position we can be secure in our allies have been waiting to act. finally we are poised to do so and disappointed and thinking as long but i'm grateful we have hope and opportunity to spend in the next 48 hours. the rico act, how many bills are this sidebar.

>> there are -- i could say there are no democrats. >> nine, ten, 11, 12 -- 15. >> fifteen bills packed into this agreement, not our democratic bills. i have great respect for you. >> we want to leave this for live coverage of the u.s. senate. felt reauthorizing 702 or 2026. it is set to expire friday midnight. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. ... in, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the guest chaplain: let us eternal god, we find our refuge in you. you have been our help in ages past; you have been our hope for the years to come. you have been our shelter from life's storms, filling our hearts with your divine peace, as you provide us with an inheritance for eternity. you are our hope for the years to come. today, use our senators for your glory. may they remember that you weigh their motives, direct their steps, and make even their

enemies be at peace with them. lord, permit your power to work in them to accomplish your purposes on earth. and, lord, as we approach the passover season, we praise season of passover, we praise you for your redemptive power in our world. we pray in your strong name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, april 18, 2024. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable laphonza r. butler, a senator from the state of california, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patty murray, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 7888, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 365, a h h.r. 7888, an act to reform the foreign intelligence foreign intelligence

>> the intelligence of the that's not president biden. those are the words of former president of the united states. and you're going to trust him with russia? >> i sort of agree. i support the rico act. i i am glad it is been includedn

that particular sidecar, and i just think it's important that we have honest straightforward debate about the bills we are considering and recent undermining it. i respect you try to. >> can i just add passed out into commerce commerce committee 40-two. very bipartisan bill. >> large margin. >> very much so. >> i'm not trying to tie anyone trip. i just to get important issue to protect our children from communist china. >> as to why. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the chair thanks a gentleman. >> i think the chairman and children from texas. i thank each of you for being here, particularly could see, mr. cole, just a week removed. a couple of just questions gemma to make sure for the record added to want to belabor this but i do want clarity because

there's a lot that's been flying around. we are all aware disagreements aside of the poorest nature of our southern border. not going to dwell on it. we have covered it but obviously as i stipulated and i think my friend from texas chairman mccaul would agree, i mean we've had, you know, godly number of people that in flooding across the border and it was all issues involving that, tragedy we have recounted numerous times here. in particular the data that was released we were at 24,300 i think chinese nationals that have come across the southern border that we know of, not counting gotaways which is a number that exceeds all of 2023 fiscal year. so in six months we've exceeded all of fy '23. that compares to a number of about 381 in fy '21, the less you which it was president

trump's policies predominately driving the reality at the border. i assume the chairman would agree that poses not significant security threat to the trend of america that we have those kinds of numbers from what i'm understand to be 85% single adults of that number, not talked about a lot of children and so forth, of the number 24,300 in six months. does the chairman agree with that? >> i do. it is is a national security threat. let me just say when we were in the white house at the beginning of these discussions there was going to be four threats, a threat from iran, the threat from putin. the threat from china and then the threat from our southern border. that's the back door and if we don't have the back door shut, then threats come in. you know as i do, chairman of fomite to get a come when you

talk about 350 on the terror watch list, and how many do we not know about? when the world is on fire and hamas is out there and afghanistan is turning into a terror ground again, they release all these prisoners from the bagram base that are isis-k and al-qaeda. i'm very concerned that something is going to happen. editing something will. it's a real threat to our national security. >> i agree with the chairman and i would just say, , there's a whole bunch of stuff just in general those numbers, extent to which you got fentanyl seizures that meant running about 1000 pounds a month, the numbers last month were about when they're 90,000 at the so the border, close to 250,000 when you factor in southern border plus parole plus the norther and of other but again the second the gotaways. and then you've got the known or mr. schumer: madam president.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, yesterday the senate set a very important precedent that impeachment should be reserved only for high crimes and misdemeanors and not for settling policy disagreements. that is what the impeachment against alejandro mayorkas was from the start, a policy dispute frankly to help donald trump on the campaign trail. it did not meet the high standard required by the constitution to remove someone from office. i am very glad the senate worked its will to set these charges aside. the prudence and cool judgment the senate showed yesterday is what the framers would have wanted. they didn't want impeachment to be used for every policy dispute when you don't agree with a cabinet minister -- a cabinet secretary, you impeach them. that would have created chaos in

the executive branch and here in the senate. because the house could just throw over impeachment after impeachment, and if you'd have to have a whole big trial on every one of them, the senate could be ground a halt. so let me repeat what i said yesterday. we felt it was very important to set a precedent that impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement. i'm so glad we stood firm yesterday. we are supposed to have debates on the issues, not impeachment on the issues. we are not supposed to say that whenever you disagree with someone on policy, then that is a high crime or misdemeanor. can you imagine, madam president, the kind of chaos and damage that would create? as i said, the house could paralyze the senate with frivolous trials, particularly

when one party had the house and the other had the senate. it would degrade government and it would frankly degrade impeachment, which is reserved -- rarely -- for high crimes and misdemeanors. to show how unprecedented what the house did, no cabinet secretary has been impeached for over -- since i think it was 1867. and even in that case he resigned before the trial. it was never intended to happen. but, unfortunately, the hard, radical right in the house is just so intent on paralyzing government, creating chaos in government, even destroying government that they don't care. but we in the senate on our side of the aisle did care. my guess is a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cared too. if my colleagues on the other side want to talk about immigration, democrats welcome that debate.

welcome it. we should debate border bills like the ones republicans blocked here on the floor. that is how you fix the border, with bipartisan legislation. impeachment would have accomplished nothing. now, on fisa, today the senate will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the fisa reauthorization bill sent by the house earlier this week. this is a very important procedural vote. i urge my colleagues on both sides to show strong support for moving forward on this bill. now, we obviously don't have a lot of time left before fisa authorities expire. in fact, less than two days. but we will try as hard as we can to get fisa reauthorization done today. if not, members should expect we'll have votes tomorrow. on the supplemental and on ukraine, today, the house will keep working on national security supplemental funding. yesterday, the house released a legislative text, and i'll

continue to monitor closely what our house colleagues do in the coming days. i hope that president biden will soon have on his desk long-awaited funding to support our friends in ukraine and israel and the indo-pacific and aid for innocent civilians in need of humanitarian aid in gaza and around the world. senator booker has told us stories about the starvation in darfur and how much worse it would become if we don't get the aid. so the time for house inaction has long been over. now, this afternoon it will be my honor to meet with ukrainian prime minister dennis schmihal who is here to push for more funding for ukraine. i will tell the prime minister the same thing i told president zelenskyy when i was in ukraine about a month ago -- america will not abandon you. your cause is our cause. we are working day and night to finally deliver to you the aid

you need to defeat vladimir putin 's evil forces. the one word to describe what the house needs right now is urgency. urgency. i remember during my visit to ukraine, standing in front of a cemetery in liviv dedicated to the war dead. not long before the visit that was a parking lot. it was converted to a cemetery after the city ran out of space to bury casualties. even as we stood there, even as we observed a moment of silence, few yards away i could see workers digging even more holes in the ground to prepare for the more casualties they knew would come. worst of all, many of these brave soldiers died because they didn't have supplies, ammunition they needed. i wish i could say the ukraine war effort has not suffered due to american inaction, but that

would not be true. as "the wall street journal" noted yesterday, quote, ukraine's chances of pushing russia out look increasingly grim. why did they say that? well, it's because the house has continued to drag its feet in sending funding for ammo and air defenses and other basic supplies. i hope that changes, at last, in the coming days. now, on the good news front -- micron. today is the dawn of a new day in syracuse and in all of upstate new york. i am proud to announce that micron is expected to receive $6.1 billion from my chips and science law to support its chip megafab project in central new york and its expansion in idaho. this multi billion-dollar award is one of the largest single direct federal investments in upstate new york's history. it's a landmark announcement for syracuse and all of upstate new york, and for the nation. it will create 50,000 new,

good-paying jobs in new york alone, and propel micron to reach its goal of investing over $100 billion to make advanced memory chips here in the u.s. we've had other chip fab announcements. they're all good. i welcome all of them. but this one is the first for memory chips, and memory chips are becoming more and more important because they're the basic chip used in a.i., and a.i. is expanding all over the place. i'm glad about this announcement. we are rebuilding upstate new york with good-paying, middle-class jobs, one microchip at a time. micron is leading -- is the leading manufacturer of memory chips, which are critical to everything from cell phones to cars to a.i. and this major chips investment is making possible the largest and one of the most advanced memory chips projects in the u.s., and even in the world. it's critical to our national security and competitiveness. with this investment, and the

hundreds of billions of other transformational chips investments by intel, tsmc, samsung, global foundries and more, we are bringing manufacturing back to america. we are shoring up our supply chains to prevent shortages and high prices. and we're strengthening our national security. i worked real hard to write and pass the chips and science act into law. with the goal of bringing advanced manufacturing to the u.s. as my guiding light. not just communities in new york, but communities everywhere -- arizona, idaho, texas, ohio. these are the places where the story of american innovation will be written this century. speaking about my own home state, and i'm wearing my orange tie today for syracuse, i have communities like syracuse and other upstate new york communities in mind when i wrote chips and science, and i made sure they would be the ones celebrating these types of investments, not far-off places

in countries like china. we want these chips, made in syracuse, not in shanghai. i'm proud that this $6 billion investment delivering on my promise to micron and makes the promise of the chips and science act a reality. it's not just a once-in-a-generation investment. it's a once-in-a-lifetime investment. it was a long, hard-fought battle to get chips and science done. it took four years. we had to persuade the house of representatives how important it was. but this announcement proves that the hard work and persistence is paying off. we still have a long way to go, but we're one step closer to securing america's future as a leader in the global semiconductor industry. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent

that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to begin by addressing the urgent national security supplemental that's still pending over in the house of representatives. opponents of this urgent investment in american strength have taken to cloaking their objections in the false monilatele of real -- in thefelt mantle -- in the false monilatele of realism. this would appear to be a historically safshy move. after all, who would admit to being unrealistic? who would willingly say their policies and their world view don't reflect the world as it is? but as our nation faces the most dangerous moment in a generation, it's worth examining

this claim in a bit more detail. the concept of realism has an academic meaning that refers to a specific set of assumptions about how states interact. the realist school of thought, at its core, contends that states act alone in a perpetual competition, constantly assessing the balance of power with their adversaries, and seeking to maximize their own security and relative influence. as the ancient athenians put it, the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. in a sense, as some of the most vocal opponents of the supplemental like to point out,

realists don't have time for morality tales or sappy appeals to universal values. the world is an uncaring place, and so-called realists are concerned with cold, hard national interests. well, as luck would have it, so am i. none of the tenets of academic realism actually reclued our -- preclude our colleagues from supporting the supplemental. quite the opposite. considering the investments we're talking about making. rebuilding american hard power and dproeg our domestic industrial capacity to sustain it, in the process helping to decimate the hard power of a

major adversary at almost no risk to u.s. forces. deterring further challenges to a balance of power favorable to american interests. preserving and expanding our relative influence with other states, helping our friends, hurting our enemies, and successfully rallying these friends and allies to share the burden of balancing against competitors who seek to undermine united states and the west. being realistic and rejecting fanciful idealism means recognizing that we're facing the greatest, most coordinated security challenges since the

cold war. in europe, a neosoviet imperialist is threatening the stability of some of america's closest allies. europe is the largest consumer of american products and the largest foreign investor in america. instability in europe is bad for business. in the middle east, backwards theocrates are orchestrating terrorist attacks on americans as well as our friends and racing froe dues a nuclear weapon -- to produce a nuclear weapon. their vessels are disrupting the freedom of navigation, the lifeblood of our economy, with near impunity. and in the pacific, the people's republic of china is pulling every lever to undermine

america's power and dominate its hemisphere and beyond. from massive military expansion and predatory economic coercion to psychological manipulation, intellectual property theft and a supply chain that pumps lethal poison across our borders. so, madam president, it would be utterly unrealistic to pretend that america can afford to delay an urgent comprehensive investment in the hard power required to meet all these threats. the moralism here is pretending to care more about ukranian warhead than the ukranian people do themselves. the naive ideology is thinking that russian preventionism is somehow connected to christian values. in spite of clear evidence that putin has corrupted the russian

orthodox church and is actively repressing christians both at home and in conquered territories. the plain fantasy is saying that the challenges we face abroad will wait patiently while we tend to our own domestic affairs. here's the diplomatic reality. putin has said publicly there is no sense negotiating with an opponent who's running out of ammunition. anyone who wants a negotiated end to this connikt should also want ukraine to have as much negotiating leverage as possible. and here's the political reality. if you think the fall of afghanistan was bad, the fall of a european capital like kiev to

russian troops will be unimagineably worse. and if stalled american assistance makes that outcome possible, there's no question when the blame, where the blame will end on us. neglecting threats doesn't make them go away. it's just guarantees on preparedness when they strike. i'm reminded of the late republican from michigan, arthur vandenberg, a staunch anti-interventionist in the years leading up to the second world war. as senator vandenberg wrote in his diary after the attack on pearl harbor, quote, that day ended isolationism for any realist. needless to say, it shouldn't take an attack on the homeland for america leaders to uphold

their responsibilities and provide for the common defense. the clear and present danger is just that, it is clear, it is present, and it will grow if we do not act. for those of us who see the world clearly, this isn't a question of realism versus idealism. right now what america should do also happens to what we can do. we can grow a defense industrial base capable of sustaining both u.s. forces and our allies and partners. we can help degrade one adversary while strengthening deterrence against others. we can start investing seriously in rebuilding the hard power that a secure and prosperous nation requires. not only can we, we must.

on another matter, the past six months have shown an uncomfortably bright light on the moral rot festering on america's university campuses. just yesterday the president of columbia hedged when asked whether chance of from the river -- chants of from the river to the sea and long live the intifada are properly considered anti-semitism. this comes after numerous incidents on her campus, including a student club president issuing an e-mail that read white jewish people today and always have been the oppressors of all brown people. and when i say the holocaust wasn't special, i meant that. of course the light of truth

doesn't discriminate, and it's uncovered much more than an alarming taste for the world's oldest form of hate. last month a federal judge found that an assistant professor at harvard medical school had committed plagiarism in a report submitted on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit. and if this weren't enough, harvard's office of equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging recently announced they will host racially segregated affinity celebrations during their 2024 commencement. these are the institutions that president biden wants working americans to underwrite? these are the degrees that president biden wants taxpayers to subsidize? last summer the supreme court

ruled that the president's initial attempt at student loan socialism was unconstitutional. nevertheless, washington democrats continue to double down. early this week the biden administration proposed yet another nearly $150 billion round of student loan transfers. that's on top of more than $150 billion they've already rolled out. at a most basic level, the proposal betrays a staggering disdain for working americans, both those who have paid off their debt and those who opted not to take on debt in the first place. it will transfer the loans of the highest earning members of washington democrats' base to working taxpayers and has already driven up tuition costs for future students.

but the biden administration has made it pretty clear that they don't care about future students. just look at the way they are handling the current round of fafsa applications. last week the education department admitted that its own date and processing errors had compromised up to 30% of federal financial aid applications. just as prospective students and their families are facing enrollment deadlines, washington apparently couldn't care less whether prospective students made informed decisions. apparently hefty tuition costs don't matter much if taxpayers will be the ones ultimately footing the bill. well, i expect that working americans across the country will have something to say about

this in the fall. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

request request quorum call:

mr. warner: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion on the motion -- the presiding officer: senator, we're in a quorum. mr. warner: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call proceedings be dispensed with. officer without objection. mr. warner: now, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to h.r. 7888 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: thank you, madam president. i come back to the floor today to reprise some of the things i said yesterday but hopefully add some more color on an issue that

has popped up in the last few days. i start with the premise that we got a big, big question in front of us this afternoon and tomorrow -- whether we're going to go ahead and continue maintaining the intelligence community's most powerful tool, section 702. so i rise in support of h.r. 7888, which we'll be voting cloture on. -- in a few short moments. as i shared with my colleagues yesterday, no other law is more important to the work of the intelligence community than section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. section 702 -- i enumerated all of the ways it has been used, whether it is thwarting terrorist attacks, dealing with weapons of proliferation, stopping foreign cyberattacks,

dealing with fentanyl trafficking -- but the key point is remember is 60% of the intelligence that provides -- in the president's daily brief -- not only under this president but former president's as well -- 60% comes from 702. it is hard to overstate even the importance of this law or frankly the gravity of allowing it to sunset. yet we are 36 hours away from that happening. now, i understand that some of my colleagues would like to amend the house-passed bill and continue the process of debate and negotiation. listen, there are things i'd like to change in the house bill as well. but the reality is, we're out of time. the choice before us -- and as we think about amendments, this is the case -- pass this bill or allow 702 to sunset. i got to tell thank you, as we

followed all -- i got to tell you, as we followed all of the ups and downs in the house, if anyone thinks that amending this bill and returning it to the house will somehow yield a better agreement that has alluded us literally for the last five or six years on this very contentious issue, i don't think that is a realistic assumption. but what it will do, if we send it back to a house that is ent entwined with leadership issues and the whole question of whether the national security provisions will be voted on and dealt with this weekend, what it will do if we were to amend and send it back to the house is invite a sunset, an unspeakable outcome that the president's own intelligence advisory board has said will be remembered as one of the worst intelligence failures of our time. now, we all know, as we assemble here today, israel is at war with hamas, we potentially have not only a regional, potentially

a global conflict with iran, our allies in ukraine endure repeated mugs military bombard -- repeated russian military bombardments. i just came in a biotech roundtable where expert after the expert pointed out what china is doing and what we've got to do to keep up and cap. the idea that we would in effect almost go out of the intelligence business at this moment in time is extraordinarily dangerous. so i know we will have the overall bill discussions and we'll have discussions about why something that sounds on its surface a warrant provision, which i have said yesterday and i'll repeat for colleagues today, over half the times an american is queried with a 702 database, they are a victim of a crime, not someone that thank youed todd show probably -- not

someone that you'd show has probably cause of committing a crime. or if not, the question i raised yesterday, we arrest a terrorist in paris. we've got a different presiding officer. and that terrorist has a 210 area coded in their pocket. we don't know where that goes to. dick durbin has a slightly different ver i didn't saying of this. you'd be allowed to query that phone number. this comes off of a known terrorist. but you wouldn't be able to look at the results unless you get probable cause. the idea that we would potentially put this into a fisa proceeding that would take days or weeks i think is very dangerous.

but i would like to again use the remainder of my time to discuss one provision of the bill, a tecical amendment that was added in the house to the definition of an electronic communications service provider that has drawn considerable scrutiny and been the focus of many of my colleagues' appropriate questions. it's important that the members have a complete understanding of this provision that is grounded in fact and not distorted by frankly some simplify outside groups -- by some of the outside groups that are absurd distortions being raised by some of its opponents. the amendment does not, as some have said/suggested, allow the government to spy on restaurants, bars, libraries, and a whole litany of other statutes. it would absolutely not, as some critics have maintained, allow the u.s. government to send out -- spell a janitor to spy

for the intelligence community or if you are a he'll housekeeper to -- or if you're a housekeeper to access your laptop at home. nor would it allow states to use 702 to target women in terms of their health care choices. members have questions about this amendment, i urge them to take time to go through some of the classified information down in senate security, the department of justice will be on hand later today to walk folks through why this technical amendment was added. but let me talk about this. my business for 25 years was in the telecom sector. i know a little bit about what is trying to be accomplished here. the law that was set up in 2008 was one world of telecommunications and telecommunications networks. the world we live in today in 2024 is dramatically different.

i said yesterday, 2008, a cloud was something you had to worry about that might rain, not a network of computer operations. as technologies evolve, so must we. the truth is, this amendment does not change the scope of 702. it simply accounts for new technological advances. since the law was first written in 2008, i.t. not the first time -- it's not the first time we've had to amend certain laws to account for new technologies, nor will it be the last. as a reminder, one more time, section 702 authorizes the intelligence community to collect critical foreign intelligence about foreign targets located outside the united states. some of the ways we do at that is with compelled assistance of united states american

electronic communications service providers, or ecps's. now, one of these -- why is this suddenly now become such an issue? well, one of these communication providers -- remember i said about clouds, data centers, how these in theworks come together and -- how these networks come together and how it is intertangled at these data centers. one of these entities that controlled one of these new enterprises that didn't exist in 2008 said, hold it. you can't compel us to work with the american government because we don't technically fit the definition of an electronic communications service provider. the fact was the company that raised that claim won in court. so what happened was the fisa court said, to the congress, you guys need to close this loophole. you need to close this and

change this definition. so that is where a lot of this debate is coming. yesterday, as the white house national security advisor, jake sullivan, explained in a statement he released, the amendment is, quote, directly responsive to otoencouragement from the federal appellate court to update the definition of the private service companies with which the united states government can work. under supervision of federal judges and with extensive oversight by four congressional committees. to obtain the communications of non-americans abroad. the national security advisor urged members to reject mischaracterizations of the amendment. he also reiterated that nothing in this amendment changes the fundamentals of section 702 which can again be used to target collection only on the communications of non-americans located outside the united states.

now, i think the amendment could have been drafted better. i have a letter here from the attorney general, which shares the view of memorializing doj's narrow interpretation of this amendment. i ask unanimous consent that this letter be placed in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: thank you, madam president. in that letter, the attorney general says -- and i quote -- it would be unlawful under section 702 to use the modified definition of ecsp to target any entity inside the united states, including, for example, any business, home, or place of worship. continuing -- and i quote -- it would also be unlawful to compel any service provider to target communications of any person inside the united states -- and here we even go, because 702

cans be used to target foreigners inside the united states. so clearly this provision would not allow any communication provider to target a person inside the united states, whether or not that person is in contact with a non-u.s. person outside the united states. any of these tools are used to target foreigners outside the boundaries of the united states. let me be clear, the department of justice has documented in writing that it would be unlawful to use the ecsp definition to target any business, home, or place of wor worship or to compel any. the letter goes on to state, and i quote, the department commits to applying the definition of ecsp exclusively to cover the type of service provider at issue in the litigation before

the court that reviews these proceedings; that is, that technology companies should provide the service if somehow it was determined that these services fell outside the current definition. i also continue to quote from it the attorney general -- this was needed to facilitate appropriate oversight and transparency of government's commitment to apply any updated definition of ecsp only for the limited purposes described above. the department will also report to congress every six months regarding any applications of the updated definition. so the arguments you may have heard -- so despite arguments you may have heard, copping -- congress is going to have complete oversight of this definition and any interpretation of the reavised definition of ecsp must still be approved by the fisa court.

an article 3 court comprised of federal judges. the opinions of that court will be available to congress. in adding the legislation, we are considering today, which reauthorizes -- and again you got to remember, what we're dealing with in reauthorizing secr section 702 is only for two years. in members have a concern with how this law is interpreted by the court, we'll have the opportunity in 24 months to address this further. i also made clear that i am committed to working with any of my colleagues who still have a concern with this provision to see if we can improve the definition of the ecsp before the next sunset, including through any legislative vehicle between now and then. one thing we cannot do, however, is blind ourselves to the many national security threats facing our country now. i think we will blind ourselves

if we amend this bill and send it back to the house, expecting us not to go dark by friday night, not knowing what the house may even look like after the furious debate about the supplemental is concluded. so, i urge my colleagues to join knee in -- join me in voting to pass h.r. 7888 without amendment and ensure that these vital authorities are reauthorized. mr. president? mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i ask that the junior senator from washington be authorized to sign bills or joint resolutions from april 18, 2024, through april 19, 2024. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: for the information

of the senate, following the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the fisa bill, we expect to execute the order with respect to the crapo tailpipes emissions bill, senate bill f.4072, and vote on passage of the bill at 2:30 today. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. warner: thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 365, h.r. 7888, an act to reform the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 7888,

an act to reform the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman.

mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich.

mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine.

mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king.

ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff.

mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina.

mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen.

mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative, bennet, booker, casey, collins, coons, cornyn, cotton, gillibrand, hassan, king, klobuchar, is manchin, murray, peters, reed, ricketts, risch, romney, rounds, shaheen, sinema, warner, and whitehouse.

senators voting in the negative, blackburn, braun, brown, daines, menendez, merkley, schmitt, scott of florida, scott of south carolina, tester, vance, warren, and wyden. mr. schatz, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, aye. mrs. fischer, aye. mr. cardin, aye. mr. thune, aye.

mr. grassley, aye. the clerk: mr. lee, no. the clerk: mr. cruz, no.

the clerk: ms. baldwin, no. mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, no. the clerk: mr. rubio, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no.

the clerk: mr. boozman, aye. the clerk: mr. warnock, aye.

the clerk: mr. schumer, aye. mr. paul, no.

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye. mr. barrasso, no.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. mr. van hollen, no.

the clerk: mr. young, aye.

the clerk: mr. durbin, aye.

the clerk: mr. crapo, aye.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no.test.

the clerk: mr. moran, aye.

the clerk: mr. capito, aye. mr. ossoff, aye. mr. marshall, no. mr. hagerty, no. mrs. hyde-smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: ms. smith, aye.

the clerk: mr. sanders, no. mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye. mr. padilla, no. mr. johnson, no.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye.

the clerk: mrs. britt, aye. the clerk: mr. graham, aye. mr. tillis, aye.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye.

the clerk: mr. cantwell, no.

the clerk: ms. ernst, aye.

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye. mr. welch, aye. vote:

the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. ms. duckworth, aye. mr. carper, aye. mr. markey, no.

the clerk: mr. mcconnell, aye. mr. buzz, aye. -- mr. budd, aye.

the clerk: ms. hirono, i do not. ms. hirono, no.

the clerk: ms. butler, aye. mr. heinrich, no.

the clerk: mr. sullivan, aye. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, no. mr. blumenthal, aye.blumenthal,

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 67, the nays are 32, two-thirds of the

attohaving voted, the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i ask the chair to execute the order of march 22, 2024 with respect to s. 4072 and i ask unanimous consent that the time count post cloir on the motion to proceed to h.r. 7888. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. pursuant to the order of march 22, 2024, the senate will now proceed to the consideration of calendar number 350, s. 4072, which the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to prohibit enforcing the rules of the environmental protection agency. mr. schumer: for the information of senators, we expect to yield back time and vote on passage of

the bill at about 2:30 p.m. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i am here to defend the environmental protection agency vehicle emissions standards, standards that will cut air pollution to tackle the climate crisis, protect public health, and save drivers money at the pump. these standards of passenger vehicles, cars, suv's and light trucks will accelerate us to the climate targets and put the brakes on dependence on fossil fuels. last year we imported

8.5 million barrels of oil every single day of petroleum products, including gasoline while exporting more than ten million barrels a day. you want to hear something? you know who we were importing oil from? saudi arabia, iraq, oman, and what does this do that the republicans want to propound here? it's to say, no, we don't want to move to an electric vehicle future. no, we don't want to send any kind of signal that we are a technological giant as the united states and we're going to back out of that imported oil so we're not contributing those petro dollars to those nations which are ultimately intent on undermining be stability. so this dependence on fossil

fuels traded on a global market and imported into our country puts drivers at the whim of opec. it puts them at the whichl those who are -- at the whim of those who are driven by profiteering and it allows big oil ceo's to turn drivers upside down at the pump and shake money out of their pockets. why do we continue this? we're technological giants. we have an all-electric vehicle future, hybrid future for our nation and for the world. are we going to lean on that? g gas-guzzling cars aren't just bad for drivers, they are bad for all of us. according to the epa, the transportation sector accounts for 29% of u.s. greenhouse-gas

emissions, contributing to global warming. actually the largest single source of climate warming emissions in the united states and the epa has a legal statutory responsibility to set strong clean-car standards to help us put this crisis in the rear-view mirror. the final clean-car rules are estimated to have 12.7 metric tons of pollution, four times the amount of emissions from the transportation sector. this is the single most significant rule we have seen in our attempt to tackle the climate crisis, more than any other rule in the history of the united states. that's a big deal. that's something to be proud of, and that something is worth protecting from political attacks. in addition to building a livable future, this rule will also save lives right now,

providing $13 billion in annual health benefits as a result of reduced air pollution. and the clean cars rule isn't banning gas cars, but it is it expected to help supercharge our already booming sales of hybrid and all-electric vehicles, and these rules are -- t technologically if neutral, that means that families will be able to choose from a wide range of vehicle options, including 100 different plug-in hybrid and battery vehicles here in the united states. automakers are innovating and driving us closer towards a clean energy future. that's why big oil hates these emission standards. the oil industry is it scared to death that $46 billion in reduced annual fuel costs will stay stranded in driver' pockets

instead of that of big oil companies. if you follow the money, why big oil would want to attack these standards, all republicans have to do is interest -- to do is wait outside and drive the getaway car. that's why i urge my colleagues to vote no on senator crapo's legislation, s. 2472. this bill is irresponsible because if undoes future regulations that would protect public health. the clean cars rule will reduce particulate matter by 25%, reduce heat attacks, respiratory and cardiohavvascular illnesses this bill is coming up for a bill instead would prevent working families from saving money on gas and maintenance

repairs. over the lifetime of the standards, drivers will save $62 billion in fuel and repair costs, $6,000 over the life of a car by model year 2022. rolling back these clean car standards is not an option. we have to protect this rule. we have to protect drivers' budgets, we have to protect public health and our climate. that's why a no vote on this is so important and i want to thank everyone who is in this fight. i see chairman carper who is here and senator whitehouse. this is an absolutely critical rule. and i will say this. every day donald trump and big oil say drill, baby, drill, but the young generation is saying, plug in, baby, plug in. we're moving to the future. we're moving to an all electric future and that's what this bill is all about today. i urge a no vote on the floor of the senate.

mr. padilla: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: i'm inspired by senator markey's remarks and pleased to join him in this debate and opposition to the measure. we're speaking today because the american people deserve to know what is at stake during today's vote. a and, no, it's not the latest fabricated republican electric vehicle horror story, no one is coming to slap a biden bumper sticker on your car and take your gas car off the road. americans are smarter than that. americans want with a reliable car that can get them to work to school or where ever they need to go, powered by fuel that doesn't break the bank. americans also want a future for their kids, our kids and our

grandkids can breathe clean air. and we all want a planet that's not burning to the ground. but unfortunately too many of our republican colleagues will tell you that we can't have both. that we have to choose. it's going to be either the economy or the environment. so for everyone who's watching, everybody who's listening, please know that that's a false choice. yes, the epa rule will improve public health and protect our planet. it will also help create good jobs and strengthen the auto industry. it sets ambitious goals for reducing emissions while giving a automakers the flexibility they need, they asked for to actually meet those goals. through whatever combination of

electric, hydrogen fuel cells or hybrid vehicles. to my republican colleagues, i also have a question. how many times have we heard you say, let's make it in america? well, here is your chance. would you welcome more good-paying jobs in idaho or west virginia? we do in california because we would rather have them here and not overseas. i also hear some people argue that, well, our domestic supply chain and our charging infrastructure isn't quite ready for this electric vehicle transition. well, this rule actually reduces the risk for domestic manufacturers and gives them more senator to make necessary long-term investments in domestic manufacturing and charging infrastructure that we

all want to see. so, colleagues, we have a tremendous economic opportunity before us. and, madam president, i ask them all to just take a look at our home state of california where we have proven that it's not an either or between the economy and the environment. california has -- has not just bold targets for clean electric, but for -- electricity, but for having a zero transmission sector. as a result clean car sales are outpacing even our expectations. in 2023, zero emission vehicles made up a quarter of all sales in the united states. if california was its own country, we'd be fourth in the

rule in electric vehicle sales. so not only can it happen, it is happening. and it's because of that type of economic potential that automakers across the country are fully committed to the electric vehicle transition. they know that this epa final rule is ambitious but it's also achievable. and labor unions, including but not limited to the uaw, are all in because they too reject the fearmongering that says tackling the climate crisis is going to come at the cost of so many union jobs. environmental and community advocates are all in on this because this is what the climate crisis demands of us. but we're still here, republicans saying that americans are losing their

ability to buy a vehicle of their choice. that's wrong. for all the fearmongering, for all the bad-faith arguments, let's be clear, under the epa's rule, not a single american would be forced to buy a car that they don't want and not a single manufacturer will be given a quota for a specific type of vehicle to make. with all that said, i will acknowledge that republicans are correct about one thing. these are big goals for our country. but, colleagues, a century ago it was american innovation and manufacturing that led to the automobile revolution. you'd be wrong to think that the american people can't do it again. so, i urge my colleagues to stand with us, to set ambitious

goals for our future, to give the american people a choice, to grow our economy, and we can do it by voting no. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. carper: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i want to associate myself with the gentleman from california and thank him for i had comments. but i rise today in strong opposition to the measure before us. to enact this would block the environmental protection agency's new man to limit tailpipe emissions from light and medium-duty vehicles, such as cars and pickup trucks. nearly every day, we see signs of planet in crisis while fires ravage our lands, polluted air filling our lungs, extreme heat ripping our communities, and much, more more. scientists have repeatedly sounded the alarm. we are running out of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and slow climate change for the

health of our planet, and there is no planet b. instead of coming together to tackle this challenge head-on and create jobs at the same time, some of our colleagues want to stop a rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions which we know to have substantial warming effect on our planet. why is it important to tackle emissions from the transportation sector? to explain, let me start with the age-old story about a guy named bully sutton, know -- willie sutton, notorious bank robber during the great depression. at the trial, he got arrested, dragged before the court. his judge asked him, mr. sutton, why do you rob banks? he replied famously, your honor, that's where the money is. madam president and colleagues, we need to continue reining in emissions, because that happens to be where the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the united states is, at 28%. let me say that again. the cars, trucks, vans we drive

each day make up the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in our country. after that, 25% come from our power plants. another 23% from our manufacturing operations, think asphalt plant, steel mills, and so forth. combating the climate crisis requires us to use every tool in our toolbox. it's not -- simply not possible to meet the climate goals without addressing emissions from the transportation sector. this rule helps us do just that in fact, this rule is expected to avoid over seven billion tons of co2 emissions. that's equivalent of taking every coal plant in america off line for over six years. in addition to planet warming, co2 vehicle emissions contain particulate matter. that is commonly known as soot.

we know this type of pollution is greatly threatening to human health. according to the epa, this rule alone will provide $13 billion, billion with a b, in annual health benefits by preventing heart attacks, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, decreased lung function, and premature death. it will help 400,000 people with asthma breathe easier. that's almost half of delaware. let's be clear -- this rule not only helps us drive down greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change, but helps us clean up the air we breathe and protect public health. i also want to take a moment to address the myth that this rule is an e.v. mandate being thrust upon american consumers. this rule would bolster consumer choices when it comes to purchasing new vehicles.

by giving manufacturers flexibilities to 50us a mixture of -- to use a mixture of techn technologies, this ensures consumers have a wider range of vehicle choices, from advanced gasoline vehicles to hybrids, to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and full range of battery-powered vehicles. for years, i drove a 2001 chrysler town and country minivan. it was lovingly known by folks in delaware as the silver bullet. after 600,000 miles, we parted ways, and i fell in love with my new vehicle, which happens to be an electric vehicle. not only is it environmentally friendly, it is a hoot to drive. i was reminded just this morning driving to the train station in wilmington, delaware. i save a lot on maintenance, and fuel costs by switching to e.v. unlike what some may want you to believe, this rule doesn't force anyone to make the same purchasing stuffingss that i

did -- decisions that i did. it gives consumers a wider range of vehicle options that are cleaner, more affordable, and hopefully a whole lot of fun to driver. let me close with this, a remarkably wide range of groups, including general motors, stellantis, fort, united auto -- ford, united auto workers and many more support this rule. it's not every day we see this kind of coalition formed. it's rare. when we do, we need to aattention and learn from it. supporting this bill and blocking epa's rule would be a harm for human health, to our planet, the economy, and consumers, and that's why i oppose this measure and urge our colleagues to join me and others in opposing it as well. i yield. i yield to the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i will be brief. i represent the motor city,

detroit. i represent the men and women who put america on wheels. and we are very, very proud of that. we continue to do that, and to innovate. they are not asking for the repeal of this rule. our american automobile companies are not asking and do not support it. the united auto workers, the men and women doing the innovations and building the vehicles of today and tomorrow, are not asking for this. they do not want this. you know what they want? they want certainty. economic certainty. they want stabilities. they have worked with the administration to craft an aprotest that is rigorous -- an approach that is rigorous but works for them to get to the next level. so, i'm not sure who this is for, what this is all about, but it's certainly not for the automobile industry and the millions of men and women who work for that industry that have created the middle class of this

country. thank you. i yield back. mr. whitehouse: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i'm delighted to join my colleagues here to support the epa's new tailpipe emissions standards. rhode island has long ridden along with california on its emission standards, and we're delighted to see epa follow along with strong anti-pollution emissions standards. among the many benefits of this is that we'll start to head off climate dangers that we are facing. there are innumerable reports about the economic threats america faces as a result of unconstrained climate change. i would ask unanimous consent to have the articles from the recent "economist" magazine. they open with the lead sort of editorial type article, then

they have the solid full article. i'd ask that both be appended at the end of my remarks. talking about how -- the presiding officer: without objection, senator. mr. whitehouse: talking about how climate change, to use the article's words, is shaking the foundations of the world's biggest asset class and looking at potentially $25 trillion worth of global economic damage as homes become ininsurable because climate change makes them uninsurable. on the national security front, i ask unanimous consent to add to that an article that i wrote with senator graham, pointing out the danger to the world of the petro states and how badly behaved they are and they're propped up with fossil fuel dollars to go out and wage war against israel, invade ukraine, and saw up corresponds

correspondence -- saw up correspondence they don't like. the quicker we get off fossil fuel, the safer americans will be in their pocketbooks as well. this is the way gasoline prices have looked like for -- back since 19-78. they bounce all over the place. why? they go all over the place because the prices are not set by a market. the prices are set by an individual cartel. a cartel of international entities, most of whom are not friends of the united states. they can simply decide to stop production and juice prices. you can see over and over again where prices have juiced. the last time was immediately after putin went into ukraine. on cue, the fossil fuel industry raised prices dramatically. american companies that were not directly affected rode along with the price increase. they just took the international price and they made the biggest

profits i think any company has ever seen. so, consumers get gouged by an international cartel that manipulates our gasoline prices. we can get off of that with american-made renewable energy, from the sun, from the wind, from batteries, from geothermal, from nuclear -- you name it. we get off of the international cartel fossil fuel roller coaster, which we do not control. we will never, ever, ever as a country have energy independence while our prices for a product depend on how an international cartel behaves. so this is a really, really important step, as senator stabenow said, representing michigan, the car companies support this, labor unions support this, consumers support this. it's expected to provide

$99 billion in net benefits to consumers through 2025, and that includes $46 billion in reduced annual fuel costs. if you want to know who this benefits, who's on the other side, it's the people who lose $46 billion in polluting, dirty fossil fuel, because people have gone to clean, efficient electric vehicles as a matter of their own choice. last of all, it helps people who breathe. it's estimated to save $13 billion per year in public health benefits. it's hard to put a dollar number on a public health benefits. it's kind of an awkward way to talk about a public health benefits. when a kid can go to school, not staying home, because their asthma has been fired up by atmo atmospheric owe zone, when a mom doesn't have to say i can't make it because i can't get my baby to day care because of pollution-driven ozone, the

$13 billion, that's the price of the care. the price in people's hearts and harms is far, far worse. the benefits of this wildly pass any cost. this is a great rule epa has done, and i support it fully. thanks very much. i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: good to be here with my friend and colleague who just addressed the body on this legislation. he said, who's going to be on the other side of the position that he has taken. well, i'm the face of the person on the other side. i'm here with students from wyoming, 4-h kids who understand from an agriculture standpoint what kind of vehicles families in wyoming want, the freedom to choose the vehicles they drive, the practicality, what they can afford, what they know works for them. they're from sharedin, gillette, wyoming, and they're here because they support the freedom to choose what kind of vehicles

people drive in america. not just wyoming, but all across the couple. i want to thank the senator from idaho who wrote this legislation. he's the driving force behind this very important bill which i am here to support. this legislation that we're talking about today would prohibit any government money from going to fund joe biden's obscene attacks against american carryings and american -- american cars and american trucks. every day, people in wyoming rely on their cars and trucks to get to work, to get to school, and to do the daily work of our economy -- agriculture, ranching, farming. great distances that people travel in wyoming, they need reliability, in vehicles they can trust and count on. this bill today is about defending their freedom, and it's against those who want to take away that freedom. what president biden and the democrats are trying to do,

madam president, is trying to force americans to switch to electric vehicles, vehicles many people don't want, can't afford, aren't practical for them in their daily lives. the actions by the democrats and the epa aren't driven by facts. they are driven by that party's blind faith in their climate religion, a faith that says we need to prioritize, as the president has told the epa, prioritize climate over energy for our country that is affordable, available, or reliable. how does that weigh out? how do people feel about that? which do you want? you want energy that's affordable, available, reliable? well, then you're for this piece of legislation we're talking about today. for the climate alarmists who continue to come to this floor and harp about the issues, let me point out to them the inconvenient truth.

the inconvenient truth is the american people do not want to buy i.v.'s. they aren't interested in the cars or trucks that are too expensive and too unreliable and for them, too inconvenient. the public has legitimate concerns about the lack of charging stations around the country and time it takes to recharge. e.v. batteries lose their charge in the cold of winter. we have longer winters in wyoming. we also have longer roads to drive to get from home to school to work. these e.v.'s don't inspire confidence for those of us who live and drive in states like wyoming and the west. so the president of the united states wants to force the people across the country to buy e.v.'s anyway. he doesn't care about this. he is from a small state,

delaware. i don't think he has any clear understanding of the vastness of the rocky mountain west. i've heard in a number of his comments. and it is clear that he'll doesn't understand the people who live in the rocky mountain west. what joe biden does understand is that he has place add heavy hand on the epa so that they can tell us, tell us what to buy, what to drive, and i'm against all of these sorts of obligations and mandates. the epa wants to dictate that seven of ten vehicles, new cars sold, need to be electric. e.v.'s make up less than one in ten cars being sold today. what's happening today? new mandates on trucks as well that clearly aren't practical, expensive mandates, unaffordable. they talk about the benefits. the benefits are highly exaggerated. this self-rightious biden

administration imposes punishing political and penalizing fines on the carmakers that won't comply with their mandates. this isn't right. this biden car ban, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for the economy, and it is bad for american jobs. look, if this regulation goes into full effect, the impacts are going to be devastating. republicans reject all of these unjustified, unnecessary restrictions. democrats are the party of regulating every room in your home and now they want to move to the garage, after banning gas stoves and natural gas. they want to control our lives. it's coercive. to me what they're doing is a crusade against consumer choice, convenience, and affordability. the focus in washington should be on lower prices, producing more american energy, focusing on energy that's available, affordable, and reliable and the people in wyoming and across the

west, we do it with a kind of respect for the environment that one would expect and want and demand, and we do it that way. we understand what americans want, and the senator from idaho's legislation is what we need to do to put americans not in the back seat but in the front seat. that's why we're here today talking about this, madam president. it's so interesting, the epa with their truck mandate, they talkeded about how much carbon they would avoid putting in the atmosphere over the next 30 years. i you this their numbers -- i think their numbers are exaggerated. but the amount they're talking about saving putting into the atmosphere in 30 years is what china and india combined put added into the atmosphere every single year. so the democrats say, okay, china and india, okay, drill 309 holes in the bottom of the -- drill 30 holes in the bottom of the line.

and the u.s. is going to patch every one of them. we're not. it is wrong. thank you, madam president. i think it is time to put a stop to democrats' mandate madness. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. manchin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i rise today because i truly want to depoliticalcize this. i negotiated this bill with the president, with the speaker of the house, i negotiated with bill in the majority leader. so let me give you the facts and depoliticize it. take the republican-democrat equation out of this. this rule should have never happened. it wasn't our intent, it wasn't what we agreed upon. we shouldn't be voting down or up on this rule today because it should have never been here. i'll tell you the reason why. the ira was designed truly -- and we all agreed on it -- energy security and manufacturing in america. that was it. energy security and manufacturing. we're producing more energy

today than ever in the history of the world. we produce more energy today than anybody else in the world. and they're having a hard time grabbing that, but that was the way we designed the bill, to be an all-in. we're going to do fossil fuel, cleaner and better than anywhere in the world and more of it, and we're going to do investments in the clean technology for the future. we've done that. when we put this bill out, the administration new exactly the timetables. i'm giving you the timetables here. i can show you how they accelerated things because it does not meet their timetable. they're going with temporary rules of 2026 and 2027. the reason they're going to temporary rules is you can't sue on temporary rules. you can sue on permanent rules theft a b damaged. we tried to bribe the american public to buy an e.v. they are a great vehicle.

i don't contest that. only 1.7% of west virginians want them. you can't force with government religionses to do things that we've always been trained to do. now what happened on top of that, then they changed the whole -- how we basically -- the regulations we all agreed on -- the president, the speaker, and the majority leader. we said the first year in 2040. at least 40% of extracted minerals we need to build these batteries had to come from the united states or our allies, our trading partners. our whole goal was basically to eliminate being dependent upon china, russia, iran, and north korea. this is the first time in -- and the lady spoke from michigan. i love michigan. i love the vehicles that michigan has produced.

and i can't tell you that every michigander is going to be enthralled with what they're trying to do. they're saying by 2032 that basically 70% of the vehicles have to be electric. can't do it. two things why you can't do it madam president. first of all, we don't have the infrastructure to do it. next of all, we don't have is the minerals to make the batteries. so the only way they can get around that is a change many you tell me in the bill where it says you can go from 40% to 20% the first year. you tell me in 2031 you can go from 80% that you should be doing here in america to am40%. i remember in 1974 we were dependent on oil. we weren't producing what we should be producing. we were depending on saudi arabia and opec put an embargo

on us. i waited in line to buy gasoline to go to work. i remember that day very well. it was a horrible time. i sure as heck don't want to have to wait on a battery coming from china to drive my vehicle to work. so this rule should never be here. when you go through the things -- the compromise that we made on the e.v.'s that were made in north america and with the batteries and the minerals sourced there, would they get the full $7,500 credit. there was not a quibble. there wasn't, oh, i'm not sure we can do that. everybody agreed. again the president of the united states, the speaker of the house, and the majority leader here in the senate. totally agreeable. it's wonderful you tell me, if it was so wonderful, if why do you usurp the intentions of the bill we passed? that's why i support getting rid of the rule because the rule wasn't here.

it wasn't somebody we talked about -- it wasn't segregation we talked about. they want to make sure we don't sue on the timelines. they want to put the temporary rules out because you can't sue. so we're in a catch-22 here. forget about being a democrat or a republican. be an american. let the market do what it does best. if you have a better mousetrap, i'll buy. but we shouldn't be buying when we have to be totally reliant own a foreign country of ken. if what we saw that putin did and weaponized energy for our allies overseas, i tell you that xi jinping from china will do the same thing with the critical minerals we're depending on. and if our transportation mode for our economics our work, our getting goods to market is dependent on him getting us what we need, it ain't going to happen, gang. why we're going down this path -- so, the senator from idaho, my dear friend, thank you

for working together with us on this thing to try to bring common sense to it. so these charts are telling you exactly what happened. i'm telling you how it hachltd if the president was standing here and if the speaker of the house was standing heerndz if the majority leader was standing here, they would all have to agree because they were with me when we made the deal. that was the deal, that i can tell you. there's nothing else we can talk about. why we're even have to vote down a rule that should never be before us makes no sense at all. do what we said we would do -- bring manufacturing back to america. bring basically the reliable things that we do and do best here and make sure that we have the energy that we can produce it. at the rate they're going now, if you electrify what they want to, we will not have the energy, the grid, the capacity. then you'll have people having blackouts, brownouts.

i urge everybody in this body, democrat and republican alike, to vote yes on this overturning of this rule that is not part of america, not part what we do. and with that, i thank you and i yield the floor, madam president. mr. ricketts: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. ricketts: i am joining my colleagues today in resisting this e.v. mandate and commend them for attempting to defund this e.v. mandate. this mandate would require two-thirds of all new vehicles being sold in the united states in 2032 to be electric vehicles. and it is going to be incredibly harmful to our american families, especially low-income families. the cost to consumers is going to be grade. the average low-income family spends about $12,000 on a new vehicle, or on a used vehicle, to be able to get around.

frankly, for many families, especially families in states is like mine of nebraska, this is the pathway out of poverty. getting that vehicle, spending that $12,000, being able to get to a job, being able to increase your income. that's how american families get to work in states like mine. and we're going to be robbing those families of that opportunity with this e.v. mandate, harming those low-income families. it's also going to be harmful for families in rural areas. in states like nebraska, people drive long distances in rural areas to get to work. and right now, for example, you'll look at 99 of our 147 cities don't have a charger. if you're in some of our cities like bloomfield or alliance or valentine, you're 45 minutes from the nearest charging station. that's not practical. by the way, guess what? it gets cold in nebraska.

when the temperature drops below 28 degrees, you lose some of your charge on the e.v. it is harmful for agriculture because you're not going to be able to just pull over on the side of a road. if you've got a truck that's hauling cattle and stopped in 95-degree heat for two hours. this e.v. mandate makes no sense. it does not work for vast stretches of this country. again, i think e.v.'s are cool. they have fast acceleration and they want in urban areas, like perhaps here on the east coast. but in states like mine, they're impractical. and my esteemed colleague from west virginia was talking about how the biden administration has not thought this through. i sit on the environment and public works committee can and i've had the chance to question officials that support this it and let me tell you, they have no plan for the power

generation, they have no plan for the transmission, and by the way, just so the american public knows, they're assuming that every e.v. is charged with 100% renewable energy and, folks, that is a lie. that does not exist anywhere in this country where you can find a state that 100% of their energy comes from renewable energy. the highest state for it is south dakota at 50%. states on the east coast are generally single digit as far as the percent of their electricity generated from renewable energy. so they're also selling you a lie. it is not true. so for their -- for those reasons, i also urge my colleagues to support this congressional review act, and i want to compliment the senior senators from idaho and west virginia for bringing this attempt to we don't fund this e.v. mandate and now that the -- this e.v. mandate has been published in the "federal register," the senator from alaska and i

will bring another cra to stop the implementation of this rule as well. madam president, i yield back my time. mr. crapo: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: madam president, i rise today in support of senate little 4072. i introduced this legislation and pushed for this vote to ensure no fiscal year 2024 funds can be used to implement, administer, or enforce the environmental p environmental protection agency's tailpipe emissions rule. i deeply appreciate the support of the senators who have spoken to today. senator manchin, a democrat, made it very clear this is a bipartisan piece of legislation, basically based on the fact that it violates the very deal that was made earlier to help us look at transitioning away from emissions that are harmful to the environment. if you listen to senator manchin, he made it very clear

we don't have the capacity to do this right now. he talked about some critical points. senator ricketts just pointed out we don't even have the capacity today to provide the necessary electricity. let me explain this. i was talking, i have talked to a lot of experts, to an expert recently in global warming issues. this person told me that we can have all the electric vehicle mandates we want, but if the load is not clean, then the solution will not be clean. what did that mean? that means if the electricity we rely on is not made by renewable sou sources, that the mandate will be ineffective. that's a critical point to be made, because today, as has been indicated, our major source of the load is natural gas. the very electricity that is created in this country to utilize on the roads, if this mandate goes into place, is not

going to be the sort of clean load that is necessary for this massive effort to transition to completely electric vehicle economy. and the damage will be suffered by the american people, in many different ways. but one of the critical ways that that damage will be suffered is that whether it is with regard to the critical minerals that are needed, which this administration is not stiffing us -- assisting us to improve in the united states and strengthen in the united states, or whether it is based on other aspects of developing that load that they need, the american people will see that the problem in our economy and china will be the beneficiary. it will be china who is the one who can economically accomplish these objectives and send these electric vehicles to us, or the batteries that these electric vehicles require, and china is not working with clean load

either. as my colleague from wyoming talked about, they're putting out unclean load in the terms of this debate every single day, at massive amounts higher than ours. so, what are we going to do? we're going to make the united states vehicle industry dependent on china. we're going to make the united states citizens, who drive cars and trucks dependent on china, and reduce our economic independence from china's anti-competitive pressures. that's what this debate really is about. the epa's rule is the most aggressive form of tailpipe emission standard ever crafted. and it imposes a de facto electric vehicle mandate on the american people. under the rule, automakers must decrease their average fleetwide emissions by more than 50%, down from the current 192 grams of

co2 per mile to just 85 grams per mile, in less than ten years. in order to be compliant. the only way that these standards could possibly be met is through the mass production and adoption of electric vehicles, a fact of which the biden administration and the biden epa is well aware. once again, increasing our reliance on china. the rule effectively regulates gas-powered vehicles, cars and trucks, out of the marketplace, which, make no mistake, is the goal of this administration. as a result of the rule, internal combustion engines, or ice vehicles, which still represent the overwhelming majority of new car sales in the united states be, can make up no more than 30% of the new sales by 2032, if automakers are even able to be compliant with these

standards. the rule represents yet another attempt by the biden administration to use the rulemaking process to force its costly climate agenda on americans and pick winners or losers in our free market. these emission standards go too far and will restrict affordable vehicle choices for families, harm u.s. businesses, degrade our energy and national security, and hand the keys of our automotive industry over to china, which currently dominates the entire electric vehicle supply chain and has no intention of reducing the carbon intensity of its economy anytime soon. the personal decision of what a consumer chooses to drive should not be made by washington, let alone by circumventing congress. i urge my republican colleagues and my democrat colleagues to join me in voting yes on this

legislation to prevent american taxpayer dollars from being used to implement, administer, or enforce this disastrous epa rule. thank you, madam president. i yield my time. mr. manchin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i ask that all time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the bill is considered read a third time. the request he occurs on the

passage -- the question occurs on the passage of the bill. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins.

mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich.

mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski.

mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen.

ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. the clerk: senators voting in

the affirmative, britt, collins, cramer, crapo, ernst, grassley, hyde-smith, johnson, manchin, murkowski, ricketts, romney, sinema and tuberville. senators voting in the negative, bennet, butler, heinrich, king and ossoff.

the clerk: mrs. gillibrand, no. mrs. murray, no. mr. young, aye. mr. budd, aye. mr. schmitt, aye. mr. hoeven, aye.

the clerk: ms. baldwin, no. ms. hirono, no. mr. scott of florida, aye. mr. booker, no. mr. brown, aye. ms. hassan, no.

the clerk: mr. kennedy, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, no. mr. vance, aye. mr. kelly, no. ms. rosen, no. the clerk: mr. merkley, no.

ms. lummis, aye.

the clerk: mr. graham, aye. ms. duckworth, no. mr. wicker, aye. mr. durbin, no. mr. blumenthal, no. mr. whitehouse, no. ms. klobuchar, no. ms. stabenow, no.

the clerk: mr. lankford, aye.

the clerk: mr. marshall, aye.

the clerk: ms. smith, no. the clerk: mr. fetterman, no.

the clerk: mr. barrasso, aye. mrs. blackburn, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, no. mr. mcconnell, aye. mr. daines, aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, no. the clerk: mr. boozman, aye. mr. cornyn, aye. ms. warren, no.

the clerk: mr. tester, aye. mr. tillis, aye. mr. hagerty, aye. mr. rubio, aye.

mr. sullivan, aye.

the clerk: mr. thune, aye. mr. rounds, aye.

hyperbole. vote: the clerk: mr. kaine, no. mr. lee, aye.

the clerk: mrs. shaheen, no. mr. cassidy, aye. mr. wyden, no. mr. welch, no. mr. cantwell, no.

mr. cardin, no. mr. reed, no.

the clerk: mr. cruz, aye. mr. van hollen, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, no.

the clerk: mr. coons, no.

the clerk: mr. carper, no.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, aye. mr. braun, aye.

the clerk: mr. markey, no.

the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of south carolina, aye.

the clerk: mr. cotton, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, aye. mr. sanders, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, aye. mr. schatz, no. the clerk: mr. moran, aye.

the clerk: mr. menendez, no o.

the clerk: mr. warner, no.

the clerk: mr. padilla, no.

the clerk: mr. peters, no.

the clerk: mr. schumer, no.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, no.

the clerk: mr. paul, aye. the presiding officer: on this voight, the yeas are tea 52, the

nays are 46. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for passage of the bill, the bill is not passed. .

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no, we are not. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask order in the chamber. the presiding officer: would senators please take their conversations off the floor. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, for the past year, the senate has engaged in a serious bipartisan effort to reform a controversial spying authority known as section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, or fisa. i have never questioned that section 702 is a valuable tool for collecting foreign intelligence.

congress' intention when we passed section 702 was clear as could be. fisa section 702 is supposed to be used only for spying on for foreigners abroad. instead, sadly, it has enabled warrantless access to vast databases of america's private phone calls, text messages, and e-mails. this powerful tool has been m misused, sadly, in the united states to spy on protestors, journalists, and even members of congress. last friday, the house of representatives passed an alarming bill. it is misleadingly called the reform intelligence and securing america act. rather than fixing the flaws in section 702, the house bill will dangerously and unnecessarily expand it. the senate is now rushing to pass the house bill as is,

because fisa section 702 will sunset on april 19. but that is a false choice. no member should be fooled into believing section 702 will go dark and not be available to be used on april 20 if we do nothing. we planned for this exact scenario by providing clear statutory authority to continue surveillance ununder existing orders from the foreign intelligence surveillance court, known as fisc, after section 702 nominally expires. in fact, the u.s. department of justice has already obtained a fresh one-year certification from this court to continue section 702 surveillance through april of 2025. let me repeat that. ex existing section 702

surveillance can continue through april 2025, even if it nominally expires on friday. there is no need for the senate to swallow whole a house bill that expands rather than reforms section 702. the house bill contains several alarming and unnecessary expansions of the government's authority for spying. the bill could allow the government to force ordinary u.s. businesses with access to communications equipment, like a wi-fi router, to give the national security agency access to their equipment. this would greatly expands the number and types of companies forced to assist the nsa with spying and increase warrantless collection of america's communications. another provision in the house bill would authorize the use of section 702 data by immigration authorities. i'm very concerned that that would allow future administration to target dreamers and other noncitizens

who are only applying for travel documents and are subject to extensive background checks in that capacity. rather than expanding section 702, congress should reform this authority to protect americans' privacy. unfortunately, the purported reforms will have little or no impact. for example, the bill would prohibit what's known as every of a crime only queries. this would have prevented the fbi from accessing americans' communications in only two cases out of more than 200,000 searches on u.s. persons in 2022. other changes merely codify existing internal approval requirements. but with these limits in place, the fbi still conducted an average of more than 500 warrantless searches of americans every day in 2022. mr. president, i'll try to make this as basic as i can. after 9/11, we were seriously concerned about the security of

the united states, as we should have been. we established authorities of this government to keep us safe, but we had a problem that we had to reckon with, and the problem was this -- despite the great threat we faced, we also had a great responsibility to this publication, the constitution of the united states. so we created section 702 and said we will use it to have queries and surveillance of foreigners in foreign lands, but not americans. why did we draw that distinction? because the constitution makes it clear. before the government can listen to my phone call, read my text or e-mail, in this country, since i'm a u.s. citizen, they have to have a warrant, a warrant which gives them approval for that search, and they have to go to court to get that warrant for that purpose. we made the exception for foreigners in foreign countries, but we said we were trying to

protect americans from this kind of surveillance without complying with the constitution. well, over the years, sadly, the application of this law was not very good. at one point, there were, 3.4 million inquiries of american citizens in one year. the agencies of our government said we're going to do better. we won't be invading the privacy of individual american citizens, we'll do better. and they did better. but there's still an outrageous and unacceptable level of the misuse of the fisa authority to have surveillance and to the privacy of individual american citizens, around that's why i rise today. after the long history of abuses of this authority, spying on americans without the constitutional warrant as required, congress should not rely on internal executive branch procedures as a substitute for court approval. if the government wants to spy

on my private communications or the private communications of any american, they should be required to get approval from a judge, just as our founding fathers intended in writing the constitution. a bipartisan amendment in the house would have required the government to obtain a warrant before searching section 702 databases for the communications of american citizens. but this critical reform narrowly failed on a tie vote, 212-212. i want to offer a narrower amendment that would only require the government to obtain a warrant in a small fraction of situations where it actually wants to read or listen to private communications of american citizens. the vast majority of warrantless fbi searches on u.s. persons do not return any results. less than 1.6%. less than 1.6 return any measurable results. based on recent fbi statistics,

that would amendment to just 80 times a month that the fbi or other agencies engaged in this 702 surveillance would have to ask for a court order to protect inquiries and investigations into private communications of american citizens. i have sat through various numerous classified briefings on section 702 and listened carefully to the government's concerns about having to obtain this court approval in order to review the contents of american communications. my bipartisan amendment accounts for these concerns by providing exceptions to the warrant requirement for emergencies or cybersecurity attacks, or where an american certainly consents to the search. this will ensure there will be no delays that jeopardize national security. what it will not allow are fishing expeditions in which there are no unusual circumstances and the government

does not have probable cause. this pragmatic approach respecting the constitution will safeguard american privacy and still preserve section 702's critical value for collecting foreign intelligence and protecting national security. the chair of the independent privacy and civil liberties oversiefth board conducted a -- oversight board reached the same conclusion. congress has a responsibility to the american people to get this right. i recognize the importance of section 702, but we should not rubber-stamp the house's flawed bill where surveillance is already authorized until april 2025. i want to respect the need for section 702, but i'm sworn to respect the need to follow the constitution. without critical changes to improve this bill, i cannot support it. and i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'm glad i was on the floor to hear

the distinguished senator from illinois' comments about section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. this is perhaps the most important law that most americans have never heard of before. but here we are, debating that and the house having passed a bill and send it over to us, it's our responsibility now to consider that bill. we all want to protect the privacy and constitutional rights of american citizens. that's not negotiable. i agree with the senator on that point, and i think we all should agree. but the fact of the matter is the house bill is a reform bill. it's not section 702 as it's currently -- as it currently operates. this provides numerous

guardrails, accountability measures, and other measures that i believe will limit, if not eliminate, the opportunity to abuse this authority to the detriment of american citizens. rather, i believe this law must be passed in order to protect those same people. it's really important for the american people to understand that section 702 is only available against foreigners ove overseas. only foreigners overseas. if you want to get access to any information, even to a foreigner here in the united states, or an american scitizen or permanent legal resident, you've got to go to court to do what the senator says fernings, and -- and i support that, to show ha crime has been committed. we're not talking only about

crimes, the crime of espionage. we're talking about foreign adversaries collecting information on american citizens that they can use to facilitate terrorist attacks, importation of dangerous drugs, ransomware attacks through cyber crime. the list goes onened on and -- goes on and on. i think a fair reading of the house's bill provides the sorts of bell-and-suspenders a -- belt-and-suspenders approach we need to reform the current practice, because of the very abuses our friend from illinois mentions. where i differ from him is the fact that we don't need to worry about acting on this bill by tomorrow night at midnight. tomorrow night at midnight, the most valuable intelligence tool that's available to