Tom Cotton

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I speak today in recognition of the bravery, courage, and valor of nearly 9,000 men and women in the Arkansas National Guard. Day in and day out, the heroes of our National Guard protect our communities and our homeland, stand at the ready to respond to natural disasters, and defend our freedom around the world. Their work is having a huge impact on many fronts. In Little Rock, our National Guardsmen recently participated in the Pentagon's largest unclassified cyber defense exercise, known as Cyber Shield, alongside more than 1,000 participants from 44 States and nearly two dozen countries. Down at the southern border, Arkansas National Guard troops are working to keep illegal aliens out of our country and stop the flow of deadly, illicit drugs into our communities. Additionally, Arkansas National Guardsmen on the homefront have provided 15 percent of the targeting information for Operation Epic Fury, while guardsmen deployed overseas work on the ground in support of this critical mission. Last but certainly not least and most recently, the National Guardsmen stationed in Washington, DC, as part of the President's ``Safe and Beautiful'' mission are cleaning up our Nation's Capital for all Americans to enjoy. Earlier this summer, just a couple of miles from the Capitol Building, Arkansas National Guardsmen intervened in a violent assault and stopped a potential shooting. While out on patrol earlier, SGT Memphis Perez, SPC Edwin Martinez, SPC Christian Diaz, and PFC Gabriel Oliva encountered a woman with a bloody face, multiple groups of people yelling and arguing, and a suspect threatening to shoot a group of women. These brave guardsmen of Team Razorback stepped into action, detained the suspect with flex cuffs after he attempted to retrieve a Glock pistol from his car, provided medical assistance to the victim, and secured the scene while waiting for Metropolitan Police Department officers to arrive. The heroism of these men saved lives, and because of their courage, they received the Joint Service Achievement Medal. I would like to extend my gratitude and admiration to Sergeant Perez, Specialist Martinez, Specialist Diaz, and Private First Class Oliva for doing, as my drill sergeant used to say, the hard right over the easy wrong. You did your duty with honor and integrity in a very dangerous situation. I commend you for your brave actions and congratulate you on earning this distinguished award. On the ground, in the air, in cyber space, and right here in the Nation's Capital, Arkansas National Guardsmen are always ready and always there. To my fellow Arkansans who have answered the call to serve in the Guard, I say: Thank you. Your example of selflessness, courage, and patriotism has made our country and our State proud. May God bless you and protect you. May God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 454, H.R. 5334, postcloture; further, that the Senate recess tomorrow from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly conference meetings and that all time during leader remarks, recess, and adjournment count postcloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 5334.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I speak today in support of Mr. Jay Clayton's nomination to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Earlier this month, Mr. Clayton appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he answered hundreds of written questions for the record and provided detailed testimony on his approach to serving in this new role. As part of these discussions, Mr. Clayton assured the committee that he would assist our efforts to return the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to its original size, scope, and mission. He also pledged to work with the committee to secure the essential funding the intelligence community needs. Based on the shortcomings that my committee staff identified, I project that any supplemental appropriations bill or reconciliation bill must include around $40 billion for our intelligence Agencies. I look forward to working with Mr. Clayton to meet this vital need. Given his past professional experience, Mr. Clayton is well qualified to serve as the Director of National Intelligence. As the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Clayton went after some of the worst of the worst national security threats. He has overseen numerous high-profile cases, including the indictment of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and the prosecution of an Iran-backed terrorist connected to multiple attempted terror attacks in the United States. Time and again, Mr. Clayton has worked hand in glove with our intelligence Agencies and counterterrorism personnel to put these savages behind bars and keep America safe. Based on Mr. Clayton's testimony and the many conversations I have had with him over the last few months, I can say with confidence that his reputation for leading with integrity precedes him. I am pleased to support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, Lindsey Graham was a self-made American original. Born in Central, SC, Lindsey grew up in a room behind his parents' bar and pool hall, where he worked to help the family make ends meet and earned the nickname ``Stinkball'' from its patrons because of his sense of humor and his irrepressible nature and his rascal streak, as he called it. I saw that in my first experience with Lindsey Graham. I traveled with him and Senator McCain to the Munich Security Conference in 2013 as a brandnew Congressman. That evening, as I was meeting some of the other Senators on the delegation--Senator Ayotte and Senator Corker-- Lindsey came up to me and slapped me on the back and asked me who the hell I was. I introduced myself, and I told him a little bit about my story, my service in the Army before I was elected to the House. He told me I was great; I needed to run for the Senate; we had to win the Senate seat in Arkansas. The next morning, we had a 08 briefing with General Breedlove, then the commander of our forces in Europe, and Lindsey stumbled in at about 8:55. Senator McCain hailed the arrival of his illegitimate son, and then we had a coffee break 5 minutes later, when Lindsey came over, slapped me on the back, and said: You were great. We have got to have you run for Senate. Now, what was your name again? That was Lindsey, self-described rascal that he was. I often joked about it--and with him. You never knew quite what Lindsey was up to, but it probably wasn't nothing. He became the first member of his family to attend college. After suddenly and unexpectedly losing both parents while attending the University of South Carolina, he stepped in to raise his beloved younger sister Darline. But even in the face of tragedy, Lindsey's grit, determination, and faith enabled him to finish college, earn a law degree, serve in the Air Force, and eventually make his way here to the U.S. Congress. When Lindsey arrived in the House in 1995 as the first Republican Congressman from South Carolina's Third Congressional District since 1877, he brought with him a sense of duty and responsibility, a love for liberty, and a resolute commitment to America's national security. He carried this with him to the Senate, where he served for more than two decades and became the first person in South Carolina history to earn more than 1 million votes in a general election. Needless to say, South Carolinians loved him, and it is not hard to see why. Throughout my time working with Lindsey in the Senate, he fought for South Carolinians, he defended America's founding principles, and he supported the men and women of our military. While he served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he oversaw the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice and more than 200 Federal judges committed to upholding the rule of law as our Founders intended. Further, Lindsey knew that strength produces peace and prosperity, and he believed that the United States is the greatest force for freedom that mankind has ever known. Through every bill he introduced, every speech he gave, every statement he made, Lindsey ensured our allies knew our word was good and our enemies feared our resolve. If you loved America, Lindsey loved you. If you fought for freedom, Lindsey would fight for you. Only in America could a man like Lindsey Graham leave such a mark on our history and our future. That above all is a testament to his strength of character. Lindsey's unwavering love for our Lord, devotion to our country, and commitment to his family defined his entire life. He was an example of what makes America exceptional. Though we lost a dedicated public servant, a workhorse of a colleague, and an irreplaceable friend, his memory and his legacy will never be forgotten. I extend my deepest prayers, thoughts, and condolences to Darline, Lindsey's family, Lindsey's staff, his friends, and his loved ones. America and this Senate will forever be grateful to Senator Lindsey Graham for his lifetime of service, patriotism, and courageous leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was formed after the 9/11 attacks, understandably, to try to address some of the failures that led to those attacks. Unfortunately, I think we can now assess, a couple of decades on, that it is something of a failed experiment itself. I remember my first days on the Intelligence Committee, when I sat far down the dais from the distinguished vice chairman, and an ODNI aide came in to brief us about a new fusion cell they had created to fight against the Islamic State. And one of our senior members, Dan Coats, who later himself became the DNI, observed that he was concerned that, with the growing bureaucracy at the ODNI, pretty soon they would need a fusion cell for their fusion cells. Now, the vice chairman and I largely agree that the ODNI needs to be downsized and streamlined, that it does perform some important functions. We may not agree on every single particular. I think many of those functions could be performed elsewhere. But I have had an opportunity to speak, in the last few days, with Acting Director Pulte. He agrees in those general terms with us that we need to return the ODNI to its original size, scope, and mission by spinning off some of these functional centers and sending intelligence officers who have been detailed there back to their home Agencies so they can do actual intelligence work. And if he continues the work that the vice chairman and I have begun through the annual Intelligence Authorization Act and that Director Gabbard started to carry out, I think that is a win for our national security. The vice chairman cited various media reports about Director Pulte. I can't comment on all of them. It won't shock anyone to know that I don't take CNN or the Washington Post as ironclad as the Lord's Scripture. But there is one media report that I will comment on, since I discussed it with Director Pulte: the claim that mass firings had begun. That is not accurate. He informed me that, yes, a small handful of front-office personnel are leaving Federal employment, which is not at all uncommon when a senior leader leaves an Agency or one comes into an Agency. But a small handful--maybe counted on one hand, maybe two hands. He also said that a few dozen--around 45 or 50--career officers are, in fact, returning to their home Agencies. I think that is a step in the right direction. It is less than 5 percent of the DNI's personnel. I might put a zero after that 5. I might put a 7 in front of that 5 in terms of how many personnel need to go back to their home Agencies. A second point, if Director Pulte can, in fact, take these steps in the right direction, I think that can benefit Jay Clayton, once he is confirmed. Mr. Clayton will be able to inherit an organization that has already been downsized, and he can hit the ground running on day one to continue that work and to ensure that the DNI is promoting our intelligence community's important work, not hindering it. A third point, as President Trump has said, Jay Clayton is a patriot, and he will make a great DNI once confirmed. I intend to hold a hearing for Mr. Clayton in the weeks ahead. As the vice chairman knows, it is not just our committee that moved at a very rapid pace to confirm Mr. Clayton to this new post. I want to thank President Trump and the Trump administration for moving at lightning speed as well. The FBI finished its background check in record time. The intelligence community and the Department of Justice helped Mr. Clayton through hundreds of advanced policy questions in record time. Even the President's own White House Counsel's Office completed Mr. Clayton's work in record time. Of course, the backdrop here is the lapse in authorization for section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The vice chairman and I have worked well together to craft a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate, 218 or more votes in the House. I wish we could simply pass that bill. I think it is regrettable that Minority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader Jeffries have linked together reauthorization of section 702 with the confirmation of an official to a position that really has very little to do with section 702 or, for that matter, with operational activities of the intelligence community at large. So with those observations, I do, in fact, object.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. You bet there is, Mr. President. Mr. President, all of these ideas are totally unworkable and also beside the point. The Senator from Oregon has never voted for section 702. He is an implacable, ideological opponent of this law. These measures, too, are for what--a 5-week extension that he would then extend permanently? That doesn't sound like a very reasonable offer to me. But almost every one of them is designed to make this program unworkable and to expose Americans to grave risk. There are already, again, dozens of transparency measures and privacy protections in place under a law passed, just 2 years ago, by a Democratic Senate, signed by a Democratic President. The legislation that Senator Grassley and I drafted with another Democratic Senator, the vice chairman of my committee--the Intelligence Committee--has nearly two dozen more. It is never enough for the Senator from Oregon. So perhaps the minority leaders of the Senate and the House will eventually come to their senses and vote to support legislation that key leaders in their party have drafted to protect this country. But it will never be enough for the Senator from Oregon. So I, of course, object.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, let me try to respond to that fog of misunderstanding and misleading statements. Section 702 does not surveil Americans. It is, to put it simply, about foreigners in foreign countries: so, say, an IRGC leader in Iran talking to one of his operatives in Lebanon; or a Russian in Moscow talking to a Russian in Mexico--all of whom are usually up to no good. The government is not permitted to use section 702 to target Americans, either here or in other countries. It is called section 702 because, as is usually the case, laws have other sections to them--like title I has sections of the law that govern any targeting of an American--and those sections require a probable cause warrant, which is the Senator from Oregon's great crusade. So-called reverse targeting of Americans, using section 702, is prohibited. Requiring a probable cause warrant for this information is akin to requiring a police officer to get a new warrant every time he goes into the evidence room to review lawfully collected evidence. Now, for all the talk about transparency and oversight and privacy protections, I would point out that the legislation I have introduced has more than a dozen additional measures to include, for instance, criminal penalties for any abuse, to include more congressional involvement in the FISA Court's processes, more reporting to the committees on which the Senator from Oregon sits--just like the law we passed 2 years ago had many additional transparency measures and privacy protections. And, as I pointed out, if this law is allowed to expire tomorrow night, so do all of those transparency measures and all those privacy protections. So it is regrettable that we have reached this point, Mr. President. I just hope that the American people don't pay the consequences for the Democrats' reckless intransigence. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA, is a critical national security tool. Well over half of every item in the President's daily brief is derived from section 702. It has stopped terrorist attacks. It has stopped the flow of deadly drugs into our country. It has protected our troops overseas. It has allowed us to rescue troops overseas. Regrettably, the Democrats, led by the two minority leaders, are going to allow this critical authority to expire tomorrow night. Again, this program, which has been on the books for almost 20 years, is one of the most important intelligence tools that we have. And why are they going to let it expire? I guess the minority leader is mad about who Donald Trump chose to run an intelligence Agency on an acting basis--an Agency that, by the way, has very little to do with section 702. To the extent it does, legislation I proposed with Senator Warner and other leaders in this Senate would impose more guardrails on that Agency. And, by the way, if the law expires tomorrow night, all the guardrails on that, and every other Agency, expire as well. So even though we haven't been able to pass the legislation that Senator Grassley and I coauthored with Senator Warner and others, the responsible next step is to have a short-term extension of this legislation, especially as we begin welcoming literally millions of foreigners to this country for the World Cup and for the America 250 celebrations right around the corner. If we don't extend it for at least a few weeks while we continue to try to work on our differences, the consequences could be severe. The consequences, to be frank, could be fatal. Americans should not have to face that risk because of partisan game playing by the minority leader of the Senate and the House. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask for unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, let me say that I respect the vice chairman, and I appreciate our work together on the Intelligence Committee. In particular, I thank the vice chairman for his cooperation on last year's Intelligence Authorization Act to reduce the sprawling bureaucracy at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. We have more to come in this year's bill too. The end result will be an intelligence community that is less bureaucratic, more nimble, and more focused on protecting our Nation, not pushing paper. But this legislation has nothing to do with intelligence. Today, we are putting an end to the minority leader's unprecedented obstruction, securing our border, and enforcing our immigration laws. The Democrats have pursued their ``defund the police'' ambitions for nearly a year, starving our immigration officers of badly needed support. So we are not just funding those brave officers for the end of this year but the end of the President's term. It is time to protect our borders, enforce our laws, and get on to other business. This amendment would only further delay matters, and it contains matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee and is thus extraneous. Point of Order Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, again, let's be specific on what we are talking about here. The Senator from Oregon keeps talking about a short-term extension. I think most people with some common sense--the people sitting in our Gallery--would say: You know what; a 45-day extension is pretty short term when the House just voted for a 3-year extension. Is 45 days not short term in the context of a 3-year extension, versus what the Senator from Oregon has proposed, a 3-week extension which is really a 2-week extension, because, again, we are in recess next week? We cannot discuss these matters on our cell phones or by text message or by anything else. So if we are open to a short-term extension, I would suggest that 45 days is fairly short term. The Senator from Oregon also speaks about comity. I would suggest that comity also counsels that we have a little bit longer than 2 weeks for a grieving colleague who just had a terrible family tragedy. And, finally, about this FISC matter, it is the Senator from Oregon continuing his longstanding practice of grossly misrepresenting classified material in public for his own ideological ends. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--first, let me just set the context here. The Senator from Oregon has always expressed hard-core ideological opposition to section 702, which a large majority of the Senate and the House, under Democratic and Republican hands, across Democratic and Republican administrations, has always deemed a vital national security tool. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the Senator from Oregon has never once voted to extend section 702. Every few years, we come down here and we have this debate. So let me just express how important it is. The President has said that section 702, which I would remind everyone here is about foreigners on foreign territory--not American citizens--people who do not have Fourth Amendment rights. It is not just about catching jihadists, uncovering terrorist plots. The President, the Commander in Chief, has said this is vital for the Maduro raid, for Operation Epic Fury, for the rescue of missing troops. I think we should respect his position as the Commander in Chief, the consumer of this intelligence, and the one who employs it--a very similar call to what President Biden and President Obama made before as well. Unfortunately, it does expire tonight. And as even the Senator from Oregon, a hard-core ideological opponent of section 702, has granted in requesting a 3-week extension, we shouldn't let it go dark tonight. So how did we get here? Yesterday, the House passed a 3-year extension. That is what the President asked for, a 3-year extension. Now, he wanted it to be a clean extension. The House adopted various reforms. About 90 percent of House Republicans voted for that bill. More than 40 House Democrats voted for that bill. If we were to vote on that bill today, the vast majority of Senate Republicans would vote for it. But there are enough Senate Democrats to block its passage today, which I recognize. We, therefore, need more time for negotiations. These negotiations are highly complex and technical. They have been constructive, but they must continue, and they must involve not only Senators but also Members of the House, the Speaker, the minority leader, the chairman and the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the chairman and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. I believe we are moving forward. I believe that we can get a bill passed that both preserves the operational viability of this program while addressing concerns of those who are not yet ready to vote for a 3-year extension. Therefore, we have proposed, say, a 3-month extension, which would take us to the end of July and the August recess. The Senator from Oregon thinks that is too long. A 2-month extension, which would take us roughly to the Fourth of July recess--the Senator from Oregon thinks that is too long. We would even be OK with a 45-day extension, which would give us until about the middle of June. Yet here he is proposing 3 weeks, which in reality is 2 weeks, given the Senate and the House calendar, because we are out of session next week. Now, he has said to me: Well, we can talk about this over the phone, which I guess reflects his usual lax indifference to security matters. This is not a tax bill. This is not a healthcare bill. This is a highly classified intelligence program. We can't just text and chat about it on our phones. We need to be here in Washington, in secure spaces, where we can talk about highly classified details. For that matter, we need to be here in Washington so we can talk with the operational figures in the FBI, in the CIA, and in the NSA who run this program, who have the knowledge to tell us: This reform will work; it preserves operational viability. That reform won't work. So when he asks for a 3-week extension, just realize that is a 2-week extension, not a 3-week extension. Now, he says: I just want to do business as usual, and that is why I waited this long. Let me add that one of the key figures here is the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who, everyone knows, just suffered a terrible family tragedy. We held off introducing our bill, in part, out of respect for the vice chairman and his family grieving about that terrible tragedy. I would suggest that we owe him a little bit of decency, respect, and grace, and that we can get to a good result if we take a little bit more time to actually have a thorough negotiation when everyone is ready to do so. Therefore, I object.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I urge my Senate colleagues to vote to confirm the nomination of the Honorable John Thomas Shepherd for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Throughout his career, Judge Shepherd has worked to uphold the rule of law, preserve public safety, and keep crime out of our State. Whether representing the people as a prosecuting attorney, presiding from the bench as a circuit judge, or practicing law in the private sector, Judge Shepherd has handled a wide range of cases with an exceptional track record. Those who know Judge Shepherd can attest to his professionalism, his commitment to serving Arkansans, and his dedication to his family, many of whom have also answered the call to public service. A native of El Dorado, Judge Shepherd is also a leader in his community, serving as a volunteer youth coach for the Boys & Girls Club, a radio color analyst for the El Dorado High School football team, and an active member of his church. I am pleased to support Judge Shepherd's nomination, and I urge my Senate colleagues to vote to support his confirmation as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, one of the most despicable pieces of legislation, an attack on our sacred right to vote, a voter suppression bill--these are just some of the hysterical things that Democrats have said lately about the SAVE America Act. I disagree, and so do most Americans. In fact, 64 percent of adults say that the SAVE America Act is a good idea and will help ensure that only eligible citizens can vote in our elections. After all, only Americans should have a say in who runs our country. Voting in our elections is a privilege and a right of American citizens, not of millions of illegal aliens who have flooded into our country under Joe Biden. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. Sixty-two percent of Americans support requiring proof of citizenship to vote. The SAVE America Act will ensure that every voter in our elections is an American citizen. Because the bill allows numerous forms of documentation to serve as proof of citizenship, every American will be able to cast a ballot. Most Americans also agree that every voter should have a valid ID. Polls consistently show that more than 80 percent of voters support voter ID requirements. And I have got some bad news for my Democratic colleagues: These polls also show that 71 percent of Democrats support voter ID. But instead of listening to their own voters, Democrats in Washington claim that the SAVE America Act is, yes, ``Jim Crow 2.0.'' Apparently, asking voters to confirm that they are who they say they are is racist. That is laughable. Just think about all the different places you have been asked to show your ID lately. Last weekend, I took a flight, had to show an ID. I rented a car, had to show an ID. I checked into a hotel, had to show an ID. I bought medicine--over-the-counter medicine, mind you--and, yes, I had to show an ID. I am very confident that Delta, Enterprise, Marriott, and Walmart don't ask me for ID because they are racist. I know they need to confirm my identity for security purposes. Buy beer at a bar? You get asked for an ID. Buy a pack of smokes at the gas station? You get asked for an ID. Open a bank account? You get asked for an ID. Oh, but the Democrats say voting is different. Voting is a constitutional right. Fair enough. Guess what. Want to exercise your Second Amendment right to buy a gun? You get asked for an ID. Want to exercise your First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in this very building? Sorry to report you have to show an ID if you have an appointment in the Capitol. In fact, the only reason that I can imagine Democrats would oppose the SAVE America Act is to make it easier to cheat in our elections. As the polling data shows, Democrats are yet again on the wrong side of an 80-20 issue. It is no wonder they want to ignore Americans and tilt the odds in their favor. So to the excitable Democrats who claim the SAVE America Act will destroy our democracy, I say the opposite is true. No nation can have a healthy democracy without secure elections. For these reasons, I urge all Senators to vote for the SAVE America Act. Iran Mr. President, I would like to take a moment up front to recognize the American heroes who have lost their lives in the line of duty as part of Operation Epic Fury. I extend my deepest condolences and offer my prayers to their families and loved ones. I also said, with absolute confidence, these American heroes will not have given their lives in vain. For 47 years, Iran's outlaw regime has waged a war of death, destruction, and terror on the United States, our friends, our allies, and, indeed, the civilized world. And now, after 47 years of indecision and timidity, America has finally put our foot down. President Trump has sent a clear message that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and they will never be able to threaten the rest of the world again. It is difficult--in fact, impossible--to overstate just how imminent the threat from Iran was before we took action. The Democrats are now trying to twist this around by claiming the threat we faced wasn't actually imminent at all. However, our top intelligence officials disagree. Earlier today, I chaired the Intelligence Committee's annual worldwide threats assessment hearing. Director of National Intelligence Gabbard testified that Iran was working to rebuild its nuclear program before Operation Epic Fury. According to her, Iran was trying to recover from the severe damage to its nuclear infrastructure sustained by the 12-day war and continued to refuse to comply with its nuclear obligations with the IAEA. But that wasn't the only threat of a nuclear program that hung over our heads. Less than 1 month ago, Iran had thousands of missiles armed and ready to hit our bases and kill Americans as far flung as Western Europe and the Indian Ocean. Thanks to communist China's help, Iran developed a vast missile arsenal that far exceeded the combined missile defenses of the United States, Israel, and our Arab friends, and it got much worse every single month. According to CIA Director Ratcliffe's testimony during today's hearing, if left unchecked, they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental United States. Given these facts on the ground, we were left with no choice. Iran had already loaded and cocked the gun. What were we supposed to do? Wait until they pulled the trigger? Of course not. Iran has been an imminent threat to Americans for 47 years. Let's take a look at the record. Was the threat imminent in 1979, in the days before Iran took over our Embassy and held dozens of Americans hostage for more than a year? Did Iran pose an imminent threat to more than 200 marines before they bombed our barracks in Beirut in 1983? And did thousands of our troops who were murdered and maimed by Iran's deadly roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan face an imminent threat from the regime? I would say so, as I think any reasonable American would. The threat to Americans was as imminent then as it was before we launched Operation Epic Fury. From a legal perspective, Operation Epic Fury was well within the President's constitutional authority and duty as the Commander in Chief to defend Americans. President Trump's objectives are clear. First, destroy Iran's vast missile arsenal and make sure Iran can't rebuild it. It is a lot easier to kill the archer on the ground than to shoot his arrows out of the sky. Second, strike at the pillars of a regime that have been propping up terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah and rebels in Yemen for decades. We are no longer chopping off the various heads of the snake so it can grow seven more in its place; we are just going to kill the snake itself. And, third, we are going to make sure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. We will not stop until Iran's hopes for that nuclear weapon are obliterated alongside its nuclear facilities. Now, some critics claim that the President has abandoned his principles and promises to put America first. I disagree. President Trump has been consistent in his position that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. He said this publicly as early as 2014, years before he threw his hat in the ring for President and years before the ayatollahs tried to assassinate him. Naysayers allege that we are getting involved in another forever war, but let's get something straight: Iran is not Afghanistan, and Iran is not Iraq. While no one has a crystal ball to predict how long the military operations might last, President Trump has an exceptional track record of using targeted and discriminate military force to achieve concrete and defined missions. Other critics have said that Israel forced the United States to take military action against Iran. This is a lie, and it is contemptible. First off, I would say no one dragged Donald Trump anywhere. And, second, Prime Minister Netanyahu himself knows this well and said as much in an interview with Sean Hannity, who has known the President for decades. In fact, the President himself said he may have forced Israel's hand. War Powers Resolution Mr. President, for argument's sake, let's set all this aside, though, and examine the War Powers Resolution before us today. Senator Booker's resolution calls for the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran. This resolution would require the President to end highly successful strikes against Iran before our military objectives are fully achieved. Moreover, it would abandon our Israeli friends and leave them in the skies above Iran alone. In short, this resolution does more than simply attempt to score political points by condemning President Trump's actions. Its passage would handcuff our military force, leaving our troops in a sitting duck, defensive posture while Iran attempts to rain down terror across the region. At this very moment, Iranian military capabilities are being destroyed. I would suggest it is the height of folly to stop now and give our enemy time to regroup. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the War Powers Resolution and instead support Trump's resolute actions against the Ayatollah's regime. May God bless the President, may He protect our troops, watch over their families, and may He continue to bless the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum in relation to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today is a great day in America. Nicolas Maduro--an indicted drug trafficker, an illegitimate communist dictator who has the blood of hundreds of Arkansans and thousands of Americans on his hands--is behind bars in a prison in New York. Again, he was an illegitimate communist dictator, in league with all of America's enemies around the world. With the Venezuelan people crushed underneath his iron fist for years, Maduro turned the country into a crossroads and a playground for the likes of communist China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, and even Islamic terrorists like Hezbollah. I want to take this opportunity to commend the exceptional skill and bravery of our troops, CIA officers, and FBI agents for executing such an amazing military and intelligence operation that brought Maduro's reign to an abrupt end. It is impossible to overstate the complexity of this mission. But for our troops and our intelligence officers--whose skill, professionalism, and bravery are unmatched in the world-- ``impossible'' isn't in their vocabulary. I also commend President Trump for having the courage to take bold, decisive, and audacious action against Nicolas Maduro. This action was well within the President's constitutional authority. The operation was in keeping with President Bush's operation to arrest the drug lord and Panamanian President Manuel Noriega, in 1989. If anything, Maduro was much worse than Noriega, and Venezuela now is even more vital strategically than Panama was then. Additionally, this operation did not violate the War Powers Resolution. Even if you believe the War Powers Resolution is constitutional, these troops were in and out of Venezuela in a couple of hours. Only the United States could execute such a dangerous and difficult mission without the loss of a single American life. But instead of celebrating Maduro's ouster and America's success, our Democratic colleagues are determined to condemn the operation, all because President Trump ordered it. Consider that, in 2020, Senator Schumer criticized President Trump for bragging ``about his Venezuela policy'' but failing to bring ``an end to the Maduro regime.'' It sounds like a call for regime change to me, just like Joe Biden's decision to increase the bounty on Maduro's head seems like a call for Maduro to be apprehended and brought to justice. Yet when President Trump did exactly that last weekend, Senator Schumer said this is ``reckless.'' Also, consider Senator Murphy, who said, in 2019: Getting rid of Maduro is good for the United States. I agree. Unfortunately, he has changed his tune lately. The day after Maduro's capture, Senator Murphy said: The invasion of Venezuela has nothing to do with American security. Nothing. He further said: Venezuela is not a security threat to the [United States]. I disagree. I think it has more than a little to do with our national security and our safety. I have heard from too many Arkansas mothers and fathers whose children have died because of a drug overdose. This operation was about protecting those families and families like them, anyone who struggles with or who has lost a loved one to addiction. Again, Nicolas Maduro was an indicted drug trafficker and narcoterrorist. He was in league with the very drug traffickers who are in the business of killing our kids for profit. He didn't just tolerate drug traffickers in Venezuela or lose control of his territory and allow them to run wild; he was a drug trafficker. I didn't conclude that alone. That was not President Trump's sole decision or even President Biden's decision. That was the finding of a grand jury made up of normal Americans, on more than one occasion. As for the future of Venezuela, well, of course, it is ultimately up to the Venezuelans. The interim authorities in charge in Venezuela today know what we expect of them: Stop the drug trafficking and the weapons trafficking. Accept the return of their refugees and migrants. Release political prisoners. Expel the Iranians, the Cubans, the Islamic terrorists, like Hezbollah operatives, who have turned Venezuela into a launching pad for regional instability and threats to America's interests. It will be a difficult road. Our best source of leverage, though, over the interim authorities is the quarantine that we have imposed on their black market oil, which the Maduro regime used to enrich itself-- not just the regime but the senior leaders of the regime as well, if you know anything about their spending habits or their tastes. Yet this resolution--this very resolution we are debating--might very well require the removal of our Navy ships from the Caribbean that are enforcing the quarantine. Is that what our Democratic friends really want--to let these Chavistas in control of the interim authorities start exporting black market oil again, to keep themselves in power, unaccountable not only to their own people but to America's vital national security interests? I will say I don't think so. I don't think our Democratic colleagues want to let Venezuela start exporting black market oil again. I believe they were genuine years ago, when they called for Maduro's ouster. I believe they are genuine, now, when they condemn Maduro as an illegitimate dictator and a drug trafficker, someone who repressed his own people, even if they then immediately want to eat their cake and have it too by saying that President Trump still shouldn't have removed him. I think it is just that they are so blinded by their hatred of President Trump that they feel they have to condemn this action in some way. Instead, why don't we just, as I said at the beginning, celebrate the removal of a virulently anti-American, illegitimate communist dictator who was trafficking drugs into our country and then help the Venezuelan people build a bright future that restores the glories of their past, turning a nation that was the most dangerous, anti-American country in our backyard into the most stable and prosperous pro-American country in our backyard. So I urge a ``no'' vote against this resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. COTTON

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

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues reached between the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026. The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee. I ask unanimous consent that the Explanatory Statement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 be printed into the record.

Mr. COTTON

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am sad to share that Norman Podhoretz, a towering figure of American letters and politics, passed away last night. Not many men change the course of history. Those who do usually do it through their actions, like GEN Ulysses Grant's brilliant military campaigns in the Civil War. Fewer still do it with a combination of words and actions like Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps rarest of all are men like Norman Podhoretz, who changed history with mere words--and what words they were. Norman was not only the longtime legendary editor and soul of Commentary Magazine but also a prolific author of a dozen books, hundreds of essays, articles and columns and no telling how many speeches. He could turn out 10,000 words of elegant, sparkling, cogent prose, seemingly, at a moment's notice while identifying for his readers the deeper meaning of the day's news. Norman was an original neoconservative and proud to be so. These days, some historically illiterate podcasters and so-called influencers use the term ``neocon'' as an all-purpose slur for anything they don't like. But the neocons were just that, new conservatives, a collection of anticommunist liberals between World War II and the Vietnam war who were, as the saying goes, mugged by reality--in this case, the reality of the New Left's turn against America. Norman followed this path and blazed it for others. Born in 1930 to working-class Jewish immigrants in Brooklyn, Norman later said the first Republican he met was in high school. Blessed with natural abilities and good teachers, Norman earned a scholarship to Columbia, while at his father's insistence, he also studied concurrently at the Jewish Theological Seminary and earned a degree in Hebrew literature. After more studies at Cambridge and 2 years in the Army, he returned to New York and wrote for magazines such as The New Yorker and Partisan Review and ran in the liberal intellectual social circles of the times with the likes of Norman Mailer and Allen Ginsberg. He also wrote for and worked at Commentary, a journal of Jewish thought which, at the time, fit well into those circles. He became editor-in-chief in 1960, on the eve of the disorder, chaos, and anti- Americanism that would be unleashed by the New Left that decade. They considered this country to be evil-- Norman said of the New Left in 1995. We neoconservatives were not only outraged by this attitude and thought it intellectually wrong in almost every detail, but also thought it was morally outrageous, contemptible, and dangerous. Soon enough, Norman and Commentary defined this neoconservative movement, especially on foreign policy. They published famous path- setting essays, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick's ``Dictatorships and Double Standards'' and ``The United States in Opposition'' by Pat Moynihan. No less a titan than Ronald Reagan called Norman a ``must-read'' for conservatives of all stripes. Norman, Kirkpatrick, and other neocons both followed and led Reagan into the Presidency, helping to shape a strong and confident foreign policy of defending American interests and free peoples against the menace of Soviet Russia and anti-American insurgencies around the world. Norman maintained a friendly dialogue with Reagan over the years and received a richly deserved Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush. Norman turned over the reins of Commentary in 1995, but he never put down the pen. I am thankful he didn't because that was also the year I discovered the magazine and became a 30-year subscriber. Norman and Commentary were there to chronicle the threat from militant Islam, communist China, and growing anti-Semitism and radicalism at home. Thanks to great thinkers like Norman, I cannot claim to be a neoconservative. I was, if I could borrow the phrase, ``right from the beginning.'' Generations of young readers learned the easy way from Norman what he had learned the hard way, never flirting with liberalism in our youth. As, in his own words, ``a filthy little slum child'' of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Norman was eternally grateful to America for welcoming his family and providing him with unlimited opportunity. Norman said that he had ``a love affair with America.'' A love affair with America--I think that is a very apt way to put it, something we should all try to emulate and instill in our kids and grandkids. Norman's love affair with America, I suspect, was behind his dogged support for Donald Trump when so many of his old friends abandoned our party in 2016. But Norman saw President Trump's election as ``a kind of miracle.'' He believed that President Trump could, in his words, ``save us from the evil on the Left.'' Despite all their differences, with their shared love of America, their hatred of communism, their shared New York roots--indeed their shared Brooklyn-to-Manhattan journey--Norman and the President may not be quite the strange bedfellows they first appeared to be. I am confident that Norman was pleased with the President's muscular defense of the American way of life upon his return to office and especially pleased that Norman lived to watch America join with Israel to devastate Iran's nuclear program on President Trump's watch. One of the great benefits of my work as a Senator is the opportunity to cross paths with great men like Norman Podhoretz. After learning from his writing for so many years, I have had the occasion to meet him and share a modest correspondence. I can share that Norman may have receded from public writing in recent years, but he remained as witty, brilliant, and courageous as ever in his private correspondence. Yet, as we all sometimes do when we reflect on our lives, Norman too acknowledged that he at times wondered ``what it all amounted to'' and sometimes feared the answer was ``not much.'' But nothing could be further from the truth, I assured him. For nearly 70 years, Norman informed, educated, persuaded, and succeeded with his words. He taught multiple generations not just to love our country but also why we should love it and how to defend it. His words reached to the U.S. Congress, the Oval Office, and into the councils of nations. Without Norman and the little magazine he led, the course of history--the Reagan revolution and the Cold War in particular--might indeed have been very different. I, therefore, join Norman's family not only in mourning the loss of this great man but also in celebrating the highly consequential life of a true American patriot. I yield the floor.