Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding.

Mr. President, last week, Senate Republicans passed legislation to fund Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the next 3 years. On Tuesday, House Republicans passed the legislation, and, yesterday, the President signed the bill into law.

I am proud that we got this done, of course. Republicans are deeply committed to ensuring a safe country and safe communities, and border security and immigration enforcement are key parts of that. No country--no country--can be secure if bad actors can make their way freely across the borders or criminal illegal immigrants are able to operate freely within our neighborhoods.

So, as I said, I am proud that we got this done, but I also have to ask: How did we get here? How did we get to the point where one party has completely abdicated any responsibility for our Nation's security?

It is not just this bill. Democrats have been playing fast and loose with our national security all year. Their two recordbreaking shutdowns strained our Nation's critical national security Agencies, particularly Agencies at the Department of Homeland Security, which was shut down for a staggering 119 days, all told, this fiscal year. The TSA, responsible for the security of our Nation's airports, has seen a flood of resignations, thanks to Democrats' decision to make these critical workers go without pay for quite literally months.

And then there is border security and immigration enforcement. Democrats absolutely refused to provide so much as a dollar--a dollar-- to fund the agents who provide security at our Nation's borders and remove criminal illegal immigrants from America's streets. I can't make that point enough.

If Democrats had their way, there would be zero--zero--physical presence at our Nation's borders and zero agents to remove criminal illegal immigrants who do make their way into our country. It is a breathtaking--breathtaking--level of irresponsibility.

I am still not done because I haven't yet talked about FISA. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is our Nation's most critical intelligence-gathering tool. Policymakers across the Federal Government from both parties rely on section 702 information on a near daily basis. And we were well on our way to reauthorizing it, with Democrat and Republican lawmakers here in the Senate working on an agreement. And then, as has happened more than once this year, Democrats backed out. Now, this critical tool is set to go dark on Friday, and what the consequences of that will be we cannot predict.

It is striking how weak Democrats' ostensible reasons have been for all of these actions. They are blocking a critical national security tool because they don't like the President's temporary, short-term pick for Acting DNI. They shut down the Federal Government twice and refused to fund border security and immigration enforcement because they couldn't take yes for an answer.

Ultimately, Democrats have made it clear this year that, for them, it is always politics over policy. And if our economy suffers, if our national security suffers because of Democrats' decision to shut down the government or refusal to fund border security, well, Democrats are apparently just fine with that.

Polls tend to show that Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to crime and national security. I think Democrats are making it very clear why that is. The fact that Republicans had to act alone to fund security at our Nation's borders is all the evidence you need to know to show that Democrats are fundamentally unserious about their national security responsibilities.

Republicans, of course, will continue to do everything we can to keep our country and our communities secure. It is too bad the same cannot be said of Senate Democrats.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time with respect to Executive Calendar No. 742 be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 15; finally, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 567 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the Whitehouse substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 162 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, June 15; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that at 5:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session and execute the order with respect to the Smith nomination.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Husted.

Mr. President, it has been almost a year since Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cut, 1 year since Republicans delivered permanent tax relief to the American people and put more money in their pockets.

I am proud to say that it is working. At the start of this year, hard-working Americans saw their take-home pay go up as the new tax law took effect. They saw its impact again in April when they filed their taxes. Many Americans saw a significant boost in their tax refunds.

The New York Times interviewed three dozen Americans, who reported that ``many of the taxpayers said they had received their largest refund in years,'' allowing them to pay down debt, save more, or cover the cost of a vacation or a new bed.

Last week, we got yet more news that shows that the Working Families Tax Cut is working. The Treasury Department released data showing that 97 percent of Americans who filed taxes this last year actually got a tax cut. Take a look at that. That is a pretty stunning number, if you think about it--97 percent. Thanks to the Working Families Tax Cut, 97 percent of taxpayers got a tax cut this year, collectively saving about $82 billion on their tax bills.

And who was it--who was it--that benefited from the Working Families Tax Cut? Well, I will give you a hint. It is in the name: working families. Almost every one of the 97 percent of American taxpayers who saw a tax cut this year earned less than $200,000. Nearly 70 percent earned less than $100,000.

So if you take a look at this chart, you will be able to see just exactly what I am talking about. If you look at the dark-blue line, those are the number of people who are making less than $100,000 a year who benefited from the new tax deductions in this bill. And if you look at the light one, that is the number of people under $200,000 who got a benefit. I will get into each of those specifics here in just a minute,

but I think it is important to point out that the beneficiaries of the Working Families Tax Cut were working families. In other words, the Americans benefiting from this bill were people who got up every day to go to work to provide for their families. They are not rich. They are people who spend nights at the kitchen table putting together their budgets, trying to make ends meet and save a little bit for the future. And that is who Republicans were thinking about when we wrote the Working Families Tax Cut, and as the numbers show, that is who is benefiting.

I have said that the Working Families Tax Cut is about putting more money in hard-working Americans' pockets, and that is exactly what this bill did. It let working Americans keep more of their hard-earned money--money that they would have had to send to the IRS if not for the Working Families Tax Cut and that they can now spend, invest, and save as they see fit.

The Working Families Tax Cut delivered real taxing savings to the American people through a number of tax relief policies. Permanent lower tax rates reduced Americans' tax burdens across the board, and the now permanently doubled standard deduction helped 127 million Americans reduce and simplify their taxes this year.

Nearly 40 million families claimed the newly enhanced $2,200 child tax credit in 2025. And as you can see from the chart, almost all of those families had incomes below $200,000. And I said before, two- thirds earned less than $100,000. And again, that is from the enhanced child tax credit, which is the bottom number down there.

A New York Times story in April on this year's larger tax refunds highlighted Nicole Mendoza, a 68-year-old Georgian who ``works a couple of shifts a week at a Cracker Barrel in Canton, Ga., to supplement her Social Security income and savings. All told, Ms. Mendoza said, she earned about $38,000 last year and paid $551 in federal income taxes.''

And Ms. Mendoza told the Times:

I got back every penny.

This year, millions of hard-working Americans like Ms. Mendoza were eligible for additional tax relief thanks to the Working Families Tax Cut. Americans earning between $100,000 and $200,000 last year who took advantage of new tax relief in this bill saw an average tax cut of $1,250. Older Americans were able to take advantage of the enhanced senior deduction, which helped 35 million seniors this past year.

And 7.5 million tipped workers were able to take advantage of no tax on tips. Fully 90 percent of Americans who took advantage of no tax on tips earned less than $100,000; 99 percent--99 percent--earned less than $200,000.

So if you look at the tipped wages, the number there on top, the dark-blue bar represents the number of people who were making less than $100,000 who benefited from no tax on tips. The lighter-blue bar represents the number of people making less than $200,000 in their income this year who benefited from no tax on tips.

So look at that. I mean, 90 percent of people--90 percent of people-- who get tipped wages and get the benefit of no tax on tips made less than $100,000 a year, and 99 percent, less than $200,000 a year. That is pretty stunning, if you think about it, if you talk about actually working families out there, people who are trying to make ends meet. And those numbers, I think, represent just how important that particular provision was in the bill, and the savings they are seeing is significant.

A bartender in Beloit, WI, said that he more than doubled his Federal tax refund. Katie, who is a DoorDash driver in Oklahoma, said:

It increased my refund from $300 to $2,000.

Another DoorDash driver in Oregon said:

[No Tax on Tips] has changed life. I worry less about being

able to cover all my expenses and I am able to work less

which is better for my health and family.

That is the Working Families Tax Cut in action. And I haven't even talked about no tax on overtime, which, like everything else I have talked about this morning, is overwhelmingly benefiting middle- and lower-income Americans.

Last year, Republicans promised to deliver lower tax bills for hard- working Americans, and the data released last week proves that is exactly--exactly--what this bill does. The Working Families Tax Cut is delivering for working Americans.

As they have every time that Republicans have lowered taxes for working people, Democrats have resurrected their dusty, old talking points about tax cuts for the rich. I can't count the number of times that I have heard a Democrat Senator say this bill was just about tax cuts for billionaires.

Well, look at the data. Does this look like a billionaire tax cut to you? Seventy-five percent of Americans taking the overtime deduction made less than $100,000 a year; 90 percent of those taking no tax on tips made less than $100,000 a year; and 97 percent of Americans who filed their taxes this year got a tax cut. This is real tax relief for hard-working Americans, and the American people are seeing it with their own eyes.

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, in 4 days, authorization for our Nation's most critical intelligence-gathering tool will expire.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the U.S. Government to target the digital information of foreign actors located outside of the United States for specific national security purposes, such as counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Established in the wake of September 11 to address gaps in foreign intelligence collection, this program plays a vital role in foiling bad actors, including terrorists, cyber criminals, and drug and weapons traffickers.

Our Nation's policymakers--from the White House to the Pentagon, to Congress--rely upon intelligence acquired from section 702 on a near daily basis. Twenty-four percent of the National Security Agency's intelligence reports in 2025 contained section 702 information. So did 62 percent of projects in the CIA's daily World Intelligence Review and 63 percent of articles in the President's Daily Brief.

Just to bring this down to the concrete, more than 90 percent--90 percent--of synthetic drug disruptions enabled by the CIA in 2025 relied on section 702 information. Synthetic drug disruptions--that is operations targeting fentanyl and fentanyl analogs, poison intended for America's streets. The CIA reports that one raid alone supported by section 702 resulted in the seizure of more than 1 metric ton of fentanyl pills from a facility in Mexico.

And drug disruption is just one activity supported by 702 information.

Section 702 provided intelligence that helped prevent a terrorist attack at a Taylor Swift concert. It enabled law enforcement to warn potential U.S. victims of ransomware attacks planned by North Korea. It helped enable the successful mission against al-Qaida's top leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 2022. It has identified threats to U.S. troops and provided information key in pursuing the release of Americans held hostage abroad.

The list goes on. Suffice it to say that section 702 plays a vital role in providing intelligence to protect our country.

We have considered multiple 702 reauthorizations since the program's inception, and each time there is a robust discussion of the program and its safeguards to ensure that civil liberties are protected in the collection of vital intelligence. Two years ago, a bipartisan coalition of Senators voted to reauthorize this program with 56 bipartisan reforms that have now been fully implemented by the Trump administration. The result is that 702 is the most overseen intelligence collection tool in the world.

Over the past several weeks, both Senate Democrats and Republicans have been working on a section 702 reauthorization in good faith. The bill released by Chairmen Cotton and Grassley last week includes additional bipartisan reforms over and above those included in the House-passed bill and over and above the robust guardrails already in place to ensure that 702 operates within the law and with respect for civil liberties.

On Friday, I would have expected those Democrats who have been working with us to vote to advance the bill. After all, some of the provisions in the bill were included at their request. But they didn't. Why? Because they disagree with a short-term personnel choice made by the President: his temporary appointment for Acting Director of National Intelligence.

Democrats have every right to disagree with the President's choice for this position, no matter how short-term the appointment is likely to be, but I invite my Democrat colleagues to think about what they are doing here in holding this vital intelligence collection program hostage because they don't like the President's temporary--temporary-- DNI pick.

I have talked at some length here today about the critical role that section 702 plays on a near daily basis in protecting Americans from a range of threats. And you don't have to take my word for it. The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee has also made it clear that he regards section 702 as a key intelligence source. And yet he and a number of his colleagues are holding up reauthorization because they disagree with the President's, again, temporary DNI pick.

Without Democrat cooperation, in 4 days, the section 702 program will go dark. America's enemies, however, will not--will not--go dark. They will continue working against the United States, whether that is conducting cyber attacks, planning terrorist activity, or trafficking fentanyl and other deadly drugs into our country. The only difference is that our intelligence Agencies will have a greatly reduced capacity to discover these activities.

I hope my Democrat colleagues will rethink their decision to hold the 702 program hostage before we all have cause to regret the consequences.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 742.