Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today because our national parks have been neglected for far too long.

Due to years of chronic underfunding, the Park Service has been forced to defer maintenance on thousands of assets, including trails, buildings, and historic structures, as well as thousands of miles of roads and bridges.

Today, the National Park Service faces a deferred maintenance backlog of nearly $12 billion. Incredibly, more than half of all Park Service assets are in dire need of repairs. Every member of this body has a national park in their State with a maintenance backlog of over a million dollars.

I will give you a few examples from my home State of Virginia.

At Richmond National Battlefield, the deferred maintenance backlog tops $6.5 million. At Petersburg Battlefield, one of our most historic national battlefields, the backlog is nearly $12 million, with well over half of these costs associated with the maintenance of historic buildings and landscapes.

Look at Shenandoah National Park, which is truly one of the crown jewels

of the National Park Service. Unfortunately, Shenandoah has accumulated over $79 million in deferred maintenance, which can impact the ability of visitors to take in the breathtaking sights along Skyline Drive or explore the historic Appalachian Trail.

The Blue Ridge Parkway, ``America's Favorite Drive,'' has over $460 million in deferred maintenance needs. That is almost $1 million per mile of the parkway. Over $186 million is needed in Virginia to address the parkway's backlog and ensure visitors can continue to enjoy the beauty of the Appalachian Highlands.

I will give one final example: Colonial National Historical Park, which is home to Historic Jamestown and the Yorktown Battlefield. At that park alone, we have deferred maintenance needs totaling over $420 million.

In just the last year, the maintenance backlog at Park Service sites in Virginia grew by $250 million, to over a billion dollars. Virginia now ranks third among all States in total deferred maintenance, trailing only California and the District of Columbia.

We hear lots of talk in Washington about rebuilding our infrastructure, but sometimes, we forget that a great way to begin is by revitalizing our national parks, an investment which can generate $10 in economic activity for every public dollar invested. A recent study found that fixing our national parks would create over 100,000 jobs nationwide. In Virginia, we could create nearly 10,000 jobs just by clearing the maintenance backlog.

To that end, last year Senators Portman, King, Alexander, and I introduced the National Park Service Legacy Act, which would utilize otherwise unobligated Federal mineral revenues to reduce the backlog over a 30-year period.

Since then, we have worked with a broad coalition of stakeholders, including the administration, to produce this bipartisan consensus bill to reduce the maintenance backlog at the Park Service.

Like the Legacy Act, the Restore Our Parks Act would create a fund at the Treasury Department, which would be used exclusively to address high-priority deferred maintenance needs. This fund would receive 50 percent of all unobligated annual Federal mineral revenues.

It is important to emphasize that the fund would only receive unobligated mineral revenues, meaning that allocations for other programs, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, would not be affected by this legislation.

In total, the bill is expected to raise $6.5 billion over 5 years, enough to address more than half of the current deferred maintenance backlog and completely fund the highest priority deferred maintenance projects.

This represents one of the most significant investments in the infrastructure of our national parks in the 100-year history of the Park Service. That is one reason why it has gained the support of over 100 organizations, including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the National Parks Conservation Association, and many others.

More importantly, a recent poll found overwhelming support for this legislation among the American people; 76 percent of Americans support the Restore Our Parks Act.

While this legislation will not address all of the funding problems plaguing the Park Service, it is an important first step to addressing our deferred maintenance backlog.

Again, I want to reiterate my appreciation to Senator Portman, Senator Alexander, and Senator King for their work recognizing the importance of properly funding and maintaining our National Park System. I also want to thank the administration for its support and willingness to advance this important legislation on a bipartisan basis.

I think we all agree that the time for action is now. Congress cannot continue to deny the Park Service the resources it needs to properly maintain these national treasures for future generations.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this commonsense legislation.

Tribute to Senator Hatch

Mr. President, first of all, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his impassioned plea and his work on this legislation. I intend to support this legislation. I know the story he just told and the notion that SIDS is still such a challenge to so many families are a little remarkable.

I am going to be speaking about a piece of legislation now named after another person not quite as young as Scarlett, where there was another tragedy that I hope we can act on as well. I intend to have it acted on before the end of this Congress. We are dealing with different circumstances, but there are times when we can, sometimes with relatively small legislative fixes, make a real difference in people's lives.

So I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his legislation.

Ashanti Alert Act of 2018

Mr. President, I rise to support H.R. 5075, the Ashanti Alert Act of 2018. To start, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague, the Congressman from the Second District of Virginia, Scott Taylor, for introducing this important legislation in the House of Representatives and for ushering it through the Chamber so now we can take part and pass this legislation or similar legislation in the Senate.

The Ashanti Alert Act seeks to establish a national communications network within the Department of Justice to help locate missing adults by providing assistance to regional and local search efforts.

The Ashanti Alert Act of 2018 is named after a 19-year-old Virginia resident, Ashanti Billie, who was attending culinary school in hopes of opening her own bakery one day. To preserve her dreams, she split her time between working at a Blimpie's restaurant at Fort Story and taking culinary classes at the Art Institute of Virginia Beach.

On September 18, 2017, in Norfolk, VA, Ashanti's dreams were cut short when she was abducted shortly after arriving at work. Unfortunately, Ashanti was found murdered in North Carolina 11 days after she was first reported missing.

Her parents, who were not living in Hampton Roads at that point, rushed to the region after she disappeared and spent literally 2 weeks--almost 2 weeks--trying to get law enforcement engaged and get the word out. The truth is, after she was missing for those 11 days and discovered in North Carolina, the authorities did later find and arrest her killer, but Ashanti's tragic murder raised an important question about whether more could have been done to save her life.

At the time of her abduction, at just 19 years old, Ashanti Billie was too old for the issuance of an AMBER Alert and too young for the issuance of a Silver Alert.

This tragic murder made me realize something I hadn't thought of before. We have alerts in place named after Amber for young people up to the age of 18. We have an alert system in place for seniors called Silver Alert for folks over 65. What about everybody between 18 and 65? No such alert system exists. So in the case of 19-year-old Ashanti Billie, her family had nowhere to turn to get the word out about her disappearance.

The unfortunate circumstance is--and it is again fairly remarkable that this issue has not been raised at a legislative level before because of this glaring gap of young adults and not-so-young adults, including folks who are younger than 65--Ashanti is not an isolated case. Families across the country are affected by loved ones who have gone missing. Right here in Washington, DC, we are having a conversation about the plight of missing teens, many of them young women of color and many of them who fall into that same age group as Ashanti--19, 20, 21, 22, 23. I think about my three daughters who are 23 to 29. God forbid if they were ever abducted, where would I turn to get an alert out? There is no system in place.

According to the National Crime Information Center database, over 55,000 missing adults are and have been recorded as missing. In my State, according to the Virginia State Police, there are currently 240 people aged 18 and older who have gone missing in our Commonwealth.

Of course, nobody wants to overload this kind of good, functioning alert system with too many reports which could take away the effectiveness of existing systems like the AMBER Alert Program. So this legislation addresses that issue to make sure that in order to issue an alert, the missing adult must either suffer from a proven mental or physical disability or law enforcement must certify the person's physical safety may be in danger or their disappearance was not voluntary. In this way, the Department of Justice can help States and localities create a system that provides alerts only when a missing adult is in real danger.

What I know is, we need lifesaving protections for missing adults between the ages of 18 and 64. While, as Senator Casey mentioned, we can never replace the hurt of that family because of that young child who died from SIDS, we can also never replace the hole that has been left in the Billie family by the loss of Ashanti. By passing this legislation and naming it after Ashanti--by calling it the Ashanti Alert Act--we may be able to prevent some tragedy like this from happening in the future.

It is past time for Congress to enact legislation that can help save the lives of many--many like Ashanti. As I mentioned, while we can't bring Ashanti back, her memory can live on by helping save the lives of others who may find themselves in this same kind of unfortunate situation.

I had planned to come to the floor today and ask for unanimous consent

to pass the House bill in its current form. However, out of respect to some of my colleagues who have raised nonsubstantive but certain technical issues that can be corrected, I will hold off for today on asking unanimous consent, but this legislation cannot wait. This legislation cannot be held up by technical concerns.

I am anxious to work through these concerns tonight so we can move forward, perhaps on a hotline version, so it can get back to the House, so this legislation can become law, and so the Billie family knows Ashanti's memory will be honored.

I intend to work with my colleagues tonight on making sure their corrections are included, but the spirit and heart of this legislation--no one opposes the idea that we have a system for young people on alerts under 18 and a system for folks over 65. What about the rest of the adults who also fall into these kinds of circumstances? We have to make sure they are protected as well.

I look forward to making these technical corrections. My hope is, we can get this passed even with the hotline and that we can then send appropriate legislation back to the House and fill in this needed gap.

I thank folks on both sides of the aisle and the law enforcement community for working with us. There is complete agreement that this hole needs to be filled. I think it will be filled with this legislation, and Ashanti Billie's legacy will be honored by the Ashanti Alert Act becoming the law of the land.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, a two-ship block buy would increase predictability and stability for our suppliers, including the many shipbuilders and shipyard workers in the Hampton Roads region. It would also generate significant costs savings for U.S. taxpayers. It is critical that the Navy has access to the next-generation of warships for the world's challenges, while also being responsible in how it procures and budgets. For some time, I have been encouraging the Navy to move forward with a block buy of two aircraft carriers, as it makes strategic sense. Estimates have found that it would be an opportunity to save over $2 billion in the Defense Department's budget through this block buy.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the legislation we are working on that would make sure security clearances are revoked on a going-forward basis only for valid national security reasons--not to change the subject on a bad news day,

not to threaten career government employees, and especially not to carry out political retribution.

Virginia is home to tens of thousands of dedicated men and women who serve in our intelligence and defense communities. Over the years, as Senator and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have met literally thousands of FBI agents, CIA officers, military servicemembers, contractors, and other public servants who hold security clearances. These men and women work day in and day out, often thanklessly, to keep America safe.

Do you know what? I have no idea, amongst those Americans who have those security clearances, which of them are Democrats and which of them are Republicans, and that is the way our system is supposed to work.

The Federal Government grants security clearances only to those individuals who can be trusted with our Nation's secrets. Applicants go through intense, lengthy background checks, interviews, and even, in many cases, lie detector tests, not to mention extensive rechecks for suitability every few years. Only then, after this process, do we allow them to serve in some of the toughest intelligence and national security jobs. We ask a great deal of these dedicated professionals, but what we don't ask about are their political views.

Since the mid-1990s, the Code of Federal Regulations has governed the 13 criteria under which personnel are deemed eligible or ineligible for security clearances and access to classified information. Amongst those 13 reasons to actually get a security clearance or to lose a security clearance is included: allegiance to the United States, being subjected to foreign influence, financial considerations, and others. When you look through that list of 13--and I have it over here--none of those criteria includes political speech, nor should they. Our national security is too important to infect with political partisanship.

I believe that more than ever, in light of the President's actions last week when this President revoked the clearance of former CIA Director Brennan and, equally important, if not more important, when he threatened to revoke the clearances of numerous former and even current national security professionals. These individuals collectively have hundreds of years of honorable service to our country under their belts. No one can seriously question their fitness or loyalty to this country.

Unfortunately, what we know--which is what happened last week and which, unfortunately, happens too many times out of this White House-- is that this is all about politics. According to media reports, White House officials have discussed how to issue the revocations on a going- forward basis to other enumerated individuals to distract from bad news stories. I hope these reports of the White House's plans are mistaken.

True or not, we need only listen to the President's words to know these efforts are politically motivated. I will admit I had missed the widely publicized press event at which the White House announced the President's ``enemies' list.'' Yet anyone who looks at this list will notice some common factors in that they all served in the previous administration, and in the time since, several have exercised their First Amendment right to criticize this President for his policies. Many of those on the list have also had some involvement in the investigation into Russia's assault on our democracy in 2016. For that--in many cases, for doing their jobs--they are now being punished or will be potentially punished by this President and this White House.

In the President's own words, ``These people led it . . . so I think it's something that had to be done.''

This is truly a dangerous precedent. For the first time since President Eisenhower created the security clearance process as we know it, the President of the United States is abusing one of his most important national security tools in order to punish his political opponents. As one of my friends on the other side of the aisle mentioned, it is something that would be more akin to something coming out of a banana republic.

Perhaps even more troubling is the message this President is sending to those who are currently serving in government service. It is pretty clear he is sending a message that says to think twice before working on anything this President doesn't like, to think twice before you express a political opinion, even if it is in private. The White House broadcast this message loud and clear when it threatened to revoke the clearance of a midlevel employee at the Department of Justice.

This is a clear attempt of intimidating others in the bureaucracy. If this President is successful in revoking this first wave of clearances, there is no question these actions will threaten the ongoing Russia investigation--an investigation that, again today, claimed two more guilty convictions, an investigation that has already resulted, prior to today, in 5 guilty pleas and 35 indictments. As I mentioned, today included the conviction of the President's campaign manager.

Unfortunately, the President's actions don't just harm the individuals involved; these tactics threaten our national security institutions themselves. The Pentagon, the intelligence community, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the rest of our national security structures depend on seasoned career professionals who do not act out of partisan motivations. Threatening their clearances--threatening their livelihoods and their families--is a clear attempt at undermining an ongoing, legitimate criminal investigation into what Russia did in 2016. If successful, the President's actions threaten to politicize our national security institutions even more so than they have already done.

The President has significant authority as head of the executive branch, but there is widespread agreement that he should not be able to use these powers to get payback against Americans who criticize him. All of us in this body agree that no President should be able to order the IRS to audit political enemies, and we all agree no President should be able to order wiretaps against those who displease him. We should also all agree that a President should not have the power to remove clearances for reasons that have nothing to do with national security and certainly not because an individual expresses his or her right to free speech.

I ask my colleagues to support the Warner amendment. I ask the majority leader to make sure this amendment gets a fair vote, up or down, on the floor of the Senate because I believe the Senate must take a stand against any attempts to punish political speech or to threaten our national security professionals by arbitrarily taking away their security clearances.

We currently have in place real and prudent guidelines for issuing and revoking clearances, guidelines that are based on national security and not on political considerations. We cannot allow those to be supplemented by crass partisanship or attempts by this President to punish his enemies. We have come way too far from the dark days of Watergate to allow this type of attack against career professionals who have faithfully served our Nation with honor and dignity. We should demand better from this President. We can take that action by passing this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, family obligations unfortunately have kept me from being present for the cloture vote today on the nomination of Britt Grant, of Georgia, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Eleventh Circuit. I have grave concerns about Justice Grant's qualifications and her record, and, had I been present, I would have voted against cloture on her nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today on another subject, but I want to touch on the conversation that has been going on here on the floor.

I agree with my colleague, my friend, the Senator from Illinois. Our country is better than this.

I had an opportunity to visit one of the facilities in Virginia where some of the children who had been separated were placed. It was a good facility, and they were well cared for, but it still begged the question of unaccompanied minors being separated from their families.

I saw on a news report today that some of the children have been reunited, but for close to 1,400 of these kids, the determination has been made that they should not be reunited with their parents. What does it mean to those kids? What does it mean to those families? What does it also mean, then, to our country's obligation to take care of these kids since we are now saying that we are not going to reunite them with their families? Not only from a moral sense, but does that mean that we pick up a long-term obligation on these children? If there had been a really thought-through policy, I think we would have had some of these answers on the front end.

So I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want to get to a bipartisan solution set here. I think the images that have been etched on so many Americans' minds when they saw the images of children being separated from their moms and dads at such an early age actually led to a moral gag reflex. Regardless of what party Americans support, or even if they support the President, I think there was an overwhelming sense that this is not who we are as a people.

I am willing to meet anyone halfway to make sure that these kids who have been separated are reunited, but, more importantly, that our country is never again put in this circumstance where we are, in a sense, put on stage, not only for the American people but for the rest of the world. This is not who we are as Americans.

Supporting Federal Employees

Mr. President, the reason I came to the floor today is on another subject that I think is of extreme importance. I rise today with great gratitude for the men and women all across our country who serve our Federal Government.

Virginia is home to 178,000 of these public servants. Also in Virginia we have over 90,000 Active-Duty members of our military. While many of our Federal employees in Virginia live in the DMV, or in the greater Capital region, the truth is that even in a State like ours, the Commonwealth of Virginia, 79 percent of our Federal workers live outside the beltway.

As someone who has spent longer in business and in management than I have as a Senator, I know one of the things that any good business leader does--or, for that matter, what I tried to do when I was Governor of the State--is how you treat your workforce, and that reflects in the quality of service that the workforce provides to its customers. In this case, the customers of the Federal Government are the American people.

The work of our Federal Government and the way our Federal Government invests in its workforce--the way we manage and invest in human capital--is not by any means a partisan matter. For that matter, coming from the Commonwealth of Virginia, a State with so many Federal workers, it is not by any means a parochial issue. This is an issue that impacts all Americans--all Americans who pay taxes, who follow our laws, and who expect the Federal Government to work for them and to work well and in an efficient manner.

That is why I also rise today with great concern about recent efforts by this administration to scapegoat and undermine the work of our Federal employees.

It started with hiring freezes that threw a wrench into the day-to- day operations of nearly every Federal agency. Frankly, this wrench was thrown in with no apparent benefit to the taxpayers at large. It continued with Executive orders undermining workforce protections for Federal workers and their ability to organize as part of a union and to have that collective voice heard in terms of representations with management. It culminated last month with the Trump administration's plan to freeze Federal employee pay and cut retirement benefits for 2.6 million Federal retirees and survivors--2.6 million Federal retirees and survivors having their retirement benefits cut. This is the thanks our Federal employees get for their service.

President Trump campaigned on a promise to drain the swamp, but the great irony is that the most glaring instances of failure and corruption at the Federal level in recent months have

not come from career Federal employees. They have come from appointees installed by this administration.

Look no further than the EPA, where the American people saw some of the most blatant examples of swamp-like behavior in the waste and abuse from former EPA administrator Mr. Pruitt.

We also saw that, with few exceptions, those at the EPA with the courage to stand up and say ``this is not OK'' were not appointees but were career Federal employees. For some, that meant they were either demoted or reassigned in retaliation, all because they had the courage to speak up and do what was right. This is the thanks that our Federal employees got for their service, for trying to protect taxpayer funds, for their service of trying to prevent waste and fraud, and for their service of trying to point out the swamp-like behavior of Mr. Trump and his appointee Scott Pruitt.

Unfortunately, these issues don't appear to be confined to the walls of one agency or one rogue administrator. We have seen disturbing reports of Trump political appointees purging career employees at the State Department and at the Veterans' Administration. These reports should concern all of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--who believe in good and honest government by and for the people.

Now, my hope is that we can stop this ongoing onslaught on our Federal workforce. We will have differences, but as somebody who has spent longer in business than I have in government, if you want your workforce to do well, you need to reward those who do well and challenge and penalize those who don't perform, but not take these broad brushstrokes that unfortunately have come out of this administration, frankly, undermining both the performance and the morale of Federal employees who serve day in and day out without a lot of recognition.

Before I close, I want to make another comment on this subject, because there is one part of our Federal Government, in particular, where naked partisanship threatens not only the functioning of the government but really the rule of law itself. I am speaking, of course, about the attacks--ad hominem, in most cases--against our Federal law enforcement agencies and our intelligence community.

The intelligence community, as we know, was founded 71 years ago tomorrow, when President Truman signed the National Security Act. That date, July 26, also marks the 110th birthday of the FBI, as well as Intelligence Professionals Day, a time to show our gratitude to those brave men and women who keep us safe every day--if only this gratitude, which I know is shared by people on both sides of the aisle, were shared by our current Commander in Chief.

Unfortunately, in the months since Russia attacked the very institutions of our democracy, we have seen some of the most bizarre reactions from the President and his allies. Instead of uniting our country behind the cause of defending democracy and bringing our adversaries to justice, this President has led an all-out attack on the credibility of the FBI, the Justice Department, and our intelligence community, demeaning career FBI officials who have saved countless American lives over their careers and impugning the motives of Special Counsel Mueller, perhaps the most respected Federal lawman of this generation.

Worst of all, we saw the President of the United States stand on stage with Vladimir Putin last week and publicly side with Putin over the career men and women of our intelligence community, many of whom risk their lives on a daily basis in order to keep our country safe. This is the thanks they get for their years of service, oftentimes-- particularly folks in the intelligence community--without any recognition.

The men and women of the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the intelligence community deserve better. All of our public servants deserve better than what we have seen from this administration.

My advice for this President, if he is really serious about draining the swamp, is to leave our Federal employees alone and to take a good look at some of the folks he has appointed within his own administration.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the important efforts made each day by our public servants.

At the beginning of this month, this very body honored our public servants by adopting a resolution marking the first week of May as Public Service Recognition Week. We need to do more to continue that sentiment year round. But on the same day the Senate adopted a resolution honoring our public servants, Congress received a letter from the administration looking to use Federal employees to solve our budget problems, with cuts to retirement and freezes in pay. Is this really in the best interest of our public servants? Is this really the best method to attract and retain the best and the brightest to work across vital agencies to keep our government running?

That is why today I wish to continue the longstanding tradition of honoring exemplary Federal employees--a tradition that was begun by my friend Senator Ted Kaufman from Delaware. It is my hope that the story of these five Virginians will remind my colleagues and the administration that public servants go to work every day with the sole mission to make this country a better and safer place to live.

First, I would like to acknowledge Stephen Curren. In Stephen's capacity as Director of the Division of Resilience at the Department of Health and Human Services, he coordinated the national response to help protect public and private healthcare computer systems from the worst effects of WannaCry, a global cyber attack that threatened patients' health and safety.

Stephen's team applied existing processes for dealing with physical disasters like hurricanes and tornados and adapted them to prepare for a cyber attack response. They continue the critical work necessary to improve the collaboration on cyber security with private healthcare agencies and the public.

Next, I would like to share a bit about Guy Demeter, the FBI's first-

ever data scientist. In his work, Guy develops technological solutions to organize the Bureau's data and has helped the FBI to track down child predators, identify banks evading sanctions, assist counterterrorism investigations, and guard against internal threats. His innovative strategies are efficient, cost-effective, and have been a crucial part of increasing our national security.

Third, I would like to recognize the work of Matt Nims, the Acting Director of the Office of Food for Peace at USAID. Under Matt's leadership, last year his office distributed emergency food and nutrition assistance to 20 million people facing severe hunger and starvation in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan, and northeast Nigeria as a result of drought, extreme poverty, and violent armed conflicts.

Matt's team used data from USAID's Famine Early Warning Systems Network to anticipate food shortages before they became full-fledged crises and then developed innovative ways to deliver food, plan managed food distribution, and keep up with the day-to-day challenges of working under difficult and dangerous conditions, saving countless lives.

Next, I would like to recognize Andy Neal. Andy is the Branch Chief for Actuarial and Catastrophic Modeling at FEMA. We have all seen the devastating effects of floods across the country, but what many don't know is that the National Flood Insurance Program provides critical financial help to victims of hurricanes and other storms. By the end of 2016, the program was $25 billion in debt.

In response, Andy led his team in an unprecedented effort to persuade private reinsurers for the first time to assume some potential flood damage liability. They were extremely successful. The government paid 25 private insurance companies $150 million in premiums in 2017, and the insurers ended up covering more than $1 billion of the $7.6 billion in claims to policyholders in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, and has secured even more coverage for 2018.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to recognize David Huizenga, the Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

In his everyday work, David confronts some of our most pressing international threats, formulating national security policy, monitoring compliance with nuclear agreements, and working with other nations to safeguard nuclear stockpiles and reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism.

In the past 3 years, David has worked to remove nuclear material from Poland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Japan, and Ghana, relying on relationships with his international counterparts to make the world more secure. Here in the United States, David and his team have also worked to reduce the amount of radioactive materials used in medical and commercial applications. A Federal employee for 28 years, David's work as a nonproliferation expert is widely respected both in the United States and around the world.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring these outstanding individuals, as well as government employees at all levels around the country, for their excellent work and their commitment to public service.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Senator will yield.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume executive session and consideration of the Haspel nomination.

Madam President, I thank our friend, the chairman of the committee, the Senator from North Carolina.

We have gone through a lot over the last couple of years, and I appreciate the fact that in terms of timing, he is going to allow me to speak first on Gina Haspel.

Gina Haspel is among the most qualified people to be nominated for the position of the Director of the CIA. She has served with the Agency for 33 years, including tours as a Case Officer, four times as a Station Chief, the Deputy Chief of National Resources Division, the Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service, and currently as the Deputy Director of the Agency. In many ways, her story is representative of the thousands of people at the Agency and throughout the intelligence community who serve quietly, without recognition, and often at great personal risk in order to keep our Nation safe from those who wish to do us harm.

In addition, while she has not emphasized this, we should not overlook the historic nature of Ms. Haspel's nomination as the first woman to be nominated as Director of the CIA. Seeing her portrait in the halls of the Agency next to the long line of former Directors will be a long overdue but important breakthrough for the intelligence community.

I would also note that as a Senator from Virginia, the home to thousands of CIA personnel and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have heard from many Agency officers--and for that matter, members of the rank and file of other intelligence community agencies-- and almost to a person, the rank and file have supported her nomination.

Let me be clear. This has not been an easy decision for me. Over the past several weeks, I have held multiple meetings and calls with Ms. Haspel and many others about her record and her character. In our open hearing, I raised questions about her involvement with the rendition, detention, and interrogation program and, if she were to be confirmed, her willingness to push back if President Trump asked her to undertake any immoral or legally questionable activity. I questioned her willingness to declassify, to the extent possible, more information about her background at the Agency. I still wish more could be done to discuss her background in an open setting. The Agency just recently has declassified more information about her service with the counterterrorism center. I thank them for that but still believe it would have been preferable if we could have found a way to be even more transparent. If she is confirmed as Director, I would encourage Ms. Haspel to keep this in mind.

To those here who have concluded that Ms. Haspel's background with the RDI program should preclude her from leading the CIA, well, I respect their arguments, and I know the passion with which they put forward their position. I myself struggled with this point.

Many people at the CIA participated in the program. They were told it was legal by the Justice Department and ordered by the President, but some of the actions undertaken were repugnant and amounted to torture. Since those days, America has had a long debate about the standards that we, as a nation, can and should apply to the treatment of detainees regardless of who they might be. That is why I was one of the 17 cosponsors in the Senate of the McCain-Feinstein amendment to prohibit torture and to prohibit any interrogation techniques not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual. That is why I voted to both approve and to declassify the Senate Intelligence Committee's extensive study of the RDI program.

I strongly believe that we, as Americans, have a duty to look squarely at our mistakes and not to sweep them under the rug but to learn from them and, in the future, to do better. Nor do I believe that we can excuse torture or the way in which detainees--no matter who they were or what crimes they were guilty of--were treated. We are better than that, and we need a CIA Director who will ensure in an ironclad way that we will never return to those days, that we will follow the law as enacted by Congress.

This is why I pushed Ms. Haspel, both in our hearings and in our private meetings, on this very point: What is her view now of the RDI program? And how will she react if she were asked, as Director, to undertake something similar in the future? In both our one-on-one meetings and in classified sessions before the committee, I found Acting Director Haspel to be forthcoming regarding her views on that program. However, I thought it was important that she say this in public, not just privately, which is why I asked her to memorialize those comments in writing.

Gina Haspel wrote: ``With the benefit of hindsight and my experience as a senior Agency leader, the enhanced interrogation program is not one the CIA should have undertaken.''

I believe this is a clear statement of growth as a leader and learning from mistakes of the past. While I also wish that she would have been more forceful, I also understand her reluctance to condemn the many men and women at the Agency who thought they were doing the right thing at that time.

I first met Gina at one of her overseas postings, but I didn't really get to work with her until this last year, when the former Director appointed her to be Deputy Director of the Agency. Over the last year, I have found her to be professional and forthright with our Intelligence Committee.

I have had the ability to have candid, unfiltered discussions with her. Whether the challenge we confront is North Korea, ISIS terrorists, or the long-term challenges of countries like China and Russia, I will feel safer knowing that the CIA has Ms. Haspel at the helm.

Most importantly, I believe she is someone who can and will stand up to

the President and who will speak truth to power. If this President orders her to do something illegal or immoral, such as return to torture, she will refuse. I believe this not just because she has told me so or because she wrote it in a letter or even because she said it in front of the committee under oath; I believe it, as well, because I have heard it from people who have worked with her for years, people who know and trust her--John Brennan, Jim Clapper, Leon Panetta, Jim Mattis, and many, many others who have served Presidents of both parties. Every one of them has said that they trust her to push back on actions that might be inappropriate coming from this President.

I furthermore believe that she is someone who will push back--and push back strongly--against any attempts by this President to undercut, denigrate, or ignore the professional men and women of the CIA and their responsibility, again--first and foremost--to speak truth to power, whatever the political implications may be.

It is for these reasons that I am supporting Gina Haspel's nomination to be the Director of the CIA. I respect my colleagues who made a different decision. This is not an easy choice. I, too, have spent weeks working through it, but at the end of the day and as we vote, hopefully, later this afternoon, I believe Gina Haspel should be confirmed. I look forward to supporting her. I look forward to her being a good Director of the CIA. I look forward to her performance, convincing those who could not support her today that her long-term value to our country will make our Nation safer and that she will act in accordance with the principles and values of our country.

I yield the floor and 30 seconds to my colleague, the chairman of the committee.

I want to thank him, as well, for continuing to push not only Ms. Haspel but the Agency, the Department of Justice, and others to make sure that members of the committee and, to another extent, Members of the Senate had as much access to information as ever before with any CIA Director. I value our working relationship with the committee. Sometimes the chairman and I don't always agree, but we always deal with things in a straightforward manner.

I yield the floor to my dear friend, the chairman.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about some specific provisions S. 2155.

I was proud to be one of the original drafters of Dodd-Frank legislation. We didn't get everything right in that bill. With the benefit of 8 years of hindsight, we have been able to see what has worked and what hasn't.

Most of what hasn't worked well has been the excessive burdens put on community banks. The bill the Senate considered today, one that I am a proud cosponsor of, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, does a lot of good for community banks and many regional banks by reducing some of the compliance costs these banks face, so that they may better compete and end the phenomenon of ``too small to survive.''

Since the crisis, however, what has worked best is increased capital requirements and an updated capital planning regime for medium and large-sized banks. Put simply, no amount of prudential regulation on products or business lines can substitute for requiring banks to keep robust capital cushions. Ensuring that banks hold significant loss absorbing, capital is the best protection we have against the failure of banks during a crisis. It is also the best tool we have to make sure that even in an economic downturn, banks still have the ability to lend to creditworthy borrowers, so that we can rebound quickly from a downturn.

Critically, S. 2155 makes no changes to the risk-based capital regime for regional and large banks that has been the centerpiece of the Federal Reserve's post-crisis work.

The international Basel III capital accord was agreed by banking regulators in 2010 to 2011. As implemented in the US, Basel III requires a minimum Common Equity Tier 1, CET1, ratio of 4.5 percent, up from 2 percent in Basel II. Minimum tier 1 capital increased from 4 percent in Basel II to 6 percent in Basel III, which includes additional 1.5 percent on top of the required CET1 ratio. The U.S. has finalized rules to implement two additional capital buffers on top of this 6 percent baseline tier 1 capital requirement: a mandatory capital conservation buffer, as adjusted by a risk-weighted capital surcharge on U.S. G-SIBs, and a discretionary countercyclical buffer, which the Fed can use to require additional capital during periods of high credit growth.

These risk-based capital requirements, as implemented by the U.S. banking regulators, have formed a core part of the U.S. bank regulatory response to the financial crisis. S. 2155 changes none of these requirements for regional and large banks.

An important complement to risk-based capital requirements is supervisory stress testing. Stress tests help make sure that banks have adequate capital to absorb losses and more still to lend even in a serious recession so that they will be able to continue to lend to households and businesses. S. 2155 did not modify the requirement that banks larger than $250 billion must continue to undergo annual supervisory stress tests. Regional banks between $100 billion and $250 billion must also continue to undergo what Chair Powell called before the Banking Committee meaningful, strong, and frequent stress tests.

Let me make clear: S. 2155 uses the same language as Dodd-Frank to describe the stress test that should apply to banks between $100 billion and $250 billion because we believe the stress tests applied to those banks should continue to be meaningful assessments of the capital adequacy of those institutions under severely adverse conditions. The requirement in section 401 to conduct stress tests of those banks would be satisfied by continuing to apply the section 165 supervisory stress tests to those banks. We have chosen to single out stress tests for banks between $100 billion and $250 billion because we believe it is the most important enhanced prudential standard in section 165 of Dodd- Frank.

We believe it is prudent for the Federal Reserve to have discretion to apply the other enumerated enhanced prudential standards in section 165 to those or a subset of those banks as part of the strong and tailored regime that should apply to those banks going forward. Indeed, under the bill, the Fed can apply an enhanced prudential standard to those banks for financial stability reasons or simply to ``promote the safety and soundness'' of a bank, which is a low standard. Although the Fed is the entity that is best positioned to make the determination for many enhanced prudential

standards, Congress believes that meaningful, strong and frequent stress tests are non-negotiable.

Supervisory stress tests alone, however, do not set any capital ratios or limit any capital actions by the banks. The Federal Reserve's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review, CCAR, framework, however, integrates supervisory stress testing with risk-based capital requirements to assess the overall capital adequacy of banks, making it the most important supervisory tool the Federal Reserve has for larger banks. Specifically, CCAR requires evaluations of whether each bank's capital provides an adequate buffer for the losses that would be incurred during the stress scenarios, whether its risk management and capital planning processes are appropriately well-developed and governed and how its dividend or buyback plans could affect its ability to remain viable in stressed conditions. The Federal Reserve may object--and has objected--to a capital plan based on quantitative or qualitative concerns. If it does, the bank is not permitted to make any capital distribution without Fed authorization.

The Federal Reserve, without direction from Congress, has taken actions under both former Chair Yellen and Chair Powell to refine the CCAR process to reduce regulatory burdens. For example, in 2016, the Fed announced that smaller banks subject to CCAR would not need to be subject to the same qualitative requirements as larger, more complex banks. That was a sensible change.

Congress has shown it knows how to exercise its article I prerogative in many places in S. 2155 to adjust, tailor, and modify thresholds for applicability for rules that apply to banks that have $50 billion or more in assets, but Congress has not made any changes to CCAR in S. 2155. The omission of CCAR and the capital plan rule from the changes that S. 2155 has made to section 165 and some regulations affecting some banks is intentional and reflects the continued importance this Congress places upon the continued existence of a robust CCAR process and the premise that the Fed will continue to use this most important supervisory tool appropriately.

That covers risk-based capital, but let me reiterate a point I made in my prior floor speech on this bill, about the importance of the leverage ratio. Basel III requires 3 percent tier 1 capital divided by the bank's average total consolidated assets. The U.S. implementation goes further and requires a minimum leverage ratio of 6 percent for SIFI banks and 5 percent for their bank holding companies. That is generally a good thing. One of the many lessons of the financial crisis was that regulators and bankers alike should approach risk modeling with a degree of humility. A strong leverage ratio is an important backstop to risk-based requirements that depend on banks and regulators' abilities to predict the future.

Current and former Federal Reserve officials from Governor Tarullo, to former Chair Volcker, and former Chair Yellen, to Chair Powell have said that the leverage ratio should in general not be the binding capital constraint for banks, as it tends to be for the custody banks today. The leverage ratio is meant to be, in the words of Jay Powell, ``an important backstop to the risk-based capital framework,'' but noted that ``it is important to get the relative calibrations of the leverage ratio and the risk-based capital requirements right'' because ``doing so is critical to mitigating any perverse incentives and preventing distortions in money markets and other safe asset markets.''

Let's be clear. Section 402 provides relief to only three banks: Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, and Northern Trust. I have seen some raise the concern that the language in section 402 could be read to provide relief to a broader set of banks. That is not a credible reading of the statutory language or our legislative intent. Section 402 says that, in order to receive relief, a ``custody bank'' must be ``predominantly engaged in custody, safekeeping, and asset servicing activities'' to gain the benefit of this provision. This provision does not mean that, if a bank has a large custodial business, it should get relief, nor is this an invitation to exclude other assets from the calculation of total assets for purposes of the leverage ratio. This is a targeted fix for a narrow problem.

So what is the net result of all this technical capital planning and stress testing work that the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators have developed since 2008? Today, U.S. G-SIBs are have two times the amount of capital than they had precrisis. Even if we went through an economic downturn worse than the financial crisis, banks would have 50 percent more capital after absorbing losses than they did in 2008. The substantial increase in capital extends to banks that are smaller than the G-SIBs. The common equity capital ratio of the 34 bank holding companies in the 2017 CCAR has more than doubled from 5.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009 to 12.5 percent in the first quarter of 2017. This reflects an increase of more than $750 billion in common equity capital to a total of $1.25 trillion by the first quarter of 2017.

That is exactly where we should be.

I am proud to have contributed significantly to both Dodd-Frank and the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. S. 2155 is in many ways as notable for what it doesn't do, particularly with respect to capital requirements, as much as what it does do.

I thank the distinguished chair.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my good friend, the Senator Indiana, for his great work on this and actually getting rid of half of my speech. I think he started to go through, in very good detail, a number of the new consumer protections that are put into this legislation, and a lot of that is due to his good work.

The truth is, in a few days, we may actually do something that hasn't been seen in a really long time--the Senate producing a meaningful piece of legislation with a strong bipartisan coalition.

Now, neither side got everything they wanted. I compliment the chairman for his good work, but as my friend from Indiana--you should have seen the original list of wants of the Senator from Idaho. The truth is, we are only here because, at the end of the day, we all went back and recognized the people we work for--our constituents in our respective States and, for that matter, Americans at large--one, they want to see the Senate work; and, two, they want to see it work in a meaningful way to protect people's lives. What this legislation will do is, bottom line, make sure there is more access to capital on Main Street by cutting some of the excessive regulations on community banks and credit unions, as well as a number of the consumer protection items and others that have been put forward. It also provides some relief for regional banks and, as mentioned, major expansion of consumer protections.

Let me also step back. As somebody who got to the Senate right after the financial crisis, we all know the system needed stronger financial reform a decade ago, and I am very proud of the role I played, in some small way, on drafting Dodd-Frank. Title I and title II were areas that then-Chairman Dodd gave me a great deal of responsibility.

Let me be clear that I will do nothing and support no legislation that seriously undermines or cuts back on the provisions and the systemic protections that were put in place by title I and title II and, for that matter, for all of Dodd-Frank, but 8 years later--2 years it took us to do the bill--there is widespread agreement that some of the standards we set in Dodd-Frank needed time for review.

One of those was the standard we put in place at the $50 billion threshold for enhanced prudential standards. We know, 8 years later, that number is just too low. There is a legitimate debate about where that standard should be reset, but recognizing that this standard was set 8 years ago at $50 billion, if you just take inflation and growth in the economy, it would be dramatically different. That is a view shared by Federal Reserve Gov. Dan Tarullo, who is the architect of much of the legislation implementing Dodd-Frank. It is also the view of former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and current Reserve Chair Jay Powell.

The fact is, there is an awful lot of difference even between some of these regional banks and some of the largest six banks in our country. At this point, they still control about 60 percent of all total assets.

If we don't do this legislation, what we will see--and this is where, again, I have to disagree with some of my Democratic colleagues--is there will be more pressure on consolidation, not only for community banks and credit unions but, for that matter, more consolidation among regional banks, which will place more and more power in those largest of institutions, where I think we have pretty good protections and protections that we don't want back at all in this legislation, but I don't think we ought to encourage that greater consolidation. So, again, we focus not only on community banks and credit unions but also on some of these regional banks.

I want to make clear, what we have done is make no changes to the applicability of enhanced prudential standards for the big banks with assets above $250 billion. These are both the largest and, in many ways, because of some of their products, the riskiest financial institutions, and the full set of postcrisis regulations should apply to

them, but we have required the Fed to tailor those standards appropriately for banks with total assets between $100 billion and $250 billion. I want to highlight that the bill actually sets a very low bar for the Fed to apply enhanced standards to regional banks.

Under the bill, the Fed can apply enhanced prudential standards to a bank with assets larger than $100 billion for financial stability reasons or to promote the safety and soundness of the bank--part of their traditional prudential regulations as they stand, but I don't think every enhanced prudential standard should apply to every bank with assets larger than $100 billion. There is a broad agreement that standards should be tailored for this group.

Again, let me cite someone whom most of the folks on this side of the aisle, myself included, have a great deal of respect for: former Fed Chair Janet Yellen. She called this bill ``a move in a direction that we think would be good.''

More recently, Chairman Powell testified that the Fed will implement standards over the next 18 months for banks with assets between $100 billion and $250 billion. Chairman Powell also testified that the regional banks will continue to be subject to the most important enhanced prudential standard: meaningful, strong, and frequent stress tests. Those are his words, not mine. He called himself a strong believer in stress testing. Again, let me say, so am I.

Critically, again, this bill does not change the existing requirement that the Fed conduct annual stress tests on banks with assets larger than $250 billion. I know I am getting into a lot of details, but details in banking regulations are important. Again, unfortunately, I don't think some of my colleagues who are in opposition to the bill are setting out what this bill truly does or doesn't do.

Again, let me point out another thing on stress tests. The bill also does not alter the comprehensive capital analysis and review or what banking regulators call the CCAR process. The Fed capital planning process is actually not part of Dodd-Frank, but it is another core pillar of the Fed's supervisory regime. We believe it should continue to apply as much as it does today.

So for banks within this $100 billion to $250 billion range, you have not only CCAR, but you have the chairman himself saying he will put in place--somewhat similar to the existing DFAST stress test--meaningful, strong, and frequent stress tests. As has been mentioned as well, banks with assets above $250 billion should expect to have the annual stress test.

Let me touch on another subject, foreign banks. Another thing this bill does not do is change the enhanced prudential standards applied to the largest foreign banks' U.S. operations. This gets pretty technical, but I think for the record it is important that it is reflected.

All foreign G-SIBs that have total consolidated assets greater than $250 billion have enhanced prudential standards, and those enhanced prudential standards will continue to apply to these largest and systemic important foreign banks, and the Fed will continue to have the authority to apply these enhanced prudential standards on foreign banks with total consolidated assets of more than $100 billion.

So a large foreign bank--let's say Deutsche Bank, for example, that had problems recently--that may have only $100 billion or less than $250 billion of American assets, but the fact that their consolidated balance sheet has greater than $250 billion will mean that the Fed will continue to enhance the full G-SIB regulation.

Again, let's move to Chairman Powell. He was approved by 84 Senators to this post--40 Democrats. He made clear in his Banking Committee testimony that the Fed requires establishment of intermediate holding companies by certain foreign banking organizations independently of Dodd-Frank. Chair Powell made clear that nothing in this bill requires any change to the IHC requirement. This is by design, as we believe the IHC requirement is an important innovation that greatly helps international holding companies. For those keeping track of these comments, it is an important innovation that greatly helps the Federal Reserve supervise and apply enhanced prudential standards to the U.S. operations of foreign banks.

As explained by the Federal Reserve in its final rule, in applying enhanced prudential standards to foreign banking organizations, there were unique financial stability issues associated with some of the large foreign banks' operations in the United States during the crisis.

We remember that it was some of the foreign banks and operations in the United States that were part of causing the crisis back in 2008, and those enhanced standards need to stay in place.

In that final rule and in other rules implementing prudential requirements for the intermediate holding companies of foreign banks, the Federal Reserve has distinguished between which standards should apply to U.S. banks and the IHCs of foreign banks and how they should apply it.

The Federal Reserve remains fully capable of assessing the unique risks associated with large foreign banks' U.S. operations and applying appropriate enhanced prudential standards on these institutions and their IHCs, giving due regard to the principle of competitive equality, while remaining focused on the mandate under this bill and under section 165 of Dodd-Frank to protect financial stability and safety and soundness.

This is the final point I want to make. I also want to make clear that my support for section 402 in this bill--again, which deals with a technical issue but a very important issue, the supplemental leverage issue, which excludes deposits from the calculation of supplemental leverage ratio for custody banks--this exclusion for custody banks, those assets deposited within a central bank, such as the Fed, while we are carving out this one exclusion, it does not mean that I support removing other assets from the calculation of that leverage ratio.

Again, there is widespread agreement from former Governor Tarullo to current Chair Powell that the leverage ratio should not be the binding capital constraint on custody banks because of a unique business model that relies on less risky business.

When the leverage ratio is the binding constraint on a business, it encourages actually riskier activity and rewards making bets that tend to decrease, rather than increase, safety and soundness. That gives the wrong incentive. This bill will fix the narrow problem that exists for custody banks and goes no further.

I personally say that I would have no support for any movement further than what is narrowly carved out in this bill.

I know my friend the Senator from Vermont is here, and he will have a different opinion on some of these issues, but I want to again thank Senator Crapo. As well, I do hope we will have a chance to enter into further colloquy on this debate and to further make clear for the record both his and my support for strong capital, that our system is stronger and, particularly for the largest institutions, that nothing we are doing will reverse keeping American banks the strongest in the world.

I know there are strong opinions on the other side. I look forward to the continued debate. I look forward to a managers' package that I believe will actually continue to expand certain areas around consumer protections and other areas where there is broad-based general agreement. I look forward to the conclusion of this debate and an amendment process that again allows other issues to be vetted.

With that, I thank the chairman, and I look forward to further discussions.

Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator a question--we

may come back for a more formal colloquy at some point. We are working on some additional language to further reinforce this point.

I thank the chairman for his good work on this bill. I am thankful for the fact that the legislative Record will reflect at least this short conversation and other speeches and conversations which recognize that a consolidated balance sheet of foreign banks, if they only have $100 billion in assets in the United States but $1 trillion in total assets, will still be subject to the enhanced prudential standards.

Again, I thank the chairman and look forward to continued debate.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the dedicated career and service to the Congress and the intelligence community of Kerry Sutten, who is retiring at the end of this month after more than 20 years of service in both the executive and legislative branches of our government. Kerry dedicated his professional career to help keep our Nation safe and to improve our government and intelligence community. We thank him for his dedication.

Kerry is leaving the Senate as the deputy minority staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a post he has held for the last 2\1/2\ years. He first joined the committee as the head of the committee's collection review, a study looking at the intelligence activities of all the IC. During his time on the committee, Kerry has worked tirelessly to help the committee rigorously oversee the 17 intelligence agencies that make up our national intelligence community and has especially dedicated himself to improving the oversight of the IC's inspectors general and to the protection of IC whistleblowers. His efforts in these subjects have been invaluable.

Prior to joining the committee, Kerry served in a variety of roles in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), including spending almost 5 years as the lead for intelligence community strategic planning in the Office of Systems and Resource Analysis, (SRA). In that capacity, Kerry was responsible for helping provide resource direction for the entirety of the IC, developing integrated planning guidance for the various intelligence programs, and managing the development of strategic priorities.

In addition to his time in SRA, Kerry held important roles in the Business Transformation Office at ODNI and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Kerry was also instrumental in helping to create the national counterterrorism budget, a key accomplishment in his time at the National Counterterrorism Center, (NCTC), where he served for almost 2 years as a Senior Program and Resource Officer. Prior to joining the IC, Mr. Sutten spent almost 5 years supporting the Director of the Bureau

of Economic Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce, was the Director for Congressional and Intragovernmental Affairs at the Economics and Statistics Administration, and worked for 2 years at the Bureau of the Census. Kerry began his governmental career as a Senior Economist at the Joint Economic Committee in July 1997.

During his time in the government, Kerry won a wide variety of performance awards for his work. However, I am sure that he feels his most important award is his forthcoming and well-deserved retirement. Kerry plans to relocate full-time to the Sperryville, VA, area, where he owns and runs a popular coffee shop. Kerry's plans include expanding the services offered by his shop to include a wine bar, and he has expressed an interest in raising chickens and miniature goats. While these subjects are far from the expertise he has shown in his time in and around the intelligence community, I am sure he will excel at them just as he has in his time with SSCI.

Kerry Sutten, we wish you great success and great happiness in your retirement. Thank you for your years of service.

Mr. President, I want to echo a number of the comments my friend, the chairman, the Senator from North Carolina made. Ten days ago, we asked for reauthorization of section 702, and I came to this floor and advocated that this was a critically important tool. Part of the reforms of that legislation would even give us more insight into how that tool was used. We said, at that point, not only to those Members who didn't agree with us on that but to all of the Members--for that matter, the American people--that the Intelligence Committee would continue its vigorous oversight of that program and other programs.

Being on the Intelligence Committee, at least until recently, has not been necessarily all that high attention and profile. We spend hundreds and hundreds of hours every month in a SCIF. One of the things I find so rewarding about the Intelligence Committee's work is that on issue after issue, you couldn't tell who is a Democrat and Republican. We all take extraordinarily serious our oversight responsibilities.

If this exemption is granted, you could potentially have an administration--any administration--go off and take on covert activities, for example, with no ability for our committee, which spends the time and has the oversight, to say timeout or to say we actually disagree with that policy.

I have been very disturbed about the whole process that arose in the House, how it was attempted to get slipped in. I hope, as well as the chairman, that no Member would choose to object. If they do choose to object, I hope they will be able to explain to the American public why they would want to remove the Intelligence Committee's ability to monitor, and then if we make a decision, withdraw funds if we don't agree and have that ongoing tool that is one of the most key components of our oversight responsibility--why they would want to, in effect, give any administration, for that matter, a blank check.

Again, my hope is no one will object to this request; that we will continue the policies that existed for as long as I have been on the committee; and that those of us on that committee will continue to take the responsibility of oversight very seriously and will continue to do it in a bipartisan way.

With that, I yield back to the chairman.

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

Madam President, I rise very briefly to thank my friend, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

One more time, I urge all of our colleagues to vote for S. 139, which will be coming up for a vote in a few moments.

This is a critical tool that our intelligence community uses on a regular basis to keep America safe. It is a tool that--as someone who has more, perhaps, observance of this program than most--I do not believe has been abused or will be abused. This legislation includes meaningful reforms on furthering civil liberties protections and making sure that a year from now, the questions that many Members have asked over the years, particularly of the Bureau, will be answered.

I think this foreminded legislation needs to pass and needs to pass with an overwhelming majority.

Again, I thank the chairman for his good work. We had a 12-to-3 vote out of our committee on this legislation. We had a 60-to-38 vote that moved us forward on the cloture motion. My hope is that many other colleagues who care deeply about national security will join us in the final passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, the chairman of our committee, the Senator from North Carolina, for his work on this important piece of legislation.

I obviously rise today in support of passage of S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017. This bill would provide significant reforms that enhance the civil liberties and privacy protections of individuals, while preserving an authority critical to our national security for an additional 6 years.

As vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have long advocated for reforms to surveillance authorities that balance the imperatives of national security and counterterrorism with the privacy rights and civil liberties of Americans.

Section 702 stands among the most important of our intelligence programs. To illustrate, I wish to highlight very briefly one recently declassified success story involving a terrorist by the name of Hajji Iman.

Hajji Iman was the second in command of ISIS based in Syria. NSA spent more than 2 years looking for him. This search was ultimately successful, primarily because of FISA section 702.

NSA used collection permitted and authorized under section 702 to collect intelligence on the close associates and the network supporting Mr. Iman, including their location in Syria. Between section 702 and other intelligence that was developed, the IC was able to track down the movements of Mr. Iman and ultimately resulted in taking him off the battlefield.

This is but one of numerous examples in which information obtained pursuant to section 702 has proven critical to addressing threats to Americans both domestically and abroad.

For much of the past year and a half, I have worked closely with Chairman Burr and a bipartisan group of Senators to pass legislation to reauthorize section 702 for an extended period while incorporating substantive reforms. In October our Senate Intelligence Committee passed, in a bipartisan way, with a vote of 12 to 3, comprehensive reauthorization legislation.

Since that time, we have worked with our counterparts in the House, as well as representatives of the executive branch, to ensure that the final bill that we will be voting on tonight and tomorrow garners widespread bipartisan support and includes enhancements to civil liberties and privacy protections.

The bill before us here today is the product of extensive bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Now, this bill is not perfect. Rarely have I worked on or voted on a bill anywhere that is perfect, but I believe this measure represents a significant compromise and preserves the operational flexibility of section 702, while instituting key reforms to further protect U.S. personal privacy.

Let me take a moment to identify a few key items in this legislation that I believe bear mentioning.

First--and I have seen my friend from Oregon, who has argued long and hard in committee for a provision like this, and he would like to see it broader, but it does include a warrant requirement--for the first time in section 702, the government would be required to obtain a court order before FBI criminal investigators are permitted to view communications collected pursuant to section 702 concerning a known U.S. person. Such a court order, based on probable cause, would apply in the context of criminal investigations opened by the FBI that do not relate to national security.

This bill also mandates that a study be conducted by the inspector general of the Department of Justice of the FBI's querying practices 1 year following the enactment of this legislation, making sure that such practices

have been approved by the FISA Court and implemented appropriately by the executive branch. This is an important provision in ensuring transparency.

It includes an assessment of the interpretations of the FBI and the DOJ of querying procedures. It includes the handling by the FBI of individuals whose citizen status is unknown at the time the query is conducted, and it includes the scope of access by the FBI's Criminal Division to section 702 information.

While this will not answer all of the questions asked by my good friend from Oregon, it will finally put the FBI on record answering questions that I deserve to know and that I believe he and other Members deserve to know.

In addition, in terms of querying procedures, S. 139 includes a section mandating a new series of procedures to be drafted and approved by the court and implemented by executive branch agencies.

The legislation also requires new public reporting of statistics about activities conducted under FISA.

As has been mentioned by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, S. 139, for the first time, extends whistleblower protections to contractors in the intelligence community. This addition is essential to ensure that those in the IC have an avenue to report abuses.

Congress must not further delay consideration of a long-term reauthorization. We have been debating this issue for the past 18 months. Indeed, Congress has known about this deadline since the prior reauthorization occurred in 2012. Numerous committees have had extensive hearings on this important issue, including in our committee, both open and closed hearings.

I believe this bill will strengthen and protect Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I again want to thank my friend, the chairman of this committee, the Senator from North Carolina, and look forward to his comments.

I yield the floor and yield back to the chairman.