Floor Statements

Mr. President, just this morning, the world learned of the death of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, who was kidnapped 2 weeks ago following the Way of the Cross ceremony at a church in Mosul. I extend my condolences to the Chaldean community in Iraq and in the United States on the tragic death of one of their church's spiritual leaders. The Chaldean community and those impacted by this tragic death are in the thoughts and prayers of people around the world from all religions.

The death of this spiritual leader demonstrates the fragility of the situation in Iraq and the vulnerability of the Chaldean community. I hope the Archbishop's life of integrity and testimony to his faith in God and in his country will serve as an inspiration to the Chaldean community as they move forward in these difficult times.

I also hope this tragic death will motivate President Bush to focus more attention on assisting this highly vulnerable community in northern Iraq, particularly as al-qaida shifts much of its operations to the north in search of new victims.

Mr. President, we recently marked the 14th anniversary of the enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. This legislation was a major step in our fight to curb gun violence. According to Centers for Disease Control statistics, since the Brady law went into effect, the number of gun deaths in the United States has dropped 26 percent, from 39,595 in 1993 to 29,569 in 2004. Even more dramatically, the number of gun homicides dropped by more than 38 percent from 17,024 in 1993 to 10,661 in 2004.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Brady law's requirement that gun purchasers undergo a criminal background check before purchasing a firearm has prevented approximately 1.4 million prohibited purchasers from buying guns from federally licensed gun dealers. By preventing these potentially dangerous individuals from obtaining guns, the law has helped prevent countless tragedies. On this 14-year anniversary, I urge my colleagues to capitalize on the successes of the Brady law by taking up and passing additional gun safety legislation, such as closing the gun show loophole and establishing an assault weapons ban.

In a New York Times Op-Ed written March 29, 1991, on the 10th anniversary of the assassination attempt on his life and that of his press secretary, James S. Brady, President Reagan described his incredible ordeal of surviving the shooting and then went on to talk about Jim Brady. President Reagan said:

I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and

lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close

call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's

missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at

George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast

support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.

Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me,

wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his

forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of

his brain before it exited. The skills of the George

Washington University medical team, plus his amazing

determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah,

pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he

still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much

of his time in a wheelchair.

Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a

bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve

damage to

his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981. Tim

McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and

suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to

duty.

Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a

Saturday-night special, a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol,

purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history

of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have

happened if legislation that is before Congress now, the

Brady bill, had been law back in 1981.

President Reagan was right. The record of prevention of gun sales to potentially dangerous buyers over the past 14 years and the lives saved dramatically demonstrate that and remind us of the wisdom embodied in the Brady law.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I recently visited Birch Run High School in Michigan to learn about its biodiesel project. This project is an innovative, forward-thinking endeavor, and I am proud that young people in Michigan are making strides to understand and begin to solve some of our Nation's most pressing concerns.

The biodiesel project was initiated in the second semester of the 2007-2008 school year at Birch Run by Mrs. Jan Pollard, a chemistry teacher at the school. Mrs. Pollard was instrumental in helping the school secure the funding necessary to establish this project by approaching officials associated with the Watershed Initiative Network--WIN--grant program. She wrote and submitted a proposal for $10,000 to WIN, which was ultimately approved.

The biodiesel project is a part of a comprehensive effort that includes a greenhouse and a bee keeping component. The students currently working on the biodiesel project include Ross Fredenburg, the team leader; Derek Bentley; Ryan Johnson; and Dillon Fredenburg, the apprentice leader for the 2008-2009 school year. These students have completed all the construction work, installed the necessary equipment, and run the project, including all manufacturing and testing of the biodiesel fuel. They obtain, at no cost, used vegetable oil from the school and from local restaurants to convert to biodiesel fuel. The project has produced approximately 200 gallons of biodiesel fuel thus far. By next year, the school expects to be able to provide biodiesel fuel for its entire 26-bus fleet.

This exciting project has the support of many in the community, including Birch Run School Superintendent Wayne Wright, Birch Run Principal Mike Baszler and members of the Birch Run School Board. Mrs. Pollard and her students have tirelessly worked on the many aspects of this project. And, most importantly, these students have been provided an excellent opportunity to pursue practical and timely solutions that will benefit the school, the environment, and their community.

Indeed, these young people have embarked on an important endeavor. As a Nation, we must increase the diversity of our energy sources and enhance our Nation's energy independence. Biodiesel provides a part of the solution to our energy needs. It has the potential to improve our Nation's energy independence in the near term by replacing some of the oil we import from abroad with homegrown, sustainable biofuels. Utilizing this fuel source could reduce our impact on the environment and slow changes to our climate that will otherwise threaten our future. With this new technology, we could dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions and help create jobs as well as spur our economy.

I know my colleagues will share my enthusiasm in recognizing everyone affiliated with the biodiesel project at Birch Run High School. I look forward to hearing about their many successes in the future.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 2662, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act. The reforms that this bill makes to the Consumer Product Safety Commission are long overdue.

S. 2663 takes important steps to shore up a weak and ineffective Consumer Products Safety Commission, CPSC. As a grandfather and consumer, I am appalled at the lack of resources and enforcement authority of the CPSC and its inability to adequately protect our children, our food supply, and the general public from harmful or contaminated products.

We can and should be doing much more to protect the American consumer. As was recently underscored by the alarming number of children's products with high lead content, contaminated pet food, and defective imported tires, there are a lot of cracks in the systems that were supposed to be watching out for consumers.

We need to know our children's and grandchildren's toys are safe. We need to know that the food we import is not tainted with harmful chemicals. We need to know the products we buy will not harm us or our children. I believe it is the Government's basic responsibility to protect the public.

Those who work for the companies that make these products may often be in a position to detect and prevent serious problems or injuries before they occur. I am pleased that this bill includes important protections for corporate whistleblowers that will encourage employees to come forward about violations and defective products without the fear of retaliation by their employer.

Many of the defective and contaminated products are imported. Even with its current limited resources and reach, CPSC recalled approximately 150 tainted products from China in 2007, including tires, toys, baby cribs, candles, bicycles, remote controls, hair dryers, and lamps. Imagine how many more contaminated or defective products are slipping through the cracks and reaching American consumers without being detected.

We are being deluged by cheap imports from China and elsewhere. We should at least be making sure the products we import are not contaminated or dangerous. In this vein, last summer I wrote to President Bush requesting that his administration investigate dangerous products that have been imported from China. We need to strengthen our agencies and laws so that products that do not meet our health and safety standards are stopped at our borders. To do this we need to give the CPSC the necessary tools and resources, including more manpower to adequately inspect imports.

Like most of my colleagues, I was shocked by CPSC Acting Chair Nancy Nord's claims that no additional funding was needed for her agency. To me this claim implied there was no desire by this administration to do more to protect American consumers. That is absurd given the recent and alarming incidents of contaminated products reaching consumers. The Senate's consideration of S. 2663 and the House passage of a similar bill is proof that Congress strongly disagrees with this point of view and will make the legislative changes needed to give the CPSC the necessary tools to improve on its past poor performance and reassure consumers that there will be more oversight of the marketplace in the future.

This bill will increase overall funding for the CPSC by 50 percent over 7 years, increase CPSC staffing to at least 500 employees over the next 5 years, streamline product safety rulemaking procedures, ban lead in children's products and require certification and labeling, increase inspection of imported products so we are not allowing recalled or banned products to cross our borders, increase penalties for violating our product safety laws, strengthen and improve recall procedures, and ban the sale of recalled products.

The legislation has the support of the following, among others: Thomas H. Moore, Consumer Product Safety Commissioner; Alliance for Patient Safety; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Association of Law Libraries; American Association of University Professors, AZ Conference; American Library Association; Circumpolar Conservation Union; Coalition for Civil Rights and Democratic Liberties; Consumers Union; Consumer Federation of America; Doctors for Open Government; DoorTech Industries, Inc;. Ethics in Government Group, EGG; Federation of American Scientists; Federal Employees Against Discrimination; Focus On Indiana; Fund for Constitutional Government; Georgians for Open Government; Government Accountability Project; HALT, Inc.--An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform; Health Integrity Project; Information Trust; Integrity International; Kids in Danger; Liberty Coalition; National Consumers League; National Association of State Fire Marshals; National Employment Lawyers Association; National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc.; National Research Center for Women & Families; National Whistleblower Center; No Fear Coalition; OMB Watch; OpenTheGovernment.org; Parentadvocates.org; Patrick Henry Center; Project on Government Oversight; Public Citizen; Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; Sustainable Energy and Economy Network; Taxpayers Against Fraud; the 3.5.7 Commission; the New Grady Coalition; the Semmelweis Society International, SSI; the Student Health Integrity Project, SHIP; Truckers Justice Center; Union of Concerned Scientists; U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; and Whistleblowers USA.

I support this bipartisan legislation and I hope that it will quickly become law.

Madam President, Representative Aldo Vagnozzi is a beloved figure in Michigan. He is one of those people who talks the talk, walks the walk, and does both to the great benefit of all of those who are fortunate enough to cross his path.

Aldo served in the U.S. Army during World War II as an interpreter in Italy, talking in English and Italian and rising to the rank of sergeant. He took advantage of the GI bill to finish his education at Wayne State University, graduating with a degree in journalism in 1948.

That same year, he married Lois Carl, beginning a 50-year marriage. They would raise two daughters and two sons, seven grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren.

As editor of several publications, including numerous labor newspapers, Aldo reported on and learned about Michigan's social and political environment and the workings of government. This understanding, along with his knack for making friends, would serve him and the State of Michigan well.

Aldo would later serve on the Farmington Hills City Council, the Farmington District School Board, the Farmington Area Parent-Teacher Association, and as the mayor of Farmington Hills. He has been actively involved in numerous community organizations.

In 2002, Aldo ran for election to the Michigan House of Representatives. He personally went door-to-door to 15,000 houses, walking over 900 miles including a 5-day, 70-mile walk from Farmington Hills to Lansing.

Term limits will keep Aldo from continuing his service in the House of Representatives after his current term ends this year, and he will be deeply missed by his colleagues and his constituents.

I salute my friend Aldo Vagnozzi for his years and years of service to Michigan, his indomitable spirit, and his remarkable ability to walk, talk, and sometimes do both while working for the people of Michigan.

I have lost track of the retirement parties I have been to for Aldo Vagnozzi. I am confident his next one won't be his last as he moves on to other endeavors.

Mr. President, I have been asked about the timing of the colloquy that I entered into with Senators Inouye and Feinstein on December 13, 2007, during consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Immediately prior to the vote on cloture, on the motion to concur with an amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 6, I was recognized on the Senate floor and requested and obtained consent ``that a colloquy between myself, Senator Inouye and Senator Feinstein be inserted in the record at this point.''

Agreement among the three of us on the content of that colloquy was critical to both my vote for cloture and my later vote for final passage, as I indicated in my own statement prior to final passage that was submitted later in the day. The colloquy between Senator Inouye, Senator Feinstein, and me read in its entirety, as follows:

NHTSA Regulations on Fuel Economy

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support this bill and, in

particular, the provisions that require the Department of

Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, NHTSA, to set new fuel economy standards for

vehicles that will reach an industry fleet wide level of 35

miles per gallon by 2020 based on my understanding that these

new Federal standards will not be undercut in the future by

regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency

regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

I believe that we have taken historic steps in this

legislation by putting in place ambitious but achievable fuel

economy standards that will reduce our Nation's fuel

consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In this

legislation, the Senate and House have come together and

established the appropriate level of fuel economy standards

and have directed NHTSA to implement that through new

regulations. In this legislation, the Congress has agreed

that the appropriate level of fuel economy to reach is 35

miles per gallon in 2020, or an increase of 10 miles per

gallon in 10 years.

But it is essential to manufacturers that they are able to

plan on the 35 miles per gallon standard in 2020. We must

resolve now with the sponsors of this legislation in the

Senate any ambiguity that could arise in the future when EPA

issues new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from

vehicles pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act so

that our manufacturers can have certainty. With that in mind,

I want to clarify both Senator Inouye's and Senator

Feinstein's understanding and interpretation of what the

Congress is doing in this legislation and to clarify their

agreement that we want all Federal regulations in this area

to be consistent. We do not want to enact this legislation

today only to find later that we have not been sufficiently

diligent to avoid any conflicts in the future.

The Environmental Protection Agency has authority under the

Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from

vehicles and to delegate that authority, as the agency deems

appropriate, to the State of California. This authority was

recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is not our

purpose today to attempt to change that authority or to

undercut the decision of the Supreme Court. We simply want to

make clear that it is Congressional intent in this bill that,

with respect to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, any

future regulations issued by the Environmental Protection

Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be

consistent with the Department of Transportation's new fuel

economy regulations that will reach an industry fleet wide

level by 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Does the Senator from California and original sponsor of

this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, agree with my view that the

intent of this language is for EPA regulations on greenhouse

gas emissions from vehicles to be consistent with the

direction of Congress in this 35 miles per gallon in 2020

legislation and consistent with regulations issued by the

Department of Transportation to implement this legislation?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, of course, we have worked hard to come

together on this legislation directing NHTSA to issue new

fuel economy regulations to reach an industry fleet wide

level of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and it is our intent in

the bill before us that all Federal regulations in this area

be consistent with our 35 miles per gallon in 2020 language.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for her clarification of her

intent.

Does the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the

distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, agree with my

understanding of the intent of this bill that any regulations

issued by the Environmental Protection Agency be consistent

with the direction of Congress in this legislation and

regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to

implement this legislation?

Mr. INOUYE. Yes. I agree that it is very important that all

Federal regulations in this area be consistent and that we

provide clear direction to the agency that has responsibility

for setting fuel economy standards, the Department of

Transportation.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my distinguished colleague from Hawaii,

Mr. Inouye, for his clarification.

With the colloquy accepted and placed in the Congressional Record, I voted to invoke cloture. Sometime after the vote on cloture, later in the day, a separate colloquy between Senator Feinstein and Senator Inouye was inserted in the Congressional Record. It was placed in the Record immediately following the Levin-Feinstein-

Inouye colloquy, quoted above, although it was, in fact, presented for inclusion in the Record at a later point in the day, as noted by Senator Inouye in the second sentence of the Inouye-Feinstein colloquy. Their colloquy reads as follows:

Agency Management

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have worked for many months

with the Senior Senator from California and the original

sponsor of this legislation, Mrs. Feinstein, to draft a sound

policy to increase fuel economy standards in our country. I

stated earlier today that ``all Federal regulations in this

area be consistent.'' I wholly agree with that notion, in

that these agencies have two different missions. The

Department of Transportation has the responsibility for

regulating fuel economy, and should enforce the Ten-in-Ten

Fuel Economy Act fully and vigorously to save oil in the

automobile fleet. The Environmental Protection Agency has the

responsibility to protect public health. These two missions

can and should co-exist without one undermining the other.

There are numerous examples in the executive branch where two

or more agencies share responsibility over a particular

issue. The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal

Communications Commission both oversee telemarketing

practices and the Do-Not-Call list.

The FTC also shares jurisdiction over antitrust enforcement

with the Department of Justice. Under the current CAFE

system, the Department of Transportation and the

Environmental Protection Agency work together. DOT enforces

the CAFE standards, and the EPA tests vehicles for compliance

and fuel economy labels on cars. The President himself

foresaw these agencies working together and issued an

Executive Order on May 14, 2007, to coordinate the agencies

on reducing automotive greenhouse gas emissions. The DOT and

the EPA have separate missions that should be executed fully

and responsibly. I believe it is important that we ensure

that the agencies are properly managed by the executive

branch, as has been done with several agencies with shared

jurisdiction for decades. I plan on holding hearings next

session to examine this issue fully.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to thank the chairman of the

Commerce Committee, and I would like to clarify what I

believe to be the intent of the legislation I sponsored to

increase fuel economy standards in the United States.

The legislation increasing the fuel economy standards of

vehicles by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years does not impact

the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of the EPA,

California, or other States, under the Clean Air Act.

The intent was to give NHTSA the ability to regulate fuel

efficiency standards of vehicles, and increase the fleetwide

average to at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

There was no intent in any way, shape, or form to

negatively affect, or otherwise restrain, California or any

other State's existing or future tailpipe emissions laws, or

any future EPA authority on tailpipe emissions.

The two issues are separate and distinct.

As the Supreme Court correctly observed in Massachusetts v.

EPA, the fact ``that DOT sets mileage standards in no way

licenses EPA to shirk its environmental responsibilities. EPA

has been charged with protecting the public's health and

welfare, a statutory obligation wholly independent of DOT's

mandate to promote energy efficiency. The two obligations may

overlap, but there is no reason to think the two agencies

cannot both administer their obligations and yet avoid

inconsistency.''

I agree with the Supreme Court's view of consistency. There

is no reason to think the two agencies cannot both administer

their obligations and yet avoid inconsistency.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Goldstone has

reiterated this point in finding that if approved by EPA,

California's standards are not preempted by the Energy Policy

Conservation Act.

Title I of the Energy Security and Independence Act of

2007, H.R. 6, provides clear direction to the Department of

Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Energy

and the Environmental Protection Agency, to raise fuel

economy standards.

By taking this action, Congress is continuing DOT's

existing authority to set vehicle fuel economy standards.

Importantly, the separate authority and responsibility of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate vehicle

greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is in no

manner affected by this legislation as plainly provided for

in section 3 of the bill addressing the relationship of H.R.

6 to other laws.

I fought for section 3. I have resisted all efforts to add

legislative language requiring ``harmonization'' of these EPA

and NHTSA standards. This language could have required that

EPA standards adopted under section 202 of the Clean Air Act

reduce only the air pollution emissions that would already

result from NHTSA fuel economy standards, effectively making

the NHTSA fuel economy standards a national ceiling for the

reduction of pollution. Our legislation does not establish a

NHTSA ceiling. It does not mention the Clean Air Act, so we

certainly do not intend to strip EPA of its wholly separate

mandate to protect the public health and welfare from air

pollution.

To be clear, Federal standards can avoid inconsistency

according to the Supreme Court, while still fulfilling their

separate mandates.

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

Madam President, the mortgage foreclosure crisis in Michigan is dire. Nearly 80,000 homes are expected to be lost to foreclosure by 2009. Michigan ranks third in the country in foreclosure rates, and fifth in the country in number of foreclosure filings. Michigan has seen an increase in the number of foreclosure filings of 282 percent since 2005.

My State is not alone in this crisis, nor are homeowners facing foreclosure the only ones being affected. The entire housing industry, and by many accounts our entire economy, is being dragged down by mounting mortgage woes. It is urgent that we move forward on this bill to address these problems and provide immediate help across the Nation. We need to keep families in their homes, and we need to keep this crisis from further weighing down our economy.

Recently, I convened a series of roundtable meetings in a number of Michigan communities. Leaders from local and State government, as well as organizations who are in the trenches working with families facing foreclosure, came together to discuss practical ways to help homeowners and protect our economy from further damage. When I asked for their feedback on this bill, they thought it would help address a number of the problems they highlighted.

Across Michigan, there are communities that would like to rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed properties so that surrounding property values do not continue to fall. But currently the funds do not exist to do that. This bill provides $4 billion in Federal block grants to areas with the highest foreclosure rates to help rehabilitate abandoned or foreclosed properties and prevent further damage to local housing values.

Across Michigan, foreclosure prevention counselors are overwhelmed, and a lack of funds is tying the hands of local groups trying to help keep families on track. This bill would provide $200 million for this much needed preforeclosure counseling.

There are also many homeowners who are facing the financial pressures of owing more on their mortgages than the current dollar value of their houses, a situation known as being ``underwater.'' There is a critical need for more affordable loans to help these families refinance and stay in their current homes. Most homeowners do not want to uproot their children and leave their community behind, even if the balance of their mortgage is greater than the current market value of their home.

This bill would help address this problem by authorizing States to issue $10 billion in new tax-exempt bonds to help homeowners refinance adjustable rate mortgages. States will have the flexibility to use the proceeds of these bonds to refinance mortgages. This is a key component to turning the current mortgage market around.

Ameliorating our foreclosure crisis will require a team effort among Federal, State, and local governments, community and neighborhood organizations, and lenders, brokers, and borrowers. This bill recognizes that fact. It provides an opportunity to help keep struggling families in their homes. It provides an opportunity to help restore our housing markets so that families can own a home. It provides an opportunity to help keep declining property values stable. We need to take up this bill now, debate it, consider amendments, and then pass it. To not do so would be to sit idly by while a multitude of Americans needlessly suffer.

Mr. President, unfortunately, history will record February 2008 as a month in which contained six separate high-profile multiple murders by firearms occurred across the country. These shootings occurred in places normally considered safe, including Northern Illinois University, Louisiana Technical College, and a city council meeting inside Kirkwood City Hall. It appears there are few places where the dangers of gun violence can not reach. However, there are some actions we can take to help change this epidemic of gun violence.

In 1993, President Clinton signed the Brady bill into law. This law requires a waiting period for handgun sales until records are available to instantly check criminal background of prospective gun purchasers. After the National Instant Check System, NICS, became operational in 1998, the Justice Department maintained background check records on approved purchases for 6 months to ensure that felons and other prohibited buyers were not mistakenly approved. Under the Bush administration, however, Attorney General John Ashcroft sought to require the destruction of the records of approved purchasers within 24 hours. In July 2002, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the potential effects of next-day destruction of NICS background check records. They concluded that destroying these records within 24 hours would prevent the government from auditing the NICS system to ensure its accuracy and ``would have public safety implications.'' Despite these GAO warnings, Attorney General Ashcroft decided to implement the 24-hour record destruction provision.

The Brady bill only requires background checks for sales by licensed gun dealers. It does not require them for transfers between unlicensed persons. Approximately 40 percent of all gun sales involve those transfers, such as at gun shows. Only 6 States require background checks on all firearm sales. According to the ATF, almost one-third of trafficked guns are acquired at gun shows and flea markets. These gatherings present the perfect opportunity for unlicensed sellers to offer large numbers of guns for sale with no questions asked. Those who would not pass a background check in a licensed gun store are able to purchase as many guns as they wish at gun shows.

In 1994, President Clinton signed legislation into law that banned the production of certain semiautomatic assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition magazines. Among the banned items was a list of 19 specific weapons as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics such as pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors. The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons that incorporate at least two of these military features and accept a detachable magazine. In 2004, when the assault weapons ban expired, despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism, and bipartisan support in the Senate. Sadly, the tragedies at both Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University were inflicted by someone using previously banned high capacity ammunition magazines.

On average, 32 people are murdered in this country by firearms every day. By instituting such simple changes in current law, addressing the gun show loophole and passing a new assault weapons ban, we could help reduce the likelihood of such tragedies occurring.

Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2008. This bill would reauthorize and modernize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act which funds and authorizes health care services and programs to Native American Indians and Alaska Natives and reaffirms our commitment to ensuring that we meet our treaty and legal obligation to provide these communities with access to quality health care.

Reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been long overdue. The last time the Congress reauthorized the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was in 1992, and this act has been up for reauthorization since 2001. The Indian Health Service has not been updated for far too long. As health care evolves and improves programs must be modernized to reflect new advances in the health care system. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act has not been modernized since 1992, 16 years ago, and is falling behind. We have a trust responsibility to provide health care to Native American Indians and Alaska Natives. We have not met that responsibility.

The disparities that exist between Indian communities and other Americans are overwhelming. The life expectancy for Indians is almost 6 years less than the rest of this country's population and the suicide rate is 2.5 times higher than the national average. Death due to alcoholism or tuberculosis is more than 600 percent more likely; and, Indians are 318 percent more likely to die from diabetes. These statistics are unacceptable and we need to continue to ensure that we close the gap.

The passage of this bill brings us one step closer to ensuring that the Indian Health Service is adequately funded and that programs to address the health care needs of these communities are available.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the intelligence authorization conference report which includes a requirement that all Government agencies, including the CIA, comply with the Army Field Manual on Interrogations in the treatment and interrogation of detainees.

The result will be a single standard of treatment for detainees, a standard consistent with American values and international standards. The Army Field Manual is consistent with our obligations under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits subjecting detainees to ``cruel treatment and torture.'' This is the standard to which our soldiers are trained and which they live by.

Consistent with this standard, the Army Field Manual specifically prohibits certain interrogation techniques. These include: forced nudity; ``waterboarding,'' that is, inducing the sensation of drowning; using military working dogs in interrogations; subjecting detainees to extreme temperatures; and mock executions.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has insisted that it reserves the right for the CIA to engage in certain ``enhanced interrogation techniques.'' It has been reported that these CIA techniques include ``waterboarding.'' While this Justice Department continues to refuse to say one way or the other, let there be no doubt: waterboarding is torture.

The Judge Advocates General of all four services have told us unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal.

Requiring that all Government agencies comply with the standards of the Army Field Manual is not mushy intellectualism. It is hard-headed pragmatism. When we fail to live up to our own standards for humane treatment, we compromise our moral authority. Our security depends on the willingness of others to work with us and share information, information which could prevent the next attack. When we project moral hypocrisy, we lose the support of the world in the fight against the extremists.

Requiring a single standard for the treatment of detainees consistent with the Army Field Manual protects our men and women in uniform, should they be captured. It strengthens our hand in demanding that American prisoners be treated humanely, consistent with values embodied in the Field Manual.

I urge my colleagues to support the intelligence authorization conference report with the provision that standards in the Army Field Manual for treatment of detainees will apply to all elements of the intelligence community.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. President, last year Congress passed a temporary bill with a 6-month time limit that would give us the opportunity to carry out a thorough, thoughtful examination of how to utilize complicated new technologies in the surveillance of suspected terrorists without invading the privacy of innocent Americans. In the months since we passed that temporary act, we have worked in a bipartisan manner to consider the best course forward for permanent changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Despite the enormous complexity of these issues, we reached a bipartisan consensus on the key provisions contained in title I of the bill we are considering today.

I believe that title I of the bill before us appropriately provides the intelligence community the authority it needs to collect intelligence information on suspected terrorists. The collection of that intelligence is important to our national security and merits congressional support. That is why I helped write the Rockefeller-Levin substitute amendment that we voted on last summer, why I voted in favor of the Leahy substitute amendment that we considered in January, and why I support title I of the bill before us today. In my view, the Rockefeller-Levin substitute, the Leahy substitute, and title I of this bill all provide for the appropriate collection of intelligence information on suspected terrorists.

Title I of this bill would provide the needed authority for collection of that information in a responsible manner.

Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act which we passed last summer, would not authorize the targeting of U.S. persons for electronic surveillance without probable cause.

Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act, would not authorize the administration to collect communications--including communications to and from U.S. persons--for months without even submitting the collection program for court approval.

Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act, would not authorize the administration to continue to collect such communications for an extended period even after the FISA Court has specifically rejected an application for approval.

Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act, would expressly authorize judicial review of the targeting and so-called minimization procedures in order to protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons.

Title I of this bill, unlike the temporary act, would require regular inspector general reviews and regular reports to Congress on any authorized collection program.

I congratulate Senator Rockefeller and other colleagues on their success in achieving the administration's support for these well- crafted title I provisions, which are significant improvements over the temporary bill hastily adopted last year.

Title II of the bill is a different story. Title II would eliminate accountability by granting retroactive immunity for telecommunications providers that disclosed communications and other confidential information of their customers at the behest of Government officials. They did this despite a law specifically making it illegal to do so. Unlike title I, there is no bipartisan agreement on title II.

Title II would require dismissal of lawsuits brought by persons claiming injury from interception and disclosure of their communications, even if the activity resulting in the injury was illegal. It would require dismissal of lawsuits, even if the disclosure violated the constitutional rights of individuals whose personal information was illegally disclosed. It would require dismissal of lawsuits, even if innocent U.S. citizens were damaged by the disclosure or compromise of confidential personal information.

Retroactive immunity is not fair. It is not wise. And it is not necessary.

Retroactive immunity is not fair because it leaves American citizens who may have been harmed by the alleged unlawful conduct of these providers without any legal remedy.

Retroactive immunity is not wise because it precludes any judicial review of that conduct. I am deeply concerned that if we act here to immunize private parties who participated in a program that appears to have been clearly illegal, we may encourage others to engage in such illegal activities in the future. In a free society, illegal activity cannot be excused on the grounds that Government officials asked you to carry it out. There must be accountability for illegal acts. As written, title II eliminates some critically required accountability.

Nor is retroactive immunity necessary. Congress has already ensured the future cooperation of the telecommunications providers with the intelligence community in the Protect America Act adopted last August. That act authorizes the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence to direct telecommunications providers to disclose certain information and provides prospective immunity to telecommunications providers that cooperate with such directives.

Title I of the bill before us appropriately continues to provide prospective immunity to telecommunications providers. Title I states:

Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie

in any court against any electronic communication service

provider for providing any information, facilities, or

assistance in accordance with a directive issued by the

Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence

pursuant to the act.

In light of the prospective immunity in title I, which is appropriately in this bill, the retroactive immunity of title II is not necessary to ensure the future cooperation of telecommunications providers that receive legitimate requests for information from the intelligence community.

The argument has been made that we must provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications providers to ensure the cases against them are immediately dismissed because if the cases are permitted to proceed, vital national security information will be disclosed. But the courts have numerous tools at their disposal to protect such information and have successfully used these tools throughout our history. They can review evidence in a classified setting; they can redact documents; they can even dismiss a case for national security reasons if they deem it necessary to do so.

Some have even taken the position that the mere existence of this litigation, even without the disclosure of any information, will somehow help the terrorists. But the President has already disclosed the existence of the collection program at issue. It has been discussed in Congress and in the press. The Director of National Intelligence has publicly discussed the program.

There is a way to properly immunize from legal liability telecommunications providers that acted in good faith based on the assurances of appropriate administration officials. The way to do that is by substituting the United States for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in lawsuits based on the actions of those providers. That substitution would safeguard telecommunications providers from liability just as effectively as the retroactive immunity language in title II of the bill. But unlike the retroactive immunity language of title II, it would not leave persons who can prove they were victims of unlawful actions without a remedy.

We can ensure that any such innocent victims retain whatever legal rights they have under applicable law, except that the U.S. Government would be substituted for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in such lawsuits. And it is appropriate that the Government be liable rather than the telecommunications providers, since the disclosures were allegedly made by the providers in these cases at the request of senior executive branch officials based on appeals to help safeguard U.S. security and assurances that the providers would be protected from liability regardless of the requirements of law.

We had a number of opportunities to provide equity both to the telecommunications providers and to any injured citizens.

We had the opportunity to adopt the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would have struck title II from the bill, allowing us to adopt a new approach that protects both the equities of telecommunications providers that acted in good faith and those of people who were allegedly injured by their illegal actions.

We had the opportunity to adopt the Specter-Whitehouse substitution amendment, which would have fully protected telecommunications providers, without depriving American citizens who were harmed by unlawful collection of their personal information of a legal remedy. It did so by substituting the United States for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in lawsuits based on the actions of those providers. That substitution would safeguard telecommunications providers from liability just as effectively as the retroactive immunity language in title II of the bill.

And we had the opportunity to adopt the Feinstein

amendment, which would have limited immunity to those

telecommunications providers that are found by a court to

have acted in reasonable, good-faith reliance on assurances

from executive branch officials.

The adoption of these amendments would have made a significant improvement to the bill. With their rejection, I cannot support this bill despite my support for title I, which again, appropriately, authorizes the collection of intelligence. But it is my hope that a bill comes from conference with the House of Representatives that includes appropriate changes to eliminate unfair, unwise, and unnecessary retroactive immunity provisions.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, one of the amendments before us is the Specter-Whitehouse amendment to title II of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007. I urge our colleagues to support the Specter-Whitehouse amendment for the following reasons:

Title II of the bill, as currently written, provides retroactive immunity for telecommunications providers who disclosed communications and other confidential information about their customers at the behest of administration officials. These provisions in the bill before the Senate require the immediate dismissal of any lawsuit against a telecommunications provider based on such disclosure if the Attorney General certifies that an appropriate Government official indicated in writing to the provider that the activity was, one, authorized by the President, and, two, determined to be lawful. It is the words ``determined to be lawful'' that create the problem. Determined by whom?

The way the bill is written, a determination of the Department of Justice or intelligence community officials is sufficient to ensure immunity even if the courts would conclude that the activity was illegal. Dismissal would be

required even if a court would conclude that the disclosure violated the constitutional rights of individuals whose personal information was illegally disclosed. It would be required even if innocent American citizens were damaged by the disclosure or by the compromise of confidential personal information.

The provision in the bill before us granting retroactive immunity is not necessary, it is not wise, and it is not fair. Retroactive immunity is not necessary to ensure the future cooperation of the telecommunications providers who receive legitimate requests for information from the intelligence community. In fact, Congress has already ensured such cooperation in the Protect America Act adopted last August which authorizes the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence to direct telecommunications providers to disclose certain information, and that law provides prospective immunity to telecommunications who cooperate with such directives.

Title I of the bill before us appropriately continues to provide prospective immunity to telecommunications providers. Title I states:

Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie

in any court against any electronic communication service

provider for providing any information, facilities, or

assistance in accordance with a directive issued by the

Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence

pursuant to the act.

In light of this prospective immunity, which is appropriately in the bill, retroactive immunity is not necessary to ensure the future cooperation of telecommunications providers with legitimate requests for information from the intelligence community.

A retroactive immunity is not wise either because it precludes any judicial review of these important issues. If private parties engaged in illegal activities at the request of senior executive branch officials, that may be an appropriate mitigating factor to be considered in the courts. But to simply grant immunity retroactively may encourage others to engage in illegal activities in the future. That is a bad precedent because it should never be an excuse in a free society that you acted illegally because Government officials asked you to do so.

That leaves the question of equity for telecommunications providers who may have cooperated with administration officials in good faith with the assurance that such cooperation was legal and that they were helping to safeguard our national security.

If one had to choose between a known equitable interest of the telecommunications providers who was prevailed upon in the aftermath of 9/11 to assist the Government by disclosing private customer communications without first conforming with the clear requirement of the FISA law for a warrant approved by the FISA Court before doing so, if--if--one had to choose between that equitable interest and the perhaps uncertain claims of plaintiffs whose conversations may have been eavesdropped upon without their knowledge and with little, if any, provable damage, one might reach the conclusion that retroactive immunity was an appropriate remedy for the telephone companies.

But we do not have to make that choice. We can recognize both the equitable interest of the companies and the possible claims of our citizens, and we can also avoid the terrible precedent of giving retroactive immunity to law violators. We can do that by adopting the Specter-Whitehouse amendment.

How can we protect the telecommunications providers from legal liability if they acted in good faith at the request of the administration without taking the extraordinary step of retroactively eliminating any remedy for possible violations of the Constitution and the laws of the United States? The Specter-Whitehouse amendment before us would accomplish that by immunizing telecommunications providers who acted in good faith based on the assurances of appropriate administration officials from legal liability and at the same time substituting the United States for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in lawsuits based on the actions of those providers. That substitution would safeguard telecommunications providers from liability just as effectively as the retroactive immunity language in title II of the bill.

But unlike the retroactive immunity language of title II the Specter- Whitehouse amendment would not leave persons who can prove they were victims of unlawful or unconstitutional actions without a remedy. On the contrary, the Specter-Whitehouse amendment would ensure that any such innocent victims retain whatever legal rights they have under applicable law, except that the U.S. Government would be substituted for the telecommunications providers as the defendant in such lawsuits. And it is appropriate that the Government be liable rather than the telecommunications providers since the disclosures were allegedly made by the providers in these cases at the request of senior executive branch officials based on appeals to help safeguard U.S. security and assurances that the providers would be protected from liability regardless of the requirements of law.

The argument has been made that we must provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications providers to ensure the cases against them are immediately dismissed because if the cases are permitted to proceed, vital national security information will be disclosed. Some have even taken the position that the mere existence of this litigation, even without the disclosure of any information, will somehow help the terrorists. But the President has already disclosed the existence of the collection program at issue. It has been discussed in Congress and in the press. The Director of National Intelligence has publicly discussed the program.

Nor will the continuation into the future of cases against telecommunications providers or the U.S. Government, should the Government be substituted as the Specter-Whitehouse amendment would provide as a defendant, that would not make public sensitive collection methods. That is because the courts have numerous tools at their disposal to safeguard sensitive classified information from disclosure during the course of a trial and courts have used these tools throughout our history. Federal courts utilize these tools without compromising the national security when our Government chooses to prosecute terrorists or spies.

Indeed, the recently enacted Military Commissions Act provides the same tools for the protection of classified information in cases brought against alleged terrorists in the military justice system. U.S. citizens who are allegedly damaged at the Government's behest surely should be given as much protection as alleged terrorists.

The administration's willingness to utilize these procedures to safeguard sensitive classified information in the prosecution of alleged terrorists, but not in suits brought for the protection of the rights of American citizens, gives the appearance that retroactive immunity is being sought under this bill as it now stands, not to protect classified information but, rather, to protect the administration itself.

The bottom line is we can protect telecommunications providers from liability for unlawful or unconstitutional disclosures made in good faith reliance on written assurances by high-ranking executive branch officials without retroactively depriving alleged victims of such disclosures of any remedy, if they can demonstrate they have been damaged by illegal practices. The Specter-Whitehouse amendment would enable us to deal fairly with both telecommunications providers and with persons who can prove they were damaged by illegal disclosures of their personal information. I urge our colleagues to support the Specter-Whitehouse amendment as the fair way of protecting both telecommunications providers but also protecting what should be a very basic principle of our Constitution--you cannot and should not needlessly remove a remedy from people who have been injured. To do that retroactively runs contrary to everything we believe in this Constitution about the rights of American citizens to be protected and to have remedies when they are wronged.

amendment no. 3941