Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank my colleague and friend the Senator from New Jersey who, I think, has brought us a fresh voice, has incredible energy, and is somebody who has a history of working extraordinarily well on national security issues. I agree with virtually everything he just said in that this is a bit of a distraction. I think part of the reason it is a distraction is that, at the end of the day, this President has frankly refused to acknowledge that the American people's will in 2020 was not to rehire him. He cannot accept the legitimate outcome of the 2020 election. Despite officials from his own administration calling the 2020 election the most secure in American history, the President continues to promote unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, and that is after investigations from multiple courts and the States' attorneys general and election officials from both parties strongly declaring that there was no evidence to support allegations of substantial fraud. Simply put, the 2020 election was certified, litigated, and affirmed. Tomorrow, we are going to hear from some of the intelligence officials as our committee takes on the worldwide threat assessment where, unfortunately, senior intelligence officials seem to be still focusing on relitigating the 2020 election rather than making us safe for 2026 and 2028 because the truth is, after all of these years, the President and his allies haven't been able to find any evidence of legitimate voter fraud in past elections. As a matter of fact, there have been studies ad nauseam that show millions and hundreds of millions of votes and that the number of people who were undocumented and voted by mistake were in the single digits. Now, they are looking forward to the effort that is on the floor right now toward suppressing and wrongfully influencing future elections through this so-called SAVE America Act. Again, I know the Presiding Officer and my friend from Wisconsin and others are going to say I am going to go over the top, so let me just use the President's own words. The Presiding Officer comes from Utah, which has a proud history of States' rights and local control, but in the President's own words, he wants Republicans to ``take over'' election administration, going so far as to say Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. If there were ever an ``Alice in Wonderland up is down and down is up,'' that is what is happening. Again, I don't know if this comment led to her firing, but before he fired her, the President's DHS Secretary Kristi Noem pushed for the passage of the SAVE America Act while stating that her goal was to have the right people voting so we can elect the right leaders. I mean, this sounds like it comes out of some dystopian novel or 1930s advocacy. I just don't get it. We all know that the strength of our democracy depends on voter participation and access to the ballot box. I have been doing this, I guess, long enough that I remember when things like ``motor voter'' and ``let's make it easier to register'' were all bipartisan. Unfortunately, contrary to the name the SAVE America Act, this legislation undermines the very foundations that it claims to protect. This bill would impose sweeping requirements that would make it extremely difficult for eligible voters to participate in our democracy. New voters, married women, and servicemembers would face additional hurdles when registering to vote. That is because, under the SAVE America Act, Americans who have voted for years and have had no question about their citizenship would have to go back and provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in Federal elections. Let me say, at the front end, that I support voter ID. We have voter ID in Virginia. I don't think you should be able to vote without showing a legitimate ID, but under this bill, that so-called reasonable policy would put in place requirements that are so stringent that it would mean if you don't have access to the right documentation, like a passport, you wouldn't be able to vote for the President of the United States. The truth is, according to the U.S. State Department, only half of all Americans possess a passport. That means, if this bill passes, half of all American citizens would not be able to provide one of the primary acceptable forms of documentation that would be required to vote under the SAVE Act. Additionally, under this bill, States would be barred from accepting online and mail-in voter registrations unless the applicant also presented proof of citizenship in person. So this is somebody who made the choice to change their name who is now 85 years old and who has to go back and find a birth certificate or get a passport and has to show up in person to kind of get registered again, even though she has been voting for the last 50 years with no question about her citizenship. This effectively, frankly, guts the online and mail-in voter registration processes that are available across many States, which creates, I think, an unnecessary burden for all voters, particularly rural voters, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities disproportionately. I see my friend from California here. It has been States in the West, whether it is Oregon or California or Utah, that have used these tools to get more people involved. In fact, these efforts don't make our elections more secure. All this does is disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. My view is that the goal of the SAVE Act is more about cutting out voters and suppressing the vote than it is about saving anything going forward. We are having this debate, and we are going to probably go through lots of procedural antics that most folks won't understand. I just wish that my Republican colleagues would come back to what I think we should be spending all of our time on. If we are going to spend all night, let's focus on funding the TSA, FEMA, CISA, and the Coast Guard. Frankly, I believe we need to fund all of the folks at the Customs and Border Patrol who aren't assigned to interior immigration enforcement. So, last week, Senator Murray and Senate Democrats attempted to say: Hey, we have got to debate about ICE, and we have got to debate about some of the CBP people who are doing domestic enforcement. If we can't come to an agreement there, let's fight over that, but let's not make sure that we hold all of these other folks hostage. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues blocked five separate bills that were offered by Senate Democrats that would have fully funded all of the components of DHS. I think about our hard-working TSA officers who, thank goodness, got a paycheck on March 12--a partial paycheck--but now, they are going unpaid. The amazing thing is that this is kind of a crisis that doesn't need to be a crisis. The fact is, last July, my Republican colleagues voted to give the Department of Homeland Security a slush fund worth nearly $170 billion. Of that funding, $75 billion was a blank check to ICE, providing the Agency with a budget larger than of most global militaries. I actually think the ICE budget is now bigger than the French military's, and I know it is bigger than the FBI's budget. You know, the truth is that $75 billion could actually fund ICE for the next 7 years without any additional appropriations. I am here today because I and my Democratic colleagues are fighting to ensure that all the funding that is used for immigration enforcement will no longer be used in inappropriate ways. I think even most of my Republican colleagues have acknowledged that what happened in Minneapolis kind of went off the rails in that we were seeing ICE agents literally abuse and brutalize Americans and disrespect basic human dignity. The unfortunate thing is, under this administration, ICE has been turned frankly into kind of a secret police that I believe has waged enormous violence against Americans. I know in my State, that of the daily quota of people they have to pick up, 80 to 85 percent have never violated any other law other than coming into the country and most of them are going through an amnesty process that was set up. You know, we have seen the images of ICE ripping apart families and arresting moms as they drop off kids to daycare. As a matter of fact, I know that I tried to do some oversight, which is part of my job, and it took a lot of hoops to get through to even do that oversight. I believe, because of these actions, all of our citizens are less safe. So we have got to make meaningful reforms to ICE which I don't think are outrageous, like requiring body cameras, making sure that immigration enforcement officers show their faces and identify themselves, and making sure there is proper training and upholding traditional use-of-force standards. These are the same requirements that my local law enforcement has to deal with every day and has had to for years. These aren't new. These are commonsense, basic accountability measures that, as I said, our State and local police abide by because that is how you keep communities safe. Unfortunately, so far, the White House doesn't seem to see it that way. They continue to drag their feet on negotiations at the expense, frankly, of the TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Patrol--not the folks doing interior enforcement--who are not getting paid. That doesn't make any sense. As a matter of fact, we have even seen tools where, in the last shutdown, the administration didn't decide to cut off Global Entry or TSA PreCheck because those are actually funded by separate fees, but suddenly, they decided to amp up the political pressure and close off those programs. Now, thank goodness, because of pressure from the public, the Trump administration has reversed course and restarted the Global Entry program, but it should have never been suspended in the first place. We have got to get these folks paid. Take yes for an answer. Take yes for an answer. As I pointed out earlier, with $75 billion for ICE, it is not going to stop. We have got to get the reforms in place. So let's keep the negotiations going. We ought to get them done. I am going to make sure that the TSA agents at Dulles, at National, and at airports across my Commonwealth get their paychecks. As a State on the ocean, I want to make sure that the Coast Guard gets their paychecks. We have been hit hard by Hurricane Helene, and I want to make sure FEMA gets funded. And CISA--the Cybersecurity Agency, which is one of the things that guards against foreign malign influence--has been decimated by this administration. As we go into an election season where I extraordinarily fear foreign interference, close to 50 percent of the personnel have been cut or eliminated. So we can do better. We must do better. We can debate the SAVE Act, which I think is, again, about voter disenfranchisement, not voter safety or integrity, but I do think, while we debate this, why not go ahead and take yes for an answer and fund all of the other components of DHS so those folks who help protect us day in and day out get their paychecks? Let's reopen these critical Agencies. Let's acknowledge that ICE has a $75 billion slush fund that we could complain about as Democrats-- Democrats do--but it is the law of the land. They have the resources. In the meantime, why hold up the pay of these Americans who are doing so many things to keep us safe? I think those folks deserve better. I think we all deserve better. I guess I am a little old-fashioned. I actually think, back to the subject at hand, you know, our elections are better if more people participate. I am welcome to having more folks participate--citizens participate. Citizens participate. Unfortunately, this SAVE Act cuts back on a whole lot of Americans that will be disenfranchised simply because, oh my gosh, they did the radical thing of changing their name when they got married; or, oh my gosh, they were willing to join our military; or, oh my gosh, they are aged and they don't want to spend 150 bucks to get a passport. Our country deserves better. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my friend the Senator from Virginia. He has laid out the elements, a lot of the tax reasons and business reasons. I am going to be relatively brief since I know the floor got backed up today and I am imposing my time on the Senator from North Dakota. I have a little unique view on this because I actually think I live closer to the District than anybody else, of the 535 Members of Congress. So my neighbors, my friends, my constituents work, visit, travel through the District all the time. Senator Kaine went through how this is going to hurt the District. I echo all of that. But it is going to hurt the region. It is going to hurt Virginia. It is going to hurt Maryland. While I was going to go through all of the same details on decoupling and the 19 issues, I will move away from that and echo everything he said. But I guess what I want to just spend a couple of minutes on is, why in the heck has the Trump administration been hitting the District of Columbia so unrelentingly? Let's look back. Just as downtown was starting to recover from the pandemic, President Trump and DOGE began a wholesale assault on the Federal workforce. Thousands of Federal workers--people who go to local restaurants, go to DC businesses--were fired by the President or forced to take a buyout early. We have seen as well that the President has taken a blowtorch to Washington's cultural treasures when he unlawfully--and I say this as a member of the Kennedy Center board--when he unlawfully put his name on the Kennedy Center and then acted surprised when groups around the country, artists around the country, said ``I am not going to go to the Trump-Kennedy or the Kennedy-Trump Center'' and started canceling their engagements. Then out of the blue comes a decision to shut down the Kennedy Center for 2 years--again, hurting not only the District but the whole region. For those of us who visited the White House as tourists or as Senators, even under President Trump, where the East Wing--a stately East Wing--once stood, there is now a giant hole with a potential ballroom that I imagine, at the end of the day, may make the cost overruns at the Fed look tiny in comparison, at least on a percentage basis. We saw last year, with the big bill--I will not call it by its chosen name--that the President and this administration have done so much to hurt the folks in DC at risk. You know, 38 percent of DC residents get their healthcare through Medicaid--more than one in every three DC residents. Yet the Medicaid cuts that will come, interestingly enough, in November--after the elections--will literally put thousands and thousands of those residents off their healthcare. Instead of allowing the District, as the Senator from Virginia said, to put that into child tax credits or other choices--with their own money--instead, the President has taken this money, frankly, for tax cuts for the wealthiest. Now I won't go through all the details again, but $658 million of DC residents' money paid in local taxes should not be taken away from the District. Remember, this comes on top of almost another billion dollars that the House tried to take away as well. So why would this Congress arbitrarily just blow a big budget hole in the District's budget? Truth is, this city has already been under unrelenting assault by this administration. Matter of fact, as Senator Kaine said: So many--if this goes through--the amount of bureaucracy in terms of refiling their taxes puts another burden as well. So I join my friend Senator Kaine and I think all of us who care deeply about this region, this community. Please, let's deal with our own States. Let's not meddle in the District's business. Let's not grab close to $700 million of DC taxes and punish this community one more time. I hope we are a better institution than that. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am here today to honor a remarkable diplomat and dear friend, Ambassador Kevin Rudd, as he prepares to leave his post as Australian Ambassador to the United States. I first got to know Kevin and his wife Therese over a decade ago. But now, more recently, as chairman and now vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have had the pleasure of working with Ambassador Rudd on some of the most pressing challenges of our time. With his departure, we are going to bid farewell to a statesman whose tenure has strengthened the bonds between Australia and the United States and upheld the values we share. From the day Ambassador Rudd arrived in Washington on March 2023, he proved to be a driving force in advancing our mutual national interests. During his accomplished career in the Australian Parliament and as Prime Minister, he understood the importance of engaging Congress, steadying the Australian relationships through changes in administrations. And in 3 years, he delivered enduring and positive outcomes for Americans and Australians alike. Ambassador Rudd spearheaded Australia's push to advance the landmark AUKUS security pact, expanding the broad bipartisan support and securing the endorsements of both President Biden and President Trump and advancing investment in limitation strategies both here in the United States and back in his home in Australia. He negotiated a critical minerals agreement that is already spurring new mining and processing projects to benefit both our countries. He also spearheaded a cutting-edge tech partnership that is unlocking billions of dollars in bilateral investments, including for AI and quantum technology. Ambassador Rudd's leadership strengthened Australia's security and our shared security alliance for decades to come. Thanks, in part, to his efforts, our governments, our Armed Forces, our intelligence services, our private sectors, and industries are working together more closely than ever, ensuring that our alliance forged on the battlefields of the last century remains unbreakable in this century. Under Kevin's tenure, the United States-Australia partnership has never been stronger. He understands that our alliance isn't just an old friendship to be maintained; it is a living bond to be continually strengthened. He built personal relationships across the whole political spectrum in working with Democrats and Republicans and across two very different Presidential administrations to keep this alliance with Australia above the partisan fray. Kevin demonstrated that no matter Democrat or Republican control, or whether it is Labor or Liberal in Canberra, our alliance is the alliance of values and vision that transcends politics. That is an extraordinary legacy to leave in government. As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about China policy, I don't think there is anyone that is more informed or who has, frankly, written more scholarly articles on the intentions of President Xi in China than Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd is a scholar on China and a fluent Mandarin speaker. He puts that expertise to work each day. He reminds me, at times, that I am supposed to address him as ``Dr. Rudd.'' Kevin has been a voice of principled leadership in pushing back against unnecessary coercive tactics by the PRC. He understands, from Australia's own experience, that we must not allow the PRC to act as a bully either in the Indo-Pacific region or around the globe. Kevin saw how China's attempts at coercive economic diplomacy against Australia backfired a few years back when its allies and partners, including the United States, rallied around Australia and declared such coercion unacceptable. Kevin carried that leadership into his ambassadorship, and he often reminded many of us in the Senate of a key lesson: When pushing back against an adversary, it is best to do so ``in the company of friends'' rather than alone. There is also a popular African proverb: ``If you want to go fast go alone; if you want to go far, go together.'' Ambassador Rudd understood that resisting coercion and deterring aggression requires building capacity among our nations, as through AUKUS and the Quad partnership. Whether in shaping Indo-Pacific strategy, in helping to refocus and strengthen the indispensable Five Eyes intelligence partnership, or in speaking out on foundational international norms, he made sure that Australia and the United States stood shoulder to shoulder against intimidation. Beyond policy achievements and strategic vision, Kevin Rudd is one of the sharpest minds on the diplomatic stage. Few can match his knowledge of history or his analytical depth on international affairs. That is why I hate to see him leave this post, but he is not going far. He is going to return to the Asia Society that he will head up in the United States--although, with a number of his kids and grandkids being in Australia, I know he will be going back and forth between our two nations. The fact that he will continue to play a policy role will be important for both of our nations and for all of us who care about maintaining democratic values. I know that his passion for public service, his commitment to internationalism, and his insightful analysis are ending here after his time in Washington. In closing, on behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, I extend my profound thanks to Ambassador Rudd. I thank him for his steadfast service, for the wisdom he has shared, and for the friendship he has offered. The bonds between our two nations are stronger because of his work. I wish him and Therese every success and happiness in the journey to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 293, S.J. Res 84.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today because I think it is painfully clear that we need to do something to address the growing healthcare crisis in this country. Let me be clear at the outset that when we talk about the CRA that the clerk just reported, it is not directly related--it is not the tax credit issue that has been the subject of an enormous amount of other debate and, frankly, action in the House but a CRA that will be voted on later today that will overturn a rule that the Trump administration has put forward that will result in 1.8 million Americans being thrown off their health insurance. It is beyond the tax credit issue. It is beyond the Medicaid changes. This is a rule that the administration set forward last year that adds enormous amounts of regulatory burden for any American who chooses to access the so-called ObamaCare Marketplace. The truth is, this administration's attack on the Marketplace, ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act didn't start with this rule. As we all know in this Chamber, this is just another step in a now close to 15-year crusade by many of my Republican colleagues to undermine the ACA, which, at the end of the day, is just going to--as we have seen already--is going to increase healthcare costs for everybody. We know that at the end of last year, as the expiration of the ACA enhanced premium tax credits approached, Democrats in Congress worked hard to try to extend them. We put forward a strong, compromised proposal to extend the credits and keep health insurance affordable for the close to 24 million Americans who access their healthcare through the Marketplace. Unfortunately, time and again, Republicans voted against it, ensuring that when the clock struck midnight on January 1, millions of Americans were priced out of that coverage. Families across the country have now been hit with premium increases of $800, $900, and even over $1,000 per month. Somebody in my State of Virginia--Kathleen, a mother of two and a small business owner living in Newport News, saw her premium for her family of four increase from 544 bucks a month to over $1,500 a month. That is a yearly increase of about $11,500 a year--a pricetag that her family just can't afford. She told me she came up to the Hill before New Year's hit and that she hoped and prayed for a solution. Frankly, I wish all of my Republican colleagues who helped block that solution could have explained to her why blocking that solution, which we offered as a straightforward extension of the ACA premium tax credits--why they blocked that, because Kathleen and so many other families desperately needed it. I will have to say I have to give some rare congratulations to at least 17 Members of the House, Republican Members of the House, which had actually taken action recently to address this crisis. Seventeen House Republicans finally said enough is enough and voted with Democrats in the House to extend the credits, which will again lower the costs for millions. I hope that we can get a similar type of compromise through in the Senate. I know there are colleagues on both sides of the aisle working hard on that issue right now. While the credits have taken up most of the space around the debate, what I rise today on--the CRA that will be voted on this afternoon-- will provide an even more immediate solution to at least take away another barrier to healthcare accessibility and affordability. I am asking my colleagues--and I will be joined by other colleagues to talk about this over the next hour or so--I am asking my colleagues to join me in disapproving a harmful rule that the Trump administration finalized last year that was set to kick in at the end of 2025. As I mentioned, that would take about 1.8 to 2 million people off their healthcare because of the enormous administrative burdens that are put in place by this administrative rule to try to get access to the Marketplace. This is at least a chance today--not at some future date--to come together to do the bare minimum and address at least a small part of the emergency straining our healthcare system. Now, I will acknowledge that because this administrative burden is so burdensome, the courts have paused its enactment, but at any moment, that pause could be taken away. So let's just use the CRA, which has been used by both sides of the aisle repeatedly, to get rid of this additional burden because, simply put, this harmful Trump rule makes it harder to enroll in a Marketplace plan, harder to stay on a Marketplace plan, and harder and more expensive for States to run a Marketplace. The rule requires increased paperwork for families, reduces open and special enrollment periods, and allows insurers to push more healthcare costs on Americans by allowing plans to cover less care. That also adds a ton more paperwork and burdens on the marketplaces all across the country. Again, according to the Trump administration's own document, these added barriers and higher premiums will lead to that estimate of at least 1.8 million people losing coverage if this rule--which is, again, scheduled to go into effect but has only not gone into effect in 2026 because of a current pause by the courts. But I think we ought to avoid this cliff and just act today as a Senate and say: Let's not have this rule take effect. I think most of us would agree that 2025 was not a great year for healthcare in this country. Medicaid cuts, which are going to be enormous, which, frankly, were not scheduled to kick in until after the 2026 elections, interestingly enough--although I can tell you we have already seen rural healthcare clinics close in Virginia because of that expectation--and my colleagues' refusal to extend the enhanced premium tax credits are all weighing down on our healthcare system, and we are seeing rural hospitals and rural healthcare centers really bear the brunt of this. The truth is, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have jammed through healthcare policies that, combined with the rule and the tax premiums--minimum, looks like about 15 million Americans will get kicked off their health insurance. So let's go back. My Republican colleagues and the President won in 2024 because they said they are going to lower costs. We can actually take action on lowering costs today. So let's join together, use the CRA tool, and end this policy. All you have to do is vote for the Congressional Review Act resolution making sure the number--not my number; the Trump administration's number--the 1.8 million Americans will actually get to keep their healthcare. All you have to do is vote for this CRA resolution so that folks don't have to deal with enormously burdensome paperwork and the higher costs that result. Now, I think we can get this done. We have seen my Republican colleagues stand up to the President on the Epstein files, on war powers, and just in the last day or so, the attack on the independence of the Federal Reserve. Let's have that pushback extend now to healthcare costs. Let's help millions keep their healthcare today and then work together toward a long-term, sustainable plan to keep healthcare costs stable for the next decade. Before I yield the floor, I want to also acknowledge--this is something a lot of us have been working on. Senator Klobuchar does such a great job on so many issues. Senator Wyden, the leader on the Finance Committee--they and others will come today to speak on this issue as well. I hope my colleagues are listening, and I hope they will actually acknowledge that we have to bring healthcare costs down today. This isn't a full solution, but at least it is an action that we can take today. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to condemn the heartbreaking and anti-American rise in religious discrimination and hate-fueled extremism and to call particular attention to the ways this administration has fueled the flames of Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate that has hurt countless members of our Muslim American and Arab American communities. Now, unfortunately, neither religious discrimination nor acts of hate-fueled violence are new or are uniquely American. Last month, I joined Senator Schumer and all of my Democratic colleagues in speaking out against the horrible anti-Semitism targeting our Jewish communities and calling out disgusting vitriol from the likes of Nick Fuentes and his ilk, and I joined people of conscience everywhere in mourning and standing with the Jewish community in Australia after that monstrous attack took 15 lives during a Hanukkah celebration. Now, in America, in years back, Dr. Martin Luther King warned us that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and the same is true about religious intolerance, bigotry, and violence. Any prejudice or discrimination or violence rooted in how people believe, express, and experience their faith is a threat to all people of faith everywhere. I rise today to specifically condemn the discrimination our Muslim and Arab American communities are facing because, unfortunately, this President and his administration have openly stoked and institutionalized Islamophobic discrimination. We all recall, on November 26, we saw a horrific attack on two members of the West Virginia National Guard deployed here in our Nation's Capital. That type of violence has no place in a just society. But the Trump administration did not meet this attack with targeted, measured attempts to minimize violence or curb extremism. Instead, their actions and rhetoric stoked further divisions by using this awful attack as grounds to justify targeting Afghan-American communities in the United States. After that attack, the Trump administration announced a halt to the processing of all immigration requests from Afghan nationals, coinciding with an announcement from the State Department that they would immediately be halting visa issuance for individuals traveling on Afghan passports. The President and his administration are taking the actions of a single person and distorting this horrific, isolated incident to justify suppression and cruelty against many more who have done nothing wrong, many who have risked their lives, families, and communities to support U.S. servicemembers during the long war in Afghanistan. Another example: Look at the President's commentary related to members of the Somali community. During a Cabinet meeting last month, the President called the Somali community ``garbage,'' saying: We don't want them in our country. I have to tell you, I believe these comments are disgusting, they are dehumanizing, and they are un-American, and they should roundly and loudly be condemned by all public officials. The intolerance and ignorance that motivates these statements and these actions didn't just begin in the past few weeks or even with this administration. I say to my colleagues: Ask any of your Muslim or Arab constituents when they got the so-called talk from their parents or heard the first attack on their faith or their culture. This rot--this un-American activity--has been in this country a long, long time. Just the other week, I was sitting with a group of Virginians who happened to be Muslim Americans. One of the individuals I have known a long time, has been a community member and well-known business guy, and happens to also be Muslim. This individual had been doing a lot of work all across Northern Virginia, working with local governments and others, trying to develop affordable housing projects. He was working specifically with a county in outer Northern Virginia. He had been assured everything was set. He was going out to the meeting where it was going to be ``project approved.'' He got to, again, the county offices. And it was at a time during the day, as somebody who practices his faith, that he got out and prayed, as Muslims do on a regular basis during the day. And after doing that prayer privately next to his car, he then went into the county meeting. And, suddenly, everything that had been totally pro forma--someone had seen him praying, and he suddenly found out the contract wasn't going to be signed. The fact is, this individual has got an extraordinary record of, as I said, producing affordable housing all across the region. But the fact that simply displaying his faith caused him to lose a piece of business that was there just for a pro forma approval ought to shock us all. I think we all have to talk to our Muslim and Arab neighbors, our constituents. These kinds of stories are, unfortunately, not the exception. There are too many examples of fear or discrimination or being somehow made to feel, if you happen to be Arab American or Muslim American, that you are somehow a lesser American. And rather than being a leader who elevates our morality, who confronts these views, President Trump and his administration seem deliberately intent on preying on these kinds of fears and deepening divisions based on religion or immigration status. Just last month, the administration announced it would stop adjudicating all immigration benefit requests for nationals of 19 countries. That means law-abiding residents who have lived in this country--many, for years--are seeing their naturalization interviews paused and their citizenship ceremonies canceled. Now, these decisions build on a travel ban that was put in place by the administration earlier in the year--or last year. Let me be crystal clear. At least in my mind, these bans are not about your safety or mine. These bans are about limiting access to the American dream to a select few that the administration thinks look the right way or worship the right god. But it is not just the President--not just President Trump. On the floor of this body, a Senator called Islam a ``poisonous religion'' that ``is fundamentally incompatible with our Western values.'' In recent weeks, a Member of the House posted on his official Twitter page: How to Deal with Mainstream Muslims: I don't know how you make peace with those who seek your destruction, I think you destroy them first. This is an official Twitter page of a Member of the House of Representatives. All too often, this vitriol is met with silence--a dangerous, weaponized apathy that says Islamophobia is somehow acceptable at the highest levels of government. All of us, but especially those of us who serve in this body, in public office, have a duty to end that silence and loudly and resolutely condemn Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate. And while others seek to divide and distort circumstances to advance their narratives, there are so many stories actually worth telling. So I want to take a moment to recognize and celebrate the contributions of Muslim Americans to Virginia's history. Muslim Virginians are integral to what makes our Commonwealth thrive. They are lawyers, doctors, educators, homemakers, and entrepreneurs. They are engineers designing infrastructure, researchers advancing technology, small-business owners fueling our local economies, and transportation workers getting folks to where they need to go. Muslim Virginians live out the democratic values that this country was built on. They are serving in elected office, shaping policy, and making this country a better place to live. As a matter of fact, last November--just a few months ago--Virginia voters proudly made history by electing the first Muslim woman to statewide office in any State in our country. Ghazala Hashmi will be sworn in as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia this coming Saturday. She joins the growing number of Muslim Virginians that already serve across all three levels of Virginia government--in the State House, in our judiciary, and in so many levels of local government. And they represent their neighbors with dedication and integrity. Muslim Virginians are also patriotic and want to keep this country safe, many of them bravely choosing to serve as police officers, intelligence officers, and servicemembers in our Armed Forces. One of those patriots was CPT Humayun Khan, who died in service to our country during Operation Iraqi Freedom. His efforts alone saved the lives of more than 100 soldiers, and I still remember his mother and father speaking at a political convention and holding up our American Constitution and talking about their son's sacrifice to keep America safe. Contrary to the rhetoric of our President and his administration, our country is safer because of Muslim Americans like Captain Khan and the thousands of Muslim American police and Muslim American soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and guardians. I am grateful for their service every day. The contributions of Muslims to Virginia should not just be measured by titles or economic impact; they are seen in generosity, compassion, and community. Islamic centers and mosques across the Commonwealth step up to serve their communities with food assistance, refugee resettlement, youth mentorship, and much more. They open their doors not only to worship but to serve as an example of compassion and mercy that is inseparable from their Muslim faith. Muslim Virginians also add to the cultural richness of our Commonwealth through art, music, literature, and food. They bring languages and stories from across the world--from Sudan to Pakistan, Somalia to Afghanistan, Morocco to Palestine. They also bring the uniquely American experience of growing up, learning, working, and building a life in our Commonwealth of Virginia. Their story is Virginia's story--one of perseverance, community, success, and hope. So when the President and his administration or my colleagues here or in the House use xenophobic, fearmongering tactics to attack and intimidate or diminish members of the Muslim or Arab American community, I want you to remember that they are individuals who are being wrongly misrepresented. Next month marks the start of the holy season of Ramadan for our Muslim brothers and sisters. Particularly during this time of reflection and community but frankly throughout the whole year, it should be incumbent upon all of us to call out all forms of bigotry and discrimination against any religious community and to stand up for all of our communities against injustice. I think all of us should once again commit to never stay silent in the face of religious intolerance against the Christian faith, against the Jewish faith, against the Muslim faith, or other great faiths of the world. Our job as representatives of the American people is to protect our communities and our people--all of our people. We abandon each other I think at our own peril and at our Nation's peril. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that was scheduled for 1:45 be moved up to 1:30, right now.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 2 months ago, I came to this floor to warn about the growing politicization of our intelligence community. I laid out in detail how this administration, led by Director of National Intelligence Gabbard, was dismantling the independence, integrity, and credibility of the very institutions we rely on to keep Americans safe. I had hoped that by sounding that alarm early, the administration might reconsider its actions or at the very least slow its march toward turning our intelligence Agencies into instruments of political loyalty, but, instead, the situation has only grown more dangerous. I want to say at the outset that this will not be the last time I come to the floor on this issue as we continue to see the unraveling of that independence. I intend to continue making these speeches for as long as it takes because the stakes for our national security are too high to let this pattern go unchallenged. Since my remarks in September, we have seen not restraint but an escalation--an escalation--of political retaliation, of the hollowing out of expertise, and of the outright manipulation of intelligence. We are watching in real time an administration strip away the guardrails that have protected this country for generations. I have had the distinct privilege of representing the people of Virginia in this body since 2009. In nearly 17 years, one of the most consequential responsibilities I have held has been that of serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee, first as a junior member and then, for the last 8 years, as chairman and vice chairman. I always tell our new members that getting a seat on the committee is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you get access to things that no other Senators hear, and you see capabilities that would astonish even the most seasoned spy novel reader. But the other part of the edge is you get to see the full scope of threats facing the United States: daily reports about terrorist plots, cyber attacks, hostile foreign services targeting our citizens and institutions. Once you have seen that picture clearly, you don't sleep quite as soundly at night. It is precisely because these threats are real, persistent, and in many cases growing that I am so deeply concerned about the Trump administration's reckless actions--actions that have left our country more vulnerable than at any point in recent memory. Just last month, FBI Director Kash Patel testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the FBI has experienced a 300-percent increase in terrorist cases opened this year alone, on top of a 30-percent increase in foreign espionage cases. At the Senate's Intelligence Committee's annual threat assessment hearing, Director Gabbard reiterated that foreign terrorists remain intent on striking the United States and our citizens, that a large number of cyber and intelligence actors continue to target our critical infrastructure, and that these adversaries possess weapons capable of hitting U.S. territory and disabling vital U.S. systems. Indeed, in an interview earlier this month, Director Gabbard repeated: Terrorism continues to pose the greatest both short- and long-term threat to the American people. Whatever one thinks of the individuals delivering these messages, the assessments themselves leave no ambiguity of the dangers confronting the United States. Yet, in spite of these clear and present threats, the Trump administration has chosen a course of action that weakens our defenses and leaves Americans more vulnerable to the very risks its own officials have publicly described. Since Inauguration Day, the President and his handpicked FBI Director--again, Kash Patel--have forced out thousands of experienced agents for reasons that appear more political than professional--for example, for refusing to acknowledge who actually won the 2020 election or FBI agents being thrown out for prosecuting the violent criminals who attacked the Capitol Police on January 6 or being pushed out for simply being friendly with someone critical of the President. Alarming court filings suggest that even Director Patel has privately acknowledged that many of these actions may be illegal yet justified them by saying that his keeping his position depended on carrying them out. The list of those purged reads like a who's who of the Bureau's most decorated public servants. Those agents forced out include former Acting Director of the FBI Brian Driscoll, who rose through the FBI's ranks in some of its most elite units, including the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. In 2015, he supported U.S. Special Operations in rescuing an American humanitarian aid worker, Kayla Mueller, from ISIS. Special Agent Driscoll would later rise to the head of the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group-- the FBI's elite team in charge of dealing with terrorists, child abductors, bomb threats, and hostage situations. For his service, Agent Driscoll was awarded the FBI's Medal of Valor and Shield of Bravery, only to have Director Patel fire him because he would not purge agents whom the President deemed politically disloyal. Other purged individuals include Bobby Wells, who joined the FBI shortly after 9/11 and spent decades in counterterrorism. He eventually became the head of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, leading efforts against al-Qaida, ISIS, and other global networks. Notably, he helped bring to justice the mastermind of the Kabul International Airport bombing that killed 13 American servicemembers--an accomplishment publicly touted by the President. Yet the President fired him shortly thereafter. This list includes Michael Nordwall, who was the head of the FBI's Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services Branch, who led efforts to combat ransomware attacks, online fraud, and sophisticated cyber intrusions targeting critical U.S. infrastructure. Further, the list includes Ryan Young, who was the head of the FBI's Intelligence Division, overseeing the collection and analysis of all intelligence on domestic and foreign threats, trying to make sure that field offices had the situational awareness to prevent attacks. Other senior agents were forced out from dozens of FBI field offices nationwide--from Washington to Miami, to New Orleans, to Las Vegas and Seattle. Among those heads of FBI field offices forced out was Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire, who was the lead investigator into the five hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, whose expertise was critical to understanding 9/11 and preventing further attacks. Most recently being pushed out includes Steven Palmer, a 27-year veteran of the FBI and the third head of the FBI's elite Critical Incident Response Group. In just 3 months--3 months--three separate heads were fired. As head of the Critical Incident Response Group, Mr. Palmer led teams tasked with responding to terrorist attacks, mass shootings, hostage crises, high-risk national security incidents--work that required split-second decision making under extraordinary pressure. He was fired not for failing his duties, not for misconduct, and not for political disagreements about law enforcement; he was fired because the American people learned that Director Patel had been using the FBI's $60 million jet at $20,000 a flight to go on dates with his girlfriend. To make matters worse, recent reporting indicates that Patel now has also pulled agents off of an FBI SWAT team to provide a security detail for that very same girlfriend--an unprecedented use of some of our Nation's most elite units, ordinarily assigned to deal with terrorism, hostage situations, or mass shootings; thousands of FBI agents all forced out not because they failed to do their job but because they refused to bend the knee to partisan politics. As if these individuals were not enough, the truth is, the FBI, in recent months, has reassigned between 25 and 45 percent of its agents who handle counterterrorism, cyber, espionage, child sexual abuse, and other critical missions. What have they been reassigned to? Well, they have been reassigned to immigration, while our office hears regularly that they want to get back to the cases that they had been working on and instead are stuck on a detail where they do nothing. As a matter of fact, data reveals a 33-percent decrease in hours spent on child exploitation cases this year compared to previous years. Firing agents who investigate terrorists, foreign spies, cyber hackers, and child predators doesn't make America safer, especially when the President's own intelligence officials warn publicly and repeatedly of the many threats facing our Nation. Just this summer, the ODNI issued a bulletin warning of al-Qaida and ISIS plots targeting the homeland. And just last month, the FBI disrupted ISIS terrorist plots in Michigan and New Jersey that might have been aimed at Halloween. I shudder to think what would have happened if the FBI had missed those plots, if the terrorists had semiautomatic rifles that suddenly let loose on kids trick-or-treating. The FBI Agents Association, which represents over 90 percent of all active FBI agents, issued a sobering warning earlier this month that Director Patel ``disregarded the law and launched a campaign of erratic and arbitrary retribution'' and that his actions ``make the American public less safe.'' This is the FBI Agents Association. They don't make these kinds of comments. How far do you have to be pushed to basically say the current Director of the FBI is making America less safe? But this political purge is not simply limited to the FBI. Since April, the National Security Agency--the Agency in charge of spying on communications of our adversaries--has been without a permanent Director or Deputy Director after President Trump fired Gen. Tim Haugh and his Deputy, Wendy Noble, at the behest of conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer; the same for the Defense Intelligence Agency, whose Director, Gen. Jeff Kruse, was fired after the DIA provided a fact-based assessment that contradicted the President's false televised claims that the United States had ``obliterated''--President Trump's words ``obliterated''--Iran's nuclear program. The pattern of reckless firings has extended to nearly every corner of our national security enterprise: Hundreds of workers who were responsible for maintaining our country's nuclear weapons, fired; staff managing foreign assistance programs ranging from detention of ISIS terrorists in Syria to air defenses in Ukraine, fired; hundreds of analysts monitoring China and Russia, fired, including a 29-year veteran of the CIA who supported President Trump's Alaska summit with President Putin whose undercover identity was publicly and incompetently disclosed by DNI Tulsi Gabbard; more than one-third of CISA--the Agency established for the absolutely explicit purpose of protecting our critical infrastructure, water, power, and our elections to prevent those entities from being attacked by cyber tools--a third of that Agency, fired, even as major cyber attacks hit State and local governments in at least 44 States, including a massive ransomware attack on Nevada's online government systems in August, a ransomware attack in July on local government networks in St. Paul, MN, and a cyber attack on city systems in Mission, TX, in February--folks are slow to respond--a third of CISA, it is a relatively new Agency but has been making progress, all fired. The irony is stark: Despite persistent efforts by China, Russia, Iran, and other adversaries, the 2020 Presidential election was one of the most secure in history, thanks in large part due to steps taken during the Trump administration's first term to safeguard our critical infrastructure. Yet now, much of that hard-won protection has been dismantled, leaving Americans more vulnerable than ever. Cyber Command--which under GEN Paul Nakasone disrupted the Russian troll farms in 2017--lacks a permanent Commander. The Foreign Influence Task Force, stood up by President Trump in his first term to share information with State and local partners about foreign interference in our elections, that task force has been completely disbanded. All the while, the administration's own intelligence reporting warns--and, again, I am going to go back to a quote: Beijing will continue to expand its coercive and subversive malign influence activities to weaken the United States . . . is likely to feel emboldened to use malign influence more regularly in the coming years, particularly as it fields AI to improve its capabilities. That is what China is saying. Russia: Moscow's malign influence activities will continue for the foreseeable future and will almost certainly increase in sophistication and volume. Iran's growing expertise and willingness to conduct aggressive cyber operations make it a major threat to the security of U.S. networks and data. The administration's own comments say these are threats we can't avoid. Yet you dismantle the foreign malign influence center, you fire a third of the people who are supposed to be responding to cyber attacks, you take FBI agents who were working on cyber and stick them on the immigration detail. This does not make America safer. The truth is, the pattern is unmistakable: Political loyalty is now valued over competence, and the very institutions created to protect Americans are being dismantled right before our eyes. We can no longer pretend that politics and national security are separate. Every day that we allow this purge to continue is a day we leave Americans more exposed in their homes, on the streets, and online. The next attack will not wait for Congress to act. The next threat will not ask permission. And when it comes, the consequences will not be measured in polling numbers or election results; they will be measured in lives lost, infrastructure damaged, and national security compromised. This is the moment to stand up to defend our intelligence Agencies; to protect those agents; to allow the intelligence community to speak truth to power, even when the power doesn't want to hear it; and, frankly, at the end of the day, to safeguard the American people. If we fail that and don't stand up for these men and women who have put their lives on the line, if we don't stand up for keeping classified information classified, if we don't stand up and say to those who undermine our infrastructure by cyber attacks, if we don't stand up for those terrorists planning, we will bear the cost later--a cost that could be catastrophic. I think we are a better country than this. These men and women deserve our support, and, unfortunately so far, they have not gotten that support. We can and must do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do want to thank my friend from North Dakota. We see things slightly different, but one thing I think we could probably agree on: Do you know who is getting paid? The House of Representatives, who have been on vacation since the middle of September. And, gosh, wouldn't it be great if they were actually on the floor debating this issue as well, as opposed to getting a taxpayer- paid vacation for over a month? Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3039 Mr. President, I think one of the things we could all kind of agree on is that our Nation's public servants are not political pawns. I say with respect to my friend from Wisconsin, you know, the so- called Shutdown Fairness Act, in my view, is anything but fair. Frankly, this entire year has been anything but fair for all of our Federal employees who show up every single day to serve the American people. Because remember, before Russ Vought even set foot in the Office of Management and Budget, he bragged that he wanted Federal workers--his words, not mine--to increasingly be ``viewed as . . . villains'' and ``put them in trauma.'' Think about that. This wasn't some political misstatement or slip of the tongue; it is, frankly, a mission statement. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have seen from Mr. Vought, from President Trump, and from those enabling them. In just 9 months, they have forced out or driven into early retirement more than 148,000 Federal employees. That is not efficiency or reform; it is an assault on the very people who work every day for the American people. And God knows we could improve but also make government perform. Now, let's be clear. It is not this side of the aisle--Democrats who have cherry-picked a few favorite programs to protect. We have been consistent in calling out this administration's totally reckless regard for the vital services the American people rely on to keep them safe and secure and standing up for those folks who deliver those services. So forgive me when I say I don't think this Shutdown Fairness Act has anything to do with fairness. Once again, Federal employees are being treated not as partners serving the American people but as punching bags for Vought and the President's political agenda. Right now, the President is trying to RIF another 4,000 Federal employees--not just, I believe, unfairly, but actually illegally, based upon a court's recent decision. Thank goodness the courts have stepped in. As a matter a fact, many of us were at the OMB headquarters next to the White House just last week, meeting with Federal employees, demanding that Mr. Vought and his team listen not to us--you don't have to listen to us; we are on politically different sides--but listen to the Federal workers and make sure that we get the government reopen, not try to leverage this for some kind of political win. We are talking about special education programs that support kids with disabilities. We are talking about the CDC, whose experts track outbreaks and try to keep us safe. We are talking about a program called the CDFI Fund at Treasury--a program with broad bipartisan support that helps invest in access to capital in rural communities and in urban communities. Again, on this one, I have to thank Mike Crapo and a whole lot of my Republican colleagues for being willing to push back. Let's be crystal clear. These actions are not some accident. This is a deliberate choice, a deliberate effort to hold Federal workers hostage in order to jam through an agenda. At the end of the day, it is going drive up healthcare costs for millions of Americans. Instead of sitting down with us and working to keep premiums affordable, they are using the very Federal workers--I have a ton of them in Virginia--as political pawns. It is wrong, it is cruel, and it is not going to work. That is why I am proud to join both Ranking Member Peters, who will be here, I believe, shortly, and my good friend from Maryland Senator Van Hollen on legislation to ensure that not the Trump administration picks and chooses who we ought to go ahead and pay but legislation to ensure that all Federal workers--and, by the way, the contractors who work side by side with them--get paid during this shutdown. I mean, at the end of the day, this is a moment for every Senator to decide: Are you going to stand with the Federal workers who keep the government running or are you going to stand with those who want to traumatize them and make them all be viewed as villains? This is an actual chance. In a few minutes, we are going to have to make sure that those workers can feed their families, pay their mortgages, while this Republican shutdown drags on. There is a lot of language on this floor about who wants to support Federal workers. Well, you are going to shortly have a chance--every Senator will have a chance--to prove whether you are on the side of not selectively paying Federal workers but paying all Federal workers, as we try to bring this shutdown to an end. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Let's get it done. And I thank Senator Van Hollen for his leadership on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don't normally come to the floor to give somewhat lengthy remarks, but today I am doing so because of a deep and, frankly, rising concern for the future of our intelligence community and, in turn, the security of the United States. For months now, we have watched President Trump's administration, led in this arena by his handpicked Director of National Intelligence Ms. Gabbard, systemically undermine the men and women whose mission is to keep this country safe. These are professionals who serve under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. They are career officials who put duty before politics, who swear an oath not to any President but to the Constitution of the United States. Yet as this administration fires and denigrates these very men and women, as expertise that takes literally decades to build is being thrown away as it conflicts with political talking points, as assessments grounded in fact are being shelved in favor of conspiracy theories, our adversaries are conspiring, sharing intelligence and military capabilities and strategizing over how to weaken the United States while advancing a very different authoritarian vision for the world. At the same time, I fear the integrity of our intelligence is being sacrificed on the altar of partisan convenience. This is not some kind of inside-the-beltway turf battle, and it is not another partisan disagreement. I believe at stake is something much more fundamental: whether America will continue to have an intelligence community free to speak truth to power or whether political pressure will blind us to the very real threats our Nation faces. (Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.) History shows us what happens when intelligence is ignored, manipulated, or kept from those who need it most. In 1941, the U.S. Navy intercepted communications showing that Japan was planning to attack Pearl Harbor. That knowledge ended up being of little use because it was not communicated to the people who could have taken action to protect the fleet. The result was the devastating surprise that cost thousands of American lives. In the aftermath, Congress resolved that we could never again afford to be blindsided. So in 1947, in a bipartisan way, Congress created the Central Intelligence Agency, the modern Department of Defense, and other institutions to ensure that unfiltered, unbiased intelligence is provided to the President, to Congress, and to our military. These institutions are meant to protect us from surprises and to give policymakers the truth, even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable. Now, for the most part, this system has worked, and all of us who work up here know it has never been perfect. The abuses revealed by the Church Committee in the 1970s made clear why strong congressional oversight is essential. That is why the Senate Intelligence Committee was established in 1976 and our House counterpart the following year. Today, while not flawless, these committees--of which I know the Presiding Officer is a member--remain the best check we have to ensure that intelligence Agencies uphold American values and laws and avoid repeating past mistakes--and hopefully learning from them when they do occur. Even with our modern system of congressional oversight, we have seen tragic failures. Intelligence failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. We failed to connect the dots before 9/11. And perhaps most foreboding, in the runup to the Iraq war, intelligence was distorted to fit policy preferences. Intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaida were inflated and cherry-picked. Analysts who even at that time raised doubts were ignored. The result was a devastating war in Iraq, fought under false pretenses, that cost literally thousands of American servicemembers their lives and limbs. But we learned from those failures. After the September 11 attacks, Congress placed additional safeguards and created a new position: the Director of National Intelligence. The objective was to better coordinate our intelligence Agencies, to avoid the so-called groupthink, to remove silos amongst our now 18, 19 intelligence Agencies, and to ensure that analysts could provide thorough, candid assessments--again, even when the truth was uncomfortable or unwelcome. That was the commitment I asked President Trump's nominee and the current Director of National Intelligence, Ms. Gabbard, to make during her confirmation hearing, and she assured our committee and the American people that she would protect the independence of the intelligence community to ensure that the IC is never politicized. She even pointed to the runup to the war in Iraq as the clearest example of what happens when intelligence is bent to fit policy and the President is told only what he wants to hear. She pledged that she would never allow those mistakes to be repeated on her watch. Mr. President, but in only 6 months, we have seen the opposite from this administration. We have seen career FBI agents, people who have risked their lives for this country, forced out of their positions simply for investigating crimes committed in the January 6 insurrection. These were professionals following the law, performing their sworn duties, and yet their service was treated as disloyalty. Careers were ended and decades of expertise were discarded just for doing the job they were entrusted to do. We have seen the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the National Intelligence Council dismissed because their well-documented, evidence- based assessment of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua criminal network did not align with the administration's preferred narrative. These analysts presented carefully sourced intelligence showing that the gang of bad guys acted, actually, independent of the Venezuelan Government, not at the behest of foreign officials. Yet their findings were rejected and their leadership positions removed simply because the truth didn't fit a politically convenient story. And again, to be clear, there is no question that Maduro's regime in Venezuela and the TDA are ruthless actors who pose real threats, but punishing officials--punishing intelligence officials in particular-- for telling the truth only weakens our ability to confront them. We have seen the three-star general leading the Defense Intelligence Agency pushed out after analysts produced a straightforward, evidence- based assessment showing that Iran's nuclear program had not been obliterated, as President Trump so loudly claimed. Rather than face those facts, the administration decided to punish the messenger, and he was let go from DIA. We have seen, more recently, analysts, literally with decades of experience on Russia, stripped of their security clearances or reassigned at the very moment that their years of expertise is needed most. More recently, DNI Gabbard has personally revoked the clearances of at least 37 individuals in a transparently political act of vengeance in a single stroke of a pen and, at least in one case, exposing an official working undercover. That alone--putting someone who has worked undercover and identifying that identity--in past administrations would have been grounds for firing. We have seen statutory requirements to keep Congress fully and currently informed ignored, oversight stymied and obstructed, and inspectors general who are supposed to keep their eyes on these Agencies--inspectors general and their personnel silenced, forced out, or removed. And I remind my colleagues, in terms of oversight for the intelligence community, that is not a right that all 100 Senators have. There are literally 17 of us. As chair or vice chair over the last few years, I am part of the so-called Gang of 8. If we don't do our jobs, nobody is watching all of these intelligence Agencies. Even more damaging, we have seen highly sensitive intelligence declassified and released, clearly for political purposes, without proper coordination with the Agencies responsible for protecting sources and methods--that is how we do our work and who are the people involved. The disclosures actually risked revealing the identities of assets--and those are human beings--and the techniques we rely on-- those are the technology and skills we have--and the credibility of ongoing operations, all for the sake of advancing a political narrative. The very tools that protect lives and maintain America's strategic advantage are being treated as leverage in a partisan game. Let's remember, the so-called Russia hoax and that assessment, which this administration continues to disparage, was a coordinated, unanimous finding by the entire intelligence community. Our committee-- on a bipartisan, unanimous basis--reviewed it and validated it extensively. Not a single one of my Republican colleagues objected to its findings, including the current Secretary of State, then-committee chairman Senator Rubio. And what did that assessment actually conclude? I think every one of us understood that Russia conducted a sweeping, systematic campaign to interfere in our 2016 election; that Moscow's goal was to sow chaos, to undermine faith in American democracy, and specifically to boost Mr. Trump's candidacy. These findings were not partisan talking points; they were sober judgments of career professionals, backed by evidence, and affirmed by both parties in Congress. And during the first Trump administration, they responded to that report appropriately and put resources to make sure the 2020 election was the safest election on record. Kudos to the first Trump administration in doing that. But with all of this happening, as troubling as all of this is, what may be most astonishing is who seems to be calling the shots now: not seasoned national security leaders, not career intelligence professionals, but conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a figure who has called the 9/11 terrorist attacks an inside job, who described herself as a ``pro-White nationalist'' and a ``proud Islamophobe,'' and who has made openly racist and anti-Muslim statements. This is not someone with even a shred of credibility, let alone the experience or judgment we should demand from those influencing U.S. national security decisions. Yet, time and again, we have seen senior officials pushed out of their posts because Ms. Loomer decided they were not sufficiently loyal to the President. National Security Council staffers, people well-known and respected on both sides of the aisle, including staffers who worked for my Republican colleagues in the Senate, were shown the door at her demand; the two top officials at the National Security Agency, including a well-respected four-star general, Timothy Haugh, forced out, along with the Agency's general counsel, again at Loomer's behest. These are critical posts in one of our most important intelligence organizations, vacated not because of misconduct or failure but because of the whims of a political provocateur whose public record is filled with hate and conspiracies. And don't take my word on these actions. Ms. Loomer's own social media feed claims all of these firings and dismissals almost as trophies. And just a few weeks ago we saw something that I believe should trouble every Member of this body, regardless of which party you belong to. My staff and I had arranged a visit to the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency located in my State of Virginia so that I could go ahead and do my constitutional duty of oversight and, in that meeting, meet with intelligence professionals who also happened to be my constituents. Yet, at the last minute, that visit was blocked--again-- and apparently, as she claimed, by Laura Loomer. What does it say about the state of our national security when a self-proclaimed White nationalist and Islamophobe with a personal vendetta against U.S. Government officials--and, by the way, no security clearance, no sworn duty to defend the Constitution--can dictate who serves in critical intelligence positions and even prevent Members of this Chamber from conducting basic oversight? I have to ask again: Why is this administration going to war against the very professionals sworn to keep our country safe? Why are decades of service and sacrifice being tossed aside? Why? Because they think they are still obliged to provide the truth and speak truth to power. But, instead, it appears that sometimes those truths are inconvenient because sometimes their assessments are not what the DNI and the President want to hear. These safeguards we put in place and the oversight this body provides--again, only 17 of us have seen these classified programs-- these safeguards only work if intelligence officers know that they can tell the truth without losing their jobs. If analysts who analyze the facts and try to come up with conclusions believe their careers will be destroyed for offering inconvenient assessments, then we will only get intelligence the White House wants. Imagine the consequences if our intelligence community is forced to spend its time chasing down conspiracy theories instead of monitoring terrorist networks, cyber threats, or foreign adversaries. Imagine if analysts stop flagging real dangers because they fear political retaliation. Imagine if experienced officers walk away from service altogether because they know their expertise will be diminished or punished. That kind of environment doesn't just weaken our intelligence community, it puts every American family at risk. Again, this is not some kind of partisan point. Democrats and Republicans alike have relied on the intelligence community to keep the country safe. Every President, whether they liked what they were hearing or not, has depended on accurate, independent analysis to make decisions that affect millions of lives. That is what makes this current moment so alarming. We are dismantling trust in institutions that literally took generations to build. We are eroding morale among some of the most dedicated professionals in public service. And I fear that we are sending a clear message to young officers, whether they are at the CIA or any of the other intelligence Agencies: Don't bother building a career in intelligence if you plan on telling the truth. Meanwhile, these aren't actions in a vacuum. Our adversaries aren't slowing down. Cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, nuclear proliferation, terrorist attacks, transnational criminal organizations--these threats are real, and they are not going to wait for us to get our house in order. If we continue to allow politics to dictate what intelligence is acceptable, we are effectively flying blind. That is why, again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Please, for God's sake, take this seriously. We can disagree about policy, but we cannot allow the facts themselves to be corrupted. The intelligence community must remain independent, professional, and committed to the Constitution above all else. I have had the opportunity in my tenure on this committee to work with a lot of these men and women. I didn't know many of them before I was on the Intelligence Committee. They are dedicated professionals. I never asked a single one what their party affiliation was. They oftentimes put their lives in harm's way and, candidly, never get the attention that our military does. They work in secret. The truth is, these professionals and the work they do deserve to be respected, honored, and listened to because if you corrupt the intelligence and bend it to political wills, we have seen constant examples of what happens. The truth is, the American people deserve nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was absent on Saturday, August 2, 2025, for rollcall vote no. 485. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 186, Andrew Puzder, of Tennessee, to be Representative of the United States of America to the European Union.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Washington State. I want to follow some of her concerns. It is pretty remarkable, so I do rise with grave concern to speak in opposition to the nomination of Joe Kent to lead the National Counterterrorism Center. Others may have already said this, but this is not a nomination we should treat lightly. The Director of NCTC plays a central role in asserting and integrating intelligence on terrorist threats, both foreign and domestic. That person must be trusted to tell the truth and to uphold the core principles of the intelligence community: objectivity, nonpartisanship, and fidelity to fact. Unfortunately, Mr. Kent has shown, time and again, that he cannot meet the standard. Now, let me acknowledge at the front end that I respect Mr. Kent because he spent much of his adult life in service to this country. He enlisted in the U.S. Army at 18. He served for two decades as a Green Beret. He deployed overseas 11 times before working as a field operative for the CIA. That record of service deserves recognition. And I do not question Mr. Kent's devotion to our country. However, that service, while admirable, cannot overcome a consistent pattern of questionable judgment and false statements, at odds with the objectivity he would be expected to uphold as Director of NCTC. In May, Congress received clear written evidence that Mr. Kent, while serving as Chief of Staff to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, sought to manipulate intelligence to match a political narrative promoted by President Trump. Specifically, after the National Intelligence Council assessed that the Venezuelan Government was not directing the movement of Tren de Aragua--the Tren de Aragua gang--into the United States, Mr. Kent pressured career analysts to alter that conclusion, not because of new intelligence but because he feared the report would ``be used against the DNI or POTUS.'' Let me say that again. Mr. Kent pressured career nonpartisan intelligence analysts to change their conclusions not to reflect the facts but somehow to protect Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard. The remarkable thing that happened next is that when the analysts stood firm, they were fired, sending a chilling message to every intelligence officer tasked with protecting this country. Let me be crystal clear. Tren de Aragua is a violent and dangerous transnational gang, and the Maduro government are pretty bad folks. And nobody that I know of--least of all me--is minimizing the threat that Tren de Aragua poses or the importance of tracking their ideas and their activities in the United States. But our national security decisions must be based on facts, not politics. When intelligence professionals conclude, based on the best available information, that the Venezuelan Government is not coordinating with that gang, their analysts--analysis--I think, has to be respected, even if it contradicts a political talking point. Distorting that analysis to score political points not only undermines trust in the intelligence community, it risks misdirecting resources and attention away from the real threats we face. Unfortunately, this incident is part of a much larger pattern, underscoring that Mr. Kent lacks the judgment and commitment to truth required of such an important position. Mr. Kent has openly embraced the lie that the 2020 election was ``rigged'' and ``stolen,'' a lie that the Senator from Washington indicated helped fuel an insurrection against our democracy, and he has defended those who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, referring to them as ``political prisoners,'' and falsely claimed that the FBI and intelligence community were involved in directing the violence that occurred that day. I can tell you, I was here that day. That was not directed by the FBI. He has participated in the Signalgate group chat, where Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, and other political appointees discussed classified information, carelessly putting our sailors and pilots at risk--and for which Mr. Kent, in testimony before my committee on the Senate Intelligence Committee, remained thoroughly unrepentant. During his nomination hearing, rather than reassuring the committee of his qualifications or judgement, he launched into a diatribe about the so-called Russia hoax, dismissing well-documented foreign interference in our elections as if it were a partisan invention. Down to my last two pages, Mr. President. That claim is not just wrong, it is willfully ignorant. The Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a comprehensive, five-volume, bipartisan investigation of the Russian interference in the 2016 election. Over those five volumes, we detailed how Russia interfered in our democratic process, how those efforts were designed to help Donald Trump, and how individuals affiliated with his campaign welcomed his efforts. That is not a hoax. That is a fact. Matter of fact, unanimously confirmed by every member of the Senate Intelligence Committee-- Republican and Democrat. Mr. Kent's outright dismissal of it speaks volumes about how he views the truth, intelligence, and accountability, nor can we ignore his troubling associations. Mr. Kent has repeatedly aligned himself with far-right extremist groups, employing a member of the Proud Boys, a white nationalist organization with a record of political violence and extremism, as part of his 2022 campaign for Congress, a campaign for which he also solicited help from white nationalist Nick Fuentes. At a time when domestic, violent extremism is one of the fastest- growing threats to the homeland, we are being asked to put someone in charge of counterterrorism who has aligned himself with political violence, promoted falsehoods that undermine our democracy, and tried to twist intelligence to serve a political agenda. I urge my colleagues--particularly those who value the credibility of our intelligence Agencies--to think carefully about what message it sends if Mr. Kent is confirmed. Allowing Mr. Kent to lead the NCTC would not just compromise the integrity of our counterterrorism efforts, it would embolden those who believe loyalty to one man should outweigh loyalty to the truth. It would signal that the politicization of intelligence in service of falsehoods is no longer a disqualifier, and it would make this country less safe. Mr. President, for these reasons, I join others and strongly urge a ``no'' on this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that we move up the 1:45 vote to start right now.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was absent on Thursday, July 17, 2025, for rollcall vote No. 414. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 96, Aaron Lukas, of Arkansas, to be Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Mr. President, I was absent on Thursday, July 17, 2025, for rollcall vote No. 415. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 108, Bradley Hansell, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. Mr. President, I was absent on Thursday, July 17, 2025, for rollcall vote No. 416. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 91, Arielle Roth, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. WARNER. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today--I know many of us have--with deep concern about the administration shuttering USAID, firing thousands of State Department personnel, and retreating from America's place in the world. These actions threaten our national security and our economic interests. Africa has the world's fastest growing population, projected to be home for 25 percent of the global population by 2050 and has enormous reserves and strategic benefits. I can tell you, back in Virginia we benefit greatly from the vibrant and diverse African diaspora populations. U.S. engagement with African nations is essential. It makes us safer and develops economic opportunities for partnership. This is in America's strategic interest. Our adversaries get this, too, and China has been jumping at the opportunity to make inroads as we retreat from Africa. This administration's haphazard retreat from our commitments in Africa make us all less safe. Rescinding these economic support and development funds is harmful today, but it is, in the long run, a clear and avoidable catastrophe, one that mortgages our strategic interests, our credibility, and our security. I urge my colleagues to support my motion.

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2847 and ask it be reported by number.

Mr. WARNER. I ask the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WARNER. Colleagues, we all know on January 29 of this year, 67 individuals lost their lives when a military helicopter and a passenger jet collided near Reagan National Airport. This tragedy underscores the need for more safety improvements at National Airport. The reconciliation bill increases, actually doubles, the amount of rent that National and Dulles pay the government. But it doesn't use any of that money to make those airports safer. And we all use those airports. There is no good rationale for increasing those rents and not using them for aviation safety. My amendment would increase aviation safety and security. It also honors the victims of the recent midair collision: first, to implement the NTSB's and FAA's preliminary and final recommendations on any safety measures resulting from the crash at National; second, to establish and maintain a permanent memorial for the victims of the crash of January 29. And the families strongly support this amendment; and, third, to undertake projects directly related to the safety and security of flights from both Dulles and National to other airports across the country. Some of those airports include Charlotte, NC; Portland, ME; Charleston, SC; Indianapolis, IN; Wichita, KS; Louisville, KY; Nashville, TN; and Cleveland, OH. I also want to thank my colleagues Senators Kaine, Van Hollen, and Alsobrooks for cosponsoring this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, do I have any remaining time?