Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act

Mr. President, what the Senator from Arkansas and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee just said is absolutely accurate: The Senator from Oregon has consistently tried to kill this program and has never believed in it, has never voted for it. And it is a program that makes Americans more safe. That is a proven fact.

You ask any intelligence expert, any military planner in this country, the intelligence derived from the 702 program is something that has saved American lives in theaters of conflict, preventing terrorist attacks, preventing drug runners from getting drugs into this country.

Mr. President, 90 percent--90 percent--of the fentanyl disruptions coming into this country were stopped because of this program. This is a program that saves American lives.

And I have to ask the question. I mean, I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the Democrats continue to support policies that make this country less safe. TSA agents, I think, this year have worked without pay for almost as much time as they have worked with pay because Democrats have wanted to shut the government down, shut TSA down.

More recently, Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, two Agencies that are critical to keeping this country safe--they don't want to provide a single dollar--zero--zero dollars for ICE and CBP, making this country less safe.

And so what did we have to do? We had to use reconciliation to do something that ought to be a no-brainer around here: protecting the American people, keeping our borders secure, protecting people in our communities in this country from criminal illegal aliens.

I just don't understand this. And now this, blocking something that was negotiated on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, House and Senate--the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, his Democrat counterpart; the same thing on the House side--with reforms, a lot of reforms. Something was negotiated in a bipartisan way to get a bill on the floor that we could use to extend this program and continue to keep Americans safe.

The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee made some public statements earlier today, and one was that having this shutdown is ``obviously a high risk proposition.'' That is a quote. He went on to say that he believes it is ``dangerous''--``dangerous''--for section 702 to lapse.

And what this is all about is a temporary acting position at DNI. So Democrats have decided to block a vote against something that many in the past have supported, that is keeping this country safe, because they don't like the person that President Trump is putting into a temporary acting role. These aren't linked.

This is a program that works, and it works effectively to keep Americans safe. And the reforms that have been proposed, the legislation that has been agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate, ought to be able to pass the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, 100 percent of the President's intelligence priorities are informed by the 702 collection--100 percent. I am just really--I don't get it. I just don't get it.

So what I am going to do is suggest, because this acting temporary person doesn't even get into the acting temporary position until a week from tomorrow, June 19, I am going to suggest that we do at least a 1- week extension to keep the lights on at this Agency, at a time when we are hosting the World Cup. We have got 250th anniversary celebrations going on around this country.

This is a time of risk for the American people, and Democrats here in the Senate said: Well, sorry. We don't like this guy in the acting temporary position, and so we are going to shut the lights off on this program and put at risk the American people. It is an untenable, irresponsible position.

But since he doesn't take that position until a week from Friday, I think we ought to at least extend this program through a week from Friday and allow for some more time for people to figure out the long- term solution, if there is one.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk. I will further ask that that bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Let me just, again, say for the record, because the Senator from Oregon's proposal is designed to kill the bill--and there was a vote in the House. And I want to say there were 190 Republicans in the House who voted for a 3-week extension. And there would have been a lot of Democrats if they hadn't been told by their leadership, like they have been told here, not to vote for an extension.

This is an extension. This is an extension of current law. We have a proposal that has been negotiated by both sides that would be a longer term extension.

So if you are rejecting the 3-week extension, what I am suggesting here, and what you just objected to, because my understanding is-- correct me if I am wrong--that the reason all the Democrats went south on this, in both the Senate and the House, was because of the nomination of a gentleman named Bill Pulte to be the acting temporary Director of the Office of National Intelligence.

If that is true and if he doesn't take office until a week from Friday, what objection could there possibly be--possibly be--to extending this program's authority until at least next Friday, so that we don't have a period where this program lapses, this program goes dark, at a time when there are literally hundreds of thousands of people coming into this country for the World Cup.

A 1-week extension, that is all we are saying. And the Democrats are going to object to that.

So, again, I will simply say this is, on its face, an irresponsible position that makes America and Americans less safe.

Mr. President, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA, is a critical national security tool. Well over half of every item in the President's daily brief is derived from section 702.

It has stopped terrorist attacks. It has stopped the flow of deadly drugs into our country. It has protected our troops overseas. It has allowed us to rescue troops overseas.

Regrettably, the Democrats, led by the two minority leaders, are going to allow this critical authority to expire tomorrow night.

Again, this program, which has been on the books for almost 20 years, is one of the most important intelligence tools that we have.

And why are they going to let it expire? I guess the minority leader is mad about who Donald Trump chose to run an intelligence Agency on an acting basis--an Agency that, by the way, has very little to do with section 702.

To the extent it does, legislation I proposed with Senator Warner and other leaders in this Senate would impose more guardrails on that Agency.

And, by the way, if the law expires tomorrow night, all the guardrails on that, and every other Agency, expire as well.

So even though we haven't been able to pass the legislation that Senator Grassley and I coauthored with Senator Warner and others, the responsible next step is to have a short-term extension of this legislation, especially as we begin welcoming literally millions of foreigners to this country for the World Cup and for the America 250 celebrations right around the corner.

If we don't extend it for at least a few weeks while we continue to try to work on our differences, the consequences could be severe. The consequences, to be frank, could be fatal. Americans should not have to face that risk because of partisan game playing by the minority leader of the Senate and the House.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask for unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, let me try to respond to that fog of misunderstanding and misleading statements.

Section 702 does not surveil Americans. It is, to put it simply, about foreigners in foreign countries: so, say, an IRGC leader in Iran talking to one of his operatives in Lebanon; or a Russian in Moscow talking to a Russian in Mexico--all of whom are usually up to no good. The government is not permitted to use section 702 to target Americans, either here or in other countries.

It is called section 702 because, as is usually the case, laws have other sections to them--like title I has sections of the law that govern any targeting of an American--and those sections require a probable cause warrant, which is the Senator from Oregon's great crusade.

So-called reverse targeting of Americans, using section 702, is prohibited. Requiring a probable cause warrant for this information is akin to requiring a police officer to get a new warrant every time he goes into the evidence room to review lawfully collected evidence.

Now, for all the talk about transparency and oversight and privacy protections, I would point out that the legislation I have introduced has more than a dozen additional measures to include, for instance, criminal penalties for any abuse, to include more congressional involvement in the FISA Court's processes, more reporting to the committees on which the Senator from Oregon sits--just like the law we passed 2 years ago had many additional transparency measures and privacy protections.

And, as I pointed out, if this law is allowed to expire tomorrow night, so do all of those transparency measures and all those privacy protections.

So it is regrettable that we have reached this point, Mr. President. I just hope that the American people don't pay the consequences for the Democrats' reckless intransigence.

I yield the floor.

You bet there is, Mr. President.

Mr. President, all of these ideas are totally unworkable and also beside the point.

The Senator from Oregon has never voted for section 702. He is an implacable, ideological opponent of this law.

These measures, too, are for what--a 5-week extension that he would then extend permanently? That doesn't sound like a very reasonable offer to me.

But almost every one of them is designed to make this program unworkable and to expose Americans to grave risk.

There are already, again, dozens of transparency measures and privacy protections in place under a law passed, just 2 years ago, by a Democratic Senate, signed by a Democratic President.

The legislation that Senator Grassley and I drafted with another Democratic Senator, the vice chairman of my committee--the Intelligence Committee--has nearly two dozen more. It is never enough for the Senator from Oregon.

So perhaps the minority leaders of the Senate and the House will eventually come to their senses and vote to support legislation that key leaders in their party have drafted to protect this country. But it will never be enough for the Senator from Oregon.

So I, of course, object.

A 5-week extension for permanent, radical unworkable reforms. That is a farce.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to ask unanimous consent to pass two bills--S. 1377, my Theodore Roosevelt National Park Wild Horses Protection Act and Senator Gallego's Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act. I want to thank my colleague for joining me here today and for his work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of these bills today.

In the case of my bill, for generations, horses have been a living, breathing part of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota. Their presence in the Badlands predates the establishment of the park itself and traces back to the region's early ranching heritage. Today, the horses remain one of the park's most recognizable and beloved features, enjoyed by more than 700,000 visitors annually when they come to the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

But the horses are much more than just a visitor attraction; they are an important part of the historic landscape that reflects what Theodore Roosevelt himself experienced during his time in the Dakota Territory. His years in the Badlands helped shape his character, and they inspired the conservation ethic that would later define his Presidency. He was a rancher, so he was on horseback all of the time. He really credits North Dakota in that experience for rounding out his strength and vitality, which are some of the attributes that he needed to go on and be elected President. As a result, the horses of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park have become an enduring symbol of that legacy.

Yet, despite their importance, there have been repeated efforts to remove them from the park, including as recently as in 2022. Each and every time, those efforts are met with overwhelming public opposition not just from people in North Dakota but from people across the country who recognize the contributions the horses make to the park's incredible and colorful history. That is why we have introduced this legislation.

S. 1377 provides a balanced, commonsense, and durable solution. It ensures the National Park Service will continue to manage a healthy horse herd while providing permanent protection for an important part of the park's identity. Specifically, the bill directs the National Park Service to maintain a herd of not fewer than 150 horses--a population level consistent with the need for responsible management of a genetically diverse herd.

I greatly appreciate my colleague from Virginia Senator Kaine for joining me in introducing and sponsoring this legislation. Senator Kaine understands firsthand the important role of the wild ponies of the Chincoteague and Assateague Islands on Federal lands in his own State.

I also appreciate the support from the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service and their willingness to provide certainty for the future of horses in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

This bill is about ensuring that future generations can experience the same landscape that helped shape one of our Nation's greatest conservation leaders. By passing this bill, we can ensure the future of wild horses at the Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

I would also like to thank Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Heinrich, and the Energy Committee's staff for their work in helping us advance this important legislation.

I am also pleased to work with Senator Gallego to pass his Cross- Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act today, and I appreciate his partnership.

Therefore, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 1377 and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 430, S. 2033, and S. 1377.

I further ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment to S. 2033 be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, where amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.

Mr. President, with that, again, I want to thank my colleague Senator Gallego and turn to him for his comments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object is particularly relevant here, because I am sure my colleague is aware that the bill--the 3-week bill--was just defeated in the House on a strong, bipartisan vote this morning.

The House is not back until the 23rd. So my understanding is you can't do anything.

Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate have now rejected what I consider to be the surveillance status quo. I believe there just have been too many abuses of Americans' rights across multiple administrations, and Members of Congress are now standing up and saying: No more.

The only viable path forward is one that leads to real reforms. The Congress has already punted on section 702 twice this year. Every day that 702 is in effect without reforms is a day that Americans' rights are under threat. I believe Americans deserve new guardrails. If Congress is going to extend these authorities--and that is what we are talking about--those guardrails are essential. And, at a minimum, Americans deserve transparency about how these surveillance powers have been abused.

For those reasons, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, again, like yesterday, I am making what I believe is a real offer now. I am offering, again, to extend section 702 of FISA for 5 weeks and give the public more facts about how these surveillance powers have been abused.

Defenders of the status quo seem to think that there is already enough transparency around government surveillance. So let me be very specific about what the bill that I am now proposing would do. It would require more public disclosure about violations of our surveillance laws, including section 702.

It would require more public disclosure about warrantless searches targeting politicians, journalists, and religious leaders. This particular category of searches more than tripled in 2025, and the FBI has refused to explain why.

It would require more public disclosure about warrantless surveillance of Americans outside of FISA, which the public knows virtually nothing about. And it would require the executive branch to redact and release a March 2026 FISA Court ruling that found serious violations affecting Americans' rights.

The executive branch is already required to release this ruling eventually. The chairman and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, in fact, asked them to release it by May 15. But, unfortunately, they just brushed off the chairman and the vice chairman's request.

Mr. President, so as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4740; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, just very briefly on this last point, the proposals I made yesterday and the proposals I made today are longer than anything else on offer--5 weeks--and I think that is the relevant fact.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, as the majority leader knows, the bill that came up in the House had a strong bipartisan vote this morning. It was not something that one party simply tried to jam something through on the other; it was a strong bipartisan vote. It was defeated. The House is gone until the 23rd, so they can't do anything.

Now, with respect to a couple of the details made by the majority leader, I have already indicated that on offer is my proposal, which is longer than anything that has come up in the last day. It is a real offer.

By the way, it is not changing any surveillance powers at all. All my proposal does is offer some transparency, and I think transparency information is relevant when there has been evidence of Americans being spied on, and I think that is why it is important.

So for those reasons, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark an important step in the fight against wildfires with the passage of my Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act.

Like many Western States, my home State of Arizona is a patchwork of Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands. The fires do not stop at property lines. That is why we need an all-hands-on-deck approach to reducing wildfires and improving wildfire mitigation across land ownerships no matter who owns that land.

When fires move faster than governments can coordinate, the fire has the advantage. The Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act takes a practical step to fixing that. The bill supports the kind of collaboration between Federal, State, Tribal, and local partners that we know works. By studying and identifying the gaps in current Federal rules that present coordination between land ownership boundaries, we can bolster our firefighting efforts.

This couldn't be more timely. The West is getting hotter and dryer every year. In Arizona, we watched more than 200,000 acres burn across the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and the Kaibab National Forest.

The Dragon Bravo fire, one of the largest in Arizona's history, devastated iconic landscapes and the local businesses that depend on them.

In the face of these conditions, it is vital we have the research and coordination tools to ensure effective wildfire management.

At the same time, funding for the Forest Service's State, Tribal, and private forestry program is at risk. That is the funding that enables exactly the kind of cross-boundary collaboration this bill is designed to work with.

Congress needs to send a signal that we know this work matters, and we have the chance to do so today.

As we approach peak wildfire season, I have heard from people on the ground that cross-boundary collaboration is a top priority to keep our fire season from growing more dangerous and more expensive, and they are right.

The cost of inaction in lives and lands and dollars keeps climbing. So thank you, Senator Hoeven, and his team for helping me lead this effort. Today we take a very important step in that direction.

I yield the floor.