Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act

Floor Speech

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from
Colorado in celebrating and saluting on this historic day the service
and sacrifice of so many of our military men and women who have given
their lives so we can enjoy the precious freedom all of us will benefit
from over this weekend. The freedom to gather as we wish, speak as we
please, worship, and gather together with friends--all of these
freedoms are due to the service and sacrifice of the men and women
whose lives we celebrate this weekend.

Identity Theft of Veterans

As it happens as well, my office is issuing a report that shows our
veterans and servicemembers often are victims of practices around the
discounts and promotions that will be offered this weekend. Many
retailers will offer sales and discounts to our veterans and, in fact,
our veterans are twice as likely as the ordinary population and the
general public to be victims of identity theft and fraud because they
are asked to provide information in connection with taking advantage of
these discounts.

I am proposing reforms to be adopted by the Department of Defense
under existing authority, and these reforms will save veterans from
identity theft and fraud when retailers offer discounts but demand
sensitive personal information.

A national recognition of service card will honor our heroes and save
them from scammers who may prey on them after they provide this
information. Retailers who commendably--and I emphasize commendably--
offer veterans discounts, especially around this holiday and others,
should not put them at undue risk in verifying their status.

As Memorial Day approaches and as we celebrate it today, the
Department of Defense should adopt the recommendations of the report I
am offering today. And I will offer legislation, if necessary, to
compel these kinds of reforms. Our veterans and servicemembers need and
deserve commonsense protections so discounts don't become really bad
deals. The reforms, such as the national recognition of service card,
can guarantee privacy and protection for our veterans and
servicemembers, even as they take advantage of the discounts and
promotions that will be offered to them over this Memorial Day weekend,
and avoid disclosure of information to third parties who may not
protect that information as they should.

USA FREEDOM Act

I want to say a few words about the choice currently before this body
in connection with the USA FREEDOM Act and the PATRIOT Act--words that
come to mind over this Memorial Day weekend so often and frequently on
our lips. This issue before our body is a profoundly important one. It
has been framed as a question of whether the Senate passes the USA
FREEDOM Act or the short-term extension of the PATRIOT Act that
authorities say is a compromise.

There is supposedly a compromise before this body, but let's keep in
mind that the USA FREEDOM Act is, in fact, a compromise. It reflects
the views of hawks and doves, Democrats and Republicans, the House and
the Senate, the Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary.

Many of us have made significant concessions to reach the USA FREEDOM
Act. In fact, I have wondered at times whether to walk away from this
so-called compromise because it does too little in the way of reform
and perhaps shortchanges the proposals I and others have made to
protect privacy and balance that protection with the very profoundly
important need to preserve our national security.

A short-term extension is not a compromise. The USA FREEDOM Act is,
in fact, already a compromise, and that is why I have opposed and will
continue to oppose a short-term extension, even when it is portrayed
and depicted as a compromise, as has happened so far.

Another important point here is that a short-term extension will not
solve our problem. A short-term extension is simply an invitation for
more uncertainty, more litigation, more expense, and, in fact, more
compromise to our national security.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has made it absolutely crystal
clear that if Congress authorizes section 215, the Second Circuit will
read it as disallowing bulk collection. That court held: ``If Congress
fails to reauthorize Section 215 itself, or reenacts Section 215
without expanding it to authorize the telephone metadata program . . .
the program will end.''

That means if Congress passes the so-called short-term
reauthorization, phone companies in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont
will not be able to comply with a bulk collection order. Around the Nation,
the court of appeal's ruling is the law of the land, or should be given that
respect, and it will be unclear around the land and throughout this
country what kind of order, in fact, is demanding of them. The result
is likely to be legal uncertainty that will last long after Congress
decides to act.

The only way to avoid endless litigation is to pass legislation that
specifies what section 215 allows, what it does not allow, and the only
proposal that does that task is the USA FREEDOM Act.

I continue to believe that one of the central core provisions of the
USA FREEDOM Act is that it requires transparency and the adversarial
process, containing reforms that I proposed to make sure that this FISA
Court is no longer a secret tribunal considering arguments in secret
and issuing secret opinions--exactly the kind of court that prompted
our rebellion from England. When it operates and when it hears
arguments, it should hear both sides--it should hear from an adversary
to the government that offers a different point of view. Courts make
better decisions when they hear both sides of the argument. That is why
I proposed from the start a constitutional advocate who will make
arguments against the government without compromising the need for
timely warrants and other surveillance and without in any way reducing
the secrecy of this court where it is appropriate.

I hope this body reaches a result that includes the USA FREEDOM Act.
I hope we pass it. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I withdraw my observation about the absence of a
quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source