have the united states senate step up, defend their privacy, and the constitutional rights, and protect them froms. abuses. this is m the moment to stand up for those millions of people who have to be at home because we come together to do with this contagion. i believe the senate to pass the wyden-daines amendment, oppose the mcconnell amendment, protect those people who are at home.p, and in wrapping up, mr. president, i also want to commend our friend, senator leahy and only as was noted, they've worked with uss on a hot of these efforts. i ien think you have a terrific amendment to strengthen oversight role of the independent amitai of the fisa court and hope senators also supported. ideal the floor. >> and the senate went on to reject the daines-wyden a yesterday called one short

necessary vote. vote on the reauthorization bill continues today with the final vote on legislation this afternoon. and now live to the senate floor. the chaplain, dr. black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, guide our lawmakers today to think of themselves as your faithful servants, eager to do your bidding. may they strive less for success and more for faithfulness, realizing that you

expect dependability from them. give them the wisdom to believe that though they may plant and water the seeds of our nation's destiny, only you can bring the harvest. as they look to you, the lord of the harvest, soothe their doubts and calm their fears. and, lord, we thank you for the many courageous staffers who enable the senate to function. we pray in your gracious name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag

of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: permission to address the senate in morning business for one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: an important part of my job, and i hope for every senator, is hearing the views, in my case of iowans, but in the case of my colleagues, the

citizens of their state. but it's not every day that we hear about the executive branch of government and its bureaucracy making an effort to listen to the american people. fortunately that's changing under this administration. so i've advised the people of iowa, and i'm advising them again, and hopefully my colleagues will have their constituents take advantage of it, that this administration in january, through the white house, putting out a call to americans who deal with federal regulations to share their ideas on how to ensure that those who face regulatory enforcement have due process and get a fair shake. those ideas will now be used to make regulatory enforcement

fairer. so take advantage of this opportunity. americans who face the burden of complying with regulations should have a voice in making the process better and i applaud this administration for listening to the american people. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam

president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: this pandemic is weighing heavily on the american people. roughly 1.4 million americans have been infected, more than 80,000 have died, unemployment has not been this high since world war ii. just a few months ago millions of hardworking men and women were thriving and optimistic, they were making big plans across kitchen tables. now all of that is in chaos. the chairman of the federal reserve reports that nearly four in ten american households that earn less than $40,000 a year had somebody get laid off in the month of march alone. this emergency is very serious so the senate's response has been serious.

in march, senate republicans designed and the full senate passed the cares act that pushed trillions of dollars to working families, job creators and medical professionals. we sent direct cash to almost 130 million americans. we delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in paycheck protection loans to small businesses, saving tens of millions of american jobs. we helped state and local government defray coronavirus costs. we funded health care providers and testing. even now its programs are still taking effect, still coming online, still helping. the senate took a blank sheet of paper and turned it into the largest rescue package in history. we've taken this crisis seriously. but house democrats have taken a totally different approach. while we finalized the cares act, the house para chuted in

withs miscellaneous demands completely unrelated to covid-19. solar energy tax credits, airline emissions. one senior house democrat called the virus a tremendous opportunity to refit our vision. one senate democratic colleague asked, how many times are we going to get a shot at a trillion-plus program? they told us exactly what they were up to so we ignored the left-wing wish list and we stayed sear and the cares act is still helping americans bridge these temporary disowns. so let's -- shutdowns. last fast forward to today. the democratic house is still not back in wash. their constitutional duty stations are still unmanned, but democrats cannot stop salivating -- salivating over the possibilities for partisan gain. former vice president biden says

he sees this tragedy as, quote, an incredible opportunity to fundamentally transform the country. biden said an incredible opportunity to fundamentally transform the country. speaker pelosi said, i see everything as an opportunity. the cochair of the congressional progressive caucus has said, quote, for me the leverage is that there is enormous suffering. the leverage is that there is enormous suffering. 80,000 americans have died, more than 20 million have lost their jobs. i call that a crisis. they call it leverage. this week the speaker published an 1,800 page seasonal catalog of left-wing odd itties and called it a coronavirus relief bill. so here we go again. here we go again.

it includes a massive tax code give away to high earners in blue states. working families are struggling to put food on the table but they are prioritizing millionaires on the coast. it would print another round of checks specifically for, listen to this, illegal immigrants. another round of checks for illegal immigrants. can you cleveland it, madam president? -- can you believe it, madam president? we forgot to have the treasury department send money to people illegally. my goodness. what an oversight. thank goodness democrats are on the case. the speaker's bill tries to use the virus as cover to sweeping changes in election laws that democrats have wanted for years. like forcing every single state to enforce the ballot harvesting whether they want to or not.

and then, madam president, the cherry on top, the bold new policy from washington democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save american families from this crisis. here it is -- here it is -- new annual studies on diversity e within the canibus industry. not one, but two of them. let me say that again. the democrats supposed coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana. the word cannibus appears in the bill 68 times. more times than the word job,

and four times as many as the word hire. maybe that's just as well because when their proposal does try to treat the economic crisis, it proposes stifling anti-work policies that would only make it heartedder for americans to -- harder for americans to get their jobs back. for example, they literally propose to raise taxes on small businesses, drain more cash from main street during a main street meltdown. so maybe it's best if house democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us. this is a totally unserious effort. even the mainstream media says, quote, neither this bill nor anything resembling it will ever become law. it's a democratic wish list. a democratic wish list. so forget about making law. this thing even fails as a

messaging bill. that's what's so remarkable. house democrats had a blank slate to write anything they wanted to define the democratic party, any vision for the society they wanted, and here's what they chose. tax hikes on small businesses. giveaways to blue state billionaires. government checks for illegal immigrants. and sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry. the house gave themselves no assignments for two months except developing this proposal. yet, it still reads like the speaker of the house pasted together some random ideas from the most liberal members and slapped the word coronavirus on top of it. an unserious product from an unserious house majority that has spent months dealing itself

out of the crisis. house democrats have been missing in action for months while the senate was passing the cares act, the democratic house was on the sidelines, substantively and literally, they had already gone home. nearly two months later, senators are back at our duty stations with new precautions. we have been back two weeks. we're holding major hearings on the pandemic legislating and confirming nominees. the house, they are still at home. and when they do contribute, it's not serious. house democrats have checked out of this crisis and left governing up to the senate. they even intend to shutter -- to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting, remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their homes. let me say that again.

they even intend to shatter congressional history and jam through remote voting so they can continue to be counterproductive from the comfort of their own homes. look, here in the real world, senate republicans are working seriously to help the country reopen. the crushing unemployment figures, even with the cares act, show us that no amount of federal spending could substitute for the entirety of the u.s. economy. we need to be smart and we need to be safe, but we have to find a more sustainable middle ground. this week, chairman alexander and the help committee heard from dr. fauci, dr. redfield, and other top experts on exactly this subject. there are at least two big things our nation will need to start recovering. stepped-up testing nationwide and legal liability protections

so that k-12 schools, universities, charities, and employers are not invaded by trial lawyers the instant they unlock their doors. on testing, fortunately, the senate has already done a great deal. the executive branch and especially the states are in the driver's seat, but we have already sent billions of dollars to help scale up testing nationwide. on legal liability reform, the work lies ahead of us. as my republican colleagues and i have made clear, strong legal protections will be a hard red line in any future legislation. so, madam president, that's what's happening here in the senate. serious leadership on a serious crisis. like we have been doing for months. this half of the capitol is doing our job.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 6172, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 440, h.r. 6172, an act to amend the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 to prohibit the production of certain business records, and for other purposes. mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. 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 enables the american people

to -- to recover, to restore our economy, to get things back to normal, and that requires dealing, as he pointed out, with the health emergency as well as with the economic emergency and crisis created by this. and with respect to the health emergency, the leader pointed out there are literally tens of billions of dollars being spent now on vaccine research, on antiviral therapeutics, on testing, and we believe that in order for us to get our economy fully back, we have got to deal with the health emergency in front of us. so dollars have been made available. hundreds of billions of dollars to health care providers, hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, providers on the n front lines -- on the front lines of this crisis and dealing to deal -- trying to deal with this challenge every day.

we have focused on the economic crisis, the impact this has had on our small businesses, on our workers, and everything that was included in the bills that have already been passed, number four here in the united states senate, which have been signed into law by the president, have been singularly focused on trying to assist and get people through this time as a bridge to hopefully get the worst of us behind us and get it to a time when the economy begins to open up again. so the focus clearly was on helping families directly, making sure that 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, $500 for each additional child. direct assistance that goes into the -- into the pockets of families across this country. and 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 who recognize that they, too, want to keep their employees employed. they, too, want to keep those jobs hopefully until that time when the economy starts to open up again, heavily subscribe to this program. and interestingly enough, there had been a lot of talk on the other side, as there usually is, the demagoguing about how this helps rich people and all that. the average loan in the meese recent round of p.p.p. funding is about 80 -- the most recent round of p.p.p. funding is about $80,000 on a payroll of about $28,000. so businesses can use that principally for payroll. 75% has to be used to be able to keep their employees employed, to keep their workers employed, to keep those jobs there. and 25% used for some fixed costs. might be utilities, might be rent, might be debt service, those sorts of things. but the whole purpose, madam president, of that program is to keep workers employed.

it is a pro-worker program. it was from the very beginning. and then also for those who through no fault of their own have lost jobs and been laid off, 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 state might already pay, but a significant amount of dollars put out there for people who have lost jobs through no fault of their own. so this is a -- these are pro-worker pieces of legislation. these had pro-unemployed people pieces of legislation, pro-small businesses, keeping those small businesses working out there and obviously very much a pro-health emergency trying to drive dollars toward the things, the solutions, the cures, the vaccines, the antiviral therapeutics and the testing that's necessary to help us get through this. that's 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, remarkably, the house democrats who are not here but from afar, evidently, have put together this fantasy wish list of things that they would like to see accomplished, and if you can imagine an 1,815-page bill, they mentioned cannabis way more times than they mentioned jobs. the amazing thing about this -- and they will come in here and argue that republican proposals are -- benefit the wealthy, benefit the rich. as i just pointed out, very clearly, the opposite is true. direct the directly -- directed directly at families and workers, everything that we have done is designed to be pro-jobs, to benefit the worker. but the democrats in the 1,815-page proposal that they have out there have a couple of tax proposals, one of which would deliver 56% of that tax

cut to the top 1% of wage earners in the country. 56% of the benefit of a proposal under the democrat -- house democrats' fantasy wish list would go to the top 1% of earners in this country. now, madam president, that doesn't sound to me like something that is very pro-worker, 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's sort of a payoff to some of their big donors and to the -- the big blue states. but nonetheless, that is a feature of the 1,815-page bill that the leader just described and talked about, one of many features, part of a permanent agenda that has nothing to do with solving the crisis in front of the american people right now, but entirely to do with a -- an ideological wish list,

all of which are 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's in front of us right now. madam president, 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, but in addition to our pandemic response, the senate is also focused on the other priorities that 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 authorize three expired provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, including the provision that allows the f.b.i. to wiretap lone wolf terrorists, terrorists not affiliated with a specific terrorist organization, and the roving wiretap provision that prevents the f.b.i. from having to seek a new wiretap

warrant each time a terror suspect changes his phone number. these provisions lapsed in march after the house blocked the temporary expansion that was passed unanimously in the senate, leaving law enforcement and intelligence officials without key tools in their antiterrorism fight. i expect the senate will pass this bill today, and i hope that the house will move quickly to send it to the president's desk. every day that our law enforcement and intelligence personnel are engaged in the difficult and at times dangerous work of tracking terrorists' threats, we need to make sure that they have the tools that they need to do their jobs and to keep americans safe. the bill before us today combines extensions of these key antiterrorism 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, and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation when we vote on it later today. madam president, i'd like to take a moment today 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 during 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 was one -- if he was one 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 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-cheafg

national debt by exposing government waste and washington's spending habits. he got into fierce fights on the floor in the service of that mission, but he knew how to keep fights to the office. particularly 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 off 95% of the issues. but that didn't stop him if developing a lasting friendship with the president or from working with him on legislation when he was in the senate. mr. president, 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 your eternal good as well. mr. president, i said earlier tom coburn was one in a million and it will be a long time before we see his like again. mr. president, that's a

particularly great loss because the senate should always have a tom coburn, a man or woman of uncompromising principle, a fierce dedication to the national good. someone willing to stand alone in the defense of the right, who provides a constant reminder that principle is more important than politics and what is important is not winning elections but in doing the right thing. mr. president, my thoughts and prayers are with tom's wife carolyn, his daughters caly, katie and sarah and his nine grandchildren. your husband, your father, and your grandfather is sorely missed. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer, well, it's been two 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 three million americans filed jobless claims this week. and yet the republican leader has scheduled exactly zero votes, zero on legislation related to the corona crisis. instead leader mcconnell has resisted urgent and necessary action to fight the pandemic. he said that now is the time, quote, to press the pause button. tell that to someone trying to feed his or her children. tell that to some small business person who's 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'd urge the constituents of senators in every state to call them and ask them that question. do you agree with senator mcconnell? we have yet to feel the urgency of acting immediately. 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'll be able to keep a roof over their head, put food on the table, pay the rent. americans who for the first time are waiting in staggering lines for food banks, cars lined up for miles, snaked across parking lots. people that never imagined they'd be lining up at a food bank. just how long will it take? how much economic hardship will suffice before senate republicans feel the urgency to act? and it's 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, both parties. they know darn well that this is not a blue state-red state issue. how cheap. a firefighter that's laid off in florida and a firefighter that's laid off in new york are both hurting. and they're not looking to what kind of state they're in.

so the governors are calling for help. states, cities, localities are forced to lay off teachers, police officers, firefighters, food health safety workers. so it's governors of both parties. listen to the n.g.a. led by a republican governor and they need to get unanimous consent for most of the things they do. now, it's not just governors and politicians. chairman of the federal reserve jerome powell, hardly a democratic, a trump appointee. here's what he said yesterday. quote. 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, quote, 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's chairman of the federal

reserve j. powell, appointed by the president, president trump telling republicans to get off their hands and do something. he's used -- powell has -- almost every tool in his monetary -- in his monetary tool kit. 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 who 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's spent and yet they're not having a whole raft of hearings that they should to see how the money is spent. instead they're talking about appointing right-wing judges who want to repeal health care to the bench. wow. how out of touch. the republican leader made sure the judiciary committee had time to consider his protege, a right-wing judge to sit on the second most powerful court in the country, even though there's no particular need for that nomination at the moment. the chairman of the homeland -- of the senate homeland security and government affairs committee yesterday 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 the theory. the republicans embrace it instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing. the republican majority doesn't have time to call in the s.b.a. administrator or the fema administrator or hold a hearing on the shortage of p.p.e. which are workers on the front lines so desperately need but all of a sudden they have time to use a senate committee to try and slander the president's political opponent. what world are they in? how out of touch can they be. we're 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 this, pursuing baseless conseer si theory -- conspiracy theories is what the republican majority seems to be focused on. now 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. to me it's not an acceptable answer. president trump, dr. fauci isn't playing all sides of the equation. he's 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 asked a legitimate question. we don't need dr. fauci to tell us there are risks to reopening too soon and without proper preparation. that's obvious to just about everyone. that's the truth. but president trump just inveterately abases the truth if it doesn't fit with the fantasy he's constructed in his head. first fantasy, it was a hoax. second fantasy, it will go away in the warm weather. well, here we are. it's may. has it gone away, mr. trump?

is it a hoax, mr. trump? no, of course not. and 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's what the scientists tell us. and they know best. they're not politicians. thankfully, in this big grand diverse and beautiful country, you cannot suppress the truth for too long. and over the past few weeks -- sorry. over the past week, a parade of truth tellers has begun. on tuesday it was dr. fauci. on wednesday jerome powell. today h.h.s. official rick brite who is testifying in the house. the president may try to shroud the truth from the american people and even from himself but

eventually, inevitably the truth will come out about how poorly his administration has dealt with this crisis. it's 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 have sacrificed their routines and livelihood have bought this country precious time to plan for life after the pandemic, precious time to ramp up testing, produce p.p.e., formulate a plan for nationwide contact tracing. what has the trump administration done with this precious time? they've 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, you want to get the country open quickly? 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 still are leagues behind on testing. he said two months ago, another trump fantasy, march 6, anyone who wants a test can get one. tell that to the millions and millions of americans who want tests and can't get one. a defacto nationwide lockdown has been going on for weeks and 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 adds has been slow to dispense congressional funded intended to help the states do the job. we voted for those a few weeks back. states are still waiting. business, schools, sports leagues and families are going to need guidance on how to open safely as possible. i talked to hotel executive,

sports executives yesterday. they know without testing they're not growing to come back -- 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. georgia where governor kemp has been the most forward, pushing people to open up, something like 6% to 8% of the people showed up. this is two weeks after he opened up at the malls and the stores. people are not growing to go out -- are not going to go out unless they're sure they won't get covid. they can't be sure they won't get covid unless we have 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 doesn't push testing. the anomalies of this man -- and that's a kind word -- just go on and on and on. now, people also want to know

the guidance. what should they do, what they shouldn't. they want it from scientists. c.d.c. prepared guidance. the president has held it back. so that his political appointees could edit it to suit their purposes. yesterday i tried to ask the senator's consent to see the unedited c.d.c. guidance and senate republicans blocked the request. the junior senator from indiana said he didn't want, quote, career regulators, meaning experts and scientists at the c.d.c. opening up the country safely that the president and his political team should be able to provide that. is there any die-hard partisan in this administration that will issue guidance properly? come on. here's the bottom line. the sacrifices of the american people gave this administration

time to prepare the country to return to some semblance of normal. that has been squandered by trump and his republican acolytes. we all want to get back to normal. i certainly do. but there's a smart way to begin reopening the country. a way to do it safely to avoid a resurgence of the disease and then there is a reckless way. president trump so far has chosen the reckless way and seems to have no plan to right the ship. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president, for the recognition and -- and are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no we're not. mr. udall: okay. thank you very much. i -- i wanted to start -- i know a lot of people look at us speaking on the floor and think, you know, why aren't they wearing masks, and i saw senator schumer, he put on his mask after he talk when he left. i have my mask here. i took it off. i will put it on after i finish

speaking. the way this work, i wear this mask to protect you, you wear a mask to protect me, and that's the way we protect each other in this pandemic. and i don't think there's any doubt that wearing a mask saves lives, and that's how we're going to overcome in this pandemic. so i -- i see people around new mexico all the time when i'm back home wearing masks and really taking this pandemic seriously and taking our governors' orders seriously. now, mr. president, reauthorization of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, or fisa, is now before us and 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 hurdly passed the -- hurried will passed the patriot act and gave broad authority to the executive and executive branch that threatened americans and americans' privacy rights and liberty interests. in october of 2001, i was one 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's 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 one, 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 e-mail 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, but 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 american's 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 the we should include amendments to better protect americans' civil liberties. i support the wyden-daines amendment that protects the collection of internet browsing and internet search information without a search warrant it -- it is a missed opportunity for the nation that the amendment fell yesterday, although by one vote -- 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. 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 un -- 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 the government must demonstrate probable cause to collect this type of personal information. second, we need to strengthen the oversight of fisa courts. we need -- we know these secret courts are subject to abuse. in 2015, congress authorized

fisa courts to have amici, friends of the court, to have 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 i.g. found errors and inadequately supported facts in every application and expanded amicus role as necessary to bring greater accountability to

the application -- to the application process. so 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 improving new technology or reauthorizing problematic surveillance. third, we must make sure that 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'm 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 in a -- and a search warrant. mr. president, 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. you know, 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. end quote. now, mr. president, before i yield the floor today, i'd 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 united states senate and was in -- 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 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 had accused american scholar someone 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, quote, i would like to be remembered as the man who raised a voice.

i devoutly hope not a voice in the wilderness at a time in 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 error where we are -- era where we are permitted curtailments of our liberties, a period with when we quietly shackled the growth of men's minds. end quote. dennis chavez. the fact is, mr. president, we're seeing chilling similarities between the joseph mccarthy of seven decades ago and the situation we are in today. mr. president, i have extended remarks for the record on senator chavez. i would ask consent to put those extended remarks in.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and i'll finish with one passage from 70 years ago. senator chavez said, quote, it matters little if the congress appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars to check the erosion of the soil, if we permit the erosion of our civil liberties, free institutions and untrammelled pursuit of truth, end quote. that's our own senator in new mexico, senator dennis chavez. those words, mr. president, resonate as much today as they did then. i see my good friend, senator paul, is here on the floor, so i believe he's the next in line. i would yield to senator paul. thank you, and i yield the floor.

mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. 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 allows 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 whistle-blower, 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's not true. they justified their actions by saying we have been briefing the elite eight congressmen. who are the elite eight and who made them elite? the elite eight are the majority and minority leaders of the house and the senate, and the majority and the minority leader of the intelligence committee in 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 the burden

of the constitution to make eight people more important than the rest of us? so this is 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 debate and approval by congress, but they only had eight people. those eight people seemed 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 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 you prove to a judge -- 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. so that's a much looser, broader standard, and it's 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 still should 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's relevant to an investigation. that standard is so broad, that can mean almost anything. it's hard to imagine something that could not be argued to be relevant to an investigation. to those of us that 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 unwholly and unconstitutional exchange of liberty for a false sense of security, and 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 extra constitutional 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 were 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. number one, we could try to make the fisa court less bad by adding procedural hurdles to make it more like a constitutional court. or number two, 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 we have to say that there is probable cause the government must prove or assert that there is probable cause that you are connected to a foreign government. but as we have seen, the standards are 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, and 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's not constitutional is you don't get a lawyer. you actually don't even get told that you have been accused of a crime. the only reason we know that president trump's campaign got caught up in this is he won. because he won and now has the power to open and put sunlight

on this, we are now able to see this. 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 have been brought before this investigative body and allowed to search 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's 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, government should request a fourth amendment search from an article 3 constitutional court.

now, some will say oh, it's hard, we'll 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's the way you should investigate a campaign if you're going to. opponents of doing the tried and trusted constitutional way will argue that it takes too long, it's 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 don't 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's high time we quit

letting fear overrun our constitutional duty. so 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 paul up my amendment 1586 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 1586. mr. paul: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr.

president. i ask the question be called on the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the paul amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, 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.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. 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, u.s.s. 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 the combat zone between combat missions. these 74 are vietnam veterans who 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, d.c. memorializes over 58,000 military members who paid the ultimate sacrifice during the very 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 that 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, madam president. these sailors deployed overseas in the service of our nation. they left their homes, their families, their friends, 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 town hall in 2018 when a family member of fargo resident and frank e. evans sphriefer dick grant called into the program. after hearing his story, i learned about one of his shipmates, robert cerrell, a fellow north dakotan from grand forks who was also on board the ship and perished. 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.

madam president, north dakota paid a great price when the u.s.s. frank e. evans sunk, yet my state does not grieve alone. the lost 74 encompass sailors from 29 different states, and the bill before us today represents that diversity spanning the political aisle. before i ask for a unanimous consent, i'd like to yield some time to the distinguished gentleman from new york, the democratic leader. mr. schumer: mr. president. madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: and 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 the training accident that sunk the u.s.s. frank e. evans in june of 1969. as my friend from north dakota

explained, the names of the 74 who died on the u.s.s. frank evans have been omitted because they died just outside the combat zone. but they had seen the heat of battle in vietnam. the u.s.s. frank 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 their lives, laid down their lives in service of the country they loved. i was fortunate to know larry riley sr. of syracuse, new york. known to us as chief riley, who was serving on the frank evans alongside his son, larry riley jr. on that fateful day in 1969. larry sr. survived that day. junior did not.

and for the rest of his life, chief riley 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 riley's living room, and i have sat on mary ann buetner'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 riley passed away two 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.

mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i'm here to add my voice to the eloquence of both senators cramer and schumer about the need to recognize those people who were lost on the frank evans. we had two sailors from new hampshire who were lost that day ronald arthur tibbidault of manchester, new hampshire, joined the navy in 1967. he was assigned to the frank e. evans as radar man. ron was on watch during the collision. he was lost at sea, leaving behind a young son. and gary joseph bigeau of farmington, new hampshire, 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 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 that the others who were lost in vietnam have been recognized. now, madam president, 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. and as we recognize the sacrifices of our fellow americans, i think it's appropriate that the senate take up and pass the u.s.s. frank e.

evans act, legislation that i'm -- really honored to cosponsor with my colleague, senator chamber from north dakota, because it's -- senator cramer from north dakota, because it's legislation that will ensure 74 men, thoas lost 74 are rightfully honored by adding their names to the vietnam war memorial. i urge my colleagues to support this measure. thank you, madam president, and thank you, senator cramer, for this effort to ensure that the lost 74 are recognized. mr. cramer: madam president. 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. and 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 it came to the senate last year, introducing this legislation was one of my very first actions and high priorities. and it had some success. we have 20 cosponsors, 10 republicans and ten 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 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. madam president, i've yet to the hear any opposition to the legislation voiced by anyone except the bureaucrats

and special interests who would actually have to be charged with carrying it out. in other words, nobody objects to this except the people that would have to do something about it, and that's the common theme in this it's noticed. the acting director of the national park service said of the bill, if passed -- now imagine this, this is a quote. if passed, it would necessitate substantial modification of the vietnam veterans memorial wall, as it existed today. no kidding! of course it does. that's 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 47. so forgive my lack of sympathy for bureaucrats who feel inconvenienced by the death of 74 war heroes. the country that landed a 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, madam president, 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 was etched three times. 13 soldiers had their name etched twice. and while the wall bears 58,390 names, they represent 58,000 people. the fund which is responsible for the wall conducted a study which shows that flaws exist with names etched in the memorial. to think we'd not add the names of the last 74 when we know that corrections already need to be made seems counterintuitive if not downright layscy. yet despite this, despite this legislation being sent here twice by the house, despite a successful meager on the bill,

progress has stalled. that's why, madam president, 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. yet senator this body, we have been met with complete silence. not a yes, not a no, not a maybe. they find their silence unacceptable. i am going to ask for unanimous consent to pass the frank e. evans act, the last helped, their loved ones and their shipmates have waited long enough. the choice is whether-to-i have go the veterans the recognition they deserve or to stand in their way. so, madam president, with that, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on energy 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 move to

reconsider -- that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: reserving the right to object, madam president, 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. and i want it to be clear to my colleague from north dakota, for my colleague from new hampshire, my colleague from new york, and all those for whom this is a measure that they are seeking this legislative endorsement,

know that i have the absolute highest regard for the men and the women who serve our country, the sacrifices that 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 in a recognition -- sand -- and a recognition that those who lost their lives on the frank e. evans deserve a form of recognition, a recognition as all those who lost their lives in vietnam. the story that has been relayed by colleagues here of the u.s.s. frank e. evans is truly one of the most percentagic that occurred during -- tragic that occurred during the vietnam war.

i am absolutely sympathetic. i have had colleagues with my colleague, senator kramer. i appreciate the efforts that he is making now and that he has made prior to his time 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're 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 the defense that is responsible for determining whether service members' names are eligible for encryption. and this is based -- for inscription. and this is based on very specific criteria that is set not by those of us here in

congress, not by those of us in the energy committee; it is set specifically by the department of defense. and 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 that d.o.d. has set out because it was not in the defined combat zone of vietnam at the time of the 1969 mishap. and i would agree with my colleagues. it is indeed unfortunate that we have this designation, this eligibility criteria that has left the honor that is due these sailors, left it open and unaddressed. and so it is unfortunate that we

are here today and that i stand in a position left to object, despite the efforts that not only my staff on the energy and natural resources committee and i have made to work with senator kramer, work with his team, work with d.o.d. to find an approach that we should all be able to agree on to memorialize these sailors. so as we are look 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's long overdue. we will find a way to honor these sailors. but at this juncture, there remain practical legal and technical considerations that we

have to resolve with the text with regards to the effort that my colleague from north dakota is offering today. so at this time i reluctantly will note my objection. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cramer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for north dakota. mr. cramer: if i just might address a couple of things. first of all, we're here to change the legal objections. that's why we're the legislative branch. we're the policymaking branch. the department of defense, as much respect as i i have for them and particularly for the secretary, they work for us. we don't work for them. so 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, get

things turned around where the bureaucracy begins to submit itself to the legislative branch. with that, again i thank the president. 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 and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. without objection.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar 440, h.r. 6172, an act to amend the foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978 to prohibit the production of certain business records and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: