Floor Statements

Madam President, I speak today in recognition of the bravery, courage, and valor of nearly 9,000 men and women in the Arkansas National Guard.

Day in and day out, the heroes of our National Guard protect our communities and our homeland, stand at the ready to respond to natural disasters, and defend our freedom around the world. Their work is having a huge impact on many fronts.

In Little Rock, our National Guardsmen recently participated in the Pentagon's largest unclassified cyber defense exercise, known as Cyber Shield, alongside more than 1,000 participants from 44 States and nearly two dozen countries.

Down at the southern border, Arkansas National Guard troops are working to keep illegal aliens out of our country and stop the flow of deadly, illicit drugs into our communities.

Additionally, Arkansas National Guardsmen on the homefront have provided 15 percent of the targeting information for Operation Epic Fury, while guardsmen deployed overseas work on the ground in support of this critical mission.

Last but certainly not least and most recently, the National Guardsmen stationed in Washington, DC, as part of the President's ``Safe and Beautiful'' mission are cleaning up our Nation's Capital for all Americans to enjoy.

Earlier this summer, just a couple of miles from the Capitol Building, Arkansas National Guardsmen intervened in a violent assault and stopped a potential shooting. While out on patrol earlier, SGT Memphis Perez, SPC Edwin Martinez, SPC Christian Diaz, and PFC Gabriel Oliva encountered a woman with a bloody face, multiple groups of people yelling and arguing, and a suspect threatening to shoot a group of women. These brave guardsmen of Team Razorback stepped into action, detained the suspect with flex cuffs after he attempted to retrieve a Glock pistol from his car, provided medical assistance to the victim, and secured the scene while waiting for Metropolitan Police Department officers to arrive. The heroism of these men saved lives, and because of their courage, they received the Joint Service Achievement Medal.

I would like to extend my gratitude and admiration to Sergeant Perez, Specialist Martinez, Specialist Diaz, and Private First Class Oliva for doing, as my drill sergeant used to say, the hard right over the easy wrong.

You did your duty with honor and integrity in a very dangerous situation. I commend you for your brave actions and congratulate you on earning this distinguished award.

On the ground, in the air, in cyber space, and right here in the Nation's Capital, Arkansas National Guardsmen are always ready and always there.

To my fellow Arkansans who have answered the call to serve in the Guard, I say: Thank you. Your example of selflessness, courage, and patriotism has made our country and our State proud. May God bless you and protect you. May God bless the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I speak today in support of Mr. Jay Clayton's nomination to be the next Director of National Intelligence.

Earlier this month, Mr. Clayton appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he answered hundreds of written questions for the record and provided detailed testimony on his approach to serving in this new role. As part of these discussions, Mr. Clayton assured the committee that he would assist our efforts to return the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to its original size, scope, and mission.

He also pledged to work with the committee to secure the essential funding the intelligence community needs. Based on the shortcomings that my committee staff identified, I project that any supplemental appropriations bill or reconciliation bill must include around $40 billion for our intelligence Agencies. I look forward to working with Mr. Clayton to meet this vital need.

Given his past professional experience, Mr. Clayton is well qualified to serve as the Director of National Intelligence. As the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Clayton went after some of the worst of the worst national security threats. He has overseen numerous high-profile cases, including the indictment of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and the prosecution of an Iran-backed terrorist connected to multiple attempted terror attacks in the United States. Time and again, Mr. Clayton has worked hand in glove with our intelligence Agencies and counterterrorism personnel to put these savages behind bars and keep America safe.

Based on Mr. Clayton's testimony and the many conversations I have had with him over the last few months, I can say with confidence that his reputation for leading with integrity precedes him. I am pleased to support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 29; 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, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 454, H.R. 5334, postcloture; further, that the Senate recess tomorrow from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly conference meetings and that all time during leader remarks, recess, and adjournment count postcloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 5334.

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, no doubt, scintillating remarks of Senator Welch.

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

Mr. President, Lindsey Graham was a self-made American original. Born in Central, SC, Lindsey grew up in a room behind his parents' bar and pool hall, where he worked to help the family make ends meet and earned the nickname ``Stinkball'' from its patrons because of his sense of humor and his irrepressible nature and his rascal streak, as he called it.

I saw that in my first experience with Lindsey Graham. I traveled with him and Senator McCain to the Munich Security Conference in 2013 as a brandnew Congressman. That evening, as I was meeting some of the other Senators on the delegation--Senator Ayotte and Senator Corker-- Lindsey came up to me and slapped me on the back and asked me who the hell I was. I introduced myself, and I told him a little bit about my story, my service in the Army before I was elected to the House. He told me I was great; I needed to run for the Senate; we had to win the Senate seat in Arkansas.

The next morning, we had a 08 briefing with General Breedlove, then the commander of our forces in Europe, and Lindsey stumbled in at about 8:55. Senator McCain hailed the arrival of his illegitimate son, and then we had a coffee break 5 minutes later, when Lindsey came over, slapped me on the back, and said: You were great. We have got to have you run for Senate. Now, what was your name again?

That was Lindsey, self-described rascal that he was. I often joked about it--and with him. You never knew quite what Lindsey was up to, but it probably wasn't nothing.

He became the first member of his family to attend college. After suddenly and unexpectedly losing both parents while attending the University of South Carolina, he stepped in to raise his beloved younger sister Darline. But even in the face of tragedy, Lindsey's grit, determination, and faith enabled him to finish college, earn a law degree, serve in the Air Force, and eventually make his way here to the U.S. Congress.

When Lindsey arrived in the House in 1995 as the first Republican Congressman from South Carolina's Third Congressional District since 1877, he brought with him a sense of duty and responsibility, a love for liberty, and a resolute commitment to America's national security.

He carried this with him to the Senate, where he served for more than two decades and became the first person in South Carolina history to earn more than 1 million votes in a general election. Needless to say, South Carolinians loved him, and it is not hard to see why.

Throughout my time working with Lindsey in the Senate, he fought for South Carolinians, he defended America's founding principles, and he supported the men and women of our military.

While he served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he oversaw the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice and more than 200 Federal judges committed to upholding the rule of law as our Founders intended.

Further, Lindsey knew that strength produces peace and prosperity, and he believed that the United States is the greatest force for freedom that mankind has ever known. Through every bill he introduced, every speech he gave, every statement he made, Lindsey ensured our allies knew our word was good and our enemies feared our resolve. If you loved America, Lindsey loved you. If you fought for freedom, Lindsey would fight for you.

Only in America could a man like Lindsey Graham leave such a mark on our history and our future. That above all is a testament to his strength of character. Lindsey's unwavering love for our Lord, devotion to our country, and commitment to his family defined his entire life. He was an example of what makes America exceptional.

Though we lost a dedicated public servant, a workhorse of a colleague, and an irreplaceable friend, his memory and his legacy will never be forgotten. I extend my deepest prayers, thoughts, and condolences to Darline, Lindsey's family, Lindsey's staff, his friends, and his loved ones.

America and this Senate will forever be grateful to Senator Lindsey Graham for his lifetime of service, patriotism, and courageous leadership.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was formed after the 9/11 attacks, understandably, to try to address some of the failures that led to those attacks. Unfortunately, I think we can now assess, a couple of decades on, that it is something of a failed experiment itself.

I remember my first days on the Intelligence Committee, when I sat far down the dais from the distinguished vice chairman, and an ODNI aide came in to brief us about a new fusion cell they had created to fight against the Islamic State. And one of our senior members, Dan Coats, who later himself became the DNI, observed that he was concerned that, with the growing bureaucracy at the ODNI, pretty soon they would need a fusion cell for their fusion cells.

Now, the vice chairman and I largely agree that the ODNI needs to be downsized and streamlined, that it does perform some important functions. We may not agree on every single particular. I think many of those functions could be performed elsewhere.

But I have had an opportunity to speak, in the last few days, with Acting Director Pulte. He agrees in those general terms with us that we need to return the ODNI to its original size, scope, and mission by spinning off some of these functional centers and sending intelligence officers who have been detailed there back to their home Agencies so they can do actual intelligence work. And if he continues the work that the vice chairman and I have begun through the annual Intelligence Authorization Act and that Director Gabbard started to carry out, I think that is a win for our national security.

The vice chairman cited various media reports about Director Pulte. I can't comment on all of them. It won't shock anyone to know that I don't take CNN or the Washington Post as ironclad as the Lord's Scripture. But there is one media report that I will comment on, since I discussed it with Director Pulte: the claim that mass firings had begun. That is not accurate. He informed me that, yes, a small

handful of front-office personnel are leaving Federal employment, which is not at all uncommon when a senior leader leaves an Agency or one comes into an Agency. But a small handful--maybe counted on one hand, maybe two hands. He also said that a few dozen--around 45 or 50--career officers are, in fact, returning to their home Agencies. I think that is a step in the right direction. It is less than 5 percent of the DNI's personnel. I might put a zero after that 5. I might put a 7 in front of that 5 in terms of how many personnel need to go back to their home Agencies.

A second point, if Director Pulte can, in fact, take these steps in the right direction, I think that can benefit Jay Clayton, once he is confirmed. Mr. Clayton will be able to inherit an organization that has already been downsized, and he can hit the ground running on day one to continue that work and to ensure that the DNI is promoting our intelligence community's important work, not hindering it.

A third point, as President Trump has said, Jay Clayton is a patriot, and he will make a great DNI once confirmed. I intend to hold a hearing for Mr. Clayton in the weeks ahead. As the vice chairman knows, it is not just our committee that moved at a very rapid pace to confirm Mr. Clayton to this new post. I want to thank President Trump and the Trump administration for moving at lightning speed as well. The FBI finished its background check in record time. The intelligence community and the Department of Justice helped Mr. Clayton through hundreds of advanced policy questions in record time. Even the President's own White House Counsel's Office completed Mr. Clayton's work in record time.

Of course, the backdrop here is the lapse in authorization for section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The vice chairman and I have worked well together to craft a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate, 218 or more votes in the House. I wish we could simply pass that bill. I think it is regrettable that Minority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader Jeffries have linked together reauthorization of section 702 with the confirmation of an official to a position that really has very little to do with section 702 or, for that matter, with operational activities of the intelligence community at large.

So with those observations, I do, in fact, object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

You bet there is, Mr. President.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I, of course, object.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, let me say that I respect the vice chairman, and I appreciate our work together on the Intelligence Committee. In particular, I thank the vice chairman for his cooperation on last year's Intelligence Authorization Act to reduce the sprawling bureaucracy at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

We have more to come in this year's bill too. The end result will be an intelligence community that is less bureaucratic, more nimble, and more focused on protecting our Nation, not pushing paper.

But this legislation has nothing to do with intelligence. Today, we are putting an end to the minority leader's unprecedented obstruction, securing our border, and enforcing our immigration laws.

The Democrats have pursued their ``defund the police'' ambitions for nearly a year, starving our immigration officers of badly needed support. So we are not just funding those brave officers for the end of this year but the end of the President's term.

It is time to protect our borders, enforce our laws, and get on to other business. This amendment would only further delay matters, and it contains matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee and is thus extraneous.

Point of Order

Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--first, let me just set the context here. The Senator from Oregon has always expressed hard-core ideological opposition to section 702, which a large majority of the Senate and the House, under Democratic and Republican hands, across Democratic and Republican administrations, has always deemed a vital national security tool. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the Senator from Oregon has never once voted to extend section 702.

Every few years, we come down here and we have this debate. So let me just express how important it is. The President has said that section 702, which I would remind everyone here is about foreigners on foreign territory--not American citizens--people who do not have Fourth Amendment rights. It is not just about catching jihadists, uncovering terrorist plots. The President, the Commander in Chief, has said this is vital for the Maduro raid, for Operation Epic Fury, for the rescue of missing troops. I think we should respect his position as the Commander in Chief, the consumer of this intelligence, and the one who employs it--a very similar call to what President Biden and President Obama made before as well.

Unfortunately, it does expire tonight. And as even the Senator from Oregon, a hard-core ideological opponent of section 702, has granted in requesting a 3-week extension, we shouldn't let it go dark tonight.

So how did we get here? Yesterday, the House passed a 3-year extension. That is what the President asked for, a 3-year extension. Now, he wanted it to be a clean extension. The House adopted various reforms. About 90 percent of House Republicans voted for that bill. More than 40 House Democrats voted for that bill. If we were to vote on that bill today, the vast majority of Senate Republicans would vote for it. But there are enough Senate Democrats to block its passage today, which I recognize.

We, therefore, need more time for negotiations. These negotiations are highly complex and technical. They have been constructive, but they must continue, and they must involve not only Senators but also Members of the House, the Speaker, the minority leader, the chairman and the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the chairman and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

I believe we are moving forward. I believe that we can get a bill passed that both preserves the operational viability of this program while addressing concerns of those who are not yet ready to vote for a 3-year extension. Therefore, we have proposed, say, a 3-month extension, which would take us to the end of July and the August recess. The Senator from Oregon thinks that is too long. A 2-month extension, which would take us roughly to the

Fourth of July recess--the Senator from Oregon thinks that is too long. We would even be OK with a 45-day extension, which would give us until about the middle of June. Yet here he is proposing 3 weeks, which in reality is 2 weeks, given the Senate and the House calendar, because we are out of session next week.

Now, he has said to me: Well, we can talk about this over the phone, which I guess reflects his usual lax indifference to security matters.

This is not a tax bill. This is not a healthcare bill. This is a highly classified intelligence program. We can't just text and chat about it on our phones. We need to be here in Washington, in secure spaces, where we can talk about highly classified details. For that matter, we need to be here in Washington so we can talk with the operational figures in the FBI, in the CIA, and in the NSA who run this program, who have the knowledge to tell us: This reform will work; it preserves operational viability. That reform won't work.

So when he asks for a 3-week extension, just realize that is a 2-week extension, not a 3-week extension.

Now, he says: I just want to do business as usual, and that is why I waited this long.

Let me add that one of the key figures here is the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who, everyone knows, just suffered a terrible family tragedy. We held off introducing our bill, in part, out of respect for the vice chairman and his family grieving about that terrible tragedy.

I would suggest that we owe him a little bit of decency, respect, and grace, and that we can get to a good result if we take a little bit more time to actually have a thorough negotiation when everyone is ready to do so.

Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, again, let's be specific on what we are talking about here. The Senator from Oregon keeps talking about a short-term extension. I think most people with some common sense--the people sitting in our Gallery--would say: You know what; a 45-day extension is pretty short term when the House just voted for a 3-year extension.

Is 45 days not short term in the context of a 3-year extension, versus what the Senator from Oregon has proposed, a 3-week extension which is really a 2-week extension, because, again, we are in recess next week? We cannot discuss these matters on our cell phones or by text message or by anything else.

So if we are open to a short-term extension, I would suggest that 45 days is fairly short term.

The Senator from Oregon also speaks about comity. I would suggest that comity also counsels that we have a little bit longer than 2 weeks for a grieving colleague who just had a terrible family tragedy.

And, finally, about this FISC matter, it is the Senator from Oregon continuing his longstanding practice of grossly misrepresenting classified material in public for his own ideological ends.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am ducking nothing. I am pointing out the Senator from Oregon's longstanding practice of distorting highly classified material in public. And one of these days, there are going to be some consequences, and it may be when I am chairman of this committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I urge my Senate colleagues to vote to confirm the nomination of the Honorable John Thomas Shepherd for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Throughout his career, Judge Shepherd has worked to uphold the rule of law, preserve public safety, and keep crime out of our State. Whether representing the people as a prosecuting attorney, presiding from the bench as a circuit judge, or practicing law in the private sector, Judge Shepherd has handled a wide range of cases with an exceptional track record.

Those who know Judge Shepherd can attest to his professionalism, his commitment to serving Arkansans, and his dedication to his family, many of whom have also answered the call to public service.

A native of El Dorado, Judge Shepherd is also a leader in his community, serving as a volunteer youth coach for the Boys & Girls Club, a radio color analyst for the El Dorado High School football team, and an active member of his church.

I am pleased to support Judge Shepherd's nomination, and I urge my Senate colleagues to vote to support his confirmation as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the most despicable pieces of legislation, an attack on our sacred right to vote, a voter suppression bill--these are just some of the hysterical things that Democrats have said lately about the SAVE America Act.

I disagree, and so do most Americans. In fact, 64 percent of adults say that the SAVE America Act is a good idea and will help ensure that only eligible citizens can vote in our elections. After all, only Americans should have a say in who runs our country.

Voting in our elections is a privilege and a right of American citizens, not of millions of illegal aliens who have flooded into our country under Joe Biden.

Again, you don't have to take my word for it. Sixty-two percent of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship to vote. The SAVE America Act will ensure that every voter in our elections is an American citizen.

Because the bill allows numerous forms of documentation to serve as proof of citizenship, every American will be able to cast a ballot.

Most Americans also agree that every voter should have a valid ID. Polls consistently show that more than 80 percent of voters support voter ID requirements. And I have got some bad news for my Democratic colleagues: These polls also show that 71 percent of Democrats support voter ID.

But instead of listening to their own voters, Democrats in Washington claim that the SAVE America Act is, yes, ``Jim Crow 2.0.'' Apparently, asking voters to confirm that they are who they say they are is racist.

That is laughable. Just think about all the different places you have been asked to show your ID lately.

Last weekend, I took a flight, had to show an ID. I rented a car, had to show an ID. I checked into a hotel, had to show an ID. I bought medicine--over-the-counter medicine, mind you--and, yes, I had to show an ID.

I am very confident that Delta, Enterprise, Marriott, and Walmart don't ask me for ID because they are racist. I know they need to confirm my identity for security purposes.

Buy beer at a bar? You get asked for an ID.

Buy a pack of smokes at the gas station? You get asked for an ID.

Open a bank account? You get asked for an ID.

Oh, but the Democrats say voting is different. Voting is a constitutional right.

Fair enough. Guess what. Want to exercise your Second Amendment right to buy a gun? You get asked for an ID.

Want to exercise your First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in this very building?

Sorry to report you have to show an ID if you have an appointment in the Capitol.

In fact, the only reason that I can imagine Democrats would oppose the SAVE America Act is to make it easier to cheat in our elections.

As the polling data shows, Democrats are yet again on the wrong side of an 80-20 issue. It is no wonder they want to ignore Americans and tilt the odds in their favor.

So to the excitable Democrats who claim the SAVE America Act will destroy our democracy, I say the opposite is true. No nation can have a healthy democracy without secure elections.

For these reasons, I urge all Senators to vote for the SAVE America Act.

Iran

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment up front to recognize the American heroes who have lost their lives in the line of duty as part of Operation Epic Fury. I extend my deepest condolences and offer my prayers to their families and loved ones.

I also said, with absolute confidence, these American heroes will not have given their lives in vain.

For 47 years, Iran's outlaw regime has waged a war of death, destruction, and terror on the United States, our friends, our allies, and, indeed, the civilized world. And now, after 47 years of indecision and timidity, America has finally put our foot down. President Trump has sent a clear message that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and they will never be able to threaten the rest of the world again.

It is difficult--in fact, impossible--to overstate just how imminent the threat from Iran was before we took action. The Democrats are now trying to twist this around by claiming the threat we faced wasn't actually imminent at all. However, our top intelligence officials disagree.

Earlier today, I chaired the Intelligence Committee's annual worldwide threats assessment hearing. Director of National Intelligence Gabbard testified that Iran was working to rebuild its nuclear program before Operation Epic Fury. According to her, Iran was trying to recover from the severe damage to its nuclear infrastructure sustained by the 12-day war and continued to refuse to comply with its nuclear obligations with the IAEA.

But that wasn't the only threat of a nuclear program that hung over our heads. Less than 1 month ago, Iran had thousands of missiles armed and ready to hit our bases and kill Americans as far flung as Western Europe and the Indian Ocean. Thanks to communist China's help, Iran developed a vast missile arsenal that far exceeded the combined missile defenses of the United States, Israel, and our Arab friends, and it got much worse every single month.

According to CIA Director Ratcliffe's testimony during today's hearing, if left unchecked, they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental United States.

Given these facts on the ground, we were left with no choice. Iran had already loaded and cocked the gun. What were we supposed to do? Wait until they pulled the trigger? Of course not.

Iran has been an imminent threat to Americans for 47 years. Let's take a look at the record. Was the threat imminent in 1979, in the days before Iran

took over our Embassy and held dozens of Americans hostage for more than a year? Did Iran pose an imminent threat to more than 200 marines before they bombed our barracks in Beirut in 1983? And did thousands of our troops who were murdered and maimed by Iran's deadly roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan face an imminent threat from the regime? I would say so, as I think any reasonable American would. The threat to Americans was as imminent then as it was before we launched Operation Epic Fury.

From a legal perspective, Operation Epic Fury was well within the President's constitutional authority and duty as the Commander in Chief to defend Americans.

President Trump's objectives are clear. First, destroy Iran's vast missile arsenal and make sure Iran can't rebuild it. It is a lot easier to kill the archer on the ground than to shoot his arrows out of the sky.

Second, strike at the pillars of a regime that have been propping up terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and rebels in Yemen for decades. We are no longer chopping off the various heads of the snake so it can grow seven more in its place; we are just going to kill the snake itself.

And, third, we are going to make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. We will not stop until Iran's hopes for that nuclear weapon are obliterated alongside its nuclear facilities.

Now, some critics claim that the President has abandoned his principles and promises to put America first. I disagree. President Trump has been consistent in his position that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. He said this publicly as early as 2014, years before he threw his hat in the ring for President and years before the ayatollahs tried to assassinate him.

Naysayers allege that we are getting involved in another forever war, but let's get something straight: Iran is not Afghanistan, and Iran is not Iraq. While no one has a crystal ball to predict how long the military operations might last, President Trump has an exceptional track record of using targeted and discriminate military force to achieve concrete and defined missions.

Other critics have said that Israel forced the United States to take military action against Iran. This is a lie, and it is contemptible. First off, I would say no one dragged Donald Trump anywhere. And, second, Prime Minister Netanyahu himself knows this well and said as much in an interview with Sean Hannity, who has known the President for decades. In fact, the President himself said he may have forced Israel's hand.

War Powers Resolution

Mr. President, for argument's sake, let's set all this aside, though, and examine the War Powers Resolution before us today.

Senator Booker's resolution calls for the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran. This resolution would require the President to end highly successful strikes against Iran before our military objectives are fully achieved.

Moreover, it would abandon our Israeli friends and leave them in the skies above Iran alone. In short, this resolution does more than simply attempt to score political points by condemning President Trump's actions. Its passage would handcuff our military force, leaving our troops in a sitting duck, defensive posture while Iran attempts to rain down terror across the region.

At this very moment, Iranian military capabilities are being destroyed. I would suggest it is the height of folly to stop now and give our enemy time to regroup.

For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the War Powers Resolution and instead support Trump's resolute actions against the Ayatollah's regime.

May God bless the President, may He protect our troops, watch over their families, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

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