[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 183 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6903-S6907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4250

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in a few minutes, I am going to ask 
unanimous consent to pass my bipartisan bill, the PRESS Act. And this 
legislation is deeply personal to me.
  I am very proud to be the son of Peter Wyden, who was an award-
winning journalist. My dad fled the Nazis in the 1930s, and members of 
his family died at the hands of the Nazis.
  In the United States, my dad became such a good writer, he became 
part of our Army's elite group, the Ritchie Boys, that wrote the 
propaganda pamphlets that we dropped on Nazis.
  Growing up, my dad always mentioned that several of our Founding 
Fathers--as I indicated to the majority leader here--stressed how 
important the free press was to our country. And my dad emphasized how 
important it is that American journalists can do their jobs without 
unneeded government interference.
  So our bipartisan bill shields journalists from being forced by the 
courts to disclose their sources or information provided by their 
sources, with--as the majority leader and I have emphasized--key 
exceptions exist in our legislation for national security and other 
critical matters. And our bill also does not otherwise limit the 
government's ability to pursue leakers.
  So this is so common sense that nearly every State in the country has 
some form of reporters' shield on the books. Democratic and Republican 
State legislators alike have found value in preserving the free flow of 
information and codifying these fundamental freedoms.

  My bill, with Senator Lee--and I want to thank our colleague on the 
other side of the aisle on all his good counsel here. Our bill would 
finally ensure that these protections make it to the Federal level. 
This is a bill--and I note this. My colleague, the Presiding Officer, 
knows that sometimes it is pretty hard around the Congress to be able 
to get folks to agree to order a 7 Up or something. This bill passed 
this House unanimously and has the support of both the chair of the 
Judiciary Committee and ranking member Senator Graham. Not only that, 
but our bill has been endorsed by people from across the political 
spectrum.
  I would say to my friend from Nevada, Tucker Carlson is on board. FOX 
News is on board. This is about as bipartisan as you can get. Past 
administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have exploited the 
lack of a Federal shield law to curtail the freedom of the press and, 
in some cases, even jailed journalists who have refused to break their 
journalistic ethics and reveal their sources.
  It is long overdue that these abuses be stopped. So my substitute 
amendment that I put together with Senator Lee addresses feedback that 
we heard on this Senate floor and elsewhere.
  My colleague from Arkansas, a member of the Intelligence Committee, 
spoke about this before, and we heard feedback from the Department of 
Justice that they wanted some key national security exceptions for 
section 702 and threats to critical infrastructure, and ensuring that 
the Federal Government can still respond to cases that require 
exigency.
  I want it understood that, between the time this came up on the floor 
previously and today, we have reached out for feedback that addresses a 
number of the concerns that I heard from my colleague from Arkansas, a 
member of the Intelligence Committee whom I work with, that I hope 
addresses his concerns.

[[Page S6904]]

  So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 4250 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 
further, that the Wyden substitute amendment at the desk be considered 
and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 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 (Ms. Cortez Masto). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, this 
bill is a threat to U.S. national security and an insult to basic 
fairness and the principle of equality before the law. It is the 
biggest giveaway to the liberal press in American history.
  The so-called PRESS Act would turn reporters into a protected class, 
free to hold, share, and publish highly classified and dangerous 
information that no other American is allowed to possess. The passage 
of this bill would turn the U.S. Senate into an active accomplice of 
deep state leakers, traitors, and criminals along with the America-
hating and fame-hungry journalists who help them out. This legislation 
would make it all but impossible to ever compel a reporter to reveal 
their sources or compel them to return classified information in their 
possession.
  Reporters would become the only class of people legally permitted to 
possess classified information in an unsecured and unmonitored 
environment. It gives reporters rights that no other American 
possesses. No Senator even has these protections. In fact, if the 
Senator from Oregon was given unsecured classified information and 
refused to turn it over, he could be censored, prosecuted, and possibly 
put in jail. And we wouldn't want that to happen. We would miss him 
dearly.
  Even former Presidents don't have the rights that this legislation 
provides to liberal journalists. Just remember, the FBI raided 
President Trump's house on the mere accusation that he held unsecured 
classified information. And unlike President Trump, President Biden 
actually committed this crime and only escaped prosecution because the 
prosecutor concluded he was too addled to be convicted. Thanks to this 
bill, reporters at CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times would have more 
rights and privileges than former Presidents and Vice Presidents.
  This bill would also embolden every leaker and would-be traitor in 
the Federal Government within arm's reach of classified or damaging 
information. Leakers could reveal anything from the placement of 
American troops in foreign countries to the location of nuclear 
weapons, with only the thinnest and hardest to prove exceptions. They 
could release embarrassing or incriminating information from FBI 
background checks. They could also release information provided by 
allied nations, endangering America's alliances around the world. If 
this bill became law, every leaker would sleep well at night knowing 
their accomplices in the media would never have to turn them in.
  The leakers could also release, say, phone records of discussions 
between the President of the United States and foreign leaders, and 
this bill would protect any reporter who released or possessed the 
contents of those calls. Maybe it should be called the ``Alexander 
Vindman Protection Act.''
  Not surprisingly, President Trump recently wrote:

       REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!

  And, for the benefit of those who missed it, he wrote it in all 
capital letters with an exclamation point at the end.
  The bill's advocates often say too much stuff is classified. I agree. 
On the intelligence committee, I am often asked: Why is this 
classified? But some information ought to be classified, and the 
solution to overclassification is to classify less stuff, not to enable 
liberal deep staters to leak to liberal journalists.
  Another argument I hear is government employees often violate the law 
and abuse our citizens--I agree, especially when Democrats are in 
office--but whistleblowers have plenty of legal and effective avenues 
to raise those concerns. If their superiors refuse to listen to them, 
they can contact their Departments' inspectors general or ombudsmen. 
They can also contact congressional oversight committees or Federal law 
enforcement. What they shouldn't do--what the law, in fact, forbids 
them from doing--is run off to the liberal media.
  Even with its present protections, which I think are excessive, the 
liberal media has a long record of endangering our troops and our 
interests around the world. The liberal media doesn't deserve more 
privileges, protections, and perks. Releasing classified information is 
a serious crime, and it should be punished seriously.
  Contrary to what members of the press may think, a press badge 
doesn't make you better than the rest of America or put you above the 
law.

  For several years, the media has conducted itself in a disgraceful 
manner and destroyed its reputation with the American people. Yet some 
in Congress--maybe the only institution less popular than the press--
now want to give it more privileges? I don't think so. My message is 
simple: No one is entitled to the privileges provided in this bill, 
certainly not the press.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, let me be brief here.
  This legislation that we have been discussing passed the House of 
Representatives early this year, and it was unanimous. So for people 
who are following the debate, every single Republican--everyone in the 
other body--in effect, approved this legislation.
  Why did they do that? Because it clearly is sensitive to these 
national security concerns. We put in express exceptions for national 
security, including an area my colleague and I know a lot about, 
section 702 of FISA.
  My colleague was very kind to me. He said, gosh, if I wasn't here, he 
would miss me. Well, that is very kind and thoughtful, but what we are 
really missing is the overwhelming support from Republicans for this 
legislation. I spoke about the Members in the other body, and no one 
else is objecting here.
  I just think that, if we look at the writings of the Founding Fathers 
and their importance of a free press, what we ought to be saying is, 
yes, we should be listening to each other. That is why I made those 
changes since the last time my colleague from Arkansas objected. This 
is going to also--and I think my colleague and I would agree on this--
protect citizen journalists who don't have the legal budget to fight 
subpoenas the way big newspapers can. That is why my bill has been 
endorsed by independent journalists like Catherine Herridge.
  I understand that we don't have unanimous consent today. I think it 
is unfortunate. I think America would be stronger and freer if we were 
passing this legislation today, but we will be back, and my hope is 
that we can work with the Senator from Arkansas to get his support.
  I want it understood from the standpoint of good faith that I 
listened the last time. My colleague and I were here on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate, and I thought he made good arguments. I am not here to 
say he is without good arguments. That is why I went out and I told our 
staff and all the folks on the Intel Committee and the people who work 
with us on it to make these changes to see if we can come aboard.
  I realize we don't have unanimous consent this afternoon, but I would 
just say to my colleagues this is about as important as it gets. Free 
speech is fundamental to what makes our country so special. I have had 
more than 1,100 townhall meetings at home, and people always come and 
say: I don't agree with you about ``this,'' or I don't agree with you 
about ``that,'' but we are using our First Amendment. We are making 
sure we can always be heard.
  I will tell my colleague, my door is open, and we will be talking to 
your folks to see if we can get this resolved. As I say, I made those 
changes since the last time we were on the floor for the express 
purpose of our being able to see if we could find agreement.
  So I respect my colleague's right to dissent in spite of the fact 
that every single House Republican voted for it, and I am going to be 
coming back and seeing if we can find ways to work it out.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

[[Page S6905]]

  

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from Oregon.
  The Founding Fathers designed the Senate to be the sober second 
thought to the House of Representatives or even transient and fleeting 
public opinion. The Senator from Oregon cited the unanimous vote in the 
House. Sometimes, that is an indication of widespread support for a 
sound and wise policy, but on occasion, it is an indication that a 
rash, impetuous, hasty, impulsive decision by the House deserves a 
sober second thought in the U.S. Senate. And not for the first time, I 
am pleased to provide the sober second thought on this and other 
issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


 Political Prisoners in Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Vietnam

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, periodically, I have come to the Senate 
floor to raise the issue of political prisoners languishing in jails 
around the world. You would wonder why I do this. Well, it came to my 
attention that there are some real miscarriages of justice in terms of 
these political prisoners, and it also came to my attention that when I 
make a speech on the floor, sometimes people hear it and it makes a 
difference.
  Thanks to the good work of Chris Homan, my chief staffer on this 
project, we have been party to and assisting in many releases of 
prisoners around the world. Some have come to visit me in my office 
here at the Capitol, saying they were languishing in prison and nobody 
even knew they were alive and that I gave a speech and I talked to the 
Ambassador and, the next thing you know, they are home.
  So on the off chance that good fortune will come through again, I am 
going to make this effort this evening and am joined by Senator Welch 
of Vermont.
  There are journalists, activists, opposition candidates, and everyday 
citizens who are too often victims of petty, repressive regimes for 
simply trying to exercise basic democratic freedoms we take for granted 
in this country. Over the years, many of those eventually released have 
come to see me here in DC. Without fail, they say that their jailers 
cruelly tried to make them think they were forgotten and shared how 
sustaining it was to know voices around the world kept attention on 
their plight. So I will raise a few more cases today, and I am glad to 
be joined by my friend, the junior Senator from Vermont Senator Welch, 
who is also taking up this effort.
  I would like to first start with the country of Eritrea--an abysmal 
human rights record in that country. It has the nickname, the 
distinction, of being the North Korea of Africa. Eritrea has been 
ruled, since its independence three decades ago, by President Afwerki, 
whose regime has a well-documented history of arresting or forcibly 
disappearing thousands of political prisoners into secret detention 
centers known for appalling conditions, usually without any charges, 
trial, or sentencing.
  In September 2001, Eritrea banned all independent media and 
arbitrarily arrested journalists for any criticism of the government. 
Let me highlight a few who have been jailed for more than two decades--
two decades: Dawit Isaak, an award-winning Swedish-Eritrean journalist; 
Amanuel Asrat, a distinguished poet and publisher; Seyoum Tsehaye, a 
war journalist and television executive; and, finally, Temesgen 
Gebreyesus, an actor and journalist. All are depicted on this sign.
  They remain imprisoned, along with thousands of Eritreans, under 
unimaginable conditions, with no end in sight. I urge President 
Afwerki: End this madness. Free these political prisoners. It would be 
an important step toward establishing your reputation in the world and 
ending international sanctions and Eritrea's isolation.
  Next, Saudi Arabia, a country with which we have shared many 
interests and also in which unacceptable political repression continues 
to complicate our relationship.
  I have long advocated for the case of writer Raif Badawi--over in 
this corner--who, in 2022, was at last released after spending 10 years 
in a Saudi prison for the crime of exercising his right to free speech. 
Yet, to this day, he remains subject to a cruel travel ban, preventing 
him from reuniting with his family in Canada.
  Waleed Abu al-Khair, a women's rights activist, and Salma al-Shehab 
are other such prisoners. Waleed has been in prison since 2014 for his 
human rights work, and in 2022, Salma was given an outrageous 34-year 
prison sentence for this. Let me tell you what her crime was. Ready? 
She used Twitter. That was it. Enough--34 years; throw away the key.
  For too long, the Saudi Crown Prince has silenced dissidents and pro-
democracy activists while claiming to embrace reform. Such reform 
should include allowing Raif to unite with his family in Canada as well 
as unconditionally releasing Waleed, Salma, and countless other 
political prisoners without delay.
  Next, the Asian country of Tajikistan, which wants to increase 
security and economic cooperation with the United States. As I have 
long said, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
especially for opposition parties, remains critical for countries that 
want a closer relationship with the United States.
  As such, I urged the release of human rights lawyer Buzurgmehr Yorov, 
who is serving 28 years in prison for simply representing Tajikistan's 
legal opposition in court.
  Lastly, I want to focus on the nation of Vietnam, with whom, amid 
China's bullying in the region, the United States has built a 
remarkably good reputation over the years. Yet Vietnam remains at the 
bottom of World Press Freedom Index. In 2024, Vietnam ranked 174th out 
of 180 nations. The Vietnamese Government continues to heavily restrict 
free speech, with too many journalists and human rights defenders 
facing harassment, detention, and harsh prison sentences under so-
called anti-state propaganda laws.
  This includes people like Pham Chi Dung, one of the most popular 
writers on Voice of America's Vietnamese service, who was sentenced to 
15 years in prison in 2021--he helped create the Independent 
Journalists Association of Vietnam--and Pham Doan Trang, considered one 
of the most prominent Vietnamese dissidents, who so far has served 4 
years of a 9-year prison sentence. Just this year, she was awarded PEN 
America's Barbey Freedom to Write Award, adding to an already long list 
of awards from several governments and press freedom groups.
  In 2020, just before her arrest, she wrote very movingly--and I want 
to quote her:

       I don't want freedom for just myself; that's too easy. I 
     want something greater: freedom for Vietnam.

  That is an amazing show of courage. I have seen the same from so many 
other political prisoners around the world, willing to go to prison for 
their freedom.
  Before I turn the floor over to Senator Welch, I want to remind these 
brave individuals in Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Vietnam 
that you are not forgotten. We will continue to advocate for your well-
being and release and speak your names to the world. And when you are 
free, please come visit me here at the Capitol. I will be waiting to 
shake your hand.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Durbin for his 
ongoing commitment to highlighting the plights of people who have been 
imprisoned for doing nothing more than exercising free speech, for 
doing nothing more than speaking up on behalf of the oppressed in their 
own country, for speaking up on behalf of human rights and justice.
  What Senator Durbin said inspires me, and that is: We don't know what 
the outcome will be. Is anyone paying attention? We don't know, but 
what we do know and we have seen is that this does help and make a 
difference and get some attention on people who were unjustly 
imprisoned for doing something that is noble.
  And our goal here is not always to have everything be instrumental 
immediately, but it is to reassert the commitment that this U.S. Senate 
has to do what is within our power--sometimes it is very limited, as in 
this case of advocacy and attention to highlight and hopefully result 
in the highlighting of an oppressive situation--to

[[Page S6906]]

have a release of a person who has been unjustly detained.
  So I just want to express my gratitude to Senator Durbin. And over 
the years, I have met people who used to be political prisoners and 
were shaking the hand of Senator Durbin. His advocacy made a 
difference. The advocacy of other Members of the Senate makes a 
difference.
  And the most compelling thing for me is just think about what it is 
like to be a person who has made a statement, who used Twitter and you 
are suddenly arrested; you are suddenly cut off from your family; you 
are suddenly cut off from any visitation; you have no idea whether you 
have a future. And you have to feel, day in and day out, in that 
captivity, that people have completely forgotten who you are, that you 
have become invisible.
  So the act of trying to make visible people who, as a result of the 
use of state power, have been made invisible is something that each and 
every one of us should do our best--using this office that we have and 
this forum we have--to stand up and remember people who have been made 
forgotten because they have done decent things.
  I am really grateful to work with Senator Durbin on this, and I want 
to focus attention on other political prisoners.
  The first is Maryia Kalesnikava. Maryia is a professional musician. 
Think about that--a gifted musician. Think of the discipline that goes 
into becoming a professional musician. She was admired throughout 
Belarus for her talents and as a leading member of the political 
opposition. She left aside just being a musician to speak out on behalf 
of her people.
  She called for free and fair elections. Arrest follows. After every 
leading opposition candidate had either been jailed in Belarus or fled 
the country, Maryia was apprehended in 2020 by officials driving an 
unmarked vehicle and taken to the Belarus border, where they attempted 
to forcibly deport her to Ukraine. She wouldn't allow herself to be 
forcibly deported. Think about that. She had to risk coming back when 
she was in the custody of unknown people who had no good intention for 
her. They put her on trial. She was tried, and she was sentenced to 11 
years in a penal colony--11 years--for the crime of calling for free 
and fair elections.
  Her situation is obviously concerning for many reasons, not the least 
of which is that between February 2023 and November 2024--1 year and 9 
months--she was not allowed any visits by her family. I mean, just 
think about that: Your son or your daughter is cut off from you, and 
you have no idea of how they are doing, whether they are alive, are 
they suffering. Only after nearly 600 days was Maryia's father finally 
permitted to visit her last month.
  Now, I am speaking about this with some passion because I met her 
sister just recently. Her sister Tatsiana came to my office, and she 
has been out and about telling her sister's story and seeking for her 
release. Tatsiana was joined in my office by two human rights defenders 
who are courageously working to help secure the release of Maryia and 
other Belarusian political prisoners.
  There have been a small number of Belarusian prisoners convicted of 
``extremism'' who have been released, and I am hopeful that Maryia will 
also be released. And while the United States and Belarus have profound 
disagreements, including over human rights and Russia's illegal 
invasion of Ukraine, I believe that officials of both governments 
should speak respectfully toward each other and seek opportunities to 
work together to address issues of common interest. My hope is that her 
release will be one of them.
  Madam President, secondly, I want to speak about Maykel ``Osorbo'' 
Castillo. Maykel is an Afro-Cuban musician and writer who won a Latin 
Grammy Award while imprisoned in a Cuban jail. How do you do that? He 
won a Latin Grammy while he was in jail. He helped write a hit pro-
democracy anthem that won Song of the Year at the 2021 Latin Grammys.
  One of the things that are so extraordinary about folks like this who 
are illegally, wrongly imprisoned is that it doesn't somehow quell 
their spirit to express themselves and their joy of life.
  Maykel is definitely one of them. He was arrested in May 2021 
following months of police harassment, including intensive 
surveillance, movement restrictions, and ``preventative'' detention. He 
was sentenced a year later on politically motivated charges of evading 
police custody and sharing social media critical of the government.
  Maykel is one of the many who have been unjustly imprisoned, and I 
urge the Cuban Government to release him. I also hope the incoming 
Trump administration will not do what many fear, which is to tighten, 
really, a lot of further sanctions on Cuba even more.
  Finally, I want to mention Dr. Salah Soltan. Salah is a 65-year-old 
U.S. permanent resident, academic scholar, and prisoner of conscience 
in Egypt. Dr. Salah has quite a smile, as you can see. He is a husband, 
he is a father, and he is a grandfather to 11 grandchildren--American 
citizens, by the way--with deep roots in Michigan and the Midwest.
  He has been unjustly imprisoned for 12 years, and he is in fragile 
health. In recent years, there has been growing bicameral, bipartisan, 
domestic, regional, and international support for his release on 
medical and on humanitarian grounds.
  President Sisi has taken some modest steps towards justice for 
political prisoners, including removing more than 700 Egyptians with 
tangential ties to opposition political parties from domestic terrorism 
lists. That is good, what President Sisi did.
  We want him and urge him to release Salah on humanitarian grounds so 
he can rejoin his family in the United States.
  Madam President, these are only three of the tens and probably 
hundreds of thousands of prisoners of conscience in the world. The 
arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of individuals for nothing more than 
peacefully expressing views in support of democracy, in support of 
freedom of expression and other human rights, is abhorrent. These folks 
are accused of all sorts of fabricated charges. And it is really abuse 
of the awesome power of the state to essentially oppress people who are 
critical of the state. These folks are apprehended. They are subjected 
oftentimes to inhumane conditions, often solitary confinement in 
decrepit prisons, without access to lawyers or families. They are 
erased. They become invisible, as Senator Durbin was discussing. Some 
of these folks die in prison from torture or untreated medical 
conditions. So anytime we can raise the possibility of their getting 
some attention so their case can be heard, so they have some 
possibility of release, is a good use of our time.
  The question about why we do it kind of surprises me, actually, 
because the answer is simple. Americans care about people whose 
fundamental rights are denied, and whoever and wherever they are, we 
should continue to express that concern. I am proud to say that 
certainly is a legacy of my predecessor, Senator Patrick Leahy, who 
served in this body for 48 years. In fact, that right is every person's 
responsibility under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which 
no country voted against when it was adopted on December 10, 1948--66 
years ago today.
  I want to finish where I started by thanking my colleague from 
Illinois not just for his advocacy but for his inspiration to all of us 
to do what we can with this office that we hold for whatever period of 
time we have been entrusted to speak out on behalf of wonderful people 
like the people I mentioned and Senator Durbin mentioned.
  I yield to my colleague Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague Senator Welch from Vermont. 
He is a great partner in this effort. His heart is in the same place 
mine is.
  One of the things that just struck me that some of the prisoners said 
to me when they came home and made it to the United States, to my 
office--one of them said: You don't realize that your mentioning my 
name on the floor of the U.S. Senate could have saved my life.
  Many of the jailers and oppressive governments that have these people 
imprisoned beat them, torture them, starve them, and believe no one 
knows or no one cares. But if all of a sudden the name of that prisoner 
becomes conversation at the Embassy or at the

[[Page S6907]]

State Department or even in some of the halls of leadership of 
governments around the Nation, they think twice before they hurt them 
or kill them.
  It is hard to imagine that our simple speech on the floor could have 
that impact, but it has. I thank you for joining me in this effort. I 
hope our colleagues will join us as well.
  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.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________