Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, here we are, back in the Nation's Capital, doing the people's work. But over the last couple of weeks, I have been traveling across the State of Texas, where our communities have been battered by extreme weather of one kind or another. From Houston up to the Metroplex and Valley View, and all the way over to Lubbock, storms have caused severe damage and widespread power outages.

A couple of weeks ago, 100-mile-per-hour winds ripped through Houston, toppling transmission lines, power lines, and trees, and ripping windows out of skyscrapers.

Last week's storms in West Texas brought hail so large that the National Weather Service issued a warning with a novel descriptor. They called the hail ``DVD-sized.''

The Dallas area saw baseball-sized hail and 80-mile-an-hour winds, which led to several days without power for many of my constituents.

And five tornadoes touched down in North Texas during a 6-hour span last Saturday. One of those tornadoes, an EF3, traveled roughly 48 miles through three counties for over an hour, with speeds peaking at 140 miles an hour. Tragically, it led to 7 deaths and an estimated 100 injuries.

So far this year, the National Weather Service has recorded more than 1,300 heavy weather events in Texas, and more than 100 of those reports came on a single day last week.

Many of our communities are still clearing debris, restoring power, and assessing damage. I have spoken with leaders throughout these regions about the recovery process and offered a helping hand.

I appreciate everything that has been done and continues to be done to keep our communities safe and support those who have suffered the damage caused by this severe weather.

In many areas, the level of destruction far exceeds the capabilities of the city or county, and there is a need for Federal support. Governor Abbott has worked quickly to ensure Texas receives the resources and support it needs from the State, and he requested assistance from the Federal Government too. He has submitted major disaster declaration requests to President

Biden for the counties impacted by severe weather and flooding. Senator Cruz and I have been in communication with the administration to emphasize how critical these resources are, and we have urged the President to grant the Governor's request for all of the affected counties. Many counties are still waiting for that critical declaration, and I urge the administration to move expeditiously to grant those requests as soon as possible to unlock critical assistance. I appreciate the Biden administration working with us to support these counties and these constituents who were impacted by the recent string of storms.

There is a lot of partisan disagreement here in Washington, DC, that underpins what we do day to day, but those divisions have never extended to critical emergency relief.

With the start of hurricane season officially upon us and experts predicting an active season, I know I join all Texans in hoping for an expeditious recovery for impacted communities.

Madam President, last Thursday night, as I was sitting on my airplane scheduled to go into Houston, TX, a severe storm slammed the entire southeastern portion of our State, bringing heavy rains, roaring winds, and flooding to millions of people in the area.

Now, Houston and Southeast Texas are no strangers to hurricanes and natural disasters, but this was something altogether different. Madam President, 100-mile-per-hour winds ripped through the region, tearing windows out of skyscrapers in downtown Houston and toppling transmission towers, power lines, and uprooting trees. Homes, businesses, roads, and vehicles were damaged by the storms, and, sadly, at least eight Texans have lost their lives.

Shortly after the storm, more than 1 million Texans lost power, and it is starting to get warm in Texas as we approach the summer, and some 200,000 homes remain without electricity or air-conditioning. Today, more than 50 campuses across the Houston Independent School District are closed due to power outages.

As I said, the Houston region is no stranger to storms, and Texans did as they always do: They immediately mobilized to support those who suffered the worst impact. I want to commend the brave first responders and volunteers and just the good neighbors who supported the emergency response over the last several days as well as the crews who are working to clear debris and restore power even as I speak.

As we move from rescue to recovery efforts, my team and I are prepared to help in any way we can to help those communities rebuild.

Madam President, this is National Police Week, and it is great to be joined by so many colleagues to show our respect and admiration for America's law enforcement community. Today is National Peace Officers Memorial Day, a time to pay tribute to law enforcement officials who made the ultimate sacrifice. These men and women gave their lives to their communities, to their State, and to their country; and we thank them and their families for their sacrifice.

As we mourn the loss of so many of these heroes, this week is also a time to honor and thank officers who continue to keep us safe. Former Dallas Police Chief David Brown once said, ``We ask law enforcement to do too much in this country,'' and I agree. Whether it is helping someone experiencing a mental health crisis, a drug overdose, a medical emergency, or as a victim of crime, America's police officials constantly and consistently go above and beyond the call of duty. Their jobs require tremendous hours and tremendous amounts of courage and sacrifice, not just from the officer who wears the uniform but from their families as well. And I am grateful to those who selflessly serve their communities every day.

The brave men and women in law enforcement deserve our appreciation. But more than that, they deserve our support. They deserve the resources, the training, the protection needed to do their jobs effectively. To show our support for these public servants who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities, Congress should pass the Back the Blue Act. This legislation adds stiff mandatory penalties and makes it a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer or a Federal judge or a federally funded public safety official. It makes it a Federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer.

This legislation is needed because these men and women put themselves in harm's way every day to keep our communities safe, and we must send a strong message that violence directed at them will never be tolerated.

The Back the Blue Act sends a strong message to the more than 800,000 law enforcement officers serving our country that they are supported, and I hope Congress will move forward to advance this legislation.

Today and every day, I am grateful for the dedicated police officers, sheriffs, constables, Border Patrol agents, and other law enforcement officials of all types who keep Texas safe. Like all my colleagues in Congress, I am thankful for the men and women of the Capitol police who safeguard this building and the Members of Congress, our staff, journalists, and the many visitors who walk these halls on a daily basis.

There is nothing we can do to adequately thank these heroes for their sacrifices, but there is a lot we can do to affirm that support. My colleagues and I have introduced bills to boost officer recruiting and retention, improve training, and give law enforcement the resources they need to do their job safely and effectively. I hope we can advance these bills as soon as possible to show our appreciation for these heroes in blue.

On behalf of the State of Texas, I want to thank all of those who serve our communities and protect them and keep them safe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has been more than 7 months since Israel was attacked by an Iranian proxy, known as Hamas, from Gaza. Hamas terrorists attacked innocent Israelis on October 7 of last year, marking the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. Innocent people were raped, murdered, and taken hostage, and nearly 130 remain hostage in Gaza, including at least 4 American citizens.

In this conflict, the line between good and evil could not be clearer. On one side is America's alley and the lone democracy in the Middle East. On the other is a terrorist organization whose greatest goal is to simply destroy the Jewish State. Hamas terrorists will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal, including using their own citizens as human shields. I can only recall back to some of the horrific videos that we have seen of what they have done to babies and innocent civilians--men, women, and children.

Despite this, President Biden--and notwithstanding some of his rather unequivocal rhetoric--seems confused by whom we should be supporting in this conflict. As the war goes on, the President has slowly backed away from Israel--first with words and now through action. Last week, he threatened to withhold military aid--military aid that had been voted for on a broad, bipartisan basis in the Congress and which he had actually asked for. He effectively issued an ultimatum to our ally as it fights these terrorists: Do what I say or else.

From the beginning of this war, I have said that Israel's operation should not be dictated by anyone but themselves and their national security interests. For some reason, President Biden has focused on Prime Minister Netanyahu as if he were the sole decisionmaker in Israel when, in fact, there is a unity war cabinet that is making those decisions, not Prime Minister Netanyahu alone.

I can only think back to the horrible days after 9/11/2001, a day that 3,000 Americans died as a result of a terrorist attack in New York and Washington, DC. America's allies knew better than to attempt to micromanage our response. Instead, they stood in solidarity with the American people and pledged their support as U.S. troops defended our country. Israel deserves the same support now that we got 23 years ago, but the Biden administration seems confused and of two minds and is sending a terrible message to our closest Middle Eastern ally.

But this is not the first time we have seen the Biden administration's growing rift with Israel. Last week, when Hamas announced it had accepted the terms of a cease-fire agreement offered by Qatar and Egypt, the announcement set off a media frenzy, but it quickly became clear there was one glaring problem: Israel had yet to see, much less accept, the terms of the proposal. The Israeli Government didn't even receive the text of the proposal until an hour after Hamas released its statement. Prime Minister Netanyahu described the terms as ``far from Israel's necessary requirements.''

It is no surprise to me that Hamas's leaders went rogue and announced a deal before anything had been agreed to, much less seen, but it is very deeply concerning that Israel was caught completely off guard, especially when reports indicate that the United States had been involved in those negotiations, presumably to the exclusion of Israel. According to reports from Axios, the Biden administration knew about the deal but failed to brief Israel before Monday's surprise announcement from Hamas.

The report says:

Two Israeli officials said the feeling is that ``Israel got

played'' by the U.S. and the mediators who drafted ``a new

deal'' and weren't transparent about it.

Negotiations of this magnitude are understandably extremely delicate, but there is no reason the Biden administration should have kept the Israeli Government in the dark. Israel is a valued ally, but the Biden administration continues to treat it as an untrustworthy antagonist.

Administration officials have developed a habit of manipulating, denigrating, and withholding vital information, and I am extremely worried about the impact of this growing rift and what it will mean between the strong relationship between our two countries. It is Iran which is the principal state sponsor of international terrorism. Particularly in the Middle East, that is the evil head of the snake. Hamas, of course--like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Shia militias in Iraq and Syria--is the means by which they attack the United States and its allies, including Israel, and they are bent on the destruction of the State of Israel.

Of course, it is not just President Biden's interactions with Israel; it is the way he treats the situation here at home as well. Since Hamas's unprovoked attack on Israel, countless Americans have spoken out about this conflict. We have seen pro-Israel protests, anti-Israel protests, and repeated calls for the violence to end. Of course, we all know the First Amendment protects the right of any American to speak freely and protest peacefully, and countless Americans have exercised that right without incident. But we also know that the Supreme Court has said that neutral factors like time, place, and manner in which those protests occur are important, and school administrators and other officials are completely within their rights to determine the time, manner, and place of the exercise of those First Amendment rights.

In the past few weeks, we have seen an alarming escalation in protest tactics, and some of the most concerning examples have taken place on college campuses. I have to wonder whether our higher education system has simply lost its way. The purpose of our institutions of higher learning are just that--to learn. Yes, protesting, diversity of opinion, and debate are important parts of learning but not breaking the law or breaking the rules of the institution or jeopardizing the ability of other students to actually pursue their education.

At Columbia University, a group of protesters broke into an academic building and barricaded its doors. At UCLA, anti-Israel protesters physically blocked Jewish students from getting to class. At Yale, a Jewish student journalist was attacked by a pro-Hamas mob while attempting to film a protest.

As I said, the First Amendment protects speech. It protects the right to protest peacefully. It does not give anyone the freedom to riot, to destroy, to threaten, or to carry out acts of violence against others. It certainly doesn't protect the right to attack someone based on their religion.

This situation has become so volatile and so dangerous that two major universities canceled their graduation ceremonies. Can you imagine, after living through the pandemic, where classes were canceled and put online and where students were prohibited the privilege of attending their own graduation exercises to now having, because of these violent, destructive protests, their graduations canceled? Columbia and the University of Southern California called off their main commencement ceremonies due to security concerns. It is important to note that the college class of 2024 was also the high school class of 2020. Many of these students didn't have high school graduation ceremonies because of the pandemic, and now they have been denied an opportunity to graduate in a public ceremony from their colleges or universities.

Despite the escalation of violence and anti-Semitic rhetoric in recent weeks, President Biden has failed to demonstrate much needed leadership. Every statement he has made on this topic has been paired with some sort of equivocation, with some sort of expression of moral equivalency to what Israel is doing and what Hamas is doing.

As an example, a few weeks ago, the President said, ``I condemn the anti-Semitic protests,'' but then quickly noted, ``I also condemn those who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians.''

He equated anti-Semitism with ignorance, seemingly suggesting that attacking Jewish people was just as bad as ignoring the news. But there can be no equivocation. Anti-Semitism is

wrong. Violent riots are wrong. Attempts to occupy college campuses, destroy property, break university rules, and interfere with the educations of your fellow students is wrong.

It is no surprise that the President was met with serious criticism and that his communications team seemed to shift to a new approach-- this time, silence, radio silence. As rioters occupied a building on Columbia's campus and Jewish students endured threats, the President of the United States was eerily silent. It wasn't until a couple of weeks ago that he unequivocally condemned the threats against Jewish students. I am glad he finally came around to his senses, but he hardly deserves credit for reaching the obvious conclusion after so much damage has already been done.

The war initiated by Hamas against Israel last October 7 has exposed a startling lack of leadership from the Commander in Chief. The President is withholding military aid to our closest ally in the Middle East. He and his lieutenants have created fractures in the historically strong relationship between the United States and Israel. They have failed to show resolve when it comes to quashing anti-Semitism on college campuses, and intentionally or not, they have allowed violent protests to terrorize college campuses.

Over and over again, the Biden administration's response to the war between Israel and Hamas has fallen short. Again, there is no equivalency. There is no on one hand it is Israel and on the other hand it is Hamas. This is a conflict not only between Hamas and Israel--the proxy of Iran--but also between good and evil. We know President Biden is in campaign mode 6 months now before the election, but he cannot turn on one of his closest allies in an attempt to appeal to the most radical elements in his political party.

The fate of Israel--its existence--is at stake here. The safety of the Jewish people in America is at stake. The President needs to treat this issue with the seriousness and the clarity that it demands.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Delaware, and we work well together on the Judiciary Committee and always operated in good faith, even though we sometimes have differences of opinion. I know he spends a lot of time thinking about national security and foreign relations affairs, and he has traveled the world and knows more leaders of the different countries around the world than I ever will.

But I do know that since he shares the concerns about the status, particularly the American citizens who are hostages in Gaza, I would just like to get some idea from him what his thoughts are about the administration's pause on weapons delivery to Israel.

Let me just predicate this by saying, I remember back when, of course, we were concerned about al-Qaida in Fallujah where the marines fought a terrible battle. And, unfortunately, any time there is a conflict, there are going to be civilian casualties. Obviously, the goal is to minimize those casualties; likewise, in places like Mosul where ISIS made its last stand in Iraq.

I would like to get an idea from the Senator, if he would be so kind, if he would share what his thoughts are about what Israel is supposed to do in Rafah, obviously, to satisfy the concerns about civilian collateral damage but also in a way that allows Israel to eliminate the terrorist threat.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments from my friend and colleague from Delaware.

I am reassured by his commitment to make sure that Israel will have the capacity to actually eliminate the terrorist threat, which is, of course, an existential threat. Hamas, a proxy of Iran, wants to wipe Israel off the map. This is not a conflict of choice. It is an existential fight by the Israeli people. And, of course, no one wants any civilian casualties, collateral damage.

And from the news reports that I read and see, it looks to me like the Israelis are trying to provide a safe passage for many of the refugees who, as the Senator says, have moved south, but now they are up against the hard border of Egypt with nowhere else to go. My hope is, as he said, that they will be given safe passage, if they can, to someplace where they won't be in harm's way.

But, again, to me, the bottom line is we have to give Israel the flexibility they need to eliminate the threat. We would ask for nothing less if it were us as it has been in places like Mosul and Fallujah in the past.

I appreciate the Senator for responding. Again, I am reassured by his comments. But I hope--I hope--we never are so arrogant or so full of hubris as we think we can dictate or micromanage a conflict in a foreign country thousands of miles away when they are in a fight for their lives.

Thank you very much. I appreciate my colleague.

Madam President, the Senate has spent much of the past couple of years rushing to complete high-stakes bills before long- awaited deadlines arrive. Matter of fact, we have been very bad about meeting those deadlines. We keep kicking the can down the road in a number of cases. That was the situation last month, when one of our Nation's most vital intelligence tools was in danger of expiring on the 19th of April. It was the case last spring, when the United States hit the debt limit and nearly defaulted on its debts while Congress debated solutions. It was the case for fiscal year 2024 appropriations, when Congress had to pass multiple eleventh-hour funding bills to avert a government shutdown.

It seems like we have lurched from one deadline to another up against the wall, where we have postponed making important decisions on a timely basis, so there is no more time, no more flexibility, and we have lurched, as I said, from potential shutdown to potential shutdown.

But the big item on the Senate's agenda this week is the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, and to my point, it is set to expire tomorrow night.

The Federal Aviation Administration is vital to the safety and the efficiency of our Nation's air travel system that millions of us depend on, on a daily basis. From certifying aircraft and pilots to overseeing air traffic controls, this Agency touches on virtually every aspect of the aviation industry, and its operations have a major impact on all the American people. On an average day, the Agency serves more than 45,000 flights involving 2.9 million passengers. That is a staggering number--45,000 flights, 2.9 million airline passengers a day.

A highly functioning FAA is vital to the country, but it is clear that the Agency has fallen short in a number of respects in recent years. Travelers have dealt with widespread flight cancelations and paralyzing staffing shortages. They have experienced jarring safety issues, such as near collisions on airport tarmacs, including one at the Austin airport, where I live. All of these incidents have underscored the need to pass a strong FAA reauthorization bill that prioritizes safety, efficiency, and consumer confidence.

My friend Senator Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas, is leading the reauthorization effort on this side of the aisle, and he has worked with the chairwoman, Senator Cantwell, to help craft a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will make flying safer and more convenient for all airline passengers.

This reauthorization bill importantly includes a range of reforms and will modernize and improve the FAA. It strengthens safety standards, enhances consumer protections, invests in technologies to improve efficiency, and expands training programs to meet the workforce demands of the rapidly growing air travel industry.

I am glad this legislation also delivers a major win for Texas and in particular, San Antonio, where I was raised. San Antonio is the seventh largest city in the United States, and it is known as Military City USA because of the large presence of our Armed Forces. As a matter of fact, that is the reason my family moved to San Antonio when I was a freshman in high school--because my dad was a career Air Force officer stationed at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio.

Despite the fact that we are talking about the seventh largest city in the country, you can fly directly from Washington, DC, from Reagan National Airport, to Houston, to Dallas, to Austin, but you can't fly directly to San

Antonio. You have to go through a major hub, like Dallas-Fort Worth. This is because of this archaic and really quite inappropriate perimeter rule which limits the number of gates available for aircraft to fly in and out of Washington, DC, at Reagan National Airport.

This makes it difficult for military personnel serving in places like San Antonio or businesspeople who want to come back and forth or simply families who want to come visit the Nation's Capital. This makes it unnecessarily difficult for each of them, but I am optimistic this will change soon as a result of the underlying Federal Aviation Authorization Act. This legislation will allow five additional long- haul flights into Reagan National Airport, giving airlines the ability to establish a direct route between, in this case, San Antonio and the District of Columbia.

Again, I want to commend Senator Cruz for his leadership on this legislation. He knows how important this is to San Antonio and the entire State of Texas. It is also important for consumers to have a competitive choice when it comes to the airlines they choose to fly on because the more competition, it means that the prices will have to be better, more affordable for consumers, and it will force everybody to be better. He and Senator Cantwell and our colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee have crafted a strong bill to modernize the FAA and promote safety for the American people, so I just want to say a few words about how much I appreciate their hard work.

I hope the Senate will pass this bill soon, perhaps as early as this evening.

House of Representatives

Madam President, on another matter, while all these big, deadline- driven bills often get the most attention, they aren't the only pieces of legislation moving through the Senate and across the Capitol to the House and then to the President's desk. This Chamber, the Senate, has been very productive in producing countless bipartisan bills that address some of the biggest challenges our country is facing.

One example is the need to protect our kids online. The social media platforms that were designed to connect people have become breeding grounds for exploitation and abuse of children.

Out of every great technology that has made our lives easier and made us more prosperous, unfortunately, there always seems to be a dark side that is exploited by bad actors and evil people.

Last year, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received over 36 million reports of suspected child exploitation.

Let me say that again. Last year alone--NCMEC, it is called--the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received 36 million reports of suspected child exploitation online.

Predators are increasingly using these social media platforms to groom and exploit vulnerable children. Republicans and Democrats-- again, this is not a partisan issue--Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have taken these threats seriously. We have held multiple hearings on this topic, and my colleagues and I have introduced a range of bills to build a safer world online for all of our children.

One of those bills is the Project Safe Childhood Act, which gives Federal prosecutors and law enforcement more tools to go after online child predators. This legislation that I introduced and passed the Judiciary Committee passed the Senate unanimously last October, but it is still awaiting action in the House of Representatives after all these many months.

Sadly, it is not the only such bill. The House is also sitting on another important bill to protect children called the Jenna Quinn Act. This legislation carries the name of an inspiring young Texas woman who is a survivor of child sexual abuse. Jenna was the driving force behind a 2009 law in Texas that required training for teachers, caregivers, and other adults who work with children in schools on how to identify, prevent, and report child sexual abuse. Given the amount of time our children spend in class, it is important that our teachers and our counselors and people who work with them in their schools are trained to identify the signs and symptoms of child sexual abuse.

Since the Jenna Quinn Law passed in Texas in 2009, a number of States have passed similar laws, but this training lacks funding typically, and that is where the Jenna Quinn Law comes in. The bill I introduced with Senator Hassan to finally back the Federal training will come with Federal grant funding attached.

Again, this bill, like the previous bill I mentioned, passed the Senate unanimously, but it is still awaiting action in the House of Representatives.

But I am not done yet. The House is also holding up another bill that would reauthorize Project Safe Neighborhoods through the Department of Justice. This is another bill that I introduced. This program fosters partnerships between Federal, State, and local law enforcement to help reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer.

It was inspired by a successful program that started just down the road in Richmond, VA, called Project Safe Neighborhoods. Actually, I think it was called Project Exile at that time. But it also is something that, when I was attorney general a few years ago, we scaled up for a statewide effort, and it helped reduce crime rates across our State.

The Federal program is called Project Safe Neighborhoods, and it has, during its tenure, helped reduce violent crime in large cities and small towns across America.

Given the growing concerns about crime in our country, including right here in the Nation's Capital, in the District of Columbia, there could not be a more important time to make this program better, stronger, and more effective.

So these are three bills that were bipartisan and basically voted unanimously out of the Senate and are sitting, waiting for action in the House. Each one passed the Senate, as I said, with unanimous support, and each one would go a long way to help reduce crime, support survivors, and make our country safer. But there are a total of 10 bills which I have authored that have passed the Senate but are awaiting action in the House, including these 3. So when you add the other bills that have been introduced by many of my colleagues, we have a serious legislative logjam on our hands. The House is sitting on bills to protect children, improve public safety, promote efficient trade, and so much more.

I am here to plead with the House to take up and pass these bills. Many of them are, as they were in the Senate, not controversial. There shouldn't be any reason for any more unnecessary delay.

We know here we are 6 months before the next election, and legislating only gets harder each day, the closer and closer we get to the November election. Including this week, the Senate is scheduled to be in session for only 12 weeks between now and election day, and the same is true for the House of Representatives. In that time, we will need to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, pass the Defense authorization bill, pass the farm bill, and fund the government, among many other things. Of course, those are just the must-pass bills. There are countless other items, like the ones I mentioned, that we should be working on together.

So we have a lot to accomplish in the next 12 weeks, and I would encourage our friends in the House to take up these commonsense, bipartisan bills that are noncontroversial and send them to the President's desk as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today is May 1, which traditionally serves as college decision day--the deadline for prospective college students to confirm their enrollment and secure their spot for the upcoming semester.

Each of us knows that college decisions are not made lightly. Students consider various majors. They look at long-term job prospects and earning potential for their careers. At least we hope they are looking at that before they decide to pursue their studies.

As they look at schools, they also evaluate admission requirements, student resources, and the campus culture. But far and away, the most important factor for the majority of students is, how much will it cost? How much will it cost to receive a degree? As any student or parent who has been through this process will attest, it is not a cut- and-dry answer. I have been through it with both of my daughters and still have flashbacks occasionally from the experience.

Between scholarships and grants, the advertised sticker price versus the out-of-pocket cost can vary significantly. To cover the remaining balance, students have the option to take out

loans, participate in work-study programs, or take on a part-time job. Those decisions require even more consideration and planning.

For most students to understand or even begin to evaluate the true cost of college, they rely on something called the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, as you have heard it called. Now, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, determines how much financial aid students can receive through loans, grants, scholarships, and work-study programs. For millions of students, this information unlocked by the FAFSA is a deciding factor, so it is a critical factor in determining students' ability to be able to go to school. It is not just deciding which school is right for them; it is understanding whether college education is even feasible from a financial point of view.

But despite today being college decision day, many Texas students and other students all across the country are still waiting for their financial aid packages. They should have had this information weeks ago, even months ago, giving them the time to look at the range of their options and make an informed decision by May 1. Instead, enough students are still in limbo that many colleges and universities have been forced to postpone their admission decisions. But the fault doesn't lie with the students or the colleges but with, rather, the administration, which completely bungled the FAFSA process this year.

The Biden administration rolled out a new FAFSA application that promised to simplify the notoriously complicated form. They claimed that the new-and-improved FAFSA would make it as easy as possible for families to get the help they need in order to plan for their education. As countless families in Texas and across the country can attest, that hasn't happened--not in the slightest.

The FAFSA is typically available on October 1. This cycle, it wasn't available until the end of December--nearly 3 months behind schedule. Once it went live, the problems had just begun. Applicants reported website crashes, system errors, and lengthy processing times. Many of Texas's mixed-status families have had trouble completing the FAFSA at all due to a technical glitch. Across the board, applicants have struggled to get anyone on the phone to help troubleshoot the issues they were facing--even more so if they needed somebody who spoke Spanish. Instead of a simplified and streamlined process, families have been introduced to a convoluted maze of confusing questions, unclear instructions, and lengthy delays. The FAFSA problems have been so severe that many students have decided not to even complete the FAFSA at all this year. This is having dramatic and negative consequences.

The Biden Education Department says that FAFSA submissions by Texas students alone are down by more than 40 percent--40 percent--over last year. This is a scandal. This is a precipitous drop, and it is sure to have a negative impact on those students, the colleges and universities, and eventually on employers.

Starting with students, it is impossible to make an informed financial decision about college without a financial aid package. As we know, costs can vary significantly from one school to another, so without a financial aid offer, it is impossible to understand how to put the puzzle together to figure out whether it is even feasible for you to attend a particular university. A student who thinks they are making the more economical choice may need to take out a larger than expected loan because they don't have a clear understanding of their financial obligations.

And for students who are weighing whether or not to attend college at all or whether to go to a 4-year college or perhaps a community college or a technical school, this could be the deciding factor that forces them to forego higher education and simply enter the workforce--or to accept something short of what they have aspired to in terms of their educational opportunities.

This is especially true for students from low-income families who rely more on financial aid to make their dream of higher education come true. Without timely access to this critical information, students risk being locked out of a lifetime of opportunities for success.

High school students, though, aren't the only ones impacted by the Biden administration's FAFSA fiasco. Current college students who are receiving aid have to complete this same document every year. For example, a student by the name of Alexis is a junior at the University of Texas at Austin, and she says she is very concerned about what she described as a ``waiting game.''

As I noted, the Biden administration made the new FAFSA application available at the end of December, 3 months late. Alexis, though, completed the form and submitted it in January. But she still hasn't received an update since that time--May 1. She is worried--and I can understand why--that her FAFSA won't be processed before next semester, forcing her to get a third job or to take out additional loans.

Now, this is a scandal, as I said, and it should be a huge embarrassment to the Biden administration, which said this new and improved FAFSA process was going to streamline it and make it easier to comply with. But what they didn't figure out is the bureaucratic bungling of administering this new process.

The ripple effects of the FAFSA fiasco are felt not only by individual students but by colleges and universities across the Nation. Last month, I met with a number of leaders from Texas colleges and universities, and I am sure they are not unique in this regard, but they are absolutely outraged by the Biden administration's mishandling of the FAFSA. Without complete FAFSA data, they aren't able to send financial aid packages to prospective students. Without that information, students are unlikely to confirm enrollment. And without enrollment data, universities aren't able to set even a budget for their operations for the upcoming year.

Institutions rely on timely access to students' financial aid information to manage their admissions process and allocate resources. The delays caused by the botched rollout of the new FAFSA have disrupted these operations, created unnecessary headaches and anxiety and logistical challenges that make it impossible to plan for the future. Eventually, reduced enrollment will have a negative impact on the workforce.

Most of the meetings I have been having this week are with chambers of commerce from all across the State of Texas, and one of the first things they mention to me is workforce development. Fortunately, in our State, we are attracting a lot of new, well-paying jobs, particularly in things like advanced semiconductors and the like, and we are depending on these colleges and universities to train the workforce to be able to fill these well-paying jobs.

It is no question that our country is already dealing with a skills gap. Again, I have spoken with countless employers and job creators that have told me they are still struggling to find qualified candidates to fill available jobs. This includes high-tech manufacturing jobs like those in the semiconductor area that I mentioned but also nurses, electricians, mental health providers, school counselors, cyber security experts--and the list goes on and on. We need people trained in these various disciplines and skills in order to fill these jobs and to keep our economy growing.

The primary goal of the new FAFSA was to simplify the application process, making it easier for students and their families to navigate. Instead, the Biden administration's lack of preparation has created a bureaucratic nightmare for families, for students, and for schools. It undoubtedly will lead to countless numbers of students who will abandon their dreams of furthering their education because they simply can't plan for the future. They don't know which schools they are going to be able to apply to because they simply don't know how they fit their own financial picture together.

Obviously, this is going to create a lot of anxiety and headaches and uncertainty for colleges and universities, as I mentioned. And in a few years, I am afraid we will still be dealing with the ripple effect, the trickle-down consequences of reduced enrollment and workforce training.

There is simply no excuse for this sort of bureaucratic bungling. The Education Department has had plenty of

time and more than ample resources to roll out a simplified FAFSA by October 2 of last year. But, unfortunately, it appears the Biden administration has been so busy looking for ways to forgive or erase existing student debt that they failed to help future and current college students make informed decisions about their future.

Again, this should be a national scandal. My friend, Ranking Member Senator Cassidy, has pushed the Government Accountability Office to examine the Biden administration's Education Department about their mishandling of the situation, and I am glad the Government Accountability Office has formally launched that investigation.

Texas students and students across the country and the American people at large deserve a full explanation about how we ended up with this mess, and we will keep fighting for answers and accountability until we get those answers.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate completed a critical task to support our national security. After months of uncertainty, this

Chamber overwhelmingly approved a bill to reaffirm our commitment to our allies who are facing unrelenting aggression around the globe.

This legislation will bolster Israel's fight to defend itself against terrorists like Hamas; it will support Ukraine's ongoing defense against Russian forces, who are violating their sovereignty; and it will help countries in the Indo-Pacific, like Taiwan, counter or deter, hopefully, Chinese aggression.

America has always been known as one that stands by its friends and allies. That is actually one of the biggest differences between the United States and Russia and China. We have friends. We have like- minded allies based on our commonly shared values.

Now, there are strategic shotgun marriages, which you see now between Iran and China and Russia, but nobody would mistake that for a shared value concept. It is just that they are arrayed against the United States. ``The enemy of my enemy is my friend'' is the philosophy that they embrace.

We have a long and proud history of defending democracy and standing up to adversaries, and I am glad Congress approved this legislation to continue in that tradition. As America's friends and allies combat evil around the world, we are seeing a new wave cropping up right here on American soil.

Since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7 of last year, anti-Israel protests have taken place across the United States. For our country, protests are nothing new. In fact, they are privileged and guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution. So impassioned debate is not a recent innovation. But there is a clear line between protesting and rioting and an even clearer line between free speech and violence. Regrettably, that line has been crossed time and again in recent months.

Some Hamas sympathizers and supporters have used the guise of protesting to harass and intimidate Jewish students across the United States, and some of the most disturbing incidents have been those on college campuses. In the wake of October 7, campuses have experienced a wave of anti-Semitic attacks targeting their Jewish students.

Last fall, for example, Jewish students at a small university in New York City sheltered in the college library as pro-Palestinian protesters banged on the doors and windows and chanted outside. Multiple students at Tulane University in Louisiana were physically assaulted during a tense protest. A Cornell University message board was flooded with anonymous comments that threatened to physically harm any Jewish person on campus.

These incidents highlight a dangerous resurgence of anti-Semitism that has spread like wildfire across college campuses, and too many people have tried to defend these attacks as constitutionally protected speech. I would hurry to point out that not everybody involved in these protests and this civil disobedience or even violence is even a student at these universities. In many ways, I think this is another manifestation, another indication, more evidence that many of our institutions of higher education have lost their way. They should be focused on educating the next generation of American leadership, not being engaged in or being primarily focused on this sort of activity.

It is shameful and disingenuous to suggest that attacks, particularly physical attacks and threats against Jewish students, qualify as protected speech. As I said, the First Amendment does protect speech, but it protects the right to protest peacefully. It does not give anyone the freedom to riot, to threaten, or to carry out acts of violence against other people or to even violate the rules of their universities.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that neutral protections like time, manner, and place provisions do not violate the First Amendment, and those are the sorts of guidelines and rules that these protesters need to follow. When they don't follow them, they should be held accountable for it.

Sadly, pro-Palestinian groups are continuing to create a threatening environment by attempting to occupy and disrupt some college campuses.

At Yale University, a Jewish student journalist was attacked by a pro-Hamas mob while attempting to film a protest. She was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag, and her attacker has still not been identified.

This last weekend, at Harvard, anti-Israel protesters raised a Palestinian flag in the place where the American flag should have been flying.

Protests at the University of Southern California have created such serious safety concerns that the university actually canceled its main graduation ceremony.

Some of the most alarming incidents have taken place at Columbia University, where pro-Palestinian students set up a tent encampment at the center of the campus. The situation became so tense last week that a prominent rabbi urged Jewish students to leave campus and stay away for their own safety. The situation grew even more dangerous overnight as an anti-Israel mob broke into an academic building and used furniture to barricade the doors. They shattered windows, hung pro- Palestinian banners from the building, and a member of the building's maintenance team said he was briefly held hostage.

These institutions are known as some of America's elite universities, but their response to these incidents has fallen far short. They have allowed protesters to break university rules, threaten other students, particularly Jewish students, and create a dangerous and hostile environment for their entire campus communities.

Under title VI of the Civil Rights Act, colleges and universities are required to provide an environment free from discriminations based on race, color, or national origin. So it is shameful that some of these so-called elite universities in our country do not take that responsibility seriously.

Last week, protests erupted at the University of Texas in Austin, where I live. But I am glad to say the response there was far different than what you have seen in many other parts of the country. As hundreds of protesters attempted to occupy the campus, the university hasn't wavered in its commitment to preserve a safe environment for all of its students. They have recognized the danger that these demonstrations could pose to Jewish students, as well as disrupting the entire campus community that is, after all, dedicated to education. It is hard to get a good education if you can't go to class or you can't participate in activities on your own campus for fear of violence or threats.

The University of Texas took swift action to break up last week's demonstration before things turned violent, and it has continued to do the same thing as the situation heats up this week.

I want to commend my friend UT Austin president Jay Hartzell for doing what so many other college presidents have failed to do. As protesters took over the campus, he, with the backing of our Governor and our other elected officials, made it clear that the university's rules would be enforced.

As we have seen at college campuses across the country, uncontrolled--I should say--or out-of-control protests create a very dangerous environment for all students, the faculty, and staff. They create an especially threatening environment for Jewish members of the campus community who are targeted solely based on their ethnic identity or their religion.

These types of attacks are despicable and un-American, and I am glad the University of Texas at Austin made it clear that anti-Semitism has no place on its campus.

Last week, 26 of my Republican colleagues and I urged the Biden administration to do more to protect Jewish students on college campuses. Anti-Semitic mobs are paralyzing many campuses and threatening Jewish students.

Given the wave of protests across the country, the Biden administration must do more to combat anti-Semitism and ensure that every student has a safe place to learn.

Universities, of course, are no strangers to activism. Generations of young people have organized protests and raised their voices on a variety of political and social issues, and that is entirely appropriate.

The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy, but it does not grant anyone the ability to say or do whatever they want without consequences.

Recent demonstrations have turned into a breeding ground for anti- Semitism, and we must do more to protect

all of our students and restore safety to our college campuses and restore the very basic mission for which they were founded, which is to educate the next generation of Americans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Senate is currently debating the reauthorization of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I call this the most important law that most Americans never heard of. But it is an essential tool for our intelligence community to protect the American people against a whole array of threats, as I will try to explain.

It is somewhat complicated, which means that it is important to make sure that we understand what the facts are and dispel any myths or any misconceptions about what exactly we are asking the Senate to vote on.

Unless the Senate takes action soon, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will expire at midnight tonight. If that happens, the United States will lose access to valuable intelligence that is needed by our intelligence community to keep America safe. Our country's top intelligence officials have shared a number of success stories that demonstrate the far-reaching value of this authority. But the best I can tell, there is broad bipartisan consensus about the value of section 702. I have heard no one stand up and say: We should just let the authority lapse. And that is for good reason that you haven't heard that argument.

Section 702-acquired information has helped combat terrorism, disrupt drug trafficking, thwart cyber attacks, prevent our adversaries from trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, and much more.

Officials have also issued warnings that--in the starkest possible terms--about what a 702 lapse would do to our security missions. FBI Director Chris Wray said to allow 702 to expire would be ``an act of unilateral disarmament in the face of the Chinese Communist Party.'' So the stakes are extremely high.

I am glad that the Republican-led House passed a strong 702 reform bill last week. This is not a clean reauthorization of the existing bill. This is a reform bill which corrects many of the problems that we have experienced with section 702 in application, including some abuse by FBI officials and others. It is designed to prevent that inadvertent abuse and to hold people who abuse that authority accountable.

And to those who say, well, this reform bill has provisions in it that can be likewise abused by somebody who is intent on violating the law, I say there is no law that can prevent people from lying, cheating, and stealing. In other words, we could do our best to try to pass a law that protects the American people both in their privacy and their national security, but no one argues that we can prevent all abuses.

But we could go a long way--and this bill does it--to close up the opportunities to do that and to hold people accountable who do abuse the law by exposing them, potentially, to long prison sentences. This reform legislation increases transparency, as I said, prevents misuse of 702, and strengthens accountability within the FBI.

As Congress has debated this law, I have seen a lot of confusion and, occasionally, even some misinformation about this authority and the reforms being discussed. As the Senate prepares to vote on this bill, I think it is absolutely critical that we clear up a few of the most common misconceptions about section 702.

The first myth I want to address is that 702 was unconstitutional because

it allows widespread surveillance of American citizens without going to court and getting a warrant establishing probable cause. I have heard some people say, under this law, the intelligence community can spy on the American people. Nothing is further from the truth. Section 702 authority cannot be used to target any U.S. citizen, whether on American soil or elsewhere in the world. It is specifically aimed at foreign actors overseas that could pose a threat to the United States.

We all acknowledge that any investigation into any American citizen would require a warrant establishing probable cause issued by a judge, an impartial judge. That is our basic protection under the Fourth Amendment. This, in contrast, is not about targeting Americans in the United States but rather foreigners overseas. Even if the foreigner is in the United States, then section 702 would not allow that collection. There would need to be a warrant.

So the law contains robust safeguards to protect the privacy of U.S. persons and the House-passed bill includes even more provisions designed to strengthen those protections.

This first myth stems from, perhaps, a misunderstanding about what is called incidental collection of U.S. persons' data. When I use the term ``U.S. persons,'' I am including American citizens and legal permanent residents. That is why the generic term ``U.S. persons'' rather than ``U.S. citizens'' is used. For example, if an American is texting with a foreign terrorist who is a target of 702 collection, both sides of that conversation, that text, would be available. To be clear, though, the government would only see the American's communication in that one instance. Other texts, emails, and communications would remain untouched and require a warrant issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Multiple courts have examined the constitutionality of this incidental collection. The Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit have all looked at it and said it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Eastern District of New York has, as well, as has the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

I might just pause there for a moment and remind people that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a court created by Congress composed of three Federal judges, article III judges, appointed by the Chief Justice, who review these practices and procedures on a regular basis.

So you have three levels of oversight of these important tools. You have, at the Agency level, internal rules and regulations. You have the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees, on which I have the privilege of serving, that conducts oversight. Then you have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that makes sure that this balance between security and privacy are protected.

In every court that has looked at this issue, the court has determined that 702 complies with the Fourth Amendment insofar as incidental collection is concerned.

Section 702 does not authorize spying on the American people. You know, it reminds me of a saying of Mark Twain. Mark Twain said: ``A lie can travel halfway around the world in the time it takes the truth to put on its shoes.''

Unfortunately, some of these things get on social media, and people begin to believe them because they see it repeated, even though it is not true. This is a carefully crafted law designed to balance national security imperatives with individual privacy rights.

Myth No. 2: Congress could strengthen privacy protections and preserve 702 by adding a warrant requirement. This requires a little bit of an explanation. I mentioned the text between a target, a foreign target, and an American citizen and the incidental collection--that is the communication between those two--that would be revealed by 702. Then it is added to a database that can then be queried or explored by subsequent actions by intelligence Agencies, including the FBI.

Some would say: Well, in spite of the fact that no court has held that that incidental collection is unconstitutional or violates the Fourth Amendment, before the FBI or any part of the intelligence community wants to look at that lawfully collected data, it has to go to court and get a warrant. Again, this could require the government to show probable cause that some crime--maybe espionage, maybe some other crime--has been committed.

All of the officials who served in positions of responsibility in making sure that this capacity continues safely and respecting the rights of privacy, as well as the security of our country, has said that adding a warrant requirement to look at information that you already lawfully collected would decimate the effectiveness of section 702. This is unlike a traditional criminal investigation where warrants are issued based on probable cause because of criminal activity.

Intelligence gathering is unique because it involves monitoring foreign actors to detect and prevent threats before they occur. In other words, regular law enforcement doesn't go in and try to stop criminal acts before they occur.

Unfortunately, we are relegated to investigating and prosecuting crimes after they occur. That is the criminal law context.

Intelligence gathering is very different because it is designed to prevent terrible actions from occurring in the first place, like the 3,000 Americans that were killed on 9/11 when al-Qaida targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

As Director Wray has said:

In a technology environment where foreign threat actors can

move to new communication accounts and infrastructure in a

matter of hours--if not minutes--[section] 702 provides the

agility we need to stay ahead.

Requiring a warrant for every inquiry into lawfully collected information in the 702 database would significantly hinder the ability to respond to emerging threats. Again, this is looking at information that every court that has looked at it has said is lawfully collected under the Fourth Amendment. Our intelligence community would be held to an impossible standard knowing the nationality and location of every single person that the foreigner and foreign land may be talking to before they could make any targeting decision.

The Senate has before it an amendment that would hold that no person--so that would include the entire intelligence community--may access information of a covered person except in limited circumstances. A covered person is broadly defined and would include incidental communications of U.S. persons, something which is already lawfully collected.

But the truth is, this amendment would hamper the 702 program in dangerous ways. If an amendment containing this language passes, the CIA or the NSA will be unable to monitor Hamas or ISIS terrorists abroad unless and until they can determine the national identities and physical locations of everyone that terrorist may be talking to, texting, or emailing with. It is an impossible burden.

The Senate is already expected to vote on an amendment to the House bill that injects a different type of massive legal hurdle in the 702 process. That would be similarly confining and limiting in terms of its effectiveness.

This amendment would dramatically expand the role of an amicus. Now, in the law we talk about amicus curiae, ``friends of the court.'' That is what an amicus is. That is an outside person coming in basically to provide legal advice or a briefing to a court to help the court make a decision.

And there already exists an amicus provision in the current law so that if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court needs input or expertise or advice on a complex matter, it could ask for that. That already exists.

What this amendment would do, it would impose an amicus appointment on virtually every Foreign Intelligence Act title 1 matter and place, again, unworkable burdens on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and on the intelligence community seeking access to that information.

What that means, in practical terms, is that we would get bogged down in court proceedings and not just in front of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This amendment would allow an appeal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's decision presumably all the way to the Supreme Court.

Can you imagine in a time-sensitive national security matter that we are going to basically take a timeout so we

can appeal a case up and down the Federal judiciary, potentially to the Supreme Court? Who knows how long the delay might be.

The urgent intelligence request before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would become a means to gut section 702 through a series of legal delays. In effect, one actor who disagreed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's determination would have the ability to stop what is already a constitutional and lawful program in its tracks.

This is a radical departure from the role of an amicus or friend of the court in normal court proceedings. The friend of the court, the amicus curiae, is there to provide expertise and help the court get it right, not to gum up the process or to become an adversary.

As I noted, agility is key to section 702. It gives our intelligence professionals timely and actual intelligence to keep Americans safe. Expanding the role of the amicus to turn them into an adversary to this process would hamper the program and, I believe, make it far less useful.

The House has already had a very thoughtful debate about this topic and I believe crafted a bill that expands amicus participation in a reasonable and productive way without shutting down the process.

Finally, myth No. 3: There will be no impact if section 702 expires tonight at midnight because other directives will replace it.

Well, like many misconceptions, this is based on a grain of truth. Earlier this month, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court renewed the annual 702 certification and procedure process through April of 2025. Interestingly, as I mentioned, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which includes three article III judges, lifetime- tenured judges, regularly sign off on the practices and procedures under section 702 and have found them to be lawful and constitutional.

And they have certified the current process through April of 2025, but that does not mean that the program can continue uninterrupted for another year. In the event of a lapse tonight at midnight, some communications and service providers will stop cooperating with the U.S. Government. That is exactly what happened in 2008 when the predecessor of section 702 called the Protect America Act briefly lapsed.

The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence at the time wrote to Congress about the impact of a short-term lapse. They said:

[Providers] delayed or refused compliance with our requests

to initiate new surveillances of terrorists and other foreign

intelligence surveillance targets under existing directives

issued pursuant to the Protect America Act.

But they said, ultimately, the lapse ``led directly to a degraded intelligence capability.''

None of these American-based companies are going to cooperate with the intelligence community unless they have a law in place that provides them a requirement that they do so and the legal protections that go along with that.

Even though the Department of Justice could go to court and move to compel the companies to continue to cooperate under the current certification, litigation would inevitably lead to delays while vital intelligence is lost.

And I believe that without 702, there is no way these companies will be required to or be willing to cooperate. And there couldn't be a more dangerous time to put this gambit to the test.

Director Wray and the Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director Burns, all of the members of the intelligence community, the leaders, have said the number of threats facing America has never been greater, certainly not since World War II.

Iran and its terrorist proxies are attacking Israel; Russia is continuing its assault on Ukraine; and China is fueling instability in the Middle East. Section 702 underpins our ability to predict and respond to each of these threats, and we would be flying blind without 702.

So 702 misinformation runs rampant, but here are the facts: 702 complies with the Fourth Amendment. Every court that has considered the matter has reached that conclusion.

Section 702 is invaluable because it gives the United States timely and actionable intelligence. Warrant requirements for a dramatic amicus expansion would undercut that capability.

And finally, unless section 702 authority is extended today, our intelligence capabilities will take a hit. There is no question about it. We cannot count on these communication providers to keep providing information and cooperating once congressional authorization expires.

In conclusion, I would say there is a lot on the line today, and Congress cannot, in good conscience, deprive America's dedicated intelligence professionals of the authority they need to continue to keep our country safe. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is vital to our national security and must be extended as reformed in the House bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is illegal for the U.S. Government or any of its Agencies to spy on American citizens. It is illegal. And nothing in this bill changes that. The fact is, the House has passed a reform bill which has made it far less likely for there to be abuses, inadvertent and otherwise, and it has real accountability measures that will punish people who abuse these necessary tools.

The fact of the matter is 702 applies to foreigners overseas, not Americans here in the United States. And where there is incidental collection, court after court after court has said it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. There is no constitutional violation. And if the intelligence Agencies want to look further at an American citizen, they have to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and get a warrant to show probable cause that a crime has been committed.

If we pass this requirement, it will simply benefit our foreign adversaries--Russia, China, Iran, Hamas--just to name a few.

Mr. President, I am glad I was on the floor to hear the distinguished Senator from Illinois's comments about section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This is perhaps the most important law that most Americans have never heard of before, but here we are debating that. The House having passed a bill and sent it over to us, it is our responsibility now to consider that bill.

We all want to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of American citizens. That is nonnegotiable. I agree with the Senator on that point, and I think we all should agree. But the fact of the matter is, the House bill is a reform bill. It is not section 702 as it currently operates. This provides numerous guardrails, accountability measures, and other measures that I believe will limit, if not eliminate, the opportunity to abuse this authority, to the detriment of American citizens; rather, I believe this law must be passed in order to protect those same people.

It is really important for the American people to understand that section 702 is only available against foreigners overseas--only foreigners overseas. If you want to get access to any information even on a foreigner here in the United States or an American citizen or a legal permanent resident, you have to go to court and do what the Senator says, and I certainly support that, which is to show probable cause that a crime has been committed.

But we are not talking only about crimes, the crime of espionage; we are talking about foreign adversaries collecting information on American citizens that they can use to facilitate terrorist attacks, the importation of dangerous drugs, ransomware attacks through cyber crime, and the list goes on and on and on.

But I think a fair reading of the House's bill provides the sort of belt-and-suspenders approach that we need in order to reform the current practice because of the very abuses that 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 is available to policymakers, including the President of the United States, will be eliminated--and what I am talking about is additional collection of that information--because, in fact, the very telecommunications companies that we depend on and that 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 this program is now, but the blindness, the willful blindness we will incur in the future unless we act on a timely basis. There is really no reason not to vote on the amendments, including the amendments from the Senator from Illinois. And I certainly support the right of every Member 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. Just think for a moment, when President Biden gets his intelligence brief each day, that is called the Presidential daily brief. It is a compilation of the most sensitive intelligence that is important for the President as the Commander in Chief to have access to. Approximately 60 percent 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.

Well, one of the first things that comes to mind when we think about section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 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.

It is easy to see why because this authority was first created in the wake of 9/11--the worst terrorist attack America has ever experienced-- when 3,000 of our fellow citizens were killed that day.

Section 702 was enacted in 2008 in response to threats posed by terrorist groups, and in the years since, it has helped over and 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-Qaida, 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 is also a critical tool in the fight against fentanyl which took the lives of 71,000 Americans last year alone. I have been to six high schools in Texas where parents--grieving parents--say their child took a pill that they thought was relatively innocuous--Percocet, Xanex. I know we wish our kids wouldn't take things like that, but they certainly didn't think they were taking a pill that would kill them. But that is 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. Section 702 is a critical tool in combating fentanyl which is the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45. That is an incredible statistic.

In one example, the intelligence community obtained information under 702 that a foreign actor supplied 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 are 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 1 hour.

The good news is that this information was uncovered thanks to 702, and it 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 percent of the CIA's illicit synthetic drug disruptions stemmed 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 counterdrug mission, and they were able to use section 702 to disrupt 70 percent--or it comprised 70 percent of their synthetic drug disruptions just last year alone.

This intelligence gathering capability is vital to our operations to stop fentanyl and save American lives. And there is no question that the fight against fentanyl would take a major step backward if 702 went dark.

Now, I want to reiterate, our friend from Illinois suggested that there is 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, that they could have a search selector to look among information that has 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. Seventy percent of the intelligence community's successful disruptions of weapons of mass destruction in the past few 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.

Section 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 Colonial Pipeline and shut it down, which supplied the major supplier of gasoline and diesel for the east coast. They said: We are 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, we were able to use 702 in order to identify those foreign actors in a way that allowed 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 is no question. I haven't heard any one of our Members here in the Senate say that 702 is not helpful, it is not necessary, but they are concerned about privacy--and I am too. That is the balance we must strike between security and privacy. We need both.

Well, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Americans from unlawful searches and seizures. Now, that applies in every instance where there is an investigation, whether it is 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 is a lot of confusion about where that might apply in this context because what we are talking about is not crime in the sense that our criminal laws ordinarily apply in America. What we are talking about is foreign espionage and hostile activities directed toward 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 have occurred after we have 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 is not OK to say: Well, we will wait until the terrorists commit that act, and then we will try to find them and punish them. We want to stop it, and that is where 702 is so important.

It is not true that 702 gives the authority to the intelligence community to target Americans. That is illegal.

The Senator from Illinois mentioned a number of times where there was inappropriate and, frankly, illegal use of this information. Those individuals in some instances have been disciplined, some instances have been prosecuted, and that is 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 is not discretionary. It is not a matter of Agency rules. It is a matter of Federal law. 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 can pass any law or any rule that would prevent somebody from abusing it. 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. That is 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 is one of the questions or one of the issues posed by our friends who have a different view on this. That is because when a foreigner 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 Intelligence Surveillance Court and two other Federal circuit courts, have held that there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment among unlawful searches and seizures of Americans if that was incidental to 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 these individuals they 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, go to the intelligence surveillance court--article III 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 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 raises heightened concerns is in 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 a U.S. person like a permanent resident, intelligence professionals will receive both sides of that conversation.

Again, what I have said is multiple courts have examined the constitutionality of this incidental collection; and in each and every case, it has determined that 702 complies with the Fourth Amendment.

For example, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2019, considered

that very question. The court determined that ``the government may lawfully collect the emails of foreign individuals located abroad who reasonably appear to be a potential threat to the United States.'' The court added that once it is lawfully collecting those emails, it does not need to seek a warrant to continue collecting emails between that person or other persons once it learns that some of those individuals are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents or are located in the United States.

But, as I said, 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 U.S. person. That is no longer incidental to the foreign intelligence-gathering of somebody overseas. That is a direct investigation of that person, and it requires a warrant and probable cause.

Well, what I am talking about in terms of incidental collection is not a novel concept. For example, 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 unrelated to the warrant. That same sort of principle applies here. The Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals have all looked into this matter, and the Eastern District of New York has as well. Again, every court that has considered the lawfulness of the 702 program found that it complies with the Fourth Amendment.

So there is 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 the intelligence community rely on that authority to combat terrorism, to disrupt drug trafficking, to prevent cyber attacks, and much, much more.

I believe what is really being argued about here, which we ought to go ahead and lay on the table, is a lack of trust in how these rules are actually applied and practiced. Part of that justifiable concern is based upon abuses in the past, and those ought to be investigated and prosecuted; and those people 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 taking those same sorts of actions; and it certainly has provided for accountability, including prison sentences for the people who do violate those rules.

So this proposal goes about as far as you could 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 percent of their queries; and these reforms have already proven to work. As I said, the Department of Justice conducted a review last year and found that 98 percent of the FBI's queries were now fully compliant with these new and enhanced and improved requirements, and those would be codified into law under this bill.

So I appreciate the sensitivity that all of us feel about the constitutional rights of American citizens. None of us want to allow any violation of those rights. We are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I am confident that each of us wants to be loyal to that oath, but at the same time, we have a responsibility to protect the American people from the sorts of threats that I have described. Allowing 702 to expire tomorrow night would simply blind not only the President of the United States but us as policyholders--the people responsible for protecting our great Nation--to threats that future collection under 702 could provide, because there is no way that these telecommunications companies are going to cooperate absent a Federal law compelling them to do so.

So who would be the winner in all of this? Well, let's call 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 is too late.

There is a reason why the intelligence community calls section 702 the crown jewel of their ability to protect and defend the United States and the American people, and it is absolutely imperative that Congress reauthorize section 702 with these reforms before it lapses tomorrow night. And I am optimistic that, in working together, we can get the job done.

I yield the floor.

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. This is his wheelhouse.

I appreciate the question because I think it actually--maybe there is a nuance here that I misstated my position, because I am of the same mind the Senator is when it comes to an American citizen who is mentioned in a communication with the foreign actor, because this is designed to deal only with foreign actors.

What I was referring to was incidental communication, when there was a communication between the foreign actor and the U.S. person, and we can call him a U.S. person because he can also be a legal permanent resident. Basically, what we are talking about are U.S. citizens. So that is incidental collection when there is that contact between a foreign target and the American citizen. That is considered to be

incidental collection, and no court has said it violates the Fourth Amendment.

But I agree with the Senator that if, in fact, there is 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 is what the Fourth Amendment is designed to protect. I hope I have understood the Senator's position.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Illinois will permit me to respond, there are two challenges I think we face. One is that I think the exceptions that you mentioned, basically, will mean that the status quo remains because almost each of those three exceptions would be allowed under current law, 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?

But here is the practical problem: The House of Representatives has passed this bill, and one particular, important aspect of this is a warrant vote that was a tie vote. So this bill-- this law--lapses tomorrow night at 12 midnight, and it is obvious to me that we are 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 12 midnight tomorrow night. Basically, what we are forced with is a lapse in these authorities during the interim, and I am not even confident that the House could even pass another bill even with these amendments.

So I don't question the good will 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 swallow the rule that his amendment would establish. Perhaps, even more basically, just through the passage of time, it would prohibit our getting this bill to the President's desk in time to keep these authorities in effect.

There is no question that our world is more dangerous now than at any other time in the recent past--I would say since World War II. 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 giving me a chance to answer a few questions and present my point of view.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

Madam President, I inquire whether the actions we take today are creating a precedent on impeachments that would apply to all future impeachment actions in the Senate, including an impeachment of the President of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I would like to speak about the most important law that most Americans have never heard of, and that is section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Last week, the House of Representatives passed legislation to reauthorize this important law before it expires at the end of this week.

FISA, as it is known--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--and section 702 in particular, is one of the most important and consequential laws we use to keep our country safe from adversaries overseas.

Congress enacted section 702 in 2008 in response to the threats posed by terrorist groups in the wake of 9/11. It tore down some of the walls that prevented the sharing of information that could be used to keep our country safe, and there is no question that it has been a success.

Information acquired through section 702 has helped to identify threats against U.S. troops and to thwart planned terrorist attacks abroad and here at home. It has enabled the Federal Government to stop components of weapons of mass destruction from reaching foreign actors. It has also helped disrupt our adversaries' efforts to recruit spies on American soil and send their operatives to the United States. It has helped to understand and combat fentanyl trafficking, identify foreign ransomware attacks, like the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, and uncover war crimes and gruesome atrocities in Ukraine.

For virtually every national security threat that America faces, section 702 is an invaluable asset. There is a reason why it is known as the crown jewel of America's intelligence gathering capabilities.

The President is briefed daily, in something called the President's Daily Brief, on these intelligence threats that are collected for the President's briefing, as I said, on a daily basis. A full 60 percent of the information contained in the President's daily classified intelligence brief is derived from section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Everyone knows that this authority has not been without controversy. In recent years, the public has learned about extremely concerning misuses of this authority that go far beyond what Congress has authorized. But I want to make clear that the targeting of American citizens here in the United States is expressly prohibited under 702, so any targeting of an American citizen is illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Just to be clear, this authority grants the intelligence community-- by that I mean the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, the FBI--it grants authority to the Department of Justice and our intelligence community to get intelligence on foreigners located outside of the United States--in other words, if it is foreign nationals inside the United States, you cannot use section 702--but more importantly, foreigners outside of the United States who are deemed to be a threat to our national security, agents of a foreign power, for example. It cannot be lawfully used to target U.S. citizens, whether on American soil or elsewhere.

But this is where the issue gets a little bit thorny, and sometimes there is misunderstanding about exactly how this works. So let me go through some of the details. Where this becomes a little more confused is when there is incidental collection of U.S. persons. For example, if you are targeting a foreigner overseas and they are communicating with a U.S. person in the United States, that could be a citizen, that could be a lawful permanent resident. Well, if it is a lawful communication, lawful 702 targeting of the foreign national, and they are talking to a U.S. person, invariably there is going to be information--known as incidental collection--involving the communication with that U.S. person. In other words, both sides of the conversation will be revealed in that lawful targeting of a foreign person overseas.

Here is an example: Let's say the intelligence community is monitoring the communications of a Hamas terrorist in Gaza who is believed to pose a danger to our national security. He is not an American, and he is not on U.S. soil, but he is using U.S.-based communication networks. Let's say in this example that one of the people the Hamas terrorist is communicating with is an American on U.S. soil. Even though the American is not a target of the data collection, his side of the conversation would be visible because he is the one communicating with this foreign target.

But let me be clear. The intelligence community cannot target anyone they believed to be a U.S. person, nor can they target a foreigner with the pretext of getting American citizens' data. For that, you need a warrant. You need to go to court and show probable cause because that is a constitutional right granted to Americans under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects our people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and an unchecked surveillance authority would directly violate that right. That is why we have guardrails. That is why we have protections to minimize the chances of that happening.

I know there has been some confusion. Some of it is from a misunderstanding. Some of it is people, frankly, just misrepresenting exactly what this authority does and does not do. But section 702 does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Every court that has considered the lawfulness of the 702 program has found that it complies with the Fourth Amendment. So when people stand up and say ``Well, section 702 allows the government to spy on Americans,'' that is, frankly, not true. If they say it violates the Fourth Amendment, well, you have at least three courts that have considered the issue and they have said no, it doesn't. So they need to come up with another argument.

To be clear, this is very targeted, very narrow surveillance authority. As a matter of fact, under the reforms passed in the House bill, there are very few circumstances under which the FBI, for example, can exploit or query the 702 information.

So once the information is lawfully collected--targeting a foreign national overseas; that is lawfully collected--it is in a database which can then be queried by the FBI, for example, but there are very limited circumstances where that can happen. They can only search that database if they believe the query or question would return foreign intelligence information or evidence of a crime. The Agency does not have carte blanche authority to probe or go fishing in 702 information.

Unfortunately, there have been some mistakes made by the FBI due to the lack of guardrails and reforms that are in the current bill passed by the House of Representatives. I applaud the House for passing important reforms that will minimize the chances of this inadvertent collection of U.S. persons' information, because it is a violation of the law.

In response to some of these reports of inadvertent collection of U.S. persons' information, in 2021, FBI Director

Chris Wray instituted significant reforms to prevent inadvertent queries and improve compliance. Virtually all of those reforms, which have been enormously successful, have now been incorporated in the statute that the House passed last week.

Here is an example: When FBI personnel conduct a query now, rather than having access to this database of lawfully collected 702 information, they are required to opt-in to include that information. They have to affirmatively choose to search that database. Previously, that was not the case. Section 702 data was included in every search by default, and most of the time, it was completely unnecessary.

Multiple reviews have shown that these reforms have made a dramatic difference for the better. Since 2021, since these reforms have been put in place, the total number of U.S. person queries have decreased by 98 percent. That is a dramatic improvement. It is not 100 percent. It is not perfect. We still have work to do. But a 98-percent improvement strikes me as pretty dramatic. On top of that, DOJ conducted a review last year and found that 98 percent of the FBI's 702 queries were fully compliant with these requirements.

This has been reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is three members of the Federal judiciary appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States.

These reforms implemented by the FBI voluntarily in 2021 and now included in the House reform bill are working, and that is why it is so important that we should codify those changes. We need to make clear that these heightened standards are not simply Agency policy but the law, and that is exactly what the House FISA bill does. It turns the FBI's 702 reforms into law to ensure that the Agency's 702 query policies cannot be neglected or loosened in the future. Once they become the law of the land, even if the FBI were to change its policy, it would be inconsistent with that law and be illegal.

The House bill also extends this authority for a period of 2 years, so our intelligence community can continue to identify threats to our national security and prevent them from materializing.

When we talked about 702 several years ago, FBI Director Chris Wray said, ``The fact that we have not suffered another 9/11-scale attack is not just luck.'' He noted that it is a product of diligence, teamwork, information sharing, dot-connecting, and much of that dot-connecting is made possible by 702.

So I appreciate Speaker Johnson in the Republican-led House for taking action on this bill before this critical authority expires at the end of the week, and I look forward to voting for it in the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas resisted Democrats' latest attempt to intimidate the Federal judiciary.

This all started a year ago, when Senate Majority Leader Schumer sent a letter to the chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, urging him to change the ways that cases were assigned in that district. In short, the majority leader is unhappy with single-judge divisions in Texas that have handed down rulings that he doesn't agree with.

Well, forget for a moment the fact that the left has been more than happy to file lawsuits in courts they believe will be friendly to their arguments. Set that aside for a moment. But the majority leader seeks to avoid more liberal losses in the courtrooms. He wants the chief judge to ignore Federal law--literally, ignore the law--which establishes which courts have jurisdiction and venue over a given case. As Senator Schumer sees it, this change, which would create a random selection assignment system, would prevent judges who are nominated by Republican Presidents from hearing as many high-profile cases.

Well, the majority leader might be forgiven for his naivete or his misunderstanding of actually what controls what venue and what jurisdiction is under the law, but the problem is that he went a step further. He ended his letter with a clear threat. If the Northern District didn't comply with his demands, he said, ``Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements.'' In other words, he said: Do what we want, and, if you don't, we will do it for you.

Well, for some reason, the Senator from New York thinks he should be the one to decide how cases are assigned in the Northern District of Texas.

Late last month, Chief Judge David Godbey wrote the majority leader a letter reminding him of something that the leader already knew, which is that assignment of cases is not governed by politics but by existing law. A Federal statute that Congress passed, signed by a President, gives district courts the authority to decide how to assign cases for a given district.

Unsurprisingly, there is no requirement that chief judges consult with the majority leader of the Senate when deciding how to assign cases within their district. There is this thing called separation of powers that the majority leader may have overlooked or forgotten about.

As Chief Justice Godbey noted in his letter, the district judges in the Northern District of Texas met to discuss this topic and reached a consensus not to make the changes requested by Senator Schumer.

While the chief judge of the Northern District was not swayed by the majority leader's implicit threat, that wasn't the end of the story. Regrettably, the Judicial Conference of the United States, in an effort to placate the majority leader, recommended that district courts across the country randomly assign certain cases that seek to invalidate State or Federal law. In other words, now the Judicial Conference has gotten into the act, ignoring existing laws passed by Congress and signed by Presidents that establish which courts have jurisdiction and venue over a given case.

Well, that provoked another telling reaction on the part of our Democratic colleagues. The majority leader rejoiced that this guidance that he sought would prevent ``MAGA-right plaintiffs'' from being able to ``all but guarantee a handpicked MAGA-right judge.''

How insulting is that? These are life-tenured judges nominated by a President, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and the majority leader is suggesting that a judge who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States can be depended on to reach a predetermined result. Well, I know that is politics, but that is not

the way the laws are supposed to be interpreted or applied by the courts.

Thank goodness we have an independent judiciary in this country. It is one of the things that makes us unique in the world among democracies--a truly independent judiciary that calls balls and strikes; that interprets the Constitution and laws and applies them to a given case, even when politicians get caught up with their rhetoric and their political desires.

Well, the majority whip--the chairman of the Judiciary Committee-- echoed the majority leader's position and noted that changing the way cases are assigned, he says, ``will help restore the public's trust in our court system and strengthen our democracy.''

I think what undermines the public's trust in our court system and undermines our democracy are these baseless attacks on judges, assuming that they are Republican judges or Democratic judges or MAGA-right judges--whatever that is supposed to mean. I guess that means they were appointed by President Trump, but also confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The irony of calling a Senate-confirmed Federal judge a ``MAGA judge'' in talking about the importance of public trust in the judiciary is pretty rich.

I want to commend Chief Judge Godbey and the judges of the Northern District of Texas from resisting this political pressure and commend them for doing what they know is right for their district and the people who live and litigate within that district. This was, without a doubt, the right decision for multiple reasons.

As a practical matter, the majority leader's preferred case assignment scheme would likely subject litigants to logistical nightmares. I know Texas is a lot bigger than New York. But take the Northern District of Texas, for example. It is one of the largest judicial districts in the country. It stretches over 100 out of our 254 counties and encompasses more than 96,000 acres. If the Northern District of Texas were a State, it would be the ninth largest State. If Senator Schumer had his way, a suit filed in one division could ultimately be heard by any division within the Northern District.

Someone--say a woman challenging the State's abortion laws in Fort Worth--could have to travel all the way to Lubbock for her day in court. And a company in Dallas challenging government overreach or perhaps a new environmental regulation would have to go all the way to Amarillo to have that case decided, under this random assignment system. This would obviously create a lot of burdens on litigants--my constituents, Texans, American citizens. It would create burdensome and expensive hurdles that both parties in a case would have to overcome for no real purpose.

We all know that cases decided by district judges get considered by circuit courts--appellate courts--and, potentially, even the U.S. Supreme Court. But the majority leader's political pressure on the Northern District would ultimately harm access to justice for those litigants who don't have the time or the money to travel long distances or to pay their lawyers in order to do so.

But the more fundamental issue is the constitutional one. Under the law, only Congress has the power to pass venue changes--that is where a case is heard--not the courts. The courts apply laws that the Congress passes and were signed into law by the President. The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to determine the structure and organization of the lower courts, and that includes venue laws, where cases are heard. From there, each individual district has the latitude to determine how cases are ultimately assigned.

So if the majority leader wants to change the way that venue laws are applied, he can try to do so, but he has to do so through a change in the law, not by trying to intimidate the judges in that division.

Over the last years, our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly launched deeply concerning attacks against America's independent judiciary. Several years ago, five of our Democratic colleagues threatened that the Supreme Court would be ``restructured'' if it failed to rule a certain way in a case related to the Second Amendment.

The following year, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, stood in front of the Supreme Court and threatened two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name if they didn't rule the way he wanted them to rule in a case involving abortion. He said:

I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh.

You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.

You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these

awful decisions.

How shameful on the part of the majority leader to stand on the steps of the Supreme Court and to threaten the sitting Justices unless they ruled in a particular way.

The next year, just a few months after President Biden took office, our Democratic colleagues in both the Senate and the House introduced a bill that would allow him to pack the Supreme Court with four new liberal Justices.

A couple years later, Senator Wyden, the Senator from Oregon, advocated for the Biden administration to ignore a potential court order from a Northern District of Texas court because he didn't agree with it. He actually said that the Biden administration should ignore the ruling of a Federal judge--not appeal it; ignore it.

Then 15 of our Democratic colleagues recommended slashing the Supreme Court's budget if it failed to meet their demand to implement a new code of ethics that had our Democratic colleagues' stamp of approval.

And, more recently, some of our Democratic colleagues have called on Justice Sotomayor to retire so President Biden can install a new liberal Justice, likely to serve for many years in the future.

Democrats' attacks on our judiciary have varied, but the theme is always the same. It is all about control; it is all about politics; it is all about outcomes--not justice and the rule of law.

Their message is: Deliver the wins we want, impose a code of ethics that we wrote, and retire when we say.

Well, we all know that lifetime tenure is provided for Federal judges to provide for their independence so they can't be intimidated, so they can't be forced to retire. And we can't cut their pay for the same reason.

Forget this idea of fair and impartial courts. They want judges who fall in line, salute smartly, and follow orders. As I said earlier today, an independent judiciary is essential to our democracy and the rule of law. It is the crown jewels of our government, of our Constitution. The courts cannot and must not be subjected to pressure campaigns from anyone--politicians, political activists, or anybody else.

The Federal judiciary certainly is not subservient to Congress; it is a separate and coequal branch of the government--coequal. Our Founders deliberately designed a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from forcing the other two to bend to its will. But that is exactly what our Democratic colleagues are trying to do, and it is wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it must be stopped.

Today's Democratic party is trying to blur the lines between the legislative and judicial branches of our government in order to secure partisan wins. And there is a reason why their efforts haven't had much success. Their proposals are unpopular. They are unwarranted, and they are flatout unconstitutional.

I am glad the Northern District of Texas did not cave to Senator Schumer's demands or the Judicial Conference's ill-conceived guidance. Democrats have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to secure partisan wins in the courts.

They ought to try passing laws here in Congress with open debate and opportunity for everybody to participate in the process; but the problem is, when they lose legislative battles, they simply rely on the courts to get the wins that they ultimately want.

But the American people can rest assured that Republicans will continue to defend America's independent judiciary and fight these attacks no matter what form they may take.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.