[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 91 (Thursday, May 14, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2432-S2441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
USA FREEDOM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2020--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 6172, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6172) to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 to prohibit the production of
certain business records, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Coronavirus
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as the majority leader just pointed out,
the Senate has been and will be focused on responding to the
coronavirus crisis in this country in a way that hopefully will enable
the American people to recover and that will restore our economy--that
will get things back to normal. As he pointed out, that requires
dealing with the health emergency as well as with the economic
emergency crisis that has been created by this.
With respect to the health emergency, the leader pointed out that
there are literally tens of billions of dollars being spent now on
vaccine research, on anti-viral therapeutics, and on testing. We
believe that, in order for us to get our economy fully back, we have to
deal with the health emergency in front of us, so dollars have been
made available--hundreds of billions of dollars--to healthcare
providers, hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and providers who are on
the frontlines of this crisis and trying to deal with the challenges it
presents every single day. That is what we have focused on. In
addition, we have focused on the economic crisis and the impact it has
had on our small businesses and on our workers.
Everything that has been included in the bills that have already been
passed here in the U.S. Senate--now we have No. 4--and have been signed
into law by the President have been singularly
[[Page S2433]]
focused on trying to assist people and get them through this time as a
bridge to hopefully get the worst of this behind us and get us to a
time at which the economy begins to open up again.
Clearly, the focus was on helping families directly, making sure
those families who particularly needed the help the most got some
additional financial assistance. So checks went out--$1,200 per
individual, $2,400 per married couple, and $500 for each additional
child--as direct assistance. It went into the pockets of families
across this country
Then, with respect to workers and small businesses, there was the
Paycheck Protection Program, which by all accounts has been very, very
successful. I think the reason for that is that businesses across this
country recognize that they, too, want to keep their employees
employed. They do want to keep those jobs, hopefully, until that time
when the economy starts to open up again, so they heavily subscribe to
this program.
Interestingly enough, there has been a lot of talk on the other side,
as there usually is--a demagoging of how this helps rich people and all
of that. Yet the average loan in the most recent round of PPP funding
is about $80,000 on a payroll of about $28,000. Businesses can use that
principally for payroll. Seventy-five percent has to be used to be able
to keep their employees employed, to keep their workers employed, to
keep those jobs there, while 25 percent has to be used for some fixed
cost, which might be utilities, which might be rent, which might be
debt service, those types of things. The whole purpose of the program
is to keep workers employed. It is a pro-worker program, and it has
been from the very beginning.
Then also, for those who through no fault of their own have lost jobs
and have been laid off, there has been a significant plus-up in the
unemployment insurance accounts--to the tune of $600 per person per
week for individuals in this country--on top of what their States might
already pay. There is a significant number of dollars being put out
there for people who have lost jobs through no fault of their own.
These are pro-worker pieces of legislation, pro-unemployed people
legislation. These are pro-small business--keeping those small
businesses working out there. Obviously, they are very much pro-health
emergency--trying to drive dollars toward the solutions, the cures, the
vaccines, the anti-viral therapeutics, and the testing that are
necessary to help us get through this. That is what Republicans here in
the Senate have been focused on for the past several months and will
continue to be focused on in the future.
As the leader pointed out, the House Democrats, who are not here but
who, remarkably, from afar have evidently put together this fantasy
wish list of things they would like to see accomplished--if you can
imagine an 1,815-page bill, they mention ``cannabis'' way more times
than they mention ``jobs.'' The amazing thing about this--and they will
come here and argue that the Republicans' proposals benefit the
wealthy, benefit the rich. As I just pointed out very clearly, it is
the opposite that is true, for it has been directed directly at
families and workers. Everything we have done has been designed to keep
jobs, to be very pro-worker.
Yet, in part of the 1,815-page proposal that the Democrats have out
there, they have a couple of tax proposals, one of which would deliver
56 percent of that tax cut to the top 1 percent of the wage earners in
the country. This is 56 percent of the benefit of a proposal under the
House Democrats' fantasy wish list that would go to the top 1 percent
of the earners in this country. Now, that doesn't sound to me like
something that is very pro-worker or that is trying to help people who
are in the lower income categories, who are suffering the most
economically as a result of the coronavirus crisis. It seems, to me at
least, like something that is sort of a payoff to some of their big
donors and to the big blue States.
Nonetheless, that is a feature of the 1,815-page bill that the leader
just described and talked about. It is one of many features--part of
the permanent agenda--that has nothing to do with solving the crisis in
front of the American people right now but has entirely to do with an
ideological wish list. They are all of the things that have been on
their agenda for a really long time, none of which should ever be
considered seriously in terms of dealing with the crisis that is in
front of us right now.
As I said, responding to this coronavirus crisis has been and will
continue to be at the top of our agenda for the foreseeable future.
H.R. 6172
Madam President, in addition to our pandemic response, the Senate is
also focused on the other priorities on which the American people are
relying on us to take care of--from funding the government to
protecting our Nation.
This week, the Senate is taking up legislation to reauthorize three
expired provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
including the provision that allows the FBI to wiretap lone wolf
terrorists--terrorists not affiliated with a specific terrorist
organization--and the roving wiretap provision that prevents the FBI
from having to seek a new wiretap warrant each time a terrorist suspect
changes his phone number.
These provisions lapsed in March, after the House blocked a temporary
extension that was passed unanimously in the Senate, leaving law
enforcement and intelligence officials without key tools in their anti-
terrorism fight. I expect the Senate will pass this bill today, and I
hope the House will move quickly to send it to the President's desk.
Every day, our law enforcement and intelligence personnel are engaged
in the difficult and, at times, dangerous work of tracking terrorist
threats. We need to make sure they have the tools they need to do their
jobs and to keep Americans safe. The bill before us combines extensions
of these key anti-terrorism tools with new accountability measures that
will ensure that law enforcement is held to the highest standards when
pursuing surveillance of suspected terrorists and foreign agents.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when we vote on it
later today.
Remembering Tom Coburn
Madam President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to my
friend and a former Member of this body, Senator Tom Coburn, who died
in March.
Tom and I first met in the House of Representatives, where we both
served, and then came to the Senate at the same time as part of the
class of 2005.
I have been privileged to meet many principled men and women in my
time in public service, but Tom, literally, was one in a million. He
was fiercely principled and uncompromising, often to the chagrin of
fellow Senators. He didn't care if he were 1 against 99 if he believed
he was in the right. He stuck to his guns come hell or high water. He
voted against politically popular legislation and bills that no other
Senator would oppose. Yet he held the enduring respect of his
constituents and, indeed, of his colleagues, proving that sometimes
principle can win you more lasting friendship than compromise. He was
here for a purpose--in particular, to protect our children and
grandchildren from the burden of an ever-increasing national debt by
exposing government waste and Washington's spending habits.
He got into fierce fights on the floor in service to that mission,
but he knew how to keep fights to the office. Prickly on the floor,
outside of it, he was warm and personable, and he didn't let politics
get in the way of friendships. As he once said himself, he disagreed
with President Obama on 95 percent of the issues, but that didn't stop
him from developing a lasting friendship with the President or from
working with him on legislation when he was in the Senate.
No discussion of Tom would be complete without mentioning his deep
faith. He was an outspoken witness for Christ. If you were his friend,
as I was privileged to be, he was interested not just in your present
good but in your eternal good as well.
As I said earlier, Tom Coburn was one in a million, and it will be a
long time before we see his like again. That is a particularly great
loss because the Senate should always have a Tom Coburn--a man or woman
of uncompromising principle, of fierce dedication to the national good,
someone willing to stand alone in defense of the right, who provides a
constant reminder that principle is more important than politics
[[Page S2434]]
and that what is important is not winning elections but doing the right
thing.
My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Carolyn, and his
daughters, Callie, Katie, and Sarah, and his nine grandchildren.
Your husband, your father, and your grandfather is sorely missed.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Democratic leader
is recognized.
Coronavirus
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it has been 2 weeks since Leader
McConnell called us back into session. In that time, it was announced
that 30 million Americans filed for unemployment. Just this morning, we
learned another 3 million Americans filed jobless claims this week. Yet
the Republican leader has scheduled exactly zero votes--zero--on
legislation related to the coronavirus. Instead, Leader McConnell has
resisted urgent and necessary action to fight the pandemic. He said
that now is the time to ``press the pause button.'' Tell that to
someone trying to feed his or her children. Tell that to some small
business person who has kept a business going for 20 years and now is
ready to go bankrupt. Tell that to workers at every level of this
economy who are losing their jobs. Time to press the pause button when
we have faced the greatest health and economic crisis since the
Depression?
McConnell has said Republicans have yet to ``feel the urgency of
acting immediately.'' How many of our Republican Senators have yet to
feel the urgency of acting immediately? How many? I would urge the
constituents of Senators in every State to call them and ask them that
question. Do you agree with Senator McConnell that we have yet to feel
the urgency of acting immediately? Well, I could give our Republican
colleagues more than 30 million reasons to feel the urgency of acting
immediately.
We are staring at a period of prolonged economic misery for millions
of American workers and families--Americans who for the first time
don't know if they will be able to keep a roof over their heads, put
food on the table, pay the rent; Americans who for the first time are
waiting in staggering lines at food banks, cars lined up for miles,
snaked across parking lots, people who would never have imagined they
would be lining up at a food bank. How long will it take and how much
economic hardship will suffice before Senate Republicans feel the
urgency to act?
It is not just Democrats who are pleading with the Republican
majority to wake up to the economic reality in this country--oh, no.
Governors spanning the country in both parties know darn well that this
is not a blue State/red State issue. How cheap. A firefighter who is
laid off in Florida and a firefighter who is laid off in New York are
both hurting, and they are not looking to what kind of State they are
in. So the Governors are calling for help. States, cities, and
localities are being forced to lay off teachers, police officers,
firefighters, and food health safety workers. It is Governors of both
parties. Listen to the NGA, led by a Republican Governor. They need to
get unanimous consent for most of the things they do.
It is not just Governors and politicians. The Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Jerome Powell--hardly a Democrat--a Trump appointee, said
yesterday that ``the scope and speed of this downturn are without
modern precedent, significantly worse than any recession since World
War II.'' He went on to say that ``additional fiscal support could be
costly but worth it, if it helps avoid long-term economic damage and
leaves us with a stronger recovery.'' That is the Chairman of the
Federal Reserve, Jay Powell, appointed by President Trump, telling
Republicans to get off their hands and do something. Powell has used
almost every tool in his monetary toolkit. He knows we need fiscal
relief--more of it. But Leader McConnell has so far rejected doing
another emergency relief bill. His party is slowly drafting legislation
to give legal immunity to big corporations that put workers in
dangerous situations.
That is not the nub of the issue. We know that. We have so many
diversions on the Republican side--liability, China. Let's solve the
problem right now. What are we going to do for people who are out of
work? What are we going to do for people who can't feed their families?
What are we going to do for businesses that are going under
Senate Democrats have had to relentlessly pressure our Republican
colleagues to hold even the most routine oversight hearings on the
coronavirus. Our Republican colleagues say: Well, we don't want to
spend any more money; we have to know how it is spent. Yet they are not
having a whole raft of hearings that they should to see how the money
is spent. Instead, they are talking about appointing rightwing judges
who want to repeal healthcare to the bench. Wow. How out of touch.
The Republican leader made sure the Judiciary Committee had time to
consider his protege, a rightwing judge, to sit on the second most
powerful court in the country, even though there is no particular need
for that nomination at the moment.
The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Committee told committee members that next week he was planning on
delving into baseless, Kremlin-concocted conspiracy theories against
the son of Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for President. Russia
comes up with a theory, and the Republicans embrace it instead of doing
what they are supposed to be doing.
The Republican majority doesn't have time to call in the SBA
Administrator or FEMA Administrator or hold a hearing on the shortage
of PPE, which our workers on the frontline so desperately need, but all
of a sudden, they have time to use a Senate committee to try to slander
the President's political opponent? What world are they in? How out of
touch can they be?
We are in the middle of a public health and economic crisis, and
Senate Republicans are diving head-first into the muck, pursuing
diversionary, partisan conspiracy theories to prop up President Trump
when President Trump should be focusing on solving this crisis--once
again trying to achieve what the President tried to achieve in the
Ukraine scandal by another means, sullying his opponent with baseless
conspiracy theories. Don't our Republican friends see the folly of
following President Trump in this regard? Don't they know the American
people are wise to this kind of stuff? There are over 30 million people
without work, tens of thousands losing their lives, and pursuing
baseless conspiracy theories is what the Republican majority seems to
be focused on.
Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress aren't the only ones unwilling
to do the urgent and necessary work of the moment. President Trump and
his administration are guilty of the same offense. Yesterday, Dr.
Fauci--one of the most respected health experts in the country--warned
that the reopening of schools and businesses too quickly could lead to
unnecessary suffering and death. Asked about Dr. Fauci's comments,
President Trump said Dr. Fauci ``wants to play all sides of the
equation. . . . [T]o me--it's not an acceptable answer.''
President Trump, Dr. Fauci isn't playing all sides of the equation.
He is giving you one side of the equation: the truth--the truth,
President Trump, without you lurking over his shoulder or contradicting
him at a press conference or yelling at a reporter who asks a
legitimate question.
We don't need Dr. Fauci to tell us there are risks to reopening too
soon and without proper preparation. That is obvious to just about
everyone. That is the truth. But President Trump just inveterately
abases the truth if it doesn't fit with the fantasy he has constructed
in his head. The first fantasy was that it was a hoax. The second
fantasy was that it will go away in the warm weather.
Well, here we are. It is May. Has it gone away, Mr. Trump? Is it a
hoax, Mr. Trump? No, of course not.
Now, one of his latest--that Fauci is making things up or is wrong.
He will rush us back to work before we have the proper testing, and we
will pay a price. That is what the scientists tell us, and they know
best. They are not politicians.
Thankfully, in this big, grand, diverse, and beautiful country, you
cannot suppress the truth for too long. Over the past week, a parade of
truth tellers has begun. On Tuesday, it was
[[Page S2435]]
Dr. Fauci; on Wednesday, Jerome Powell; today, HHS official Rick Bright
is testifying in the House. The President may try to shroud the truth
from the American people or even from himself, but eventually,
inevitably, the truth will come out about how poorly the administration
has dealt with this crisis. It is one of the worst performances by a
President in American history.
The American people have been following stay-at-home orders for
months on end, doing their part to slow the spread of this pernicious
disease. Those many millions who sacrificed their routines and
livelihoods have bought this country precious time to prepare for life
after the pandemic; precious time to ramp up testing, produce PPE, and
formulate a plan for nationwide contact tracing. What has the Trump
administration done with this precious time? They have wasted it--
wasted it.
The President wants to reopen the country as quickly as possible but
could not be less interested in the strategies that would allow us to
do it safely.
President Trump, do you want to get the country open quickly? Do you
want to get people back to the malls and riding on the airplanes? Get
the kind of testing that other countries have done. We are still
leagues behind on testing.
He said 2 months ago--another Trump fantasy--on March 6 that anyone
who wants a test can get one. Tell that to millions and millions and
millions of Americans who want testing and cannot get it.
A de facto nationwide lockdown has been going on for weeks. Yet our
testing capacity has not approached the number just about every expert
says is required. The President, in an emergency, which we certainly
have, hasn't requisitioned American manufacturing to produce the tests
we need and has been slow to dispense congressional funds intended to
help the States do the job. We voted for those a few weeks back. The
States are still waiting.
Businesses, schools, sports leagues, and families are going to need
guidance from public health experts on how to open as safely as
possible.
I talked to hotel executives and sports executives yesterday. They
know that without testing, they are not going to come back. If they
could test every person walking into a large arena and turn away anyone
who might have COVID, people would be far more likely to sit in the
seats. In Georgia, where Governor Kemp has been most forward, pushing
people to open up, something like 6 to 8 percent of the people showed
up. This is 2 weeks after he opened up the malls and the stores. People
are not going to go out unless they are sure they won't get COVID, and
they can't be sure they won't get COVID unless we have many, many more
tests.
What is the President waiting for? He cuts his nose to spite his
face. He wants to get us back to work, but he doesn't push testing. The
anomalies of this man--and that is a kind word--just go on and on and
on
People also want to know the guidance--what should they do, what they
shouldn't. They want it from scientists. The CDC prepared guidance. The
President has held it back so that he and his political appointees can
edit it to suit their purposes.
Yesterday, I tried to ask the Senate's consent to release the
unredacted, unedited CDC guidance, and Senate Republicans, of course,
blocked the request. The junior Senator from Indiana said he didn't
want ``career regulators''--meaning the experts, meaning scientists at
the CDC--to advise the country on how to reopen safely. That the
President and his team of political advisers should be able to decide
that--is there anyone left in this country, except the most diehard
partisans, who trusts this administration to issue medical guidance
properly? Come on.
Here is the bottom line: The sacrifices of the American people gave
this administration time to prepare the country to return to some
semblance of normal. Those sacrifices have been squandered by Trump and
his Republican acolytes.
We all want to get back to work--I certainly do--but there is a smart
way to begin reopening the country, a way to do it safely, with
precautions and testing and tracing, to avoid a resurgence of the
disease, and then there is a reckless way. President Trump has so far
chosen the reckless way and seems to have no plan to right the ship.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wanted to start by stating that I know a
lot of people look at us speaking on the floor and think, you know,
well, why aren't they wearing masks?
I saw Senator Schumer. He put on his mask after he finished his talk
and left. I have my mask here. I just took it off. I am going to put it
on after I finish speaking.
You know the way this works. I wear this mask to protect you, and you
wear a mask to protect me, and that is the way we protect each other in
this pandemic. I don't think there is any doubt that wearing a mask
saves lives, and that is how we are going to overcome in this pandemic.
I see people around New Mexico all the time when I am back home
wearing masks and really taking this pandemic seriously and taking our
Governor's orders seriously.
H.R. 6172
Mr. President, reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, or FISA, is now before us. We have an opportunity to
reform this statute, to protect both our constitutional rights and our
security. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress hurriedly passed
the PATRIOT Act and authorized extraordinarily broad authority to the
Executive and the executive branch that threatened America's and
Americans' privacy rights and liberty interests.
In October 2001, I was 1 of 66 Members in the House of
Representatives who voted against the PATRIOT Act. It was not an easy
vote, but in the years since, it is clear that it was the correct vote
because the PATRIOT Act ultimately allowed the government to invade the
privacy of millions of innocent Americans.
Exhibit 1: section 215 of the act. Section 215 has been greatly
abused, resulting in the bulk collection of hundreds of millions of
Americans' phone records and email contact lists.
The Nation was shocked when we found out about this bulk collection
in 2013. In 2015, we passed the FREEDOM Act to cure some of the abuses.
It did not cure them all.
Section 215 and two other provisions of the PATRIOT Act are up for
reauthorization. That is the bill before us. Congress has the
opportunity to protect our civil liberties even as we protect national
security.
And while the House bill made improvements, it is still flawed. The
House version still allows large-scale collection of Americans'
sensitive information, and it doesn't reform the FISA Courts to prevent
abuses. We should learn the lesson of October 2001 and not rush this
through the Senate. We should include amendments to better protect
Americans' civil liberties.
I support the Wyden-Daines amendment that prohibits collection of
Americans' internet website browsing and internet search history
information without a search warrant. It is a missed opportunity for
the Nation that the amendment failed yesterday, although by one vote--
by one vote.
Right now, the Federal Government can digitally track articles
Americans are reading online, social media they are using, where they
are shopping, which restaurants they are thinking about going to, and
the list goes on and on. Just imagine thinking about everything you do
on the internet and your devices. That is open game.
The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches. In
this day and age, when so much of our life is conducted over the
internet, Americans must have assurance that their web browsing, which
can reveal highly sensitive information, will not be unreasonably
intruded upon by Federal authorities without a search warrant and
without probable cause. This information provides an intimate window
into our lives. It can reveal a person's medical conditions, political
and religious views, and far more.
We need to make clear that government must demonstrate probable cause
to collect this type of personal information.
Second, we need to strengthen the oversight of FISA Courts. We know
these secret courts are subject to abuse. In 2015, Congress authorized
FISA Courts to appoint amici--friends of the court--in cases involving
novel
[[Page S2436]]
or significant interpretation of the law. This was a positive step
forward to provide independent oversight, but it appears there have
been only 16 cases in which amici have actually been appointed. Yet
there have been more cases than 16 in which novel issues were raised
and many more cases where an independent voice is needed to defend
civil rights in FISA Court proceedings.
The recent Department of Justice inspector general report examining
25 FISA applications underscores this need. The IG found errors and
inadequately supported facts in every application. An expanded amicus
role is necessary to bring greater accountability to the application
process.
I voted in support of the Lee-Leahy amendment that expands amici
participation to significant First Amendment activities; to matters
where a religious or political organization, a public official or
candidate or the news media is involved; and to matters approving new
technology or reauthorizing programmatic surveillance.
Third, we must make sure FISA applications are completely accurate
and all exculpatory evidence is disclosed. Accuracy and transparency
are critical to maintaining integrity within our justice system.
The Lee-Leahy amendment strengthens the requirements for accuracy and
disclosure of all information--including exculpatory information--in
FISA applications.
I am pleased this body stood in support of strengthening safeguards
in the FISA Court process. However, our failure to protect Americans
from the Federal Government looking over their shoulders while they are
on the internet and collecting personal information is unacceptable.
National security does not require the Federal Government intruding
upon the private lives of Americans without probable cause and a search
warrant.
Our liberties and freedoms define us as a nation. Either we should
reconsider the Wyden-Daines amendment--a motion to reconsider is
allowed at this point--or we should vote no on FISA reauthorization. We
don't need to sacrifice our liberties and freedoms for an illusion of
security.
One of our Founders way back in this country, Ben Franklin, said it a
little bit differently. He said: ``Those who would give up liberty in
the name of security deserve neither.'
Remembering Dennis Chavez
Now, Mr. President, before I yield the floor today, I would like to
commemorate one of New Mexico's great heroes, Senator Dennis Chavez,
who, 70 years ago this week, on May 12, 1950, stood on this floor of
the U.S. Senate and was the first in the Senate to sound the alarm
against Senator Joseph McCarthy, who had begun his reign of terror that
year.
Dennis Chavez was born into a farming family in territorial New
Mexico. He had a seventh grade education and rose to become a
Georgetown University Law School graduate, the first American-born
Hispanic U.S. Senator and, at 27 years, the longest serving Hispanic
Senator in the history of our country.
Senator Chavez, or ``El Senador,'' as we call him in New Mexico, was
a man of great integrity. In February 1950, McCarthy had charged--
without proof--that there were 205 card-carrying Communists working in
the State Department. By March, he accused American scholar Owen
Lattimore, among others, of being a Communist. That accusation--also
without evidence--spurred Senator Chavez to take to the Senate floor,
to come down here and to speak out.
He told the Senate:
I would like to be remembered as the man who raised a
voice--and I devoutly hope not a voice in the wilderness--at
a time in the history of this body when we seem bent upon
placing limitations on the freedom of the individual. I would
consider all of the legislation which I have supported
meaningless if I were to sit idly by, silent, during a period
which may go down in history as an era where we are permitted
curtailments of our liberties, a period when we quietly
shackled the growth of men's minds.
Dennis Chavez.
The fact is, we are seeing chilling similarities between the Joseph
McCarthy of seven decades ago and the situation we are in today
Mr. President, this week marks the 70th anniversary of a courageous
address to this body. Seventy years ago, on May 12, 1950, the senior
senator from New Mexico--Dennis Chavez--was the first to call out the
unfairness of Joe McCarthy's communist witch hunt.
In May of 1950, it was still four and one-half years before the
Senate would vote to ``condemn'' the senator from Wisconsin. But, even
at that time, early in McCarthy's crusade, Senator Chavez recognized
the present danger.
That day, Senator Chavez took to the floor, with 77 other Senators in
attendance. That was a time when Senators engaged in genuine,
spontaneous debate in this chamber. Senator Chavez counseled his
colleagues: ``. . . a man is ultimately remembered by what he does in
relation to his times, and the fact that we do our assigned duty may
not be enough; sometimes we must step out and sound the alarm.''
And sound the alarm against McCarthy, he did.
Dennis Chavez--born Dionisio on April 4, 1888--came from humble and
honorable beginnings. He came from generations who had farmed in Los
Chavez--a small community along the Rio Grande, south of Albuquerque,
in territorial New Mexico. When he was seven, his family moved to
Albuquerque in search of better opportunities. He learned English in
school but, at age 13, when he was in 7th grade, he had to leave school
to help support his family.
Dennis, however, never left his education. He studied engineering,
American history, and great political leaders at the Albuquerque Public
Library. In his early 20's, he worked for the City of Albuquerque
Engineering Department, and also became active in Democratic politics.
He joined the Democratic Party, even though most Hispanics at that time
in New Mexico were Republicans. He saw in the ``Democratic party a
political philosophy that placed human rights above property rights.''
In 1917, a newly elected Democratic Senator from New Mexico took
Dennis to Washington where he worked for the clerk of the Senate.
Dennis took and passed the entrance examination for and eventually
graduated from Georgetown University Law School--all with less than a
7th grade education.
He returned to New Mexico to practice law, and was first elected to
the U.S. House of Representatives--representing New Mexico's one at-
large district--in 1930. In 1935, he was appointed to a Senate seat
that had become vacant, and was elected in his own right the next year.
Senator Chavez served in the Senate until his death in November 1962.
In so many ways, he was far ahead of his time. In the 1940s, he
fought for civil rights legislation. In the 1950s, he chaired the
Public Works Committee and sat on the Appropriations Committee, and
helped usher in major infrastructure projects all over the nation,
including water and military projects critical to New Mexico's
development.
``El Senador'', as we call him in New Mexico, was the first American-
born Hispanic elected to the Senate and, at 27 years, remains the
longest serving Hispanic Senator in history.
Joseph McCarthy began his reign of terror on February 9, 1950, a
speech charging, without proof, that there were 205 card carrying
members of the Communist Party working in the U.S. State Department.
By March of that year, McCarthy had accused American scholar Owen
Lattimore, among many others, of being a Communist. That accusation,
again without evidence, was too much for Senator Chavez and it gave
rise to his denunciation on the floor of the Senate.
At that time, in 1950, Republicans held the presidency and both
houses in Congress. And no matter one's party--bucking any anti-
Communist sentiment could be politically costly.
But Senator Chavez took his chances against Joe McCarthy--in the name
of what was right.
He told the Senate that day, ``I would like to be remembered as the
man who raised a voice--and I devoutly hope not a voice in the
wilderness--at a time in the history of this body when we seem bent
upon placing limitations on the freedom of the individual. I would
consider all of the legislation which I have supported meaningless if I
were to sit idly by, silent, during a period which may go down in
history as an era where we are permitted curtailments of our
[[Page S2437]]
liberties, a period when we quietly shackled the growth of men's
minds.''
Dennis Chavez's entire career is defined by his courage, by his
integrity, by his commitment to justice.
The similarities between Joseph McCarthy and Donald Trump between
McCarthyism and Trumpism are--chilling. Both are demagogues. Both lie
to the American people. Both try to destroy reputations and lives based
on falsehoods.
But the lessons learned from that dark period in our history are
lessons we can all learn from today.
First--is the lesson of courage.
In 1950, there were few--of any political party--willing to go up
against Senator McCarthy.
But there were exceptions. Less than a month after Senator Chavez's
floor speech, the junior senator from Maine--Margaret Chase Smith--the
first woman to serve in both the House and Senate--delivered her
``Declaration of Conscience'' on the Senate floor. Joined by six other
brave Republicans, the ``Great Lady of Maine'' denounced the ``hate and
character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional
immunity.''
Where is that courage now? There are those in the Senate majority who
understand the incompetence of this president. That he has an uneasy
relationship with the truth. That his words and actions so often
undermine basic American values.
But so few ever speak out. No one challenges his lies, his
divisiveness, his singular focus on his own ambition to the exclusion
of the welfare of American people.
In 1950, there were seven Senate Republicans who challenged Joseph
McCarthy.
In 2020, who has the courage to stand up to say, ``The Emperor has no
clothes''?
Second--is the lesson of truth-telling.
Senator McCarthy--and his chief counsel and chief henchman, Roy
Cohn--stacked lies upon lies, wild accusations upon wild accusations.
They attacked hundreds of government employees, those in the
entertainment industry, academics, and labor-union activists.
Careers were destroyed. Reputations damaged. Lives devastated.
Is this much different than what the President does to those who
question, disagree with, testify against him?
The impeachment proceedings against President Trump may seem distant
now. But history will remember them. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch,
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Ambassador Bill Taylor, Deputy
Assistant Secretary George Kent, Fiona Hill, Pentagon official Laura
Cooper, State Department official David Holmes, OMB official Mark
Sandy--all told the truth. Stood up to the President and his threats.
And all are American heroes.
There is a direct line between Joe McCarthy and Donald Trump: they
chose the same lawyer, Roy Cohn. And the President's threats to the
brave men and women who testified are right out of Roy Cohn's playbook.
Third--is the lesson of demagoguery.
Joe McCarthy was a demagogue. His anti-communism met the times. He
played upon and stoked fear. And he accused those who spoke out against
him of disloyalty to the nation.
As Senator Chavez so eloquently put it on the Senate floor that day:
``We have embarked upon a course which breeds hysteria and confusion--a
course so dangerous that few dare to oppose the drift lest they be the
next marked for destruction.''
But before us today--is Donald Trump--and his demagoguery is even
more dangerous. He too plays upon fear--and anger. He accuses the free
press of being ``enemies of the people.'' He rails against immigrants
invading our country, stoking hatred and racism.
He promises working class Americans greater prosperity.
But, in the end, he gives the tax breaks to the rich, uses the office
for personal gain, and ignores the needs of everyday Americans.
And--in the middle of the most devastating pandemic our nation has
faced in a century--he's told the American people no one saw a pandemic
was coming, that it's a hoax, that the virus will ``magically''
disappear, that we have the best testing system in the world all while
promoting snake oil remedies that could actually harm Americans.
But--the American people are not fooled. They see the emptiness of
his promises, the division he sows, and the lies he tells.
Seventy years ago, Senator Chavez said: ``It matters little if the
Congress appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars to check the
erosion of soil if we permit the erosion of our civil liberties, free
institutions, and the untrammeled pursuit of truth.''
Those words resonate as much today as they did then.
Members of Congress, of this body--must not permit the erosion of our
constitutional institutions, must not permit the erosion of truth.
Now--more than ever--we must aspire to the courage of Senator Chavez.
History will be the judge--by rewarding courage and exposing cowardice.
I will finish with one passage from 70 years ago. Senator Chavez
said:
It matters little if the Congress appropriates hundreds of
millions of dollars to check the erosion of soil if we permit
the erosion of our civil liberties, free institutions, and
the untrammeled pursuit of truth.
That is our own Senator from New Mexico, Senator Dennis Chavez. Those
words resonate as much today as they did then.
I see my good friend Senator Paul is here on the floor, so I believe
he is the next in line.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 1586
Mr. PAUL. The PATRIOT Act was begotten of the most unpatriotic of
ideas--that liberty can be exchanged for security. The history of the
PATRIOT Act shows that the exchange is a poor one.
As our liberty wanes and wastes away, we find that the promises of
security were an illusion. The history of the PATRIOT Act is really a
history of how power corrupts and how bias and malfeasance grow when
power is unchecked.
The PATRIOT Act allowed a secret court, FISA, to grant generalized
warrants to collect personal data from millions of Americans. The spies
who run these surveillance programs then lied--for years and years--to
us.
One of the most notorious of these liars was James Clapper. When
cross-examined under oath by Senator Wyden, James Clapper denied that
the government was collecting data on millions of Americans.
A month later, the whistleblower, Edward Snowden, revealed that
Clapper had lied. Snowden revealed that Clapper and others were using
the PATRIOT Act to spy on virtually every American. Snowden revealed
that the secret FISA Court was allowing a single court order to command
the collection of millions of Americans' personal phone data.
Most Members of Congress had no idea that this was going on. In fact,
one of the authors of the PATRIOT Act publicly expressed his shock that
such a massive surveillance of Americans was occurring with no
notification of Congress.
Clapper and others, though, said that is not true. They justified
their actions by saying: We have been briefing the Elite 8 Congressmen.
Who were the Elite 8, and who made them elite? The Elite 8 are the
majority and minority leaders of the House and the Senate and the
majority and minority leader of the Intelligence Committees of the
House and the Senate--eight people.
When they were quizzed about this program, most of them said they
couldn't remember ever being briefed on it.
But the real constitutional question is, have we not changed and
subverted the Constitution to make eight people more important than the
rest of us?
So this was a program where they were collecting the data on
everybody's phone calls--everybody in America--and you would think
there would have to be a debate and approval by Congress, but there
were only eight people, and those eight people seemed to be confused
that they had approved the program as well.
The idea that a single court order can allow the collection of
personal data from millions of people is antithetical to the intentions
of the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment dictates that the government must identify an
[[Page S2438]]
individual and the items and the location to be searched. The Fourth
Amendment was intended to forbid general warrants or writs of
assistance that, historically, Monarchs had used indiscriminately to
collect vast amounts of either belongings or possessions of
individuals.
The Fourth Amendment was written to prevent that from happening.
The PATRIOT Act essentially allows for generalized warrants and the
bulk collection of personal data. The Fourth Amendment also dictates
that a search can only occur when the government proves to a judge that
there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. However, under
the PATRIOT Act they have lowered the standard.
So there is the constitutional standard--the Fourth Amendment. But,
under the PATRIOT Act, the standard now becomes if it is relevant to an
investigation. That is a much looser, broader standard, and it is not a
constitutional standard.
So the question is, Through these special, secret courts and through
the PATRIOT Act, can we allow things that the Constitution actually
prevents. What we have done is eroded protections for Americans.
So some of us have said the Constitution should still apply to
Americans. If you want to look at the data of foreigners or spy on
foreign countries or potential terrorists, by all means, do it, but
Americans should still be protected by the Constitution.
The PATRIOT Act doesn't provide this protection and allows anybody to
be investigated if the government can prove that it is relevant to an
investigation. That standard is so broad that it could mean almost
anything. It is hard to imagine something that could not be argued to
be relevant to an investigation.
To those of us who prize the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
the PATRIOT Act is a violation of our most precious rights. The PATRIOT
Act, in the end, is not patriotic. The PATRIOT Act makes an unholy and
unconstitutional exchange of liberty for a false sense of security. I,
for one, will oppose its reauthorization.
Today we are also here, though, to discuss the FISA Court that
interacts and uses some of these extra powers, these
extraconstitutional powers.
It has been revealed over the last few years that the FISA Court was
manipulated, lied to, and ultimately condoned the investigation of a
political campaign.
I believe that the authors of the FISA Court, who intended to
restrain unconstitutional searches, would be appalled at what the FISA
Court has become. They would be appalled that this secret court
intended to be used to investigate foreign spies and terrorists was
turned into a powerful and invasive force to infiltrate and disrupt the
political process.
It should not matter whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or a
Libertarian; we should all be appalled at this abuse of power.
The question is, How do we fix it? To my mind, there are two
approaches. No. 1, we could try to make the FISA Court less bad by
adding procedural hurdles to make it more like a constitutional court
or, No. 2, admit that the FISA Court cannot be made constitutional,
admit that FISA uses a less-than-constitutional standard when it allows
searches to be performed that do not meet the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause that you have either
committed a crime or are committing a crime. The FISA Court only says
the government must prove or assert that there is probable cause that
you are connected to a foreign government.
As we have seen, the standards were so lax that when they went to the
Trump campaign and said that a certain person was related to a foreign
government, it turns out it was untrue. They didn't present facts to
the court that actually argued that he wasn't an agent of the foreign
government, and that person had no one to argue for him.
The deficiency of the FISA Court and why it is not constitutional is
that you don't get a lawyer. You actually don't even get told you have
been accused of a crime. The only reason we know that President Trump's
campaign got caught up in this is that he won. Because he won and now
has the power to open and put sunlight on this, we are now able to see
in.
If this had been an ordinary American caught up in this, you would
never be told, you would never get a lawyer, and you would be brought
before this investigative body and subjected to a search of vast
amounts of your private information without probable cause. That is not
constitutional, and I don't think we can make it constitutional. I
think we should admit that we can't constitutionally allow Americans to
be subjected to a search that doesn't follow the Fourth Amendment.
I believe there is no fixing the FISA Court to make it constitutional
for Americans. I believe the only solution is to exempt Americans from
the FISA Court.
If government wants to investigate a political campaign, which should
be a very rare and a very unusual circumstance, to have the government
involved in a political campaign, governments should request a Fourth
Amendment search from an article III constitutional court.
Some will say: Oh, it is hard; we will never get it. Guess what--even
constitutional warrants are mostly granted. The vast majority of them
are granted. But guess what--a judge will be a little reticent to get
involved in the political process because they know how heated it is
and how important it is to our Republic. But that is the way you should
investigate a campaign if you are going to.
Opponents of doing the tried and trusted constitutional way will
argue that it takes too long and it is too hard. But guess what--the
Constitution was meant to be an onerous standard. The Constitution was
meant to be rigorous. Our Founding Fathers understood that justice
cannot be achieved in secret courts that neither notify the accused nor
let the accused have legal representation. You can't find justice where
there is no adversarial process, where you don't get a lawyer.
I think it is high time we quit letting fear overrun our
constitutional duty. Today, I offer an amendment that restores the
Constitution for all Americans and forbids the secret FISA Court from
ever again meddling in our political process.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1586 and ask that it be
reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 1586.
The amendment is as follows
(Purpose: To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to
prohibit the use of authorities under such Act to surveil United States
persons and to prohibit the use of information acquired under such Act
in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding or as part of any
criminal, civil, or administrative investigation, and for other
purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITIES IN FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
(a) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.--
(1) In general.--The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``TITLE IX--LIMITATIONS
``SEC. 901. LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORITIES TO SURVEIL UNITED
STATES PERSONS AND ON USE OF INFORMATION
CONCERNING UNITED STATES PERSONS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Pen register and trap and trace device.--The terms
`pen register' and `trap and trace device' have the meanings
given such terms in section 3127 of title 18, United States
Code.
``(2) United states person.--The term `United States
person' has the meaning given such term in section 101.
``(b) Limitation on Authorities.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, an officer of the United States may
not under this Act request an order for, and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court may not under this Act
order--
``(1) electronic surveillance of a United States person;
``(2) a physical search of a premises, information,
material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open
and exclusive control of, a United States person;
``(3) approval of the installation and use of a pen
register or trap and trace device to obtain information
concerning a United States person;
``(4) the production of tangible things (including books,
records, papers, documents, and other items) concerning a
United States person; or
``(5) the targeting of a United States person for the
acquisition of information.
[[Page S2439]]
``(c) Limitation on Use of Information Concerning United
States Persons.--
``(1) Definition of aggrieved person.--In this subsection,
the term `aggrieved person' means a person who is the target
of any surveillance activity under this Act or any other
person whose communications or activities were subject to any
surveillance activity under this Act.
``(2) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), any
information concerning a United States person acquired under
this Act shall not be used in evidence against that United
States person in any criminal, civil, or administrative
proceeding or as part of any criminal, civil, or
administrative investigation.
``(3) Use by aggrieved persons.--An aggrieved person who is
a United States person may use information concerning such
person acquired under this Act in a criminal, civil, or
administrative proceeding or as part of a criminal, civil, or
administrative investigation.
``(d) Warrants.--An officer of the United States seeking to
conduct electronic surveillance, a physical search,
installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace
device, production of tangible things, or targeting for
acquisition of information with respect to a United States
person as described in subsection (b) may only conduct such
activities pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures
described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a
Federal court other than the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents preceding
section 101 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE IX--LIMITATIONS
``Sec. 901. Limitations on authorities to surveil United States persons
and on use of information concerning United States
persons.''.
(b) Limitation on Surveillance Under Executive Order
12333.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Aggrieved person.--The term ``aggrieved person'' means
a person who is the target of any surveillance activity under
Executive Order 12333 (50 U.S.C. 3001 note; relating to
United States intelligence activities) or any other person
whose communications or activities were subject to any
surveillance activity under such Executive Order.
(B) Pen register; trap and trace device; united states
person.--The terms ``pen register'', ``trap and trace
device'', and ``United States person'' have the meanings
given such terms in section 901 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, as added by subsection (a).
(2) Limitation.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), any
information concerning a United States person acquired under
Executive Order 12333 (50 U.S.C. 3001 note; relating to
United States intelligence activities) shall not be used in
evidence against that United States person in any criminal,
civil, or administrative proceeding or as part of any
criminal, civil, or administrative investigation.
(3) Use by aggrieved persons.--An aggrieved person who is a
United States person may use information concerning such
person acquired under Executive Order 12333 in a criminal,
civil, or administrative proceeding or as part of a criminal,
civil, or administrative investigation.
Mr. PAUL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 1586
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask that the question be called on
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the Paul amendment.
Mrs. FISCHER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally),
and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Arizona (Ms.
McSally) would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 11, nays 85, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]
YEAS--11
Blackburn
Braun
Cruz
Daines
Kennedy
Lee
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Scott (FL)
Sullivan
NAYS--85
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Loeffler
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--4
Alexander
McSally
Sanders
Sasse
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 11, the nays are
85.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1586) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Unanimous Consent Request--s. 849
Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of the 74 fallen
Vietnam veterans our government has forgotten known as the Lost 74.
On June 3 of 1969, the USS Frank E. Evans was participating in a
training mission 100 miles from the Vietnam war combat zone, having
been sent there in between combat missions; that is to say, neither
coming nor going. During the night, the ship collided with an Allied
aircraft carrier and sank, killing 74 sailors. Remember, this is just
outside of the combat zone, between combat missions.
These 74 Vietnam veterans died in service to our country. The ship
had served on several combat tours and had many more scheduled. The
Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the National Mall here in Washington, DC,
memorializes over 58,000 military members who paid the ultimate
sacrifice during the Vietnam war by displaying their names on its wall.
People from around the world come to see the memorial and pay their
respects to those who fought and died for the freedoms we all hold
dear.
Yet, because of a technicality, the names of the Lost 74 sailors are
excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. As requirements now stand,
veterans must have perished in or on their way to a combat zone. Since
the Frank E. Evans was participating in a practice exercise in between
stints in fighting off the Vietnam coast, the names of these sailors
have been left off of the wall.
Imagine that. These sailors, deployed overseas in the service of our
Nation--they left their homes, their families, their friends, and their
loved ones on behalf of our Nation. They paid the ultimate sacrifice,
like every other man and woman who was lost. Yet their names have been
left off the iconic memorial constructed in their honor. As a parent, I
can't imagine the pain that some of these families must have felt.
I first learned of this injustice during a talk radio townhall in
2018, when a family member of Fargo resident and Frank E. Evans
survivor Dick Grant called in to the program.
After hearing his story, I learned about one of his shipmates, Robert
Searle, a fellow North Dakotan from Grand Forks, who was also on board
the ship and perished in the accident. Robert enlisted in the Navy
Reserves in 1967 and reported to the Frank E. Evans in May of 1968.
Later that year, he married his wife, Thelma.
Robert was on watch in the forward fire room with three other men
when the collision occurred. All four were killed. His twin sons were
just 4 months old.
North Dakota paid a great price when the USS Frank E. Evans sunk. Yet
my State does not grieve alone.
[[Page S2440]]
The Lost 74 encompasses sailors from 29 different States, and the bill
before us today represents that diversity, spanning the political
aisle.
Before I ask for unanimous consent, I would like to yield some time
to the distinguished Senator from New York, the Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will be brief because I know my
colleagues wish to join in this wonderful activity here to try and get
good recognition.
I join my colleague from North Dakota in strong support of a cause
near and dear to my heart: the effort to add the names of 74 sailors to
the Vietnam War Memorial who perished in a training accident that sunk
the USS Frank E. Evans in June of 1969.
As my friend from North Dakota explained, the names of the 74 who
died on the USS Frank E. Evans have been omitted because they died just
outside of the combat zone, but they had seen the heat of battle in
Vietnam. The USS Frank E. Evans had been part of the Tet offensive and
was scheduled to return to the combat zone before sinking.
That these men's lives ended in the tragedy of a training accident
rather than in the line of fire makes no difference in the final
analysis. They went off to war and laid down their lives in the service
of the country they loved
I was fortunate to know Larry Reilly, Sr., of Syracuse, NY--known to
us as Chief Reilly, who was serving on the Frank E. Evans alongside his
son, Larry Reilly, Jr., on that fateful day in 1969. Larry Sr. survived
that day. Junior did not.
For the rest of his life, Chief Reilly petitioned his country to give
his son and his fellow shipmates the very least it could give to them--
due recognition.
I sat in Chief Reilly's living room, and I have sat on Maryann
Buettner's back porch and listened to her tell me all about her son,
Terry Lee Henderson, who had also seen combat in Vietnam and also died
in that awful accident.
Chief Reilly passed away 2 years ago this month, but his cause does
not die with him. These were living, breathing boys who lost their
lives wearing the uniform of this great country. To inscribe their
names on a memorial is but a small measure of peace for the families
they left behind, the rightful act of a nation that recognizes the
sacrifices of all its sons.
I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am here to add my voice to the
eloquence of both Senator Cramer and Senator Schumer about the need to
recognize those people who were lost on the Frank E. Evans.
We had two sailors from New Hampshire who were lost that day: Ronald
Arthur Thibodeau of Manchester, NH, joined the Navy in 1967, and he was
assigned to the Frank E. Evans as radarman. Ron was on watch during the
collision, and he was lost at sea, leaving behind a young son.
And Gary Joseph Vigue, of Farmington, NH, was also on watch that
night during the fatal collision. Gary had married his high school
sweetheart a few weeks before he reported to the Frank E. Evans in
1968. Gary also left behind a young son and his two brothers who still
live in New Hampshire.
These two men, Gary and Ron, gave their lives for this country. These
men were supporting operations during the Vietnam war, and they were
planning to return to Vietnam waters once the training exercise was
over. So, just like all those other people who were lost in Vietnam,
they gave their lives for this country. And just because they were
outside some artificially designated combat zone doesn't mean they
shouldn't be recognized in the same way the others who were lost in
Vietnam have been recognized.
Now, this is May, the month of May. Memorial Day is approaching, a
day during which our Nation honors the men and women who have died
while serving in the U.S. military. As we recognize the sacrifices of
our fellow Americans, I think it is appropriate that the Senate take up
and pass the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans Act, legislation I am honored to
cosponsor with my colleague Senator Cramer from North Dakota because it
is legislation that will ensure the 74 men--those Lost 74--are
rightfully honored by adding their names to the Vietnam War Memorial.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I thank the Presiding
Officer and Senator Cramer for this effort to ensure that the Lost 74
are recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, whether North Dakotans, Granite Staters,
or New Yorkers, these stories are very moving.
When I first heard from Mr. Grant's family, I was a Member of the
House of Representatives. I looked into his request and introduced an
amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act to inscribe
the names of the Lost 74.
While the measure unanimously passed the House, it was blocked here
in the Senate. So, when I came to the Senate last year, introducing
this legislation was one of my very first actions and high priorities.
And I have had some success. We have 20 cosponsors--10 Republicans
and 10 Democrats--including the chairman and the ranking Democrat on
the subcommittee that has jurisdiction. When Members from Montana to
Maine, North Dakota to New Hampshire, and New York can come together on
an issue as important as honoring the fallen sailors, I would hope this
would garner some attention--and it has. It has.
Last summer, the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans Act received its first-ever
hearing before a Senate Energy Subcommittee. I thank the chairman and
my colleague from Alaska for providing the opportunity for the story of
these sailors to be heard.
It was there when I first heard opposition to the bill, however. I
have yet to hear any real opposition to the legislation voiced by
anyone except the bureaucrats and special interests that would actually
be charged with carrying it out. In other words, nobody objects to this
except the people who would have to do something about it, and that is
a common theme in this town, I have noticed.
For example, the Acting Director of the National Park Service said of
the bill: ``If passed, it would necessitate substantial modification of
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall as it exists today.'' No kidding. Of
course it does. That is the point of the bill.
The idea that we should continue to turn a blind eye to forgotten
veterans because the work would be substantial is offensive. It is
certainly offensive to the shipmates and the families and the survivors
of the Lost 74.
Forgive my lack of sympathy for bureaucrats who feel inconvenienced
by the death of 74 war heroes. The country that landed man on the Moon
the very same year that this accident happened certainly can figure out
how to fix a wall to honor these war dead. More to the point, shouldn't
we be looking for more ways to honor our fallen rather than fewer?
The opposition's argument simply does not add up. Since the wall was
built, hundreds of names have been added, and more work still needs to
be done. According to the Washington Post, one soldier's name was
etched three times. Thirteen soldiers had their names etched twice.
While the wall bears 58,390 names, they represent 58,276 different
people. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, which is responsible for
the wall, conducted a study which showed that flaws exist with names
etched in the memorial. To think that we would not add the names of the
Lost 74 when we know corrections already need to be made seems
counterintuitive, if not downright lazy.
Yet, despite all of this, despite the veterans being forgotten,
despite this legislation being sent here twice by the House, despite a
successful hearing on the bill, progress in the Senate has stalled.
That is why my colleagues and I have asked the Department of Defense to
address this issue as well.
The Department has a mixed, if not negative, record with this issue.
They tell you what you want to hear until you go away and hope you
never come back. Similar to this body, we have been met with complete
silence--not a yes, not a no, not a maybe, not a suggestion to make the
proposal better.
We find their silence unacceptable; therefore, I am going to ask for
unanimous consent to pass the Frank E. Evans Act. The Lost 74, their
loved ones, and their shipmates have waited long enough. No matter how
it can be spun, the choice before this Chamber is
[[Page S2441]]
to give the veterans the recognition they deserve or to stand in their
way.
Madam President, with that, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further
consideration of S. 849 and the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration. I ask unanimous consent 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Alaska
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have
the honor to serve as the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, which does have jurisdiction over S. 849, the U.S.S. Frank
E. Evans Act, but in that capacity as chairman, I now have the
unenviable position of having to rise to register an objection at this
moment.
I want it to be clear to my colleague from North Dakota, my colleague
from New Hampshire, my colleague from New York, and all of those for
whom this is a measure on which they are seeking this legislative
endorsement--know that I have the absolute highest regard for the men
and women who serve our country and the sacrifices they have made for
all of us.
As the Senator from New Hampshire just mentioned, as we approach
Memorial Day, I think what we seek to do is to try to find ways to
honor more of those who have served our great Nation and a recognition
that those who lost their lives on the Frank E. Evans deserve a form of
recognition--a recognition of all those who lost their lives in
Vietnam. The story that has been relayed by colleagues here of the USS
Frank E. Evans is truly one of the most tragic that occurred during the
Vietnam war. I am absolutely sympathetic. I have had these discussions
with my colleague Senator Cramer. I appreciate the efforts that he is
making now and that he has made prior to his time here in the Senate to
recognize these sailors who gave their lives in the incident.
The reality that we face in the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee--again, we are the committee of jurisdiction, as we have the
oversight of the National Park Service. But it is not the National Park
Service that determines what or who is eligible for inscription on the
wall. It is the Department of Defense that is responsible for
determining whether members' names are eligible for inscription. This
is based on very specific criteria that is set not by those of us here
in Congress, not by those of us on the Energy Committee; it is set
specifically by the Department of Defense.
As has been raised here on the floor, the criteria do not allow or
accommodate the timing. The Evans sailors do not meet the eligibility
criteria the DOD has set out because it was not in the defined combat
zone of Vietnam at the time of the 1969 mishap.
I agree with my colleagues that it is indeed unfortunate that we have
this designation, this eligibility criteria that has left the honor
that is due these sailors open and unaddressed. It is unfortunate that
we are here today and that I stand left in a position to object despite
the efforts that my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
and I have made to work with Senator Cramer, work with his team, work
with DOD to find an approach that we should all be able to agree on to
memorialize these sailors.
As we are looking for that path, I do stand to object to discharging
this bill from the committee, but I will make this commitment: This is
a matter that must be addressed. It is long overdue. We will find a way
to honor these sailors. But at this juncture, there remain practical,
legal, and technical considerations we have to resolve with the text
with regard to the effort that my colleague from North Dakota is
offering today. At this time, I would like to note my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Objection is heard.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, if I might address a couple of things,
first of all, we are here to change legal objections. That is why we
are the legislative branch. We are the policymaking branch. The
Department of Defense, with as much respect as I have for them and
particularly for the Secretary--they work for us. We don't work for
them.
I appreciate the commitment of the chairman. I look forward to
working with her and the committee on getting to a markup and passing
the legislation so that we don't have to submit ourselves to the
bureaucracy but, rather, can get things turned around to where the
bureaucracy submits itself to the legislative branch.
I thank the President, and I thank my colleagues from New York and
New Hampshire and certainly the chairwoman of the Energy Committee and
look forward to working on a resolution soon.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to begin the
vote immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally),
and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Arizona (Ms.
McSally) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 16, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]
YEAS--80
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Loeffler
Manchin
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Young
NAYS--16
Baldwin
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Durbin
Heinrich
Hirono
Markey
Merkley
Murray
Paul
Schatz
Tester
Udall
Warren
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Alexander
McSally
Sanders
Sasse
The bill (H.R. 6172), as amended, was passed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
____________________