Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up S. 4444, a bill to extend the surveillance law known as section 702, for 3 weeks and to require the declassification of the FISA Court's recent ruling on section 702. That ruling found serious violations of Americans' constitutional rights in how the Trump administration has used section 702. The Congress should not vote--should not vote--to renew section 702 while Americans are left in the dark about these troubling abuses. Today is the expiration date for section 702. Nonetheless, because of a court order, the government's surveillance can continue without interruption until March of 2027. Several Senators have made it clear to me that they are uncomfortable with section 702 expiring. I believe it will be easier to negotiate reforms to section 702 if the Congress passes a short-term extension. The bill that I seek to pass is straightforward: a 3-week extension. Every day that section 702 is extended without meaningful reforms is a day that the program can continue to be abused. I am willing to allow a short-term extension so long as important information currently hidden from the public is declassified so that Congress can have a full public debate. A 3-week extension is more than reasonable. Senators from both parties introduced legislation months ago, and we have been prepared to negotiate. Unfortunately, Senators willing to accept business as usual decided to wait. They wanted to just wait around until just before expiration to try to jam through whatever they wanted. That approach failed 2 weeks ago. Senators for business as usual decided they weren't going to use that extra time to do any negotiating. If the House and Senate are given the opportunity to vote on a long- term extension with meaningful reforms to protect the privacy rights of Americans, it is going to pass. Three weeks is more than enough time to negotiate a reform bill; that is, if Members are serious about negotiating. My legislation requires the government to declassify the FISA Court's March 17 ruling on section 702. The government is already required by law to declassify this court ruling. This is an important part of the debate. Let me repeat that. Declassification is already required by law. All that my bill requires is that the opinion be declassified now--now--before Congress votes on renewing section 702. The law requiring declassification and public release of the court's rulings isn't even remotely controversial. Each year, the FISA Court issues a ruling approving the program, and every year the government follows the law and comes around to declassifying the ruling. These declassified rulings inform Congress and the public about how the administration and the FISA Court interpret the law. It sheds light on past abuses. These opinions are critical to congressional oversight and to the public. So what might be different this year? First, the March 17 ruling describes serious abuses of section 702 and violations of Americans' constitutional rights. The Congress is debating section 702 reauthorization right now. So maybe there are some who would rather have Congress just go out and vote in the dark--vote in the dark before the public hears about the Trump administration's latest violation of Americans' constitutional rights. So I am going to wrap up by addressing the arguments of some of our opponents. First, what about protecting what is called sources and methods? My bill allows the executive branch to make redactions to protect sources and methods, just as they have done for all previous section 702 FISA rulings that have been released to the public. Second, you may hear there is not enough time to do this. The Trump administration has known for over a month that they are legally required to declassify the opinion that I am seeking. My bill would give them 2 more weeks to do it. That is more than enough time to carefully redact a single document. Believe me, when the government wants to declassify something, they sure as hell move fast. To sum up, my bill gives Congress more than enough time to negotiate a section 702 reauthorization bill with meaningful reforms, and it requires the declassification of information that, in my view, is critical to the debate and the public's understanding of what is being voted on. So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4444, which is at the desk; 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, so let me repeat the central business in a key area, and that is: I am prepared today to pass a short-term extension of section 702. I am doing that because I have listened to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I don't think it is really necessary because of the FISA Court ruling recently, but in the interest of comity and working together--which is something I have tried to make a priority--I want to state again: I am prepared to pass a short-term extension of section 702 today. What I am also extraordinarily concerned about, though, is there is a classified ruling of the FISA Court that found troubling abuses of section 702 that violate Americans' constitutional rights. Let me just repeat that. That is a finding that the court found of troubling abuses of Americans' constitutional rights. What I am beginning to get a sense of is the Trump administration is now so desperate to keep this ruling secret they would rather let section 702 expire than make it public, which I believe is the key here--make it public before the vote. The American people deserve to know what the Trump administration is up to. Before the Congress votes on whether to give Americans greater protections, Congress must use a short-term extension to openly debate the critical issues in front of the American people, and I am disappointed that instead, it sure feels right now that the other side of the aisle is covering the abuses up. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my colleague on the other side of the aisle is now ducking the issue that I have brought to light. I am clear that I am for a short-term extension. I have said it now three or four times. But I also believe that the government, which is already required to declassify the ruling I am seeking, it ought to get out to the American people. That is what this is all about. I would just say to my colleague the chairman: Let's let the American people decide whether it is not a big deal as my colleague has said. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me pick up on where I think the majority leader wants to go as well. We have been working hard on the 702 legislation with the kind of lodestar that we want to prove that, for the first time, the government is saying that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive; that we can do both. To do that, we now have a letter that will be sent very shortly from Chairman Cotton and Ranking Member Warner to the DNI and the Attorney General. I just want to read this--it is very short--into the Record that will reflect this, and then we will have a brief colloquy, the majority leader and I, that is along the lines of what we talked about. So Chairman Cotton and Ranking Member Warner write to the DNI and the Attorney General: Earlier this month, the Department of Justice delivered to Congress a classified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinion and order, dated March 17, 2026. Under the law, your offices are currently conducting a declassification review for the purposes of making this FISC opinion and order publicly available, consistent with the protection of sources and methods, as soon as practicable. In order to inform the Senate debate on reauthorization of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we expect that this declassification review will be completed, and the FISC opinion released publicly, within 15 days. So, again, this is coming from the chairman of our committee, Chairman Cotton, and Senator Warner, our vice chairman. It is going to the DNI and the Attorney General, and to make sure that everybody understands the state of play here, a formal letter is being written, and we are just getting the signatures on that now. Everyone is waiting to hear where things stand. And with that, let me yield to my colleague the majority leader.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the majority leader states it correctly. That is my understanding as well. The point of this is to have some additional time. This is a very new period in this debate with, for example, AI driving so much of this. And you know, new tools require new rules, and we are going to be able to think about how to proceed with that in the future. I yield my time. I thank the majority leader for, in effect, reaffirming what we have been working on. I think that this letter from the chair and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, where I am proud to serve, to DNI and the Attorney General is a step in the right direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is now delaying a vote on FISA because Members are waking up to the fact that this surveillance authority is too dangerous to hand to any President without new reforms. And here is the bottom line. If there were the votes today to advance this bill right now, we would be voting. But when it comes to reauthorizing section 702, I am here to offer the judgment that the only path forward is reform. Here is how we got here. Two weeks ago, the leadership in the House executed the oldest play in the book when it comes to surveillance: They waited until a week before the bill was set to expire, there was no time to debate, and they tried to pass a straight reauthorization without reforms. What happened? A bipartisan coalition said: No way. Then they came back with a new bill that week, but it turned out that these so-called reforms made FISA 702 less accountable. That bill failed. Then the House voted on a straight extension of the law--again with no reforms. A bipartisan coalition voted that down. And now, this week, the House Republican leadership tried to sell a fake reform to their Members a third time. Once again, the body is in disarray. It is clear that Senators who voted to support the current FISA surveillance law in the past are now rethinking their positions. Every day, this administration demonstrates its contempt for the rule of law and its thirst for absolute power. They have destroyed oversight and guardrails and trampled on the rights of the American people. They have attacked and killed protesters and observers, seized the records of journalists, and gone after political enemies, including Members of Congress. There are many ways in which 702 can be abused by the administration, including warrantless searches of Americans' communications in 702 data. The fact is, there are alarm bells pointing to administration abuses. What kind of abuses? Month after month, Trump administration officials have been trotting out conspiracy theories about elections and voting. These theories include accusations of foreign involvement. The Director of National Intelligence even showed up at the FBI's ballot-seizing raid in Fulton, GA. And one of her excuses: She was there to protect against foreign interference. These conspiracy theories open the door for more warrantless 702 searches, all to try to discredit American elections. The Trump administration has also been abusing its authorities to go after journalists whose stories they don't like. All it takes is an accusation of a foreign connection and they can be subjected to 702 searches. Then there are protesters who the administration could accuse of being connected to antifa groups. When the guardrails are gone and the abuses are clear, there is only one solution: Congress must require court-ordered warrants to conduct searches on Americans. There ought to be exceptions, but only for emergencies. I am going to close with one last important issue that colleagues are approaching all of us to ask about, and that is the role of AI in supercharging surveillance abuses. The Trump administration is going full speed ahead on AI, and Americans are rightly concerned about how artificial intelligence is going to affect their privacy rights. In the case of section 702, the government could use artificial intelligence to process huge amounts of data to identify Americans for warrantless searches. These technological advances are happening so fast, and Congress needs to step up and protect Americans. New tools require new rules, and it really applies to artificial intelligence. So when the Senate returns to vote on government surveillance, I am here to say another effort to jam this bill through without reforms is also going to be dead as a doornail. I urge all Members to come forward and work in a bipartisan way because security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. Smart policies get you both; not so smart policies get you neither. I urge my colleagues to recognize that at this moment it is right for the Senate to postpone the vote. It is the second time we have postponed a vote because the country doesn't buy this argument that we should sacrifice our liberty in order to have security. We can find both. I urge my colleagues to use this interim period to make sure that actually happens, and I intend to be on the floor objecting at every opportunity if it doesn't. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just so we are clear, there is authority to continue the protections for the American people already. We will have that debate. I am eager to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have to recognize that the only path forward for the American people is actual reform and not just cliche's. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, it has been a year since Republicans gutted Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics. For many women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of primary care and prevention, like cancer screenings and STI testing. There are 23 Planned Parenthood clinics that have closed, and 75 percent of the clinics that have shuttered their doors have been in rural or underserved areas. The number of breast exam visits fell by 25 percent. Fewer women are getting essential preventive care, heightening their risk of cancer. All of this lifesaving care is on the chopping block if this amendment passes. This amendment is just the Republicans' latest attempt to strip women of the healthcare they need and depend on so that they can go score some political points. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment--to strongly oppose it. Point of Order Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane; therefore, it violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5336 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the amendment would require that the Government Accountability Office analyze Donald Trump's agreement with the pharmaceutical companies. He claims that he signed deals with 16 pharmaceutical companies to get Americans the lowest prescription drug prices in the world, but the details of these so-called deals are completely shrouded in secrecy. Donald Trump wants Congress to put these deals into black letter law, sight unseen. So my amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to analyze the deals and provide a clear analysis of the savings, if any, to taxpayers and to patients. And for any of my Senate colleagues who are concerned about disclosing trade secrets, this amendment protects all confidential information. If these Trump deals are so great, there should be nothing to hide. This amendment would give Congress and the public the specifics for the first time on these Trump pharmaceutical deals. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to request unanimous consent to pass the Speedy Tariff Refund Act. The bill forces the Trump administration to immediately return the money it has stolen from American businesses under Donald Trump's illegal tariffs. Nothing illustrates the hostility that Donald Trump has shown toward helping Americans seek refunds better than his comments to CNBC this morning. Donald Trump said this morning that it would be ``brilliant'' if companies do not seek refunds and that he will remember those who don't. That sounds like a threat to me. The President of the United States basically said he will remember those who don't seek a refund or come forward. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's so-called ``emergency'' IEEPA tariffs. The Court's ruling was clear: the tariffs were illegal, and the administration must refund the money to the American importers that paid the tariffs. It has now been 2 months since the Supreme Court's decision. Not a single penny has been paid back. The Trump administration is deliberately delaying these refunds, even after Trump's own lawyers claimed that they would be issued. While Donald Trump funnels money to his vanity projects and illegal war, his administration is doing everything it can to avoid returning the money it stole from American companies. That is why I quoted the President's threat this morning. I have heard from countless small business owners who paid the tariffs but still have no idea when or if they will ever get their money back. This leaves businesses and workers on a financial rollercoaster, questioning if they are going to be able to keep their doors open. Yesterday, Customs and Border Protection began accepting refund requests through yet another online system, which is already riddled with glitches and errors. But instead of paying refunds automatically, Customs and Border Protection is requiring businesses in America to file yet another round of paperwork to get a refund. This is just more bureaucratic red tape, making it harder for Americans to get their money back. Customs and Border Protection is even excluding whole categories of imports from the refund system for now, and they are doing it despite the Court of International Trade's order to pay refunds of all IEEPA tariffs. It is as clear as Crater Lake that Oregonians can't rely on this administration to return their money, so Congress needs to step up. My bill requires the administration to pay tariff refunds, with interest, within 30 days. It applies to every importer who paid IEEPA tariffs, not just certain imports, and it makes it clear that CBP must pay the refunds automatically without requiring additional paperwork. I am sure my Republican colleagues are also hearing from small businesses in their States that are desperate to get a tariff refund. I urge them to join me, Senator Markey, Senator Shaheen, and to do it today. The Senate can act today to put money back in the pockets of small businesses and ensure Donald Trump no longer keeps scamming Americans out of the tariff refunds they are owed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4364, the Speedy Tariff Refund Act; 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. WYDEN. Just very briefly, as I know Senator Merkley is waiting to speak, we are talking about CBP. If we really want to know what they are in the process of doing, they are in the process of playing more stall ball, making it tough for small businesses to get access to these tariff refunds. As I said, it is all summed up by what Donald Trump said to CNBC. I interpret that as, point blank, a threat to people who go out and try to advance their rights, and I think it is wrong for the President to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Americans understand that every single day there are abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And the reality is, a growing number of Democrats and Republicans are now saying that a straight extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law is absolutely unacceptable in any way, shape, or form. So it is clear it is time for real reforms to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance by a government that they rightly do not trust. So for the last hour or so, I have been speaking to colleagues in the other body of the House. And they have told me, unequivocally, that this short-term extension makes reform more likely and expiration makes reform less likely. But make no mistake about it, opponents of reform have shown no willingness, for years and years, to negotiate meaningful reform. And those of us in a bipartisan, bicameral way who have insisted that this time will be different want to emphasize that this morning. The reality is that the country believes that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. A good bill that we are insisting on will do that. A bad bill will give us less security and less liberty. So I hope that opponents of reform are going to understand what is going on in the Congress and in the country and start talking about what is genuinely good reform and what it would look like. I will say that I am now the longest serving member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I have never seen the concern on both sides of the aisle, that is bicameral, for real reform. So I have talked to my colleagues in the House, and their views have been particularly important because they have told us about their work last night and what it means for real reform. And we are going to be following that here every single day because Ben Franklin said--you are going to hear me talk about that--anybody who gives up their liberty for security doesn't deserve either. We are going to insist on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I release my hold on the promotion of Col. Thomas M. Siverts, PN793-2, on the Executive Calendar. In March 2026, I raised concerns about Colonel Siverts' appearance on an episode of a podcast known as The Berm Pit, which is anti-Semitic and racist. I requested the Marine Corps to provide me with a copy of this podcast episode, so I could review the nature of his participation in this podcast. I was first told the podcast was not accessible, but the Marine Corps provided me with a copy of the episode after I objected to the promotion of Colonel Siverts. I have since been able to review the podcast episode, and I did not have any concerns with the exchange on the podcast. Further, Colonel Siverts wrote a letter to me unequivocally condemning anti-Semitism and racism, noting that at the time of his appearance on the podcast, the podcast had no association with the hateful ideologies expressed by others on different episodes of the podcast months later. Colonel Siverts made clear that the ideologies of anti-Semitism and racism are antithetical not only to the values of the Marine Corps, but to who he is too. My concerns have been addressed, and I support the Senate confirming Colonel Siverts' promotion to brigadier general.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, soon, we will cast important votes here in the Senate on surveillance law. I rise today to share some important new developments about the surveillance practices of this administration, which are vital to this debate. Today, I want to start by warning my colleagues: Any Senator who votes to reauthorize this law without real reform will be directly responsible when the Trump team abuses their spying powers to go after Americans. I want the Senate to know the alarm bells are loud and getting louder. Senators know the surveillance law known as section 702 of FISA expires on Monday. I have been on the Intelligence Committee since the law was written. It is undeniably a useful tool that American intelligence agencies rely on to collect information about foreigners outside the country. The problem is that 702 lacks adequate safeguards to protect Americans whose emails and texts or other communications can get swept up in this surveillance. So you could have Americans doing legitimate, often sensitive, important work--journalists, foreign aid workers, people with family overseas, even women seeking abortion medication from a provider overseas. Reformers argue that 702 should only be reauthorized with stronger protections--protections for constitutional rights--and that is particularly true when there are blaring alarms warning of abuses, some of which Congress has yet to be told about. I am going to highlight now some of those alarm bells. For years, there have been jaw-dropping abuses of section 702. Government officials have searched through 702 data to find Black Lives Matter protestors, political campaign donors, elected officials, even a State judge who complained about police abuses. Opponents of reform say that the problems with the law have been fixed. The facts show otherwise. One of the biggest flaws in section 702 is what is called the ``backdoor search loophole.'' Mr. President, 702 is supposed to be an authority aimed at foreigners outside the United States, but the government is currently allowed to trawl their way through the vast collection of 702 data to conduct warrantless searches for Americans' communications. Last year, the FBI increased the number of warrantless searches it conducted for Americans' communications by more than a third. That is concerning enough right there. Yet it gets worse. The number of so-called ``sensitive'' warrantless searches--which can target elected officials, journalists, or the leaders of political organizations--more than tripled during the first year of the Trump administration. The FBI has refused to say why. Given Trump's enthusiasm for investigating journalists and political opponents, this, too, is a blaring alarm warning of abuses that Congress has not been told about. The government is also circumventing warrant requirements by using a credit card. A few weeks ago, FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that the FBI is actually buying up Americans' location data. If the government wanted to compel companies to hand over this information, it would need a warrant, but through a loophole in the law, government Agencies--we are talking about the FBI, ICE, CBP, and the Pentagon--can buy this sensitive information from sleazy, shady data brokers with essentially no oversight. The fact is, if you are going to close the data broker loophole, the time to act is now. You are not going to get another chance this year. Yet another blaring alarm went off a few weeks ago. On March 17, the FISA Court--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--found major compliance problems with section 702. These problems are directly related to Americans' constitutional rights. In the past, the government would work with that court to fix these kinds of problems. Today, the press reports that the Trump administration is appealing the court ruling so that they never--never, Mr. President--have to fix the problems. This raises a serious question: How can Congress reauthorize the authority while the appeal is pending and nobody knows what reforms are actually needed? I am going to have a lot more to say about this part. The court ruling needs to be declassified. Americans ought to have the ability to understand what their government is up to. I will remind my colleagues there is another separate, secret law problem with section 702. Multiple administrations have relied on a secret interpretation of 702 that directly impacts the privacy rights of Americans. The Director of National Intelligence, unfortunately, has turned down my request to make this information public, so I have written a classified document that explains the problem in more detail. I have made it available in a secure room at Senate Security. I urge this afternoon in the strongest possible way--I encourage my colleagues to read it so Senators can hear the alarm bells loudly warning us of abuses that Congress hasn't been told about. We are also being warned about the impact of new technology on Americans' constitutional rights. I want to talk, for example, about the implications of artificial intelligence on this debate, and these are fairly new developments that I think most Senators have not heard. The CEO of one of America's largest AI companies sounded this warning several weeks ago. He did it in a message about his firm's multimillion-dollar contract with the Department of Defense. Here is what this AI CEO said: AI-driven mass surveillance presents serious, novel risks to our fundamental liberties. To the extent that such surveillance is currently legal, this is only because the law has not yet caught up with the rapidly growing capabilities of AI. For example, under current law, the government can purchase detailed records of Americans' movements, web browsing, and associations from public sources. . . . Powerful AI makes it possible to assemble this scattered, individually innocuous data into a comprehensive picture of any person's life--automatically and at massive scale. This is one of the most powerful voices in the field of AI. I am citing somebody who really understands the underpinnings of what AI is all about, and he is warning Congress about the impact of AI-powered surveillance. Let me repeat that. One of the most powerful voices in the field of AI is warning Congress at this time about the impact of AI-powered surveillance. I hope my colleagues will listen to him. I recently wrote to several leading AI companies to ask them about whether government agencies could use their products to analyze information on Americans collected through this kind of bulk surveillance. None of them denied that their products could be used this way. I want America's intelligence and law enforcement agencies to take advantage of new technologies that can help them protect public safety and national security, but new tools require new rules. Without new rules, you can count on the executive branch to run roughshod over Americans' privacy rights and constitutional freedoms. It is not hard to see how these capabilities could be abused--especially to target immigrants, people attending protest rallies, women seeking abortions, and Donald Trump's other perceived enemies. The fact is, there is a bipartisan, bicameral group of Members that I am part of that has worked together to come up with a solution to these kinds of challenges. Among other important reforms, our bill would require the government to get a warrant if it wants to deliberately read an American's emails or texts. That would be whether the information is collected under FISA or outside of FISA. And it would finally close the data broker loophole. The fact is, what we are hearing about now, these new developments which are breaking weekly about government surveillance, ought to give the U.S. Senate--every Senator--Democratic, Republican, Independent-- ought to take some pause here. My last floor statement on surveillance was only a month old, and I have read through a whole laundry list of stunning new developments that have emerged since then. I am truly amazed that some of my colleagues seem ready to give the executive branch a blank check to keep trampling on Americans' constitutional rights. Congress can and must protect Americans' security and Americans' rights at the same time. Ben Franklin said anybody who gives up their liberty to have security really doesn't deserve either. We ought to be thinking about that at this crucial time. I urge my colleagues to insist that the renewal of section 702 include real reforms--actual black-letter text--to protect Americans' privacy rights. Senators ought to oppose any extension--any extension-- that does not include the kinds of reforms I have been talking about this afternoon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is tax day, April 15--the anti-holiday. This tax day, in particular, is a tough one. Tax day 2026 is a reminder that Donald Trump and Republicans will put the interests of giant corporations ahead of the interests of typical Americans. There is no clearer example of Trump corruption in practice than betraying taxpayers and killing the Direct File Program as a favor to his allies. Here is what this is all about: When it comes to taxes, Democrats start with the proposition that for the vast majority of Americans-- wage-earning workers whose taxes really aren't complicated--filing your taxes ought to be free and easy. Our view is you shouldn't have to pay a penny to perform your basic civic duty. That is why, back in 2022, after years of hard work, we passed funding for the IRS to build a Direct File Program, a way for taxpayers to file directly with the IRS online for free. The IRS launched a pilot project for 2024. They expanded it in 2025. Hundreds of thousands of people used Direct File. It was hugely popular--in effect, a beloved program. A lot of people are skeptical that the government is still capable of building useful things. Direct File proved the skeptics wrong. It proved that the Federal Government can still come up with great public services from the ground up. Well, the tax prep giants saw it as a threat, and over the years, I saw them spend millions to try to defend the status quo that was failing. The prep giants unleashed a tidal wave of lobbying to try to squash the program before it reached escape velocity. They found some willing partners in Republicans here. Going into this year, Trump and Republicans killed Direct File. Millions of Americans should have had an opportunity to use it to file for free, but now, they are back at the mercy of the tax prep companies. The Republicans who killed Direct File say it is no big deal because there are other free options out there, programs that partner with the private companies. The reality is that tax prep companies have already demonstrated they can't be trusted. The worst example was with Intuit. When Intuit was involved with the Free File Program, it was caught burying the free option on a website you couldn't find with a traditional search engine. It steered users toward options that battered them with upcharges and misleading marketing. Finally, they quit offering Free File when they got called out on what were genuinely underhanded tactics. My view is, the debate over this subject isn't that complicated. The government requires people to file and pay taxes, so the least the government can do is to make the filing process simple and free and as painless as possible. Donald Trump and Republicans don't agree because they destroyed a wonderful, new public service when they shut down Direct File. My Finance Committee colleague Senator Warren has been a terrific partner and a champion of Direct File. I have enjoyed working with her over the years on this critical issue. I am behind her effort 100 percent as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee to revive Direct File. We are not going to let this go no matter how long it takes, and I urge all of my colleagues here in the Senate--as it used to be bipartisan--to support Direct File. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Donald Trump has been trying for quite some time to coerce the States into handing over their voter lists since his first term. That is so he and Stephen Miller can create a list of people they do and, most importantly, don't want to have voting in Federal elections. It would allow Trump to block his political enemies. His Executive order is a desperate attempt by a failing President to cling to power by taking control over how States run their elections, and the reason I am here is its effect on States like Oregon that rely on vote-by-mail. I am the country's first U.S. Senator elected completely by mail, and I can tell you the people of my State understand better than anyone that vote-by-mail is safe, easy, and effective. We have been doing it for over 30 years. Oregon is one of nine States that currently conducts elections by mail. Trump talks a big game about vote-by-mail being riddled with fraud. As usual, he exists in his own reality. States that use mail-in voting experience fewer instances of voter fraud than any other system. A review of the vote-by-mail system by Oregon's Legislative Fiscal Office found that, from 2000 to 2019, there were approximately 61 million ballots cast, and, of those, 38 criminal convictions were obtained for fraud, amounting to a 0.00006 percent fraud rate. So let's be clear. First of all, this Executive order is unconstitutional. The Constitution explicitly grants States the power to establish the times, places, and manner of elections, including creating and managing voter lists. That power does not rest with the President. The State of Kansas passed a similar law that was struck down by the courts because it illegally blocked 31,000 eligible voters from registering to vote. Second, this Executive order is illegal. The creation of a national voter database would give the Trump administration unprecedented access to private voter data. Forcing the Social Security office to share private voter data with another Agency is a clear violation of the Privacy Act. When news dropped about the Executive order, I immediately wrote to Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, demanding more information about this data-sharing agreement. This would force Social Security employees to put aside their real jobs--helping seniors and Americans navigate Social Security benefits--and, instead, they would have to execute Trump's voting witch hunt. Americans are already being forced to endure long waits to receive their hard-earned benefits because of Trump's intentional mismanagement of the Agency. Under the order, they would have to wait even longer because the Agency is too busy doing Trump's illegal, unconstitutional, and unethical bidding. From day one of his Presidency, Donald Trump has shown as much consideration for the personal privacy of the American people as a bull in a china shop. He essentially handed over the keys to the kingdom when he gave Elon Musk and DOGE unfettered access to the government's internal data systems. We still don't know who ended up having access to the data. Now he wants to do it again--this time, to create a database of voters that allows him to pick and choose who can vote. What he would be doing is weaponizing a fundamental democratic right-- the right to vote--and potentially target his enemies. Given this administration's track record of mishandling and weaponizing Americans' personal information and data, we can be sure this is a blueprint for who-knows-what with respect to chilling abuses by the Trump administration. There is no legitimate justification for a provision like this. Anybody who facilitates Donald Trump's directive to create a voter database would be a willing and blatant voter suppressor. They would be as culpable in this travesty as Donald Trump. Vote-by-mail makes it possible for millions of Americans to make their voices heard. Stephen Miller would tell you that if you can't vote by mail, you can vote another way. That will have drastic consequences for millions of rural Americans, seniors, and people with disabilities. They would be shut out--no voice in our democracy. An elderly woman living in Eastern Oregon would be forced to drive for hours to the nearest election office to cast a vote. If she doesn't have a car or if she can no longer drive, she would have to find a neighbor or a friend to drive her. If your mom lived in a nursing home, she wouldn't be able to cast her ballot by mail. You would be forced to find time in between running your kids to soccer and holding down a full-time job to get her to a polling place. This is exactly what Donald Trump hates about vote-by-mail: It encourages voter participation. It makes it easier for people to be heard, and it makes it harder for Trump to rig elections in his favor. He is terrified of vote-by-mail because, if he doesn't suppress votes, he knows he can't win. It protects the constitutional right to vote. From his postmarking rule changes to consolidating the Postal Service, shutting down mail processing facilities, and now this, he is in the spaghetti-throwing phase of his midterm election strategy. He knows his platform of pardoning pedophiles and making life more expensive is going to lose him the midterms. Instead of trying to lower costs and improve life for ordinary families, he is hell-bent on making it harder for people to vote. His Presidency is failing, and the Republican platform becomes more unpopular by the day. That is why they are making such a desperate attempt to get the SAVE Act passed before November. Republicans know they don't have the support in the Congress--certainly not to overhaul Federal elections and enact a voter suppression bill. They are wasting our time debating it because not one of them--not one--has the backbone to stand up to Donald Trump. Oregonians will be damned if we let Donald Trump do away with how we conduct our voting so Donald Trump could rig another election. I will fight to make sure Trump's election-rigging scheme dies the death it so richly deserves on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to sound the alarm on a crisis that is a freight train speeding toward the Western United States in the form of what could be one of the worst wildfire seasons in modern history. I was home in Oregon this month where I received a fire briefing from officials in Southern Oregon. What I heard that day was just jaw- dropping. Snowpack is at historic lows at home. Some parts of the State have less than 10 percent of their normal snowpack. Our beloved Crater Lake received its lowest snowpack in 100 years. At the time when snowpack should usually be peaking, it is completely gone less than a month into spring. Western States, including Oregon, were already suffering from horrendous drought, and now this year's record low snowfall is going to make it worse. Simply put, there is no water, and come summertime, Oregon is going to be like a tinderbox waiting to go up in flames. This is a recipe for disaster, but it has been made even worse by Donald Trump's failed leadership when it comes to preparing us to deal with wildfires. Last year, for example, DOGE took a sledgehammer to Federal wildfire programs. Between funding cuts that bullied Federal employees into taking early retirement and pressure campaigns to leave public service, it was a tough time. Mr. President, 1,400 qualified firefighters left the Forest Service in the first year of the Trump Presidency. These are known as red card holders. They might work in other areas of the Forest Service as technical support. They might work in administrative roles, but they are trained, qualified firefighters who can be called up in particularly bad years. That is this one. And to make matters worse, firefighting personnel were caught in the crosshairs of Trump and Vance's immigration agenda of chaos and cruelty. While immigrants put their lives on the line to battle fires, Trump's immigration enforcement officers were actually arresting them and removing them from the fire line. Let me repeat that so there is no confusion: arresting firefighters in the middle of fighting fires--the safety of our communities be damned as long as Donald Trump gets a FOX News segment. These are immigrants who chose to put their lives on the line to defend all of us. And how were they repaid? Donald Trump repaid them by arresting them on the frontlines and throwing them in detention centers while the fires were actually still raging. Locking up firefighters isn't an immigration agenda that makes us safer. It is so self-sabotaging, it makes your head spin. The fact is, Donald Trump has actually kneecapped the ability to reduce fire risks altogether. Thinning and prescribed fire are proven, science-backed tools to reduce the risk in the woods. Each year, during the colder months, hazardous fuel treatment is conducted to reduce the build up of fuels in our forests that act as kindling for fires during the summer. Last year, I asked the Trump administration for an update on how much treatment they had actually done in the woods. The Forest Service Chief confirmed to me in September that the administration's treatment levels were roughly a million acres below previous years. Just a few weeks later, Donald Trump plunged us into the longest government shutdown in the country's history. That put hazardous fuel treatment on hold and set treatment levels back even more. Now, last week, I got another letter from the Chief confirming the current treatment levels remain significantly behind their levels at the end of 2024. So the administration wants to call this a win, saying they almost met their treatment goals. Here is some breaking news for Donald Trump: It is easy to do a victory lap about your achievements when you set the bar on the floor. So here is the current lay of the land: Hazardous fuel treatment levels are down millions of acres. The Forest Service is still down 1,400 firefighters and countless other employees. Budget cuts have yet to be restored. Oregon and the rest of the West have massive fuels buildup in our forests and no water. So what are Donald Trump and his assistants doing? It sure isn't staffing up the Forest Service with qualified firefighters. It is not making sure States have enough money to prepare for the blazes to come. It is not keeping up our forests to reduce fire risks. It sure as hell isn't funding FEMA, the Agency that plays a critical role in helping our communities recover from wildfires and remains mostly shut down under the failed leadership of Donald Trump. In fact, Donald Trump has so slashed staffing at FEMA, cutting the Agency's ability to respond to emergencies, that we are concerned about the days ahead after watching what happened with the floods in Texas Hill Country last summer. Donald Trump is play-acting as a dictator, starting illegal wars in the Middle East. And now he wants Congress to give him $200 billion so that he can keep bombing Iran. I am going to wrap up by saying it this way: Let's use that $200 billion here at home. Let's use it to manage the forests. You should know that the picture that I have painted of my State also looks like it is going to affect something like two-thirds of the West, and I know my colleague is interested in following that. We should be reducing the risk of fires that burn down homes and livelihoods. Let's use the money that Donald Trump wants to put into the war to hire and pay the courageous firefighters that put their lives on the line every year, lives that we always care about, especially because they are protecting our communities. True to form, Donald Trump always finds a way to make things worse. Just last week, in the midst of the brewing catastrophe I have described, Donald Trump announced he is going to dismantle the U.S. Forest Service. At my 11 townhall meetings across the State here over the break, I heard about this recently. The Agency is the one that is in charge of preparing for and fighting wildfires, and Donald Trump is doing away with existing experts and authorities from the region to, no doubt, be replaced with people who will do his own bidding. So Donald Trump defunded 57 research stations dedicated to researching the impact of drought and forest management on wildfire risk. The administration called it a harmless reorganization. Anybody with a pulse can see this for what it really is: an intentional stunt to kneecap firefighting capabilities and leave Oregonians literally in the line of fire. Come summertime when these blazes are strong, the Forest Service will be in complete upheaval, too busy rearranging offices and desk chairs to fight fires. I guess that is what Donald Trump intended in the first place. This is like needing open-heart surgery, and a few weeks before your operation, learning that the hospital has replaced your heart surgeon with Hannibal Lecter. It is another casualty of the Trump crusade to sell off our forests and public lands to billionaires and corporations. The bottom line, Mr. President--and you and I have talked about this--public lands are just that, they are public. Once you sell them off, you can't get them back. Donald Trump doesn't care as long as his billionaire buddies and the Epstein class get to build their own personal resorts. I will close with this. Donald Trump campaigned on cheaper eggs and lower gas prices. Instead, aided and abetted by Republicans in the Congress, he is doing everything to drive up costs and, as I am pointing out with respect to the West, making Americans less safe. Winners under the Trump Presidency are the people at the very top, the corporations and the Epstein class. He sure as hell isn't looking out for the working people who feel like they are getting pushed off an economic tightrope. When our communities are ablaze this summer, there is going to be no time to waste, no time to wait for the training of new firefighters because Donald Trump fired everybody who was qualified, no time to do fire risk reduction work. Donald Trump has set Western States up for failure this fire season, and I very, very much fear the outcome in the West will be catastrophic. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank my colleague from California for very important remarks with respect to this issue. And I am very pleased to be able to join Leader Schumer and Senator Cortez Masto on the floor to talk about energy costs and particularly clean energy jobs. Here is what people need to know about our resolution: American families and businesses from coast to coast have been getting battered by rising energy costs. Data centers are gobbling up energy while Americans get roasted during hotter summers and freeze during icy winters. Donald Trump got back into office last year, and instead of bringing down costs, he and fellow Republicans sabotaged wind and solar--the cheapest and cleanest ways of getting energy on the grid. Then we had to deal with utility costs continuing to rise. The cost of trucking consumer goods shot up around the country. And Republicans looked at a multitrillion-dollar global market for clean energy--absolutely explosive growth and upside for whoever dominates that kind of manufacturing, and they said the United States isn't interested in being a leader. They surrendered to China and the Europeans. If that wasn't enough incompetence and mismanagement, Donald Trump started a war that is driving energy costs into the stratosphere. Americans didn't even have to think about the Strait of Hormuz before a month ago. Now every time they pull up at the gas station to fill up the tank, they are reminded that Donald Trump singlehandedly created an energy crisis unlike anything we have seen in generations. And it is not just about the price Americans pay at the pump; this is rippling through our economy. As I noted, utility bills are continuing to rise. The cost of trucking consumer goods? Continuing to rise. The cost of food in grocery stores? Continuing to rise because fertilizer and fuel are more expensive. We could spend the day with more and more examples. Donald Trump doesn't seem to know or care about this. When he talks about the war he started, it sounds like he is not sure what is going on. When he talks about energy production in our country, it seems like he is stuck in the middle of the last century. It is a nightmare scenario for American families and businesses getting buried by rising costs today. On top of that, the job market is in sorry shape. The Trump economy isn't producing the jobs Americans need. That is particularly true in manufacturing. So my colleagues and I are putting forward a proposal that is a first step toward fixing the energy crisis in the country. We believe it is common sense. It would overturn a regulation from the Trump administration that tied up wind and solar projects with a whole lot of additional bureaucratic redtape. Almost a decade ago, I wrote a set of tax credits for clean energy in the Inflation Reduction Act. It was a very new approach to energy policy. It kicked off a manufacturing boom unlike anything that has been seen in decades. Donald Trump and Republicans killed much of it in 2025, and they specifically targeted wind and solar. They clobbered those industries by cutting off the tax credits as of 2027. If that wasn't enough, Donald Trump and the Treasury Department tied them up with even more redtape last summer. So here is what our proposal is all about. Leader Schumer, my colleague from Nevada, and I say in our resolution: Let's ditch the extra redtape. That is what I hear Democrats and Republicans say most of the time: Ditch the redtape. That way, more projects could get underway. We would get more energy on the grid helping to fight the cost increases people deal with all around America. It is a real head-scratcher to me why anybody would oppose this commonsense resolution. If you do, you are voting for higher energy prices for your constituents at home. My view is, the entire Trump approach to energy production and energy costs ought to go into the dustbin. It is not working. But what my colleagues and I have put forward is not a total rewrite of the law. It is one step--a practical, commonsense step that we believe ought to get support from both sides. So that is what we are saying on our side: Let's get rid of some system-clogging redtape. Let's get more projects underway and produce more energy, and let's fight these terrible energy hikes. That is what we are after. That is what my colleagues and I are trying to do. I urge the Senate to support our resolution. And I want to thank Senator Cortez Masto and Leader Schumer for their excellent work over many months. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I give notice of my intent to object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding Executive Calendar No. PN681-2, PN835-2, and PN793-2, the promotions of Lieutenant Colonel Vincent J. Noble, Lieutenant Commander Thomas P. MacNeil, and Colonel Thomas M. Siverts. When serving in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan, in March 2007, Vincent J. Noble took part in the killings of 19 Afghan civilians, firing indiscriminately at civilian vehicles and bystanders. A military inquiry found that in response to a suicide bomb attack, Noble's platoon went on a rampage across a 7-mile stretch of highway, massacring unarmed civilians on sight. An investigation revealed that Noble asked marines to lie, that he submitted a false version of events to his company commander, and violated an order from the commanding officer, which explicitly directed the battalion to not operate in or around Jalalabad, according to military records. In June 2008, the Commander, Marine Forces Central Command, found Noble guilty, in accordance with his plea, of violating article 133, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Allowing marines under an officer's command to kill civilians indiscriminately is a serious war crime. Those who commit or allow such actions or make false reports about those actions should be held accountable and certainly withheld from promotions within the military. Thomas P. MacNeil served in Mosul, Iraq, in 2017 as part of Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher's platoon. Gallagher stabbed to death a wounded and captive teen boy and held him by the hair in one hand and his knife in the other as photos were taken. MacNeil also posed in certain pictures with the body. MacNeil was implicated in the court martial of Gallagher when Gallagher was accused of committing war crimes in Iraq. The Commander of the SEALs at the time, Rear Admiral Collin Green, pushed for Chief Gallagher and others, including MacNeil, to be stripped of their Tridents. President Trump intervened multiple times to prevent the Navy from disciplining Gallagher, and in 2019, then-Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas B. Modly also intervened and decided to drop the Navy's review of MacNeil and others. While MacNeil was the junior member of his platoon and eventually testified against Gallagher, he exercised poor judgement as an officer and should not be promoted within the U.S. military. In March 2023, Thomas M. Siverts appeared on an episode of a podcast known as ``The Berm Pit,'' which is antisemitic and racist. Siverts's participation in a podcast whose hosts espouse such bigotry raises serious questions about his character and professionalism, which are both relevant to his promotion to brigadier general. To date, the Marine Corps has not provided me with a copy of this podcast episode to verify the nature of his participation in this podcast, nor has Siverts publicly apologized or expressed regret for his association with this podcast.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, yesterday, I rose to explain my opposition to the nomination of Joshua Rudd to be the Director of the National Security Agency and to lead Cyber Command. During his hearing, General Rudd failed to demonstrate a bare minimum understanding of the constitutional limits on NSA activities. His responses to questions about privacy rights and transparency were deeply troubling. He wouldn't commit to the Agency's past policy of not purchasing and using very sensitive location data on Americans, and he wouldn't rule out secretly violating public policies and guardrails on NSA activities. While I admire the nominee's many years of military service, he does not have a background in national signals intelligence activities or cyber operations that would qualify him for this position. Now, he is not the first unqualified nominee. In fact, there are currently no qualified, Senate-confirmed officials in charge of cyber security. The country faces serious cyber security threats. This is truly a five-alarm fire. Yet the President keeps nominating officials to key cyber security roles who have less knowledge of the topic than an undergraduate computer science major. General Rudd is the wrong person for the job, and I oppose his nomination. But if the Senate confirms General Rudd despite his lack of familiarity with basic constitutional principles, it is all the more essential--truly important--that the Senate pass legislation to protect against surveillance abuses. So this morning, I am going to take just a few minutes to discuss why the government's surveillance activities are dangerously broad and how Congress can protect the privacy of Americans and protect the security of our country. I intend this morning to talk about three issues that are going to come before Senators in the next 3 weeks. Let me repeat that. These three issues will be before Senators very shortly. They are section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, surveillance of Americans by ICE, and the dangerous ways that artificial intelligence can be used to surveil American citizens. As most of my colleagues know, there is a section in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--it is section 702--that expires in just a few weeks. Congress is going to soon debate its reauthorization. I have been doing this for a while, and I know how it usually plays out. Opponents of reforming section 702 don't want a real debate where Members can decide for themselves which reform amendments to support. So what happens is there is an inadequate bill that is brought up, magically shows up a few days before the authorization expires, and Members are told: Holy Toledo, there is just no time to do anything except pass that bill. And it is always said that if the Senators vote for any amendments, the program dies, and terrible things that we don't want to have happen will all happen, and it will be the Senators' fault. So this morning, I want to make sure that people know you shouldn't buy into this. It is a disservice to our constituents and to the constitutional responsibilities we all have. The Senate can have a debate. The Senate can consider amendments on the merit. One more point I will return to later: Senators should not accept secret interpretations of the legislation they vote on. The country needs to have an open debate about the surveillance authorities that directly affect the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans, and it is a debate that shouldn't exclude the American people. So, first, let's lay some groundwork for this discussion. This important law is section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It authorizes a warrantless surveillance program. The FISA Court approves the overall program, but it doesn't review the individual targets. Picking targets is up to the government. Targets do not have to be suspected terrorists or spies; anyone the government believes possesses foreign intelligence information is fair game. The targets are supposed to be foreigners, but there are lots of them. The most recent public data was for 2024 when there were more than 291,000 targets, which is more than triple what it was 10 years before. Some of these targets are going to be talking to Americans, and the communications of Americans are going to be collected by the government. In many cases, these will be law-abiding Americans having perfectly legitimate conversations. Journalists, foreign aid workers, people with families overseas all could have their communications swept up in the surveillance just because they were talking to somebody outside the country. We don't know exactly how many Americans' communications are swept up by what the government calls incidental collection. That is because the government refuses to tell us. But we know it is large; we know it is increasing. So the question Congress needs to consider is how to target foreign threats while protecting the rights of Americans. Ben Franklin said that those who would sacrifice liberty for security are going to lose both and deserve neither. But smart policies, which are something I feel particularly strong about, give you both. They are not mutually exclusive. Liberty and security--you can have both, but you need smart policies. With that principle in mind, the best way to protect the rights of Americans is to ensure the government can't conduct searches for Americans' private conversations in all that 702 data without a warrant. Smart policies should include certain exceptions to the warrant requirement, and the law should allow for warrantless searches in emergencies, but as a general matter, the government shouldn't be allowed to comb through all that collection of Americans' communications without court oversight. For years, there has been jaw-dropping abuse of these searches. That has been done especially by the FBI. Some internal administrative changes were made as a result. Two years ago, when Congress last reauthorized 702, opponents of reform made a big deal about those changes. But let me give you an example of how the changes from the 2024 reauthorization bill fell short. There is a category of searches that is considered especially sensitive. It includes searches for elected officials, Presidential appointees, Governors, political candidates, American political organizations and the people who lead them, as well as media organizations and journalists. All are involved in this area. So what did the last reauthorization bill do to ensure that the government wasn't abusing its authority by combing through all those communications to look for journalists and Governors and Senators? The so-called big reform was to require the approval of the Deputy FBI Director for those sensitive searches. Until 2 months ago, the Deputy FBI Director was Mr. Dan Bongino. As most of my colleagues know, he is a longtime conspiracy theorist who has frequently called for specious investigations of political opponents. This is the man whom the President and the U.S. Senate put in charge of these very sensitive searches. His replacement is Deputy Director Andrew Bailey, who is another highly partisan election denier who recently directed a raid on the Georgia election office to justify the conspiracy theories of the Trump administration. I don't know about my colleagues, but their so-called reform doesn't make me feel better. I think we are all going to feel worse. But it is even worse than it appears. The FBI has refused to even keep track of all the sensitive searches the Deputy Director considered. The inspector general urged the FBI to just put this information into an easy spreadsheet, and they refused to do that. That is exactly how much the FBI does not want oversight. There are a lot of other reforms that are desperately needed to 702. Later this week, I will be introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation to enact critical reforms to government surveillance-- including 702. I am not going through all of the reforms today, but this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. And I especially want to point to a new provision of 702 that urgently needs to be repealed. Two years ago, during the last reauthorization debacle, something really bad happened. Over in the House, existing surveillance law was changed so that the government could force anybody with access to communications to secretly collect those communications for the government. As I pointed out at the time, that could mean anybody installing or repairing a cable box or anybody who was responsible for a Wi-Fi router. It was a jaw-dropping expansion of authorities that could end up forcing countless ordinary Americans to secretly help the government spy on their fellow citizens. When the provision was introduced, the Biden administration knew it had a problem. This was such a dramatic and disturbing expansion of section 702 that the Biden Justice Department had to promise it would only use these authorities in certain narrow situations. My colleague from Virginia, who is my seatmate on the committee, acknowledged that the law as written was badly flawed, and he vowed, to his credit, to fix this overbroad provision at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, it has not been fixed yet. The Biden administration refused to tell the public when it would use this dangerous, incredibly broad provision. The Trump administration certainly isn't providing any details about it. So Congress isn't having a real, informed debate about this staggering provision and whether this vast and dangerous expansion of surveillance is justified. I can tell you my view. This expansion of the government's authority is not justified, and even if it were narrowed to the circumstances that the Biden administration described in secret, I believe it is time to get rid of the provision. But here is the other thing: Whatever secret promise the Biden administration made about using these unchecked authorities with restraint, the current administration isn't going to feel bound by that. So whatever the previous administration intended to accomplish with the provision, there is absolutely nothing preventing the current administration from conscripting the cable guy, tech support men and women, and others to secretly spy on Americans. The past 15 years have shown that unless Congress has an open debate about surveillance, the laws that are passed cannot be assumed to have the support of the American people. That is fundamentally wrong. Right now, the government is relying on secret law with regard to section 702 of FISA. I already mentioned that the provision that was stuck into the last reauthorization bill could allow the government to force all sorts of people to spy on their neighbors. I have explained the details of how the Biden administration chose to interpret it and how the Trump administration is going to interpret it and that it is all a big secret. Americans have the right to be confused and angry that this is how the government and Congress choose to do business. There is another example of secret law related to section 702, and it affects the privacy rights of the American people. For years, I have asked various administrations to declassify it. Thus far, they have all refused, although I await a response from DNI Gabbard. I strongly believe that this matter should be declassified and that Congress needs to debate it openly before 702 is reauthorized. The fact is, when it is eventually declassified, the American people are going to be stunned that it took so long and that Congress had been debating this authority with insufficient information. Now I want to briefly explain why our coalition is attaching all of these other reforms to a section 702 bill. The reason is that no matter how concerned the public is about abusive surveillance, trying to address this problem with a piecemeal approach--pushing one specific reform after another--would be impossible. So a comprehensive approach that attaches these reforms to legislation reauthorizing 702 is the most effective way to deal with the problems. So let me stress, if you are concerned about ICE and CBP and how they are collecting information on Americans--even as they terrorize our towns and cities--supporting our surveillance reform legislation is the one way you can do something specific about it now. For example, our bipartisan reform bill takes on an issue I have been working on for years. It is the government's purchase of private information on the American people from one of the sleaziest industries in America, which is the one run by the data brokers. Both ICE and CBP have purchased and used Americans' location data--highly sensitive information--that can reveal what medical clinics you go to, what protests you are involved with, and the friends and family you see. The Agencies have made various arguments to justify collecting these records, including the false assertion that all Americans have actually consented to location data being collected. I want to emphasize that the government, in these cases, bought the records of millions of Americans' movements without any warrant or court oversight whatsoever. If the FBI wants to wiretap just one person's phone or to obtain a week's worth of location information about where that person went from a phone company, the Agency would need to go to a judge and justify the surveillance. That is what the Constitution requires. But if the government wants to buy that very same location data about millions of Americans, the government maintains that it doesn't need anything except a credit card. In 2023, it was forced to shut down a program to purchase the location data of our people due to scrutiny that had been done by the inspector general and Congress, but last year, there were public reports that it had resumed this dangerous practice, and ICE is currently stonewalling congressional oversight on it. Location data is not the only sensitive information on Americans that the government is purchasing without a warrant. Web browsing information--what websites Americans visit--is obviously very private. Just imagine the government looking over your shoulder all the time when you are using your phone. It is almost equivalent to spying on your thoughts. That is what happens when the government gets together with these sleazy data brokers. And it is not just ICE; the Pentagon, the IRS, Customs and Border Protection, the FBI, the Secret Service-- all of them have purchased Americans' location information or web browsing information. The government's purchase of all of this private information ought to be enough, but I want to wrap up by talking about how artificial intelligence could be used on these records. Artificial intelligence tools are designed to comb through enormous datasets, find patterns, and identify behaviors of interest to the government. A few years ago, Americans may have believed that their personal information would be overlooked in an ocean of data. Now we know AI can be looking at everybody. I have been warning for nearly a decade that data available for purchase from companies was just as sensitive as information the government collects directly. Creating AI profiles of Americans based on that data represents a chilling expansion of mass surveillance that must not be allowed. As my colleagues are aware, the Trump administration decided to single out one company over the weekend for punishment because the company didn't want its artificial intelligence tool used for the mass surveillance of Americans. The company's CEO said that if the government's purchase of Americans' locations, web browsing, and other sensitive data is currently legal, it is only because the law has not yet caught up with the rapidly growing capabilities of AI. That in a nutshell is the problem our bipartisan legislation will fix--update the law to current realities and stop the government from buying data on Americans from sleazy data brokers. It has to be addressed in a section 702 reauthorization bill which Congress will actually consider, because if legislators don't seize this opportunity, technology will just get further and further ahead of the law, and Americans will rightly have little faith that Congress is interested in protecting their privacy. Now, with this thought, I am going to close. We are considering a nominee to be the Director of the NSA who refused to answer whether the government needs a warrant to spy on people in the United States. He would not commit to maintaining the NSA's policy of not purchasing location data without a warrant. He wouldn't commit to telling the American people if the NSA violates the policies and guardrails of successive administrations that were made public. This nominee wouldn't even promise to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee about these matters. I am urging my colleagues to oppose this nomination. Regardless, I am urging that the issues related to privacy and the rule of law raised by this nomination are considered in comprehensive surveillance reform legislation. I am part of a bipartisan coalition, and our bipartisan, bicameral bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act, is going to be introduced shortly. I would be glad to talk to colleagues, regardless of their party and philosophy, about it, and I urge them to support the legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Joshua Rudd to be Director of the National Security Agency. During his confirmation hearing, General Rudd demonstrated a lack of familiarity with basic constitutional rights, and that ought to be a bare minimum qualification for this extraordinarily important post. His response to questions about privacy and transparency were simply unacceptable. For example, I asked the nominee if he would pledge to not secretly violate existing public guardrails on the National Security Agency surveillance. He refused. For Americans trying to understand the incredible scope of the National Security Agency surveillance operations and the broad authorities under which the NSA operates, these practices are essential. The Agency plays a central role in conducting surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That law is known as FISA. It gets a lot of attention from the American people and from Congress because it is public law. The Congress debates the reauthorization of FISA section 702 every few years. But the NSA also conducts extensive intelligence and surveillance operations outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and they do it pursuant to the Executive order 12333. And when NSA operates entirely under that Executive order, on this, there is no usual judicial oversight, not even from the FISA Court. The bottom line for the President and my colleagues, congressional oversight is often dependent on what the Executive branch wants to disclose. The potential for abuse is staggering. In 2005, the New York Times revealed that the NSA had conducted an illegal warrantless wiretapping program. For four years, the program had been hidden from the American people. By the way, it was also hidden from Congress. I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and even the committee wasn't told about the program. This is one of those infamous decisions that you hear about in situations-- what is called the Gang of 8--where the intelligence community informs only the committee's two leaders and instructs them not to tell other members or staff. So when the committee's vice chair Jay Rockefeller was told about the program, he put together a handwritten letter to the Vice President-- Vice President Cheney. He said he had concerns but that on his own, he couldn't even fully evaluate the program; and so the program continued for years--no oversight, no opportunity for Congress to address it through legislation. This history demonstrates what happens when the NSA's enormous capabilities are abused--abused by administration officials who are willing, unfortunately, to break the law. And, unfortunately, that is an accurate description of the executive branch and this administration. It is indisputable that constitutional rights in America are under attack right now. For example, we only recently learned that 9 months ago the administration secretly decided that the government didn't need a judicial warrant to break into a private home; in other words, the administration thinks it can just ignore the Fourth Amendment. And if the administration is going to ignore the Fourth Amendment to break down doors, what assurance would there be that they wouldn't also tap Americans' phones without a warrant? Why should anybody believe they wouldn't do it secretly and make sure that the public or the Congress or even full Intelligence Committees weren't aware? When it comes to surveillance, I subscribe to Ben Franklin's principle. Franklin said: Those who would give up liberty for security will lose both and deserve neither. The fact is--and I work on this every single day--we need both. That is not a partisan proposition. Refusing to promise to not violate the Constitution doesn't make us safer. That is why I was particularly focused on General Rudd's understanding of the constitutional limits on the operations of the NSA. So I asked General Rudd whether, if he were directed to target people in the United States for surveillance, he would insist that there be a judicial warrant. And I told him in advance that I would ask this question. Then, at the hearing, I offered him the opportunity to answer with a ``yes'' or a ``no.'' We still got no answers. So I thought: Cut him some slack and encourage him to offer just some general thoughts on the matter. Still, we got nothing, and I did everything in my power at that confirmation hearing to allow him to demonstrate some understanding of the basic guardrails of the NSA's authorities. I only got vague assurances that he might be interested in the law. Given the history of these NSA abuses and this administration's clear disregard for the Constitution, the general's inability to answer this question in a meaningful way would have really been enough for me to oppose the nomination, but there were other topics that were just as bad. He wouldn't associate himself with the NSA's previous commitment to not buy and use Americans' location data. Then-NSA Director Nakasone made this commitment in a public letter in 2023. General Rudd wouldn't stand by that public policy. That has real implications. Location data, which is bought and sold by some of the sleaziest merchants in the world--sleazy data brokers-- can reveal extremely sensitive private information about Americans, including what medical clinics they go to, what houses of worship they go to, what stores they shop at, what protests they attend, and which friends and family they see. The threat to Americans' privacy is even more serious when you stop to consider the discussion about artificial intelligence and how artificial intelligence can be used against enormous amounts of commercially available data, including location information on Americans. So, again, it is deeply disturbing that General Rudd refuses to endorse the NSA's past commitment. This is what they said they would do in the past, and it was to not collect and use all this sensitive data on Americans. General Rudd also refused to say whether the government should mandate backdoors into encryption used by Americans. I think Members know encryption is the code that protects your messages, your pictures, and private data from predators and criminals. For years, officials have argued that the government should force the tech companies to build backdoors into their encryption products. But you talk to security researchers, and they will tell you there is no way to create encryption backdoors that only the government can use. Once you weaken encryption, it is inevitable in America that foreign spies and criminals will exploit the vulnerability. Now, as hacking has gotten more and more sophisticated, the threat that our adversaries will use any and all cyber vulnerabilities has gotten more obvious. In fact, the constant headlines about successful hacking campaigns are probably the reason why we are not hearing as much these days about weakening encryption. So this question for General Rudd should have been easy, particularly since the job to which he is nominated includes responsibilities for the Nation's cyber security. Again, the general refused to take a position. So his responses to transparency, as we move to consider this nomination, are especially troubling. In addition to laws and the Constitution, the NSA is bound by numerous policies and procedures which are publicly available. These policies and procedures are especially important because they provide some guardrails on NSA's surveillance and intelligence activities under Executive Order 12333, which, again, is not governed by FISA and not reviewed by the FISA Court. So to take just one example, if the National Security Agency is going to conduct a search of a 12333 collection for Americans' communications, it generally needs the Attorney General to determine that there is probable cause that the American is an agent of a foreign power. This is not a law. It is a policy that has been made public by successive administrations so that Americans could get a better understanding of the guardrails that apply to the NSA's surveillance activities. This is the bottom line: The National Security Agency is supposed to be hunting for terrorists and spies. This Agency is not supposed to be hunting for Americans who simply do things that the President doesn't like, such as criticizing their government or buying abortion medication online. So I asked General Rudd what I thought was another easy question, as we began to wrap up our confirmation hearing: If he were directed to operate in violation of those public policies and procedures, would he inform the American people? Once again, he refused to make a commitment. So I also asked him whether, if the administration secretly decided to withdraw or change any of the public policies, would he ensure that the public sees the new policies. Again, no commitment. So let's be clear. The operational details of the NSA's business, its sources, and methods have to be absolutely protected. National security is at stake. But I didn't ask General Rudd about sources and methods. They are off limits. I asked him whether Americans can rely on the NSA to conduct its operations within the guardrails that the government-- and this is the key--has already made public. But in his response, it is not clear that they can. When Americans can no longer trust whether intelligence Agencies are respecting their own public policies, that is bad for democracy, and it is bad for the intelligence Agencies. General Rudd was even asked whether, if the President secretly decided not to follow these public policies, would he at least inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. General Rudd wouldn't even answer that question in a straightforward way, which makes me wonder what abuses even the Intelligence Committee is never going to hear about. In closing, I have great respect for General Rudd's many years of military service, but I stand here because his troubling statements about constitutional rights, which I went into with him in detail, simply leave him not qualified for this job. We are now in the second week of a reckless war that was started by Donald Trump. This war and its global fallout have created new and serious threats to our national security. Our country needs an NSA Director with experience in U.S. signals activities, and it has to come from working on these issues around the world. General Rudd does not have that experience. The Director of NSA has another job: that of commander of U.S. Cyber Command. The demands of this job are mind-boggling. The cyber threat to the United States can't be overstated. And as Salt Typhoon demonstrated, our adversaries have succeeded in inflicting serious damage to our national security. Just last week, the government acknowledged ongoing hacking of U.S. Government Agencies. So our country needs somebody who is prepared from day one to protect our country in this crucial area that I describe in closing--that is the question of cyber--because we are dealing not just with Iran but China and Russia. The Commander of CYBERCOM needs to have a deep and sophisticated understanding of this threat. He or she needs to be able to see this threat in its geopolitical context and to fully grasp the technical capabilities and the policy options that might help NSA and CYBERCOM. Americans are at war, and we cannot afford to promote someone who lacks the experience for the job. General Rudd's predecessor in the job had that experience. They came up through CYBERCOM. They were ready. General Rudd is not. And when it comes to the cyber security of the country, there just isn't time for on-the-job learning. The threat is too urgent for that. Madam President, for these reasons, I oppose this nomination, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to do the same.