a wide range of surveillance concerns and bills that reauthorize section 702 without adequately addressing these concerns.

I know that compromise does not come easy when it comes to this policy, but a reasonable middle ground that protects our national security and the rights of the American people is possible. The SAFE Act is my offer in compromise to achieve that goal.

With the April 19 sunset of section 702 fast approaching, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this compromise for the good of the American people.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, on another matter, last week, in the State of the Union Address, President Biden bragged that he was taking ``the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world.''

What he failed to mention is that his radical climate policy almost always comes at the expense of American workers and job creators.

Just recently, the Biden administration rolled out yet another job- killing mandate that would impose more unilateral economic pain here at home. This one goes well beyond the regulatory standards of most of our European allies, let alone our top strategic competitor, China.

The EPA wants to tighten limits on fine particulates in the air, known as PM2.5, despite its own data showing that concentrations have actually gone down by over 40 percent in the last two decades. The vast majority of these emissions come from sources like wildfires and dust from agriculture and roads that are not easily contained and, in some cases, impossible to control. We are talking about a climate boogeyman conjured out of smoke and dust.

The EPA's new standard is so strict that when it takes effect, 30 percent of U.S. counties, including many in my home State, would immediately find themselves out of compliance, grounding manufacturing growth to a halt. Meanwhile, the job of actually implementing the EPA's new mandate will fall to the States that are forced to inherit all the costs of this bad policy--from offshore manufacturing jobs to greater reliance on China to higher prices when Americans can least afford it.

In order to keep up with President Biden's new mandate, American manufacturers would be forced to import raw materials, like concrete and steel, for virtually any construction project--the kind of projects that grow our economy and support good-paying jobs. In other words, the Biden administration is saying, in no uncertain terms, that they are willing to make our economy more--more--dependent on foreign supply chains just to appease the green activists in this country.

So it is no surprise that State leaders are pushing back on this ruling. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman is leading a lawsuit with West Virginia to challenge the EPA's mandate; and so far, nearly half of our States have signed on. Unlike the Biden administration, local and State leaders understand just how damaging this new rule would be for workers and for job creators back home.

So today, I am happy to announce that Senate Republicans stand ready to do our part. Today, I am introducing a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from plowing ahead with this senseless regulatory overkill.

I am thankful to more than 40 colleagues who have joined my resolution, so far, as cosponsors. Senate Republicans will continue to stand with American workers and job creators, especially when the Biden administration tries to make their work so much harder.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, on another matter, last week, in the State of the Union Address, President Biden bragged that he was taking ``the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world.''

What he failed to mention is that his radical climate policy almost always comes at the expense of American workers and job creators.

Just recently, the Biden administration rolled out yet another job- killing mandate that would impose more unilateral economic pain here at home. This one goes well beyond the regulatory standards of most of our European allies, let alone our top strategic competitor, China.

The EPA wants to tighten limits on fine particulates in the air, known as PM2.5, despite its own data showing that concentrations have actually gone down by over 40 percent in the last two decades. The vast majority of these emissions come from sources like wildfires and dust from agriculture and roads that are not easily contained and, in some cases, impossible to control. We are talking about a climate boogeyman conjured out of smoke and dust.

The EPA's new standard is so strict that when it takes effect, 30 percent of U.S. counties, including many in my home State, would immediately find themselves out of compliance, grounding manufacturing growth to a halt. Meanwhile, the job of actually implementing the EPA's new mandate will fall to the States that are forced to inherit all the costs of this bad policy--from offshore manufacturing jobs to greater reliance on China to higher prices when Americans can least afford it.

In order to keep up with President Biden's new mandate, American manufacturers would be forced to import raw materials, like concrete and steel, for virtually any construction project--the kind of projects that grow our economy and support good-paying jobs. In other words, the Biden administration is saying, in no uncertain terms, that they are willing to make our economy more--more--dependent on foreign supply chains just to appease the green activists in this country.

So it is no surprise that State leaders are pushing back on this ruling. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman is leading a lawsuit with West Virginia to challenge the EPA's mandate; and so far, nearly half of our States have signed on. Unlike the Biden administration, local and State leaders understand just how damaging this new rule would be for workers and for job creators back home.

So today, I am happy to announce that Senate Republicans stand ready to do our part. Today, I am introducing a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from plowing ahead with this senseless regulatory overkill.

I am thankful to more than 40 colleagues who have joined my resolution, so far, as cosponsors. Senate Republicans will continue to stand with American workers and job creators, especially when the Biden administration tries to make their work so much harder.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Accelerating, Networking, Cyberinfrastructure, and Hardwater for Oceanic Research, ANCHOR, Act. This bipartisan and bicameral legislation would require the National Science Foundation to plan critical cyber security and internet upgrades to essential oceanographic research vessels.

This bill would direct the National Science Foundation to report to Congress on the costs, personnel, and equipment necessary to upgrade the 17 ocean- and lake-going research vessels in the Academic Research Fleet. These ships and their submarines do research around the world across topics as fundamental as climate change, marine health, and national security. This report is an important first step in making needed upgrades to these research vessels for improved science, cyber security, and telecommunications.

Around the world, researchers traverse waters to better understand our oceans. In Alaska, the R/V Sikuliaq regularly ventures into icy Arctic waters, breaking ice up to 2.5 inches thick to study remote polar ecosystems. In California, the R/V Sally Ride explores the deep ocean in the Pacific, characterizing the toxic legacy of DDT barrels dumped over 50 years ago. In the Great Lakes, the R/V Blue Heron navigates Lake Superior, conducting long-term research on harmful algal blooms.

But these important research vessels suffer from aging infrastructure. As ships and submarines collect sensitive data about our climate, foreign adversaries increasingly attack the weakened cyber security defenses on research vessels.

The upgrades planned in the ANCHOR Act are cost-effective, allowing repairs in real time with remote experts that keep ships going on their missions. Improved internet is also a boost for crew morale, science efficiency, and education. With faster upload and download speeds, scientists and crew members will be able to transmit data to shore for processing, make Zoom calls with classrooms on land, and call loved ones or even mental health providers during long months at sea.

I want to thank Senator Sullivan for introducing this important legislation with me in the Senate and Representatives Mike Garcia and Haley Stevens for leading the House companion. I hope all of our colleagues will join us in supporting this bipartisan bill to improve our Nation's oceanographic research and security.

Now, Mr. President, on another entirely different matter, this week, Vladimir Putin himself responded to reports of weakening Western resolve to stand with Ukraine and of ammunition shortages on the frontlines.

Here is what Putin had to say:

It would be ridiculous for us to start negotiating with

Ukraine just because it's running out of ammunition.

The chilling reality here is abundantly clear: Withholding critical weapons has not helped manage Putin's escalation--it has only emboldened him.

The administration that hesitated and wrung its hands through the early days of Russian escalation actually emboldened Putin, and it ought to be a lesson to those who insist--without firm footing in its strategy or logic--that withholding lethal assistance would somehow hasten an acceptable negotiated settlement to the conflict.

I have said too many times to count that America's adversaries only speak the language of power. But our colleagues don't have to take my word for it. Just take it straight from the dictator's mouth. Vladimir Putin is not playing for a tie. He is not headed for the negotiating table. He will not stop at Ukraine. He has told us, and he has shown us many times.

Whether or not you are willing to take the architect of the neo- Soviet Empire at his word, the facts remain the same: Equipping Ukraine for battlefield success is the surest way to help our friends resolve this war from a position of strength.

Backing Ukraine as it degrades our common adversary's military also strengthens America's interests, and investing in our own military and our own defense industrial capacity at the same time just makes common sense. It is time for the House to take up the Senate-passed national security supplemental and finish the job.

(The remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 65 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')