A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to improve transparency, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is prepared to let this essential foreign intelligence surveillance tool go dark unless we accede to his demands. And frankly, the demand for a warrant to search lawfully collected foreign intelligence makes no sense whatsoever.

Section 702 is probably the most important law most people have never heard about. It protects American citizens by saying that only foreigners can be the object of surveillance, but necessarily sometimes, when the communication is between a foreign target and an American citizen or a U.S. person, that call is documented in metadata, so-called--time, place, and persons who have made the call. That is lawfully collected intelligence.

What this requirement would mean is that the FBI, mainly, would have to go out and try to prove the elements of a crime, a probable cause that a crime has been committed, in order to get a judge to issue a warrant to look at lawfully collected intelligence, which is basically the metadata. If content is required or asked for by the FBI, they have to go before a judge and establish why that is.

But one of the basic points of confusion is that some people think that gathering intelligence is the same thing as investigating a crime. It can be sometimes, but basically seeking intelligence is forward- looking in order to prevent future acts, for example, of terrorism. Criminal investigations look backward to see if a crime has been committed and are subject to criminal penalties, which do include, particularly with U.S. persons involved, all the constitutional protections that U.S. citizens and U.S. persons enjoy. Foreigners do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection against this sort of surveillance.

So first of all, I believe that this is misguided. We have heard from the intelligence community that this requirement will slow down collection of intelligence, including and during occasions where time is of the essence. So courts have found that none of these queries require or implicate Fourth Amendment protection. So the very foundation for this argument has been rejected by the courts that have reviewed it.

Senator Wyden's bill would be akin to asking police officers to get a warrant every time they happen to look at legally collected evidence in their evidence locker. It makes no sense whatsoever. Requiring a warrant for every query of already lawfully collected information in the 702 database would significantly hinder the ability to respond to emerging threats.

For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to respond--

--what we are talking about is the contact between the foreign target and the U.S. person or American citizen. We are not talking about content. That would require another step to find that content approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. So I think there is some confusion about what is already collected and what would seek to be collected but which would require another step.

Mr. President, once again, the Senator from Washington is objecting to a clean extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, section 702, which would prevent us from going dark on foreign intelligence risks and threats to our country. As for the sorts of things that he has talked about here, since 2024, Congress has passed dozens of transparency and accountability reforms that have actually worked. Congressional oversight, of course, is critical.

The Senator and I and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee are here. We all serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that performs important oversight functions to make sure that the balance between privacy and security is the right balance. Indeed, the bipartisan Cotton, Grassley, and Warner bill, which is available to us to vote on, has almost two dozen additional protections included. We should be taking up that bill, not threatening to go dark and create dangers to our Nation.

Also, it is not just the program that expires on Friday. There is a lot of oversight protection built into the current bill and past FISA reauthorizations. If that goes dark, all of those previous protections that were negotiated, that I know the Senator from Washington believes in--those would go away. So, in addition to being in danger--the American people and our national security--it would eliminate the very sorts of privacy protections and transparency that the Senator from Washington is arguing for here on an expanded basis.

Under those circumstances, I object.

I am sorry. I had a mental warp there.

I apologize to my friend the Senator from Oregon. I do know the difference between Oregon and Washington, and I am not confused about that.

Mr. President, there is a risk of this necessary and critical intelligence tool not being extended. The President has called for an extension for, I think, up to 3 weeks, July 2, in order for further negotiations to take place so that, hopefully, there can be bipartisan buy-in to the ultimate product that comes out of this.

To that end, I ask 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, all we are asking for is an extension--a clean extension--of the current law, which includes a lot of the reforms that the Senator from Oregon has advocated for and gotten included in the current state of the legislation. As I said, those will go away if this program goes dark after this Friday.

Further, as for the authority to work with the various institutions that are essential to collecting this foreign intelligence for the safety and security of the American people, that will go away, endangering the American people and our national security. In fact, 60 percent--60 percent--of the President's daily intelligence brief contains 702 intelligence product. The Senator from Oregon knows that well.

This is simply too big a risk for us to take to allow this to go dark. All we are asking for is a little bit of additional time to continue these negotiations in order to find consensus so that we can continue to protect the American people while finding the appropriate balance between our national security and individual privacy rights.

Mr. President, as one last response, there is absolutely no justification for risking this program going dark on Friday. These negotiations can and should continue. That is how we solve problems around here on a bipartisan basis, but we don't risk catastrophe with our national security in exchange for demands that could well be addressed during an extension until July 2.

So I regret we find ourselves in this situation. The clock is ticking on our national security because this program will go dark come Friday.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is now debating section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expires on Friday. Last week, the Senate resoundingly rejected a bill that would have continued the surveillance status quo.

It is clear the path to 60 votes in the Senate on section 702 runs through real reforms. There is no reason why the Senate can't start moving forward with surveillance reform now.

I and other colleagues have introduced comprehensive, bipartisan, bicameral surveillance reform legislation, which would protect both Americans' rights and national security.

We have been championing these reforms for some time, but I understand the Senate is divided on the issue. So Senators are going to need to get to work trying to forge a path forward.

So I am prepared to put some real offers on the table right now. So I am going to start by asking unanimous consent to pass a simple bill that makes one very important reform. It would require government agencies to get a warrant before using section 702 to read the communications of Americans. It contains a number of exceptions, including for emergencies, and our analysis is that it would be very feasible for the executive branch and the FISA Court to implement it.

Most importantly, it would finally bring section 702 in line with the principles of the Fourth Amendment. Law-abiding Americans are getting swept up in section 702 now, and this bill would require that government agencies get a warrant if they want to read Americans' emails, text messages, or other sensitive communications.

And let me note: A number of Republicans in both the Senate and the House have sponsored or cosponsored legislation to create the kind of warrant I am talking about.

This bill is only one part of my comprehensive surveillance reform bill. It doesn't address numerous other concerns related to FISA or other intelligence authorities and the sale of Americans' location data. It is not a long-term solution by itself; it will, however, extend section 702 of FISA for 9 months, well into next year.

So I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4738, 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, I think it is unfortunate what my friend from Texas is saying.

Let me be clear. The warrant requirements that I am talking about are sponsored or cosponsored by Republican Members both in the Senate and in the House. And my bill does not require a warrant to search metadata. A warrant is only required to read the contents of Americans' communications.

Of course.

Mr. President, without continuing this well into the evening, let me just say that I am quite certain that the senior Republicans who have sponsored or cosponsored these ideas understand what this is all about, and I believe we will continue this conversation.

Mr. President, I am now going to move to another unanimous consent request to pass an even narrower bill that is hard to see anybody objecting to. It would not make any changes to surveillance law, but it would significantly increase public transparency about the impact of surveillance on Americans' rights.

It would create some new reporting requirements that would help inform Congress and the public about surveillance activities that impact American citizens. It would direct the executive branch to declassify a March 2026 FISA Court ruling on section 702 that found significant violations affecting Americans. The executive branch is already legally required to declassify the report, and they have had 3 months to work on it; in my judgment, it needs to be redacted and released in the next couple of weeks so they can inform the surveillance debate here in the Senate.

The chairman and the vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am honored to serve on, called on the executive branch to redact and release this court ruling by May 15, but the executive branch simply disregarded their request. This bill also extends 702 for 5 weeks.

On this point, 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, I have served on the committee for many years with my friend, and I appreciate him and don't want to give him a hard time. I am a U.S. Senator from Oregon, though, and I think I have been called the Senator from Washington.

Our friendship will continue.

Now, Mr. President, I think, at this point, my colleague has a unanimous consent request that he wishes to make. Then I will respond, and we will complete our business for the night. So my colleague, I would say, ought to make his unanimous consent at this point.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I would only close my remarks by saying every day that section 702 is in effect without reforms is a day that Americans' rights are, unfortunately, under threat. If there is going to be an extension of these authorities, there need to be some guardrails or at least some transparency that would allow Congress and the American people to understand the abuses that have taken place and the need for the kind of reforms that I and, as I say, senior Republicans in both the Senate and the House have been backing.

For those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, just very briefly before I leave the floor, I only want to say to my friend that I am always interested in talking to him about ideas, to bring people together and find some common ground. I have said, as we have gone through this debate, that Ben Franklin summed it up as, basically, liberty and security aren't mutually exclusive.

We can figure this out, but we are going to have to start talking. We are going to have to have some negotiations. I have enjoyed talking with my friend from Texas and would be happy to continue it in the future.

I yield the floor.

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.