Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with the Senator from Maryland.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator and I have done a lot of work together on a an issue that is a genuine threat to our national security; that is, the threat of Chinese telecom companies stealing our technology, infiltrating our telecom networks, and hacking into the data not just of our government or our military but also private citizens.

Earlier this year, I asked the Directors of all four major intelligence agencies--the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the DIA--if they would use products made by Huawei or ZTE. None of them raised their hand. I said: Well, that may be unfair. You are the leader of an American intelligence agency. What about members of your family, your neighbors, your friends, church members? Not a single one of them recommended that they would use a Huawei or ZTE product.

I hope all of you up in the Galleries are not using a Huawei or ZTE product. If you are, you might want to go out and buy a different one, and that is because these companies are dangerous to our national security and to your privacy.

Huawei and ZTE are nothing more than extensions of the Chinese Communist Party. Huawei's CEO was an engineer for the People's Liberation Army. The company's livelihood consists largely of a steady stream of government contracts, and its greatest claim to fame is shamelessly stealing the secrets of American companies. That is why it is under investigation by the Department of Justice for that and for violating sanctions against Iran. ZTE is no better. They broke our laws by doing business with North Korea and Iran and then lied about it to U.S. investigators. That makes it a repeat offender.

That is why General Nakasone, the new Director of the NSA, committed at his confirmation hearing to educating all of our allies about the threat that companies like Huawei and ZTE pose to the civilized world.

Given this history, I suggest it would be reckless to let Huawei and ZTE infiltrate their products into our country's critical communications infrastructure. Whether it is routers, switches, or any other kind of equipment, allowing them to do so would give the Chinese Government a backdoor into our first responder networks, our electric grid, and a lot more than that. That is why the Federal Communications Commission proposed a rule to prohibit the use of the Universal Service Fund to buy equipment from these firms and why I and a number of other Members have urged the Department of Agriculture to do the same thing with our U.S. funds.

These companies have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and at this point, I think the only fitting punishment would be to give them the death penalty; that is, to put them out of business in the United States. The only reason Huawei is the second largest smartphone maker in the world and ZTE the fourth is because we have let them run wild for too long. We have given them access to our markets even as they have broken our laws and abused the rights of our citizens. If we refuse to do business with them, things would change very quickly, believe me.

For these reasons, Senator Van Hollen and I offered our amendment that was adopted earlier this week. It would prohibit all Federal agencies from buying any kind of equipment or services

from Huawei, ZTE, or any related companies. It would also prohibit any American company from receiving U.S. taxpayer dollars in the form of grants or loans should they use Huawei or ZTE products. Finally, our amendment would reinstate the original denial order for the purchase of American goods and services on ZTE to hold it accountable for breaking our laws.

I would say that I don't see this amendment as contradictory or harmful to the administration's strategy when it comes to China and North Korea. If anything, I think it is complementary. This administration, after all, originally imposed the death penalty in the form of a denial order against ZTE. After Xi Jinping pleaded for life without parole, so to speak, the administration agreed to a very tough series of actions.

This is the first real, concrete action the United States has taken against Huawei and ZTE, but I and the Senators in this Chamber believe the death penalty is the appropriate penalty. Just as our maximum pressure campaign brought North Korea to the table, strengthening our sanctions on ZTE will show China that we are finally serious about stopping its theft of our intellectual property and preventing it from infiltrating our communications network and from violating the privacy rights of our citizens.

If we weaken sanctions against ZTE, we will signal to China and to the rest of the world that they can act contrary to our sanctions with impunity. That is a message we cannot afford to send, and that is why I am pleased the Senate agreed to include our amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act.

I would like to conclude by turning to the Senator from Maryland, with whom I have worked in such a constructive fashion on this matter-- not only on this legislation but also in the Senate Banking Committee-- and ask him how he sees the threat posed by Huawei, ZTE, and companies like them.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for his remarks and once again for working together in such a constructive fashion. As he said, we have had a number of Senators from both parties sponsoring our amendment. I think that reflects the concern that both Republicans and Democrats alike have about the threat that Chinese telecom companies like

Huawei and ZTE pose to our national security and to our citizens' privacy. Our amendment is an important first step to ensure that they are not doing business with the Federal Government or any firms that are relying on U.S. taxpayer dollars and also that ZTE in particular faces the stiffest penalties possible for its recidivist behavior in violating sanctions and lying to U.S. investigators.

We still have more to do, and I suspect we will be back together either in the Senate Banking Committee or on the Senate floor to try to protect our citizens' safety and their privacy from companies that are in essence arms of the Chinese Communist Party. We will be working together in the coming months, as this bill moves forward to be reconciled with the House of Representatives, to ensure that this very important language stays in the bill in its final version and then gets passed into the law.

I couldn't agree more with that. In fact, the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act does include language that is similar, not identical, to our language. To my knowledge, it passed without any objection in the House from either Democrats or Republicans--again, just showing how widespread our concern in Congress is with Chinese telecom companies, like Huawei and ZTE.

So I am confident that working together with the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator Rhode Island, and our House counterparts the final version of this bill, which we will vote on later in this year, will have very tough language that will move us in the right direction, protecting our citizens' safety and privacy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is not as old an office as some others in the President's Cabinet, but it is no less important. The Director's job is to provide the critical information on which the President's national security decisions are based. For this reason, Presidents of both parties have chosen seasoned statesmen to serve this post, men like Allen Dulles, George H.W. Bush, Bob Gates, and Mike Pompeo. Out of respect for the CIA's integrity and professionalism, they often kept in office Directors who had been appointed by their predecessors. That is because partisanship has no place at the CIA.

The national interest must be uppermost in our minds, which is why I will be voting to confirm Gina Haspel as our next CIA Director. Secretary Pompeo left the Agency in good shape, and Ms. Haspel was his very capable Deputy. Moreover, few people have contributed as much to the CIA's recent successes as Ms. Haspel. She has 33 years of experience working for the Agency, serving first on the frontlines of the Cold War and later on the frontlines of the War on Terror. If confirmed, she would also be the first woman to lead the Agency.

Given her many accomplishments, her diligence, dedication, and her fierce love of country, I am astonished and disappointed at the controversy over the nomination of this great American. After all, Ms. Haspel is a career professional whose record of achievement speaks for itself.

She joined the Agency in 1985, working as a case officer for several years in both Africa and Europe. Over time, she rose up the ranks, serving first as Chief of Staff and then as Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations. She served as Chief of Station--the officer responsible for overseeing all of the CIA's work in a foreign country-- four different times.

Having served under six different Presidents from both parties, Ms. Haspel has never been a partisan. She is a professional whose many years of work command respect throughout the CIA. She has never avoided controversy to protect her own career.

Time and again, Ms. Haspel sought out danger. She raised her right hand and volunteered for some of the Agency's most dangerous assignments.

It was on September 11, 2001, after seeing the first plane hit the World

Trade Center on television, that she walked into the CIA's Counterterrorism Center and said: Put me on the job. She didn't have to do that. As she said, she could have hidden out on the Swiss desk, but she didn't. She took on what she knew would be a tough and controversial job. That is the kind of woman Gina Haspel is.

It is true that because of her willingness to take on a tough job, she was present for some of the most difficult decisions about how to protect America in the days after 9/11. Yes, she was around when the Agency was responsible for the detention and interrogation of notorious terrorists, but there has been so much misinformation spread about what she did that I want to set the record straight.

Ms. Haspel didn't start this program. She didn't even know it existed until a year after it began. In fact, Nancy Pelosi learned about this program before Gina Haspel did.

She did not ``cheerlead'' the program, as some Senators have wrongly claimed based on a book--the author of which later issued a correction on this very point.

Other Senators claim they are worried about the message that would be sent by confirming Ms. Haspel. I confess, I am amazed that these Democrats say they can't in good conscience vote on the confirmation of Ms. Haspel, who was a midlevel employee when the program was active, yet they voted in 2013 to confirm John Brennan, who was the No. 4 ranking official at that time.

While I am at it, let me also say that she did not destroy any tapes of those interrogations; she simply wrote the draft cable for her boss, the Director of Operations, which authorized their destruction. He released the cable, he has acknowledged, without her advance knowledge. In fact, the former Acting Director of the CIA, Mike Morrell, later conducted an investigation and cleared Ms. Haspel of any wrongdoing, and the special counsel who reviewed the matter closed the case without filing any charges.

Would holding her responsible for drafting a cable at her boss's direction make any more sense than holding Senate staffers responsible for the boring speeches their bosses give on the Senate floor?

Yes, I know there are political officials in the government who had expressed reservations about destroying those tapes, but no lawyer at any time, anywhere in the government, said there was a legal prohibition against their destruction. Moreover, there is a clear, written record of those very events.

On these matters, it is not enough to express reservations. CIA officers in the field deserve a clear answer, yes or no.

If anyone was to blame, it wasn't Ms. Haspel or her boss; it was politicians who didn't want to take the heat for a controversial decision either way.

So what is really at issue here? What message will we send if we reject her nomination? Not that we oppose torture. That is silly. We all oppose torture. The United States does not torture, and it has never tortured, despite overwrought claims to the contrary.

In fact, I would ask what message we will be sending to the men and women of the CIA if we don't confirm her or, for that matter, what message the overwhelming Democratic opposition to her nomination sends them. Does anyone doubt that if President Obama or a President Hillary Clinton had nominated Ms. Haspel, she would easily have received 80 or 90 votes?

The message, I would submit, is this: Be careful. If you participate in a program that the Commander in Chief has approved, that the Congress has been fully briefed on, that the Attorney General has legally authorized, and that the CIA Director supports, you still may land in the dock when a new President comes along with new lawyers. So maybe it is better to hide out at the Swiss desk.

That is a recipe for a timid, hesitant intelligence community, and that is a risk to us all.

I can tell you, Gina Haspel's skill and expertise are widely known and respected on both sides of the aisle. President Obama's former CIA Director, Leon Panetta, said that he was glad the President nominated Ms. Haspel because she ``knows the CIA inside-out.'' Another one of President Obama's CIA Directors, John Brennan, said that Ms. Haspel ``has the experience--the breadth and depth--on intelligence issues.'' And former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who served under both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, has called Gina Haspel a ``great choice'' and ``highly regarded.'' These are just three of more than 50 former national security officials who signed a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee supporting her nomination.

As a member of that committee, I worked with Gina Haspel during her time overseas and as Deputy CIA Director, and I can attest to her professionalism, her work ethic and, most important, her character. This is a skilled, brave, patriotic woman who will serve our country with distinction in this most critical post. Her dedication to our country throughout her life is complete, and that is why I will be proud to cast my vote for the confirmation of Gina Haspel, and I urge all Senators to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, an opioid epidemic is sweeping the country. More than 60,000 Americans are dying from opioid overdoses every year--more than the number of Americans who died in all 20 years of the Vietnam war. What a staggering fact that is, but behind each number is a tragedy for a family who loses their loved one.

Today, I want to tell the story of the Hacala family from Rogers, AR. It is a story of love, persistence, courage, and, I hope, a story that will save other families from the tragedy they felt.

Betty and Steve Hacala are joining us in the Gallery today. I met Betty and Steve 3 weeks ago at a roundtable on the opioid epidemic in Little Rock with Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, State and local law enforcement, and the families of opioid victims. The news is full of tragic deaths from heroin, fentanyl, and prescription drugs. I met families that day whose children died from those well-known drugs, but I learned from the Hacalas about another killer: unwashed poppy seeds.

Their son, Stephen Junior, died in his sleep from an overdose 2 years ago. Stephen was only 24 years old and was a recent graduate of the University of Arkansas. He loved to play guitar, and he was very accomplished at it. He was the joy of his parents' life, and he was the joy of his sisters Christina and Lauren's lives. His sudden death came as a shock to them, but they got another shock when an autopsy determined that Stephen died of morphine intoxication. There were no drugs in his apartment--no pill bottles, no needles, nothing. What had been found was a 5-pound bag of unwashed poppy seeds. Stephen had ordered the seeds on Amazon. The Arkansas crime lab soon determined that the poppy seeds were the source of the morphine that killed Stephen.

Stephen's death resulted in part because of a dangerous gap in our Nation's drug laws. It has been well known for ages that poppies are dangerous, both addictive and toxic. That is why it is illegal to grow or own almost any part of the poppy--the straw, the pod, the latex. There is an exception, of course, for poppy seeds, which many people enjoy on bagels, muffins, cakes, and other pastries. The seed itself isn't addictive, but unwashed seeds tend to still have bits of the plant on them, which can be washed off and used to create a powerful narcotic.

To give a sense of just how deadly poppy seed tea can be, a lethal dose of morphine is about 200 milligrams, but researchers at Sam Houston State University, commissioned by the Hacalas, concluded that there were about 6,000 milligrams of morphine in that 5-pound bag of seeds that Stephen bought. That is over 30 times the lethal dose. Stephen had no way of knowing just how toxic these seeds were.

While there are plenty of legitimate uses for washed poppy seeds, there are no legitimate uses for unwashed seeds. Yet drug dealers and unscrupulous merchants are abusing the legal status of washed seeds to profit and to push unwashed seeds, which are widely available through online retailers. And when you read the user comments, you can easily find instructions for how to brew poppy seed tea and a description of its narcotic effects.

So there is no question of these unwashed seeds being used for grandma's poppy seed cake; it is plain they are being used to smuggle the banned drug into our homes, and the manufacturers and distributors should know that. And Betty and Steve made sure they did. It is hard to imagine the grief they feel. It would have been easy to despair, but they did not. They want to save other families from their fate, to be sure Stephen's death would have meaning. They researched the issue, commissioning that report from Sam Houston State and studying the market for unwashed poppy seeds. They also became advocates, meeting with community leaders and elected officials. As I said, I only learned about the danger of unwashed poppy seeds by meeting the Hacalas.

After that meeting, I put in a call to the leadership of Walmart and Amazon, which at the time both allowed unwashed poppy seeds to be sold on their websites. They listened to our case and quickly agreed to stop selling poppy seeds that are labeled as unwashed. This is important. The two behemoths of online commerce agreeing to take down those seeds was a victory and a testament to what normal citizens like Steve and Betty can accomplish.

This is more than a labeling problem. In fact, some of the most potent and deadly seeds, which we know about thanks to the work of Steve and Betty, are not labeled as unwashed and are still available for purchase. Therefore, I will work in the Senate and with the Drug Enforcement Agency to ban unwashed seeds entirely. But today I do want to take a moment to thank Amazon and Walmart for taking an important first step for our country, for our State, and for the Hacalas and families like theirs.

It is always hard to lose a loved one, and a child is the hardest loss of all. I suspect nothing can assuage that kind of grief. But because of the Hacalas's courage and determination, we can hope that a few more families will be spared it. That is an act of true love for Stephen and for their fellow Americans.

Mr. President, the office of Secretary of State has always held a place of special prominence in the President's Cabinet. The conduct of foreign policy is the highest craft of statesmanship. In the Secretary's hands rest matters of the most sensitive, delicate, and consequential nature, affairs of war and--we always hope--peace. President Kennedy put it simply when he said: ``Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.'' That is why Presidents across the ages have filled the office of Secretary of State with some of the most distinguished statesmen in our history, names such as Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Clay, Webster, Marshall, Kissinger.

Now we will add the name of Mike Pompeo. Very soon, the Senate will confirm Mike to be our 70th Secretary of State. I strongly support his nomination, as I have made widely known in recent days. Before we vote, I want to emphasize what a truly impressive nominee he is--a man of noble character whose name future generations, I suspect, will include on the roster of those great statesmen.

Mike has succeeded at every stage of life. He graduated first in his class at West Point and then joined the 2nd Cavalry on the frontline of freedom in West Germany. After his military service, he excelled at Harvard Law School. He later started one business and served as president of another. He became a respected community leader in his adopted home of Wichita, where his fellow Kansans elected him in repeated landslides to serve them in the House of Representatives. Wichita is also where he had his biggest victory of all--winning the hand of his bride, Susan. Of course, he has served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency for the past 15 months after being confirmed by the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 66 to 32. Since then, I have watched Mike lead the CIA, boost its morale, and put the right people in the right places, driving them to succeed and holding them accountable.

None of this surprises me because I have known Mike for as long as I have been in public life. When I was an unknown candidate for the House, he called me out of the blue to encourage me and offer support. He was one of my best friends in the House and one of my strongest supporters and smartest advisers in my Senate campaign. As Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, we traveled the world together to learn, to conduct oversight, and to engage with foreign leaders.

Mike and I have collaborated on several occasions to highlight gathering threats to our Nation. In 2013 we wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post calling on our party to support a strike against Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons. It was a lonely place for Republicans to be, but we were right then, and we are right now. I only wish more Republicans and President Obama had heeded our call.

In 2015 we traveled to Vienna, where we discovered and revealed Iran's secret side deals with the International Atomic Energy Agency. In 2016, after a trip to Norway and Sweden, we wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal drawing attention to Europe's growing challenges with mass migration and what it means for our own country.

Mike has gone from one success to another because he is a consummate professional--a man who treats everyone with respect but who doesn't pull a punch or shade a view to please his audience.

Democrats don't deny his professionalism. The senior Senator from Montana has said that he has led an ``exemplary career in public service.'' The junior Senator from Delaware said he would be a ``good advocate for the career professionals at the State Department and USAID.'' Even former Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright have expressed their hope that he would reinvigorate the State Department, and nonpartisan experts agree that Mike Pompeo's integrity and record of accomplishments cannot be denied. As ADM James Stavridis has said, Mike is ``a solid, thoughtful and accomplished leader.'' It is why 30 national security professionals--including former NSA Director Keith Alexander, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, and former Attorney General Mike Mukasey--submitted a letter endorsing Mike's nomination.

Unfortunately, many Democratic Senators are opposing Mike's nomination, and they have given their reasons. But I have to say that these reasons don't hold up very well under scrutiny. Some say Mike is adverse to diplomacy. In fact, he simply knows that diplomacy is most effective when it is backed with a credible military threat. As Frederick the Great said, ``Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.''

He also knows that some situations may not be susceptible to diplomatic solutions no matter how much one might wish it so. That is a fact of life. It is not a reason to oppose Mike's nomination.

I would add that he recently demonstrated his commitment to diplomacy by meeting with Kim Jong Un to lay the groundwork for the President's upcoming summit. It is hard to think of a worse regime than North Korea, but Mike was willing to sit down with Kim to try to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula. That should show us all, definitively, that he is committed to diplomacy.

Others say they are opposing Mike because they disagree with him on social issues. Here I would simply note that most Republicans surely disagree with Hillary Clinton's and John Kerry's views on these issues. Yet they still voted to confirm them. For that matter, Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage when the Democrats voted to confirm her back in 2009. So it hardly seems fair to hold Mike Pompeo to a different standard.

Still, others oppose Mike's nomination because he refused to say that he would resign if President Trump fired Special Counsel Robert Mueller. I have to say, that is quite a stretch for a Secretary of State nomination. This isn't the Department of Justice. On the merits, I would ask: Do they think it would have been a good idea for Henry Kissinger and Jim Schlesinger to resign in 1973 or 1974? Would it help or hurt America to have our top diplomat suddenly leave the world stage at a time of domestic turmoil? And if that is to be the standard, have those Democrats asked Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis that question? I bet they haven't.

Finally, there are those who worry that he will not be a check on the President. But since when is a Cabinet member supposed to do that? Regular elections, the separation of powers, and all that entails are the checks on the executive branch under our Constitution. The President's Cabinet owes him candid advice, especially when he doesn't want to hear it, but they aren't supposed to undermine him. The State Department, in particular, is the last place for open conflict between the President and a Cabinet member. If the world doesn't believe that the Secretary has the President's confidence and conducts foreign policy on his behalf, he is of little use to the President or the country.

In fact, I would say it is the President's confidence in Mike that cinches his readiness for the job. When Mike Pompeo speaks, the world will know that the Secretary of State speaks for the President. He is well respected by the President's national security team, and he is well respected by the world.

I know Mike Pompeo will excel as our Secretary of State, and I regret some Senators will oppose him for shortsighted, political reasons, but since they all profess grave concerns about the lack of personnel at the State Department, I look forward to them all confirming Secretary Pompeo's sub-Cabinet nominees promptly once he submits them.

But even better is to put politics aside and to do the right thing for our country. Mike Pompeo has served his country with distinction. He is eminently qualified to be Secretary of State, and we need him on the job now. I call on every Senator to vote for confirmation and to send to the State Department a strong leader, a wise counselor, and a good man--Mike Pompeo.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I object.

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

Mr. President, last Friday marked the 70th anniversary of the 3rd Infantry Regiment's reactivation, and as one of its veterans, I didn't want to let the moment pass without notice.

The 3rd Infantry Regiment, more commonly known as the Old Guard, serves across the Potomac River at Arlington National Cemetery. Most here and most in the Gallery have probably visited the cemetery and seen Old Guard soldiers guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns or conducting funerals. Arkansans who visit me here in the Capitol consistently tell me that Arlington is a highlight of their trip. That is not surprising to me, because Old Guard soldiers set the standard for their dedication, their diligence, and their devotion. The 3rd Infantry is the Nation's oldest Active-Duty infantry unit, and yet the reverence we feel for them goes beyond their mere length of service and to what they represent: the dignity of freedom.

On April 6, 1948, the 3rd Infantry was reactivated on orders of the Secretary of the Army. The ceremony was held just a few steps from here, on the East Plaza of the Capitol. Then, the Old Guard immediately conducted another ceremony to present the Flag of Liberation to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. That flag had flown over this very Capitol on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1941. Then, those forces raised that flag over Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo after we had defeated the Axis powers. Finally, the Old Guard led the large Army Day parade from the Capitol down Constitution Avenue, where

President Truman sat in the reviewing stand at the Ellipse.

That is not bad for their first day back with the regimental colors. It had been only 18 months since the regiment, serving with the 106th Division as an occupation force in Berlin, was caught up in the rushed demobilizations at the end of World War II. But the Army needed an official ceremonial unit in the Nation's Capital, as well as the contingency force as tension built up between the United States and the Soviet Union. So the Army called the 3rd Infantry back into service at Fort Myer, right next to Arlington, and restored ``the history formerly belonging'' to the legendary regiment. That was due, in no small part, to the regiment's reputation for professionalism, present from its very beginning.

The 3rd Infantry was stood up in 1784, when the Continental Congress created the ``First American Regiment.'' The War for Independence had convinced Congress that, whatever its fear of standing armies, the country needed at least a small professional fighting force to defend it. So the 3rd Infantry started as the lone professional regiment in the early days of our Republic, when our common defense was organized mostly around State militias. To this day, its members continue to display that professionalism by holding themselves to the most exacting standards as the Army's highest profile unit and the official escort to the President.

But the 3rd Infantry's professionalism also had a serious purpose: to defend America. So faithfully has the regiment served the American people that its history and the Nation's history are thoroughly intertwined.

First, it served at posts along the frontier, where it protected American settlements against Indian attacks under the leadership of General ``Mad'' Anthony Wayne, and it fought the British Imperial Army to a standstill during the War of 1812. Today, members of the regiment wear a buff strap on their left shoulders to commemorate that 18th century heritage.

After the war, peacetime demobilization and reorganization gave the regiment its current name, the 3rd Infantry. Then, during the Mexican War, the 3rd Infantry distinguished itself with bravery, skill, and stamina at every major battle of the war, in places like Palo Alto, Monterrey, and Vera Cruz. Its famed bayonet charge at the Battle of Cerro Gordo is what persuaded the War Department in 1922 to authorize the 3rd Infantry to march with bayonets fixed to their rifles--a privilege still reserved solely to that regiment in the entire U.S. Army. It was because of the 3rd Infantry's valor that General Winfield Scott, the commanding general of the Vera Cruz campaign, granted it the honor of leading the victorious march into Mexico City, during which he turned to his staff as the 3rd Infantry passed in review, and said: ``Gentlemen, take off your hats to the Old Guard of the Army.'' Ever since, the name has stuck.

After the Mexican War came the Civil War, which divided not only our Nation but also our Army. Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, who both fought alongside the Old Guard in Mexico, now faced off against each other. The 3rd Infantry fought every major battle in the war's first 2 years: First Bull Run, Second Bull Run, the Seven Days Battles, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and, finally, Gettysburg. Suffering casualties that exceeded its original strength, the Old Guard ended the war at the Union's mobile headquarters, standing alongside General Grant at the Appomattox courthouse as he accepted General Lee's surrender.

In the days that followed, the vast majority of State volunteers returned home to their families--not the Old Guard. The ``regulars,'' as they were known back then, went straight back to the front, again protecting settlers from Indian raids across the western frontier. They defeated Spanish forces in Cuba during the Spanish-American War. They fought rebel insurgents in the Philippines and then returned to fight Muslim insurgents there, too, in some of the same places where the Islamic State is present today.

They guarded our border with Mexico during World War I. They helped to get the lend-lease program going in the early days of World War II, before deploying to Europe itself. But it was after the Old Guard's reactivation that it assumed the duties for which it is rightly famous today: performing ceremonies and military honor funerals.

For its first 162 years, the Old Guard defended America's frontiers and fought its wars, both at home and abroad. Now these new responsibilities have defined the Old Guard's mission for the last 70 years. The size and structure of the regiment has evolved, just as Arlington National Cemetery itself has grown. The Old Guard's prominence has increased, as it has participated in major internationally televised events, such as the ceremony to inter the unknown soldiers from World War II and the Korean war in 1958 and the state funeral for President Kennedy in 1963. But the essence of the mission has not changed since 1948.

It is this history, this reliability, this steady, sober leadership that the Old Guard has become known for. Their skill and proficiency, their care and attention to detail, their faithfulness and discipline-- all of them--set the highest of standards of military conduct and character. Our fellow Americans see all that whenever they visit Arlington. They can imagine it on the battlefield. Then, they have little wonder why our soldiers accomplish such amazing feats of valor. That is why the Old Guard is held in such reverence, and that is why it is fitting to mark this important anniversary.

The Old Guard represents the best of our country, but also the best in ourselves. Freedom isn't free. It requires self-sacrifice and self- discipline. That is what makes it a noble and, therefore, a fulfilling way of life. For reminding us of that dignity--the dignity that comes with being a free people--the men and women of the Old Guard deserve our deepest thanks.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the so-called Schumer amendment. Now, that is not the name that some people give it, but I will give it that name. Abraham Lincoln said: If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, it has four, because calling something doesn't make it that.

In the same way, you can call a bill bipartisan because there are some Republicans on that bill, but if the Republicans have simply acquiesced to the Democrats' position, it is a Democratic bill. Calling it bipartisan doesn't make it so.

Let's just walk through a few of the weaknesses of this bill.

No. 1 is the enforcement holiday for illegal immigration. You might call it the ``olly olly oxen free'' position. That is because it declares to anyone, worldwide, if you get to the United States in the next four months, or before June 30, 2018, olly olly oxen free, the Department of Homeland Security will not enforce our laws against you.

Don't take my word for it. Look at it right here. In fact, it was done in handwriting last night. I suspect some of my Republican colleagues on this bill didn't even know that this change was made. It used to be January 1, 2018, and you had to be present for at least 5\1/ 2\ years. That is not great, but it is better than a prospective enforcement holiday that says that if you get to this country illegally in the next 4 months, we will not make you an enforcement priority. So come on in, everyone. If you get here by June 30, under this amendment, the Department of Homeland Security will not make it a priority to enforce our laws against you.

No. 2, let's look at the amnesty that it provides. The President has been extraordinarily generous in his offer to our Democratic colleagues. He didn't say a legal status for 690,000 people who are enrolled in the Obama-era DACA Program. He said citizenship. He said a full opportunity for citizenship for 1.8 million people--1.8 million people--who were not just enrolled in the program but would have been eligible for the program had they enrolled.

This amendment would expand that to almost 3 million to 4 million people by lifting the age limits and by lifting the age caps--a vast amnesty, just among those younger people, of a quarter of the people who are here in this country illegally.

It gets even worse than that.

No. 3, the entire rationale of the DACA Program is that children ought not pay for the sins of their parents. How about the parents pay for the sins of the parents? This bill would allow the effective legalization of the very parents who created this problem in the first place. The sponsors of this amendment will say: No, no, we prohibit the parents from getting legal status. Let's look at how they do that. They say that no person can receive legal status if the Department of Homeland Security can show they knowingly assisted the entry of a minor into this country. Tell me how the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to make that showing. How are they supposed to go back 10, 15, 20, 25 years and show that this illegal immigrant knowingly brought that person into this country? It is preposterous. It is the exact reason why so many immigration bills have failed for so many years in this body--the Democrats write bills they claim do one thing; in reality, they do the exact opposite.

No. 4, they say that it reforms chain migration or at least makes a downpayment on it. Here is what it actually does. It briefly delays a tiny, tiny class of persons from being sponsored by newly legalized immigrants--only about 25,000 per year of the adult children of green card holders. It takes those and applies them to the other adult children, and when those immigrants become citizens--guess what--they get to sponsor their adult children again. So it does not make a single change to the practice of extended family chain migration, which is responsible for so much of the unskilled and low-skilled immigration we have had in this country over the last 40 years.

It makes no changes whatsoever to the diversity lottery, not a single one, even though every other provision under serious consideration has at least eliminated that lottery and reallocated those green cards toward other purposes, such as clearing out the family-based backlog and clearing out the high-skilled backlog.

Some people say that it appropriates $25 billion--$2.5 billion a year for 10 years--for the border wall. It does no such thing. Again, it says one thing and does another. It gives $2.5 billion for the first year. It can't be spent on physical barriers. Then, every year after that, it makes that money contingent on a report and a certification by the Department of Homeland Security that is purposefully onerous, difficult to achieve, and therefore means the money likely will not be available in future years. And, of course, if a Democratic President comes into office during the 10 years of this bill, we know that his Department of Homeland Security will never submit that report certification, and that money will never be spent.

Finally, No. 5, this amendment has no chance of becoming law--zero chance. It shouldn't pass this Chamber to begin with, but even if that were to happen, President Trump issued a veto threat just minutes ago. The House of Representatives is not going to pass this bill. They probably will not even take it up, as they didn't take it up the last time the Senate passed a terrible immigration bill.

My friends, this Democratic bill deserves to be roundly defeated.

There is one bill that has a chance to pass the House of Representatives and get the President's signature; that is, the President's framework proposal, which, in a very generous and humane fashion, gives citizenship--not just legal status but citizenship--to 1.8 million young people who were brought here or came here before the age of accountability.

On the other hand, it mitigates the negative consequences of that decision, which we all know will happen.

First, to control the increased incentives for illegal immigration, it provides the money and closes the loopholes necessary to secure our southern border.

Second, to prevent that newly legalized class of citizens from sponsoring the very parents who created this problem in the first place and their siblings and ultimately their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, cousins, and their nieces and nephews, it ends the practice of extended family chain migration and says that American citizens can always sponsor their spouses and their minor kids, but anyone else, any other adult, should stand on their own two feet if they want to immigrate to this country.

That is what the President said he will sign. That is, therefore, what the House of Representatives can pass. That is the bill that should pass today--the bill that is sponsored by Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I know there is some dispute about the name of this amendment, so let's just call it the ``olly olly oxen free'' amendment because it says to the entire world: If you can get to our country in the next 4 months, olly olly oxen free--you can stay forever.

That is right. This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security not to prioritize enforcement action not only against illegal immigrants here today but anyone who gets here over the next 4 months.

Second, it is an amnesty that is far broader than the DACA Program-- not 700,000, not 1.8 million, but over 3 million people.

Third, it is even worse than that because it includes their parents as well. The bill purports to prohibit parents from being legalized, but it requires the Federal Government to show that the parents did not knowingly assist the entry of a minor into this country. How can the government show that 15, 20, 25 years later? And to say nothing of the fact that it puts onerous conditions on the spending of any money for security. It does virtually nothing for chain migration and nothing at all to the diversity lottery. That is why President Trump has issued a veto threat, and that is why every one of my colleagues should vote no.

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague Chairman Grassley for the excellent work on this issue, on which he has helped to lead us all. We have a working group. The Presiding Officer herself belongs to

a small working group. We have introduced legislation this week that transforms the President's four-pillar framework into an actual bill, and it is the one bill that can become a law.

We have a plan not to pass a bill but to pass a law, because twice in the last 12 years, the Senate has passed a bill that hasn't become a law because the House of Representatives couldn't pass it and, therefore, ultimately, the President couldn't sign it.

I urge my colleagues: Let's not simply signal our virtue to our counterparts in the House or to the President by passing a bill. Let's solve this problem by passing a law.

This bill is the one bill that can become a law because it is the one bill that translates the President's framework into actual legislation. It provides legal status and ultimately citizenship for people who were brought here through no fault of their own as minors, before the age of accountability. It provides more money and legal authorities to secure our southern border and to help our brave immigration agents. It eliminates the useless diversity visa lottery and reallocates those green cards for more productive and worthwhile purposes, and it puts an end to the practice of extended-family chain migration, allowing immigrants to bring not just his or her spouse and minor children but parents, siblings, and, ultimately, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and on down their extended family tree.

That doesn't solve every problem under the sun we have with immigration. It doesn't, for instance, include mandatory nationwide E- Verify, which I would support. It doesn't resolve the many problems we have with numerous temporary guest worker visas. But it is consistent with the President's framework, and it solves the problem in front of us of young people who were brought here through no fault of their own, but also it has the side effect of giving those people legal status.

I know there are a lot of half measures floating around the Senate right now, saying that we should give legal status to these 1.8 million people in return for a small pittance at the southern border, but that simply will not do. It is not responsible because if we give those people legal status, we will have two negative side effects. First, we will create more incentives--perverse incentives--to encourage illegal immigration with minor children to this country. That is dangerous. It is immoral, not to mention unwise from our national interests.

Second, if we give legal status to these 1.8 million people, we will create a whole new pool of legal permanent residents and, ultimately, citizens who can naturalize their extended family, including their parents--the very people who created the problem to begin with-- undermining the rationale for the program to begin with. Remember, that rationale was that children ought not pay for the sins of their parents. But, surely, parents can pay for their own sins.

If we do those things--provide legal status for the 1.8 million people who find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own, but control those negative side effects by securing our border, and ending the practice of extended-family chain migration--we will have a bill that can become a law.

At the same time, we will also grandfather in every person who is currently in the backlog waiting to come to this country, who has applied to get a green card because they have a parent or child or sibling in this country. Some of them have been waiting up to 20 years. So no one will be cut out of that waiting line.

Furthermore, we will continue to allow American citizens to get a renewable, nonworker visa for their elderly parents who live overseas. So if you immigrated to this country and still have parents back in the home country who need your care, who need to live at home with you or maybe live down the street in a nursing home, this law will allow you to have a visa to bring them here.

That is a generous, humane solution, but it also is one that handles the problem responsibly and starts to build the kind of immigration system that this country needs--a system that focuses on the skills that our economy needs, not one that is just based on family ties or country of origin.

For that reason, it is immensely popular. A recent poll showed that 65 percent of Americans support this proposal. Two out of every three Americans support it, and they should, since, after all, every part of this proposal is popular.

Most of us have seen polls that suggest that fewer than 20 percent of Americans want to see these people return to their country, which in many cases they don't remember. At the same time, 72 percent want to end the practice of extended-family chain migration, and securing our southern border is equally as popular.

Oftentimes in Congress, we have to make a tough choice between something that is popular and necessary and something that is unpopular, but in this legislation, we are simply asking our colleagues to do the right thing--to take the responsible step--which happens to be popular with the American people as well. It should be popular because it is both generous and humane on the one hand but responsible on the other hand. It is the only approach that will begin to change our immigration system from one that treats people based on where they come from and to whom they are related to a system that treats them for who they are. There is nothing that could be more American than that.

I urge my colleagues to recognize that this is the one bill that the House of Representatives can pass, can earn the President's signature, and can become a law. So I will simply say again, as we go through this exercise, let's have a plan that is going to pass a law, not pass a bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is of the highest importance that we reauthorize title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, especially section 702. It is one of the best tools we have for detecting and preventing terrorist attacks against our country, and it has a long track record of success.

It is one reason that Najibullah Zazi today is not a household name, but yet just another bin Laden wannabe sitting behind bars. He was planning to blow up the New York subway system, but he never got the chance because our intelligence community and law enforcement professionals stopped him in his tracks by using information collected under section 702. That is how vital this program is, and that is why I will be voting yes on this legislation.

That being said, the bill we are voting on today is not my ideal legislation. If I had my way, we would be voting on a permanent reauthorization with no changes. That was the White House's position when I worked together with the administration and introduced a section 702 extension bill earlier this past summer, and the administration has said all along that they wanted a clean and permanent reauthorization.

The people who rely on this program and know better than anyone just how valuable it is believed it was good as is. The way I see it, if the threats against our country will not sunset in 6 years, why would we sunset this vital program? But I understand we usually have to compromise around here. I am glad to see a provision I offered to increase the maximum penalty for the misuse of classified information included in this bill. So while I worry this bill might make it harder for our intelligence community and law enforcement professionals to protect our country, I am going to vote yes.

As a result, you can imagine my surprise as I listened to the program's critics. There is a lot of misinformation out there. I want to take this opportunity to set a few things straight.

First off, there is nothing unconstitutional about this program. Section 702 targets foreigners on foreign soil--not Americans--and it is specifically designed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches. You don't have to take my word for it, though. Every district court that has looked at this question has found section 702 to be constitutional.

That includes, by the way, the so-called ``about'' collection. If you are trying to collect information about a foreign target, and an American citizen mentions that target in an email, I would suggest that we would want our intelligence community to know about that. Does that mean that they incidentally picked up information about American citizens? Yes. But let's be frank here. The only way to prevent this kind of incidental collection is to prohibit any collection at all. If our intelligence community couldn't track an email address or phone number simply because they theoretically might pick up information about an American citizen, they simply could not do their jobs.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to tell if many email addresses belong to a foreigner just by looking at it. For example, is 5675309@gmail.com an American email address or not? Who knows? Did the National Security Agency discontinue its ``about'' collection at one point recently? Yes, but to me that is evidence that this program works. Contrary to what its critics believe, the NSA voluntarily ceased collecting information in the name of protecting privacy. The NSA respected the minimization standard imposed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The safeguards worked just like they were supposed to. This bill says that the NSA can continue so-called ``about'' collection only once it gets approval from the FISA Court and from Congress.

Yes, section 702 has a whole host of safeguards built in to protect Americans' privacy, and this bill adds more still. If the FBI wants to review information collected under 702 on a U.S. person for a criminal investigation that is not related to national security or foreign intelligence, it has to get a court order based on probable cause, even though the Constitution does not require it. Or if the FBI wants to query 702 information, it can do so only under FISA Court-approved guidelines. Finally, just to make sure the FBI is following the law, this bill requires the DOJ inspector general to check up on the FBI's compliance and report back to Congress.

Finally, the critics say the Attorney General can just sneak past all these safeguards by designating an investigation as a domestic crime related to national security or a transnational crime. That ignores the layers upon layers of oversight we have in place to prevent just that kind of abuse. Not only the DOJ inspector general but the FISA court and Congress will continue watching the FBI's use of this program, keeping guard against such misuse.

So I find the critics' arguments to be wholly without foundation. Section 702 is constitutional and strikes a pretty good balance between security and privacy. There is no good reason to let this program expire and no good reason to hold this reauthorization up any longer. Let's remember, after all, that last year there were two terrorist attacks against New York City within 6

weeks, not to mention a Christmas Eve plot against Pier 39 in San Francisco that was disrupted. Also, Admiral Rogers, the Director of the National Security Agency, has testified that the intelligence community would not have been able to put together its intelligence assessment about Russia's interference in our 2016 Presidential campaign without this vital program.

We face a lot of threats. Terrorism, spying, and nuclear proliferation are just a few. They are not going away any time soon, and neither is the Russian threat of meddling in our politics, either. It is past time we gave this tool back to our intelligence community so they can continue the hard work of keeping our country safe.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Chairman Grassley for his leadership on this issue and for offering the SECURE Act, which I and some of the other Senators have supported.

I wish to continue this debate where Senator Tillis left off. We have heard a lot today about the so-called DACA Program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and the negotiations in which we are currently engaged. Hopefully, those negotiations will reach a solution that will satisfy all the parties and give certain legal protections to the DACA population.

We have heard a lot today about border security and the wall. I want to focus on one other element of a needed, negotiated solution, and that is chain migration--putting an end, once and for all, to chain migration. When you give legal status to an illegal immigrant, that is a permanent change in law; it will never be reversed. Therefore, you can't simply accept some window dressing at the border--1 year of funding for demonstration or pilot projects. You have to have a permanent change in return for a permanent change, and an end to chain migration will be one of the most important permanent changes to U.S. immigration law in 52 years.

What is chain migration? Under the current law, which dates back to 1965, if you are a citizen, you can bring any one of your relatives to this country, not just your spouse and your unmarried minor kids--your nuclear family--but also your adult kids and their spouses and their children and your adult brother and your adult sister and your parents and then their siblings and so on and so forth. That is why it is called chain migration. Each person is a potential link in a never- ending chain. The vast majority of people who immigrate to our country legally every single year do so for the sole reason that they just happen to be related to someone who is already here.

We have heard a lot of talk about the American dream in recent days-- that we are a nation of immigrants; it is part of our core, and that is absolutely right. We are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation where blood ties are not supposed to dictate the path of your life, where you can fulfill your dreams. But we have an immigration system that does the exact opposite--an immigration system that favors the ties of blood, the ties of kinship, the ties of clan, and the ties of tribe. What could be less American than that?

As a result, we have also had a massive wave of low-skilled and unskilled immigrants, over the last 52 years. Today, of the million- plus immigrants who come here every year, only 1 in 15 comes here because of education, job skills, or a job offer. That means we have thousands and thousands of workers, with absolutely no consideration for what it means for the workers who are already here--the workers who are American citizens, who are earning a wage. In many cases, the most recent immigrants are going to face competition from the next wave of unskilled immigrants, so we are putting downward pressure on their wages--the wages of people who work with their hands and work on their feet, who hold the kinds of jobs that require you to take a shower after you get off work, not before you go to work.

Blue-collar workers have begun to see an increase in their wages over the last year for the first time in decades, and that is in no small part because of the administration's efforts to get immigration under control. But it is not enough to stop there.

The real question is, who should our immigration system work for? It should work for the American people, the American worker. It should be crafted for their benefit, not for the benefit of foreigners. We should have an immigration system that fulfills the needs of our economy, that focuses on jobs and wages for American citizens here, whether your parents came over on the Mayflower or whether you just took the oath of citizenship last week. This is not some radical position. Liberal Democrats used to believe in that.

I understand that in this debate most of the attention is focused on the population of about 690,000 illegal immigrants who came here, through no fault of their own, as young children 15, 20, 30 years ago. I think the concern for them is very understandable. President Trump has shown it. My colleagues have shown it today. I share it as well.

President Obama did them a real disservice by unilaterally and unconstitutionally--therefore unsustainably--giving them legal status in this country to work. President Trump did the right thing by recognizing that President Obama lacked that authority and shouldn't have put them in that position. But nobody in the Senate--I think I can speak for my other 99 colleagues. Nobody is eager to see these people face deportation. Yet, at the same time, if we are going to give them legal status, we have to recognize that inevitably, as an operation of logic, there are two negative consequences that flow from that. You can say that you don't mind them, but you can't say that they don't exist.

First, as you have heard from so many others, you are going to encourage parents from around the world who live in poverty, oppression, strife, and war to illegally immigrate to this country with their small children in hopes of giving their children American citizenship sometime in the future. That is dangerous, and, in my opinion, it is immoral to offer those kind of inducements.

Second, as I have explained, you will create a whole new category of American citizens who can now get legal status for their extended families--to include the very parents who brought them here in violation of law in the first place. As part of this debate, we have often heard the old line that children ought not to pay for the crimes of the parents. Well, if that is the case, can't we at least agree that parents can pay for the crimes of the parents? They are the ones who created the situation in the first place.

President Trump has said, as I have noted, that he wants to protect the DACA population. But at the same time, he has said repeatedly: We must build a wall and secure our border and end chain migration. I agree that we have to build a wall on our border.

I have to say, it is a little amusing to see how our Democratic colleagues have changed their tune on this point. First, they were complaining for weeks that the President hadn't written a border security plan yet. They kept asking for a punch list. A punch list is what your contractor provides you when he is done building your home

but not quite done with every single technical spec. The administration provided that to them just last week.

Now they are complaining that it is too expensive: It is outrageous, in the words from the Senator from Illinois. I want to point out that although the President's proposal would cost $18 billion--it is over 10 years, so $1.8 billion a year--the Senator from Illinois has proposed a naked amnesty bill that would cost $26 billion over 10 years. That is right; $18 billion is too much to secure our southern border to build a wall and provide more agents and buy more technology, but $26 billion to provide more welfare for illegal immigrants after they get amnesty is A-OK.

I would also point out that a lot of Democrats supported the Secure Fence Act just over a decade ago--building over 700 miles the physical barrier on our southern border. Maybe I can propose new grounds for starting negotiations. How about we simply agree as a baseline that we will fully fund the hundreds of miles of physical barriers that the Senate minority leader voted for just 12 years ago?

They also supported the so-called Gang of 8 bill 5 years ago, which also would have built hundreds of miles of physical barrier on our southern border. What has changed since then?

All that being said, building a wall will help stop illegal immigration, but it will not fix all the problems to the law itself. That is why I have said, as the President has said, we also have to deal with that second consequence--ending chain migration.

One trial balloon I have heard floated in recent days is that a negotiated piece of legislation could eliminate the immigration preference for the adult, unmarried kids of legal permanent residents, green card holders. That is perfectly fine. We should do that, for sure. But to act as if that alone would end chain migration is preposterous. It will delay a very small part of chain migration--only delay, only delay a very small part--about 26,000 of the more than 300,000 people who come here a year through family preferences. It doesn't even touch the preference for the adult, unmarried children of citizens or parents or siblings of citizens and green card holders alike.

In other words, once these young people in the DACA population become citizens, then they will be able to get legal status for their relatives, which means, far from stopping chain migration, it will actually accelerate the naturalization process and the chain we are trying to stop in the first place.

The time has come to end this foolish, unwise, and, indeed, dangerous policy, as we saw just a few weeks ago in the most recent attempted terror attack in New York, which had at its initiating point someone who had come into this country because of chain migration. Not a single advanced, industrialized nation has such a lax immigration policy as we do when it comes to immigrant families--not Canada, not the United Kingdom, not France, not Germany, not New Zealand, not Japan.

If we are actually going to fix this problem--if we are going to do right by the American worker, if we are going to promote the American dream and American ideals, then it is time for these mindless family preferences and chain migration to come to an end.

I yield the floor, and I yield to my colleague from Oklahoma.

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

Mr. President, a month ago, we lost another Medal of Honor recipient, CAPT Thomas J. Hudner, who died at the ripe old age of 93. Not long after, we lost a second one, Col. Wesley L. Fox, who died at the distinguished age of 86. These are two different men who led two different lives, each equally deserving of praise and honor. Still, I can't help but wonder if there is a reason their deaths came so suddenly and close together. It is almost as if our Lord took them in one fell swoop so the greater loss would inspire greater gratitude for their sacrifice.

What Captain Hudner of the U.S. Navy did to earn his medal is remarkable for the simple fact that he could have been court-martialed for doing it. It was December 1950 in Korea. Just days before, the Chinese People's Liberation Army had crossed the Yalu River and thrown back U.S. forces on the cusp of victory. Then-Lieutenant Hudner was a naval aviator flying one of six Navy Corsairs near the Chosin Reservoir, 5 miles behind enemy lines, when he saw his squadron mate, ENS Jesse L. Brown, get hit by enemy fire and crash-land on a snowy mountainside.

What Lieutenant Hudner probably should have done is stick to the plan. What he did instead was an act of pure bravery. He intentionally crash-landed his plane not far from Ensign Brown's, tried to rescue him from the burning wreckage--all in subzero temperatures--but Ensign Brown was trapped. His knee was crushed between the fuselage and the control panel. When help arrived, their hatchet couldn't hack through the plane's metal, and no one could get close enough to amputate his leg. They had to leave him behind. Ensign Brown's last words were: ``Tell Daisy I love her.''

It might be appropriate to note here that Ensign Brown was Black and Lieutenant Hudner was White, but I mention it almost as an afterthought because to the two of them, that is just what it was--a postscript, an addendum, a mere detail. They were comrades in arms, wearing the red, white, and blue, not seeing the color of each other's skin. The only color that mattered to them, and that they shared in common, besides the color of our flag, was the navy blue of their uniform. Just 2 years after Harry Truman had integrated the Armed Forces, Lieutenant Hudner and Ensign Brown's friendship was a symbol of America's promise. He went on to have a successful career, but for giving us a moral example from that day, we should all be thankful.

Colonel Fox, meanwhile, was a legend in the Marine Corps. He served for 43 years, leaving only when forced to by mandatory retirement at the age of 62. In that time, he held every enlisted rank except sergeant major and every officer rank except for general. He once admitted:

My first four years as a Marine I didn't own one stitch of

civilian clothes--everything I did was in a Marine uniform.

I'd go home on leave, working in the hay fields or whatever,

I wore my Marine utilities. Go in town to see the movies, I

wore my Marine dress.

That is just how proud Wesley Fox was to be a marine, and it was that deeply felt love for his fellow marines that drove him in his service. Like Lieutenant Hudner, he fought in Korea. In fact, he was wounded, and after he recovered, he was so eager to get back to the fight that he wrote to the commandant asking to be deployed once again.

The battle that earned him his place in history was in the jungles of Vietnam. It was February 1969, deep in the A Shau Valley in Vietnam. Then-First Lieutenant Fox was fighting in the last major Marine offensive of the war--Operation Dewey Canyon. His unit was Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 9th Marines. It earned the nickname ``The Walking Dead'' for suffering so many casualties during the war. They came under heavy fire from a larger force. Yet the fearless Lieutenant Fox led a charge against the enemy. He was wounded but refused medical attention, instead concentrating on leading the attack, coordinating air support, and supervising the evacuation of the dead and injured.

It was a stunning show of valor, and for it, he, too, would earn the Medal of Honor. His citation read, in part:

His indomitable courage, inspiring initiative and

unwavering devotion to duty in the face of grave personal

danger inspired his Marines to such aggressive action that

they overcame all enemy resistance and destroyed a large

bunker complex. Captain Fox's heroic actions reflect great

credit upon himself and the Marine Corps, and uphold the

highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

As I said, these were two different men and two different stories but the same courage and service to the same great country. They showed the same selflessness--one risking his life for his friend and the other risking his life for his marines. So I think it is fitting that we celebrate their lives together because they both showed us the utter selflessness of courage. They didn't fight and display such bravery because they hated our enemies but because they loved our country, and they loved their comrades in arms. It is a good lesson, I would say, for this time of year.

So I want to honor the memory of CAPT Thomas J. Hudner and Col. Wesley L. Fox. They were true American patriots, and may they rest in peace.