Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 3221, the Housing reform legislation.

Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I express my gratitude to all the Members of this body. We began proceedings on the motion to invoke cloture earlier today, which passed by a vote of 83 to 9, another overwhelming vote in support of moving to the housing bill.

Regretfully, we were not able to deal with many amendments today because there was at least one objection to proceeding to the matter, pending the outcome of an extraneous matter that had little, if anything, to do with housing, regretfully--despite the strong bipartisan vote this morning--once again demonstrating that in this body one Senator can disrupt the efforts to achieve a larger result. Certainly, that is the Senator's right, and nothing was done illegally or unlawfully. It just dramatizes the difficulty in achieving even something as important as the housing legislation we are working on.

I would be remiss if I didn't observe that the Senator from Ohio, the occupant of the chair, is a worthwhile member of that committee. I am grateful to him and the other members of the committee for their work over the last year and a half since the majority began that work. We have had some 50 hearings on that committee. We adopted some 17 or 18 pieces of legislation out of the committee--maybe more--more than half of which have become the law of the land. A number of others, of course, have passed the Senate, or passed on out of committee, and we have not been able to resolve all of them.

No matter is as significant and as important as the housing reform legislation--to stop the hemorrhaging that is occurring, with more than 8,400 people a day filing for foreclosure in our country. People find those numbers alarming, and it is intended to be so, because it is large. Our efforts here are to try to keep people in their homes, and finding a floor, if we can, to this housing problem that continues to cascade downward will be a challenge for all of us.

Our legislation takes a major step in the direction of dealing with that, along with the reform of the government-sponsored enterprises and, of course, the permanent affordable housing program, not to mention the efforts we have made in community development block grants, counseling services, mortgage revenue bonds, and tax relief for those who wish to acquire a foreclosed property--all part of a larger piece of legislation to deal with the housing crisis. I am hopeful and confident we will get to it. It will take a little bit longer as a result of the objections some are raising.

This evening I rise to talk about another matter, which will be the subject of a debate, whether it is in the next few days or weeks. It is a subject matter which I care deeply and passionately about. It involves the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States, and the very basic principle that we are a nation of laws, not men; that even those in the most lofty of positions in our Government are not above the law; that individuals, corporations, and companies have an obligation to respect that law, and those of us charged with guarding it in an institution such as the Senate have an obligation to defend it and to remind ourselves and the country when there are efforts to undermine that rule of law.

As I did in December of last year, when the matter first came up, and again in February, when the effort came back to the Senate to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and particularly to grant retroactive immunity to a handful of telecom companies, which, over the past number of years, have gathered up information and private information of individual citizens in this country, which may have been the single largest breach or personal invasion in the history of our country, the issue of whether that was done legally ought to be determined by the courts of our country.

The bill that will come before us grants retroactive immunity without ever considering what happened, how it happened, who was responsible, why it was done, and why was no effort made to go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts--the FISA courts--which have been in existence since the 1970s. All of those are important questions the American people deserve an answer to. Was the rule of law violated? Were there individuals who insisted that this invasion of privacy occur in this country? I don't think it is asking too much to want to get to the bottom of that. Americans, regardless of ideology or party persuasion, ought to be jointly offended when there is an effort here to grant retroactive immunity without determining what happened and why these events were allowed to go forward.

This evening I am going to take the time allowed to me under the rules of the Senate because we are in a postcloture environment. I am limited to the amount of time I am permitted to talk under the rules of the Senate. But I can do this because of the generosity of Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, and the willingness of the majority leader, to give me the maximum time allowed to talk about this FISA bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I will speak about why I am so deeply concerned about it, and what I think the precedent-setting nature of this could mean for our country.

There are moments such as this when we are asked to do something because, we are told, if we don't, we will jeopardize our Nation. During such times, we have historically made some of the worst mistakes in our history. One only needs to go back to the period of World War II when, because of the fears people had, we incarcerated a lot of very good Americans of Japanese descent, because those who engaged in the fear mongering were able to convince even the Supreme Court of the United States--a majority--to allow for the virtual incarceration of literally thousands of human beings. We know now, today, what a great mistake that was, and how courageous it was that people like Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court Justice, a former Attorney General under Franklin Roosevelt, a solicitor general, chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, one of the sole voices on the Court who objected to that effort to require these American citizens to be deprived of their homes, personal belongings, and the virtual incarceration in camps in the western part of the country. Today, we know what a mistake that was. But because we acted out of fear, we made a dreadful error.

My concern about this FISA bill, while not of that magnitude at this

point, is that we are about to make another great error because of fear, because we fail to understand that balancing legitimate interests of our security and our rights ought not to be compromised. That is what the FISA courts were created to do--to balance rights and fears over legitimate concerns about our security being jeopardized.

So I rise once again to voice my strong opposition to the misguided FISA legislation before us, as it will come in the next day or so. I have strong reservations about the so-called improvements made to title I of the legislation. But more than that, this legislation includes provisions that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that apparently have violated the privacy and the trust of millions of our fellow citizens by participating in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. If we pass this legislation, the Senate will ratify a domestic spying regime that has already concentrated far too much unaccountable power in the President's hands and will place the telecommunications companies above the law.

I am here this evening to implore my colleagues to vote against cloture when that vote occurs, as it will sometime in the next 24 to 48 hours.

Let me make it clear at the outset of the debate that this is not about domestic surveillance itself. We all recognize, here and elsewhere, the importance of domestic surveillance in an age of unprecedented threats. This is about illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance. The difference between surveillance that is lawful, warranted, and that which is not, is everything.

I had hoped I would not have to return to this floor again under these circumstances. I hoped, in truth, that in these negotiations that went on over the past number of weeks and months we would have been able to turn aside retroactive immunity on the grounds that it is bad policy and sets a terrible precedent.

As all of my colleagues know, I have long fought against retroactive immunity, because I believe it is simply an abandonment of the rule of law. I have fought this with everything I have in me, and I have not waged this fight alone.

In December, I opposed retroactive immunity on the floor of this body. I spent 10 hours on this floor then. In January and February, I came to the floor time and time again to discuss the dangers of granting retroactive immunity, along with my colleague and friend, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has shown remarkable leadership on this issue. I offered an amendment that would have stripped retroactive immunity from the Senate bill. Unfortunately, our amendment failed and, to my extreme disappointment, the Senate adopted the underlying bill.

Since passage of the Senate bill, there have been extensive negotiations on how to move forward. Today we are being asked to pass the so-called compromise that was reached by some of our colleagues and approved by the other body, the House of Representatives.

I am here this evening to say I will not and can not support this legislation. This legislation goes against everything I have stood for--everything this body ought to stand for, in my view.

There is no question some improvements have been made over the previous versions of this legislation. Title I, which regulates the ability of Government to conduct electronic surveillance, has been improved, albeit modestly. I congratulate those who were involved with it. I say, very quickly, that it is my hope a new Congress and a new President will work together to fix the problems with title I should the Senate adopt this new legislation.

But in no way is this compromise acceptable. This legislation before us purports to give the courts more of a role in determining the legality of the telecommunications companies' actions. But in my view the title II provisions do little more than ensure without a doubt that the telecommunications companies will be granted retroactive immunity.

Allow me to quote the Senate Intelligence Committee report on this matter. It reads as follows:

[B]eginning soon after September 11, 2001, the Executive

branch provided written requests or directives to U.S.

electronic communications service providers to obtain their

assistance with communications intelligence activities that

had been authorized by the President.

. . . The letters were provided to electronic

communication service providers at regular intervals. All of

the letters stated that the activities had been authorized by

the President. All of the letters also stated that the

activities had been determined to be lawful by the Attorney

General [of the United States], except for one letter that

covered a period of less than 60 days. That letter, which

like all the others, stated that the activities had been

authorized by the President, stated that the activities had

been determined to be lawful by the Counsel to the President.

This is all from the Intelligence Committee report.

Under the legislation before us, the district court would simply decide whether the telecommunication companies received documentation stating the President authorized the program and that there had been some sort of determination it was legal. But as the Intelligence Committee has already made clear, we already know this happened. We already know the companies received some form of documentation with some sort of legal determination.

But that is not the question. The question is not whether these companies received a document from the White House. The question is, Were their actions legal? Were they above the law or not?

It is a rather straightforward, surprisingly uncomplicated question. The documentation exists. Was it legal or not? Either the companies were presented with a warrant or they were not. Either the companies and the President acted outside the rule of law or they followed it. Either the underlying program was legal or it was not--not a complicated question. Was it legal or wasn't it?

The suggestion that they had documentation is then supposed to be a justification for the legality of it is not for us to decide. That is a matter for the courts, the coequal branch of Government called the judiciary. We are asked to determine that this was legal because documents were sent, not because some adjudication as to whether there had been a legal basis for these documents. Yet we are told that with the adoption of this legislation, accept it as a conclusion and move on. I don't believe we ought to do that. I believe it is a mistake and a mistake of significance.

Because of this legislation, none of the questions will be answered. Because of the so-called compromise, the judge's hands will be tied and the outcome of these cases will be predetermined by our votes. Because of this so-called compromise, retroactive immunity will be granted and, as they say, that will be that. Case closed.

No court will rule on the legality of the telecommunications companies' activities in participating in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. None of our fellow Americans will have their day in court. What they will have is a Government that has sanctioned lawlessness, at least as far as we know.

I refuse to accept that argument. I refuse to accept the argument that because the situation is too delicate, too complicated, this body is simply going to go ahead while sanctioning lawlessness. I think we can do better than that. I think we have an obligation to do better than that.

If I have needed any reminder of that fact, simply look to those who have joined this fight--my colleagues and the many Americans who have given me an awful lot of support and strength for this fight, strength that comes from the passion and eloquence of citizens who don't have to be involved but choose to be involved.

They see what I see in this debate--that by short-circuiting the judicial process, we are sending a dangerous signal to future generations. They see us as establishing a precedent that Congress can and will provide immunity to potential lawbreakers if they are important enough.

Some may be asking: Why is retroactive immunity too dangerous? What is the issue? Why should you care at all? Allow me to explain by providing, if I can, a bit of context. I remind my colleagues what I said about the bill months ago because the argument against providing retroactive immunity remains unchanged. Nothing has changed since last December, January or February.

Unwarranted domestic spying did not happen in a panic or short-term emergency, not for a week, a month or even for a year. If it had, quite candidly, I would not be standing here this evening. I understand, in the wake of 9/11, there were actions taken because of the legitimate fears we had, given the circumstances of that attack, that some actions such as this for a week, a month, a year, I think I would have accepted as normal, understandable behavior as a government overreacting in haste and in the emotions of the moment. But that is not the case. We now know this spying by the administration went on relentlessly for more than 5 years.

I might not be here as well if it had been the first offense of a new administration. Maybe not if it had been the second or third. Again, understanding mistakes can be made. No one is perfect. Again, in the haste of the moment, the emotions, these things can happen. But that is not the case either.

Indeed, I am here tonight because with one offense after another after another, I believe it is long past time to say enough is enough. I am here this evening because of a pattern--a pattern of abuse against civil liberties and the rule of law, against the Constitution of the United States, of which we are custodians, temporary though that status may be.

I would add that had these abuses been committed by a President of my own party, I would have opposed them as strongly as I am this evening. I am here this evening because warrantless wiretapping is merely the latest link in a long chain of abuses.

So why are we here? Because it is alleged that giant telecom corporations worked with our Government to compile Americans' private, domestic communications records into a database of enormous scale and scope.

Secretly, and without warrant, these corporations are alleged to have spied on their own customers, the American people. Here is only one of the most egregious examples, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Clear, first-hand whistleblower documentary evidence

[states] . . . that for year on end, every e-mail, every text

message, every phone call carried over the massive fiber-

optic links of 16 separate companies routed through AT&T's

Internet hub in San Francisco--hundreds of millions of

private, domestic communications--have been . . . copied in

their entirety by AT&T and knowingly diverted wholesale by

means of multiple ``splitters'' into a secret room controlled

exclusively by the NSA.

The phone calls and the Internet traffic of millions of Americans diverted into a secret room controlled by the National Security Agency. That allegation still needs to be proven in a court of law. But it clearly needs to be determined in a court of law and not by a vote in the Senate.

I suppose if you only see cables and computers there, the whole thing seems almost harmless, certainly nothing to get worked up about; one might say a routine security sweep and a routine piece of legislation blessing it.

If that is all you imagine happened in the NSA secret room, I imagine you will vote for immunity. I imagine you would not see much harm in voting to allow the practice to continue either.

But if you see a vast dragnet for millions of Americans' private conversations conducted by a government agency that acted without a warrant, acted without the rule of law, then I believe you recognize what is at stake. You see that what is at stake is the sanctity of the law and the sanctity of our privacy. And you will probably come to a very different conclusion.

Maybe that sounds overdramatic to some. Perhaps they will ask: What does it matter at the end of the day if a few corporations are not sued? These people sue each other all the time.

Others may say: This seems a small issue. Maybe the administration went too far, but this seems like an isolated case.

Indeed, as long as this case seems isolated and technical, then those who are supporting this will win. As long as it appears to be about another lawsuit buried in our legal system and nothing more, then they will win as well. The administration is counting on the American people to see nothing bigger than that--nothing to see here.

But there is plenty to see here, and it is so much more than a few phone calls, a few companies, and a few lawsuits. What is at stake is nothing less than equal justice--justice that makes no exceptions. What is at stake is an open debate on security and liberty and an end to warrantless, groundless spying.

The bill does not say trust the American people, trust the courts and judges and juries to come to a just decision. Retroactive immunity sends a message that is crystal clear: Trust me. And that message comes straight from the mouth of an American President: Trust me.

What is the basis of that trust? Classified documents, we are told, that prove the case for retroactive immunity beyond a shadow of a doubt. But we are not allowed to see them, of course. I have served in this body for 27 years, and I am not allowed to see them. Neither are a majority of my colleagues. We are all left in the dark.

I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I would never take the ``trust me'' for an answer, not even in the best of times, not even from a President on Mount Rushmore. I cannot put it better than this:

``Trust me'' government is government that asks that we

concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust

him to do what's best for us. My view of government places

trust not in one person or one party, but in those values

that transcend persons and parties.

Those words are not spoken by someone who took our national security lightly. They were spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1980. They are every bit as true today. President Reagan's words--let me repeat them:

``Trust me'' government is government that asks that we

concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust

him to do what is best for us. My view of government places

trust not in one person or one party, but in those values

that transcend persons and parties.

Those words of Ronald Reagan, 28 years ago, were right and those words are right today in the year 2008. They are every bit as true today, even if times of threat and fear blur our concept of transcendent values, even if those who would exploit those times urge us to save our skins at any cost.

But again, why should any of us care, I suppose. The rule of law has rarely been in such a fragile state. Rarely has it seemed less compelling. What, after all, does the law give us, anyway? It has no parades, no slogans. It does not live in books or precedents. We are never failed to be reminded the world is a very dangerous place.

Indeed, that is precisely the advantage seized upon, not just by this administration but in all times, by those looking to disregard the rule of law. Listen to the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution, words that he said more than two centuries ago:

It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is

to be charged to the provisions against danger . . . from

abroad.

With the passage of this bill, the words of James Madison will be one step closer to coming true. So it has never been more essential that we lend our voices to the law and speak on its behalf.

What is this about? It is about answering the fundamental question: Do we support the rule of law or the rule of men? To me, this is our defining question as a nation and may be the defining question that confronts every generation, as it has throughout our history.

This is about far more than a few telecoms. It is about contempt for the law, large and small.

I have said that warrantless wiretapping is but the latest link in a long chain of abuses when it comes to the rule of law. This is about the Justice Department turning our Nation's highest law enforcement offices into patronage plums, turning the impartial work of indictments and trials into the pernicious machinations of politics. Contempt for the rule of law once again.

This is about Alberto Gonzales, the Nation's now-departed Attorney General, coming before Congress to give us testimony that was, at best wrong and at worst, outright perjury. Contempt for the rule of law by the Nation's foremost enforcer of the law.

This is about a Congress handing the President the power to designate any individual he wants as an unlawful enemy combatant, hold that individual indefinitely, take away his or her right to habeas corpus, the 700-year-old right to challenge anyone's detention.

If you think the Military Commissions Act struck at the heart of the Constitution, you would be understating this. It did a pretty good job on the Magna Carta while it was at it.

If you think this only threatens a few of us, you should understand that the writ of habeas corpus belongs to all of us. It allows anyone to challenge their detention.

Rolling back habeas corpus endangers us all. Without a day in court, how can you prove you are entitled to a trial? How can you prove you are innocent? In fact, without a day in court, how can you let anyone know you have been detained at all?

Thankfully, and to their great credit, the Supreme Court recently rebuked the President's lawlessness and ruled that detainees do have the right to challenge their detention.

Mr. President, the Military Commissions Act also gave President Bush the power some say he wanted most of all: the power to get information out of suspected terrorists by virtually any means, the power to use evidence gained from torture.

I don't think you could hold the rule of law in any greater contempt than sanctioning torture. Because of decisions made by the highest levels of our Government, America is making itself known to the world, unfortunately, for torture, with stories like this one:

A prisoner at Guantanamo--to take one example out of hundreds--was deprived of sleep for over 55 days, a month and 3 weeks. Some nights, he was doused with water or blasted with air-conditioning. After week after week of this delirious, shivering wakefulness, on the verge of death from hypothermia, doctors strapped him to a chair--doctors, healers who took the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm--pumped him full of three bags of medical saline, brought him back from death, and sent him back to his interrogators.

To the generation coming of age around the world in this decade, that is America--not Normandy, not the Marshall Plan, not Nuremberg, but Guantanamo. Think about it.

We have legal analysts so vaguely defining torture, so willfully blurring the lines during interrogations that we have CIA counterterrorism lawyers saying things like, ``If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong.'' We have the CIA destroying tapes containing the evidence of harsh interrogations--about the administration covering its tracks in a way more suited to a banana republic than to the home of great freedoms. We have an administration actually defending waterboarding, a technique invented by the Spanish Inquisition, perfected by the Khmer Rouge, and in between originally banned for excessive brutality--listen to this--by the Gestapo.

Still, some way waterboarding is not torture. Oh, really? Listen to the words of Malcolm Nance, a 26-year-old expert in intelligence and counterterrorism, a combat veteran, and former chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School. While training American soldiers to resist interrogation, he writes:

I have personally led, witnessed, and supervised

waterboarding of hundreds of people. Unless you have been

strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing

feeling of water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel

your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to

involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning

of the word. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are

actually filling with water. The victim is drowning. How much

the victim is to drown depends on the desired result and the

obstinacy of the subject. Waterboarding is slow motion

suffocation. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the

board. When done right it is controlled death.

That is from a soldier, a combat veteran, testifying about what waterboarding was about--controlled death. That is not torture? Not according to President Bush's White House. They have said waterboarding is legal and that if it chooses, America will waterboard again.

Surely, then, our new Attorney General would condemn torture. Surely the Nation's highest law enforcement officer in the land, coming after Alberto Gonzales's chaotic tenure, would never come before the Congress and defend the President's power to openly break the law. Well, think again.

When he came to the Senate for his confirmation, Michael Mukasey was asked a simple question, bluntly and plainly: Is waterboarding constitutional? He replied: ``If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.''

One would hope for a little more insight from someone so famously well versed in national security law, but Mr. Mukasey pressed on with the obstinacy of a witness pleading the fifth: ``If it's torture, if it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,'' he said. And that is the best this noted jurist, this legal scholar, longtime judge, an expert on national security law had to offer on the defining moral issue of this Presidency. Claims of ignorance. Word games.

Now-Attorney General Mukasey was asked the easiest question we have in a democracy: Can the President of the United States openly break the law? Can he, as we know he has already done, order warrantless wiretapping, ignore the will of Congress, and then hide behind nebulous powers he claims to find in the Constitution? The response of the nominee to become Attorney General: The President has ``the authority to defend the country.'' In one swoop, the Attorney General conceded to the President nearly unlimited power, just as long as he finds a lawyer willing to stuff his actions into the boundless rubric of ``defending the country''--unlimited power to defend the Nation, to protect us as one man sees fit, even if that means listening to our phone calls without a warrant, even if it means holding some of us indefinitely. That is contempt for the rule of law.

So this is very much about torture--about enhanced interrogation measures and waterboarding. It is also about extraordinary rendition-- outsourced torture of men this administration would prefer we didn't even know exist.

But now we do know. One was a Syrian immigrant raising his family in Canada. He wrote computer code for a company called MathWorks and was planning to start his own tech business. On a trip through New York's JFK Airport, he was arrested by U.S. federal agents. They shackled him and bundled him onto a private CIA plane and flew him across the Atlantic Ocean to Syria. This man spent the next 10 months and 10 days in a Syrian prison. His cell was 3 feet wide--the size of a grave. Some 300 days passed alone in that cell, with a bowl for his toilet, another bowl for his water, and the door only opened so he could wash himself once a week--though it may have been more or less because the cell was dark and he lost all track of time. The door only opened for one reason: for interrogators who asked him again and again and again about al-Qaida.

Here is how it was described:

The interrogator said, ``Do you know what this is?'' I

said, ``Yes, it's a cable,'' and he told me, ``Open your

right hand.'' I opened my right hand, and he hit me like

crazy. It was so painful, and of course I started crying, and

then he told me to open my left hand, and I opened it, and he

missed, then hit my wrist. And then he asked me questions. If

he does not think you are telling the truth, then he hits you

again.

The jail and the torturers were Syrian, but America sent this man there with full knowledge of what would happen to him because it was part of a longstanding secret program of ``extraordinary rendition,'' as it is called. America was convinced that he was a terrorist and wanted the truth beaten out of him.

No charges were ever filed against him. His adopted nation's government, Canada, one of our strongest NATO allies, cleared him of all wrongdoing after a year-long official investigation and awarded him more than $10 million in government compensation for his immense pain and suffering--but not before he was tortured 10 months, 10 days in a 3-foot by 3-foot cell the size of a grave. Does his torture make us safer? Did his suffering improve our security? Of course not.

I would note that our own Government has shamefully refused to even acknowledge that his case exists.

We know about a German citizen as well, living in the city of Ulm with his wife and four children. On a bus trip through Eastern Europe, he was pulled off at a border crossing by armed guards and held for 3 weeks in a hotel room, where he was beaten regularly. At the end of 3 weeks, he was drugged and shipped on a cargo plane to Kabul, Afghanistan. For 5 months, he was held in the Salt Pit--a secret American prison staffed by Afghan guards. All he had to drink was stagnant water from a filthy bottle. Again and again,

masked men interrogated him about al-Qaida, and finally, he says, they raped him. He was released in May of 2004. Scientific testing confirmed his story of malnourishment, and the Chancellor of Germany publicly acknowledge he was wrongly held. What was his crime? Having the same name as a suspected terrorist.

Again, our own Government has shamefully refused to even acknowledge that this case exists.

So we do know, Mr. President. We know because there aren't enough words in the world to cover all the facts.

If you would like to define torture out of existence, be my guest. If you would rather use a Washington euphemism--``tough questioning,'' ``enhanced interrogation''--feel free. Feel free to talk about fraternity hazing, as Rush Limbaugh did, or to use a favorite term of Vice President Cheney's, ``a dunk in the water.'' You can call it whatever you like. But when you are through, the facts will be waiting for you: controlled death, outsourced torture, secret prisons, month- long sleep deprivations, the President's personal power to hold whomever he likes for as long as he likes. It is as if you had awakened in the middle of some Kafka-esque nightmare.

Have I gone wildly off topic, Mr. President? Have I brought up a dozen unrelated issues? I wish I had. I wish that none of these stories were true. But we are deceiving ourselves when we talk about the U.S. attorneys issue, the habeas issue, the torture issue, the rendition issue, or the secrecy issue as if each were an isolated case, as if each were an accident. When we speak of them as isolated, we are keeping our politics cripplingly small. And as long as we keep this small, the rule of men is winning.

There is only one issue here; that is, the rule of law, the law issue. Does the President of the United States serve the law or does the law serve the President? Each insult to our Constitution comes from the same source. Each springs from the same mindset. If we attack this concept for the law at any point, we will wound it at all points.

That is why I am here this evening, Mr. President. Retroactive immunity is on the table for discussion over these next several days, but also at issue is the entire ideology that justifies it, the same ideology that defends torture and executive lawlessness. Immunity is a disgrace in itself, but it is far worse in what it represents. It tells us that some believe in the courts only so long as their verdict goes their way; that some only believe in the rule of law so long as exceptions are made at their desire. It puts secrecy above sunshine and fiat above the law.

Did the telecoms break the law? I don't know. I can't say so. But pass immunity, and we will never know. A handful of favored corporations will remain unchallenged. Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The truth behind this unprecedented domestic spying will never see the light of day, and the cases will be closed forever.

``Law'' is a word we barely hear from the supporters of immunity. They offer neither deliberation about America's difficult choices in the age of terrorism nor a shared attempt to set for our times the excruciating balance between security and liberty. They merely promise a false debate on a false choice: security or liberty but never, ever both.

I think differently, and I believe some of my colleagues do as well. I think America's founding truth is unambiguous: security and liberty, one and inseparable and never one without the other, no matter how difficult the situation, no matter what threats we face. Secure in that truth, I offer a challenge to immunity supporters: You want to put a handful of corporations above the law. Could you please explain how your immunity makes any one of us any safer at all?

The truth is that a working balance between security and liberty has already been struck. In fact, it has been settled for decades--for 30 years, in fact. FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has prevented executive lawbreaking and protected Americans, and that balance stands today.

In the wake of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, the Senate convened the Church Committee, a panel of distinguished former Members of this body determined to investigate executive abuses of power. Not surprisingly, they found that when Congress and the courts substitute ``trust me'' ideas for real oversight, massive lawbreaking can result. The Church Committee found evidence of the U.S. Army spying on the civilian population, Federal dossiers on citizens' political activities, a CIA and FBI program that opened hundreds of thousands of Americans' letters without warning or warrant. In sum, Americans had sustained a severe blow to their fourth amendment rights ``to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' At the same time, the Senators of the Church Committee understood surveillance was needed to go forward to protect our people.

Surveillance itself is not the problem. Unchecked, unregulated, unwarranted surveillance was. What surveillance needed, in a word, was legitimacy. And in America, the Founders understood power becomes legitimate when it is shared. Congress and the courts check that attitude which so often crops up in the executive branch--``if the President does it, it is not illegal.''

The Church Committee's final report, ``Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans,'' put the case very powerfully indeed.

The critical question before the committee was to determine

how the fundamental liberties of our people can be maintained

in the course of the government's efforts to also protect our

people. The delicate balance between these basic goals, two

absolutely essential goals of our system of government, is

often difficult to strike, and it is never perfect, but it

can, and must, be achieved.

A sense of balance between liberty and security, security and liberty.

We reject the view that the traditional principles of

justice and fair play have no place in our struggle against

the enemies of freedom. Moreover, our investigation has

established that the targets of intelligence activity have

ranged far beyond persons who could properly be characterized

as enemies of freedom.

The Church Committee went on:

We have seen segments of our government, in their attitudes

and actions, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy, and

occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian

regimes. We have seen a consistent pattern in which programs

initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal

violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what

witnesses characterized as ``vacuum cleaners,'' sweeping in

information about lawful activities of American citizens.

The Church committee Senators concluded:

Unless new and tighter controls are established by

legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to

undermine our domestic society and fundamentally alter its

nature.

What a strange echo from three decades ago we hear in those words. They could have been written yesterday; could have been written tonight.

Three decades ago, our predecessors in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats, responding to an abuse of power, crafted a wonderfully balanced idea between security and liberty. They did it in this very Chamber, coming together. They understood that when domestic spying goes too far it threatens to kill just what it promises to protect--an America secure in her liberty. That lesson was crystal clear 30 years ago. Why is it so clouded today?

Before we entertain the argument that everything has changed since those words were written, remember: The men who wrote them had witnessed a World War, the Cold War, had seen Nazi and Soviet spying, and they were living every day under the cloud of a nuclear holocaust. It was indeed a dangerous time. Certainly, the argument that we have to take extraordinary measures to protect ourselves against those who would do us great injury--those were not easy times. Yet those Republicans and Democrats, our predecessors in this Chamber, struck that balance and reminded us that our security was important, but it needed to be tempered and understood in the context of our freedoms and our liberties.

So I ask this: Who will chair the commission investigating the secrets of warrantless spying years from today? Will it be a young Senator in the body today who maybe has just joined us in the last 2 years? Will it be someone not yet elected? What will that Senator say when he or she comes

to our actions, maybe three decades from now, as I just quoted from a report 30 years ago, which is so wonderfully written and captures exactly the essence of what I am arguing for this evening? What will that Senator say when he or she reads about the actions of a Senate here--reads in the records how we let outrage after outrage slide with nothing more than a promise to stop the next one? I imagine that Senator will ask of us: Why didn't they do anything? Why didn't they fight back? What happened between the 1970s and the year 2008, that two Senates in 30 years time could go from standing up for the rule of law and liberty in the face of executive abuses--what happened to that Congress that decided 30 years later that they would do just the opposite; in fact, retreat from that fight?

In June of 2008, when no one could doubt any more what this administration was doing, why did they sit on their hands and do almost nothing? In fact, go further. Why did they grant immunity to companies that had engaged in warrantless wiretapping?

Since the time of the Church Commission, the threats facing us have multiplied and grown in complexity, but the lesson has been immutable: warrantless spying threatens to undermine our democratic society unless legislation brings it under control. In other words, the power to invade privacy must be used sparingly, guarded jealously, and shared equally between the branches of our Government.

Or the case could be made pragmatically. As my friend, Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, recently argued:

The engagement of all three branches tends to yield not

just more thoughtful law but a more broadly supported public

policy.

Three decades ago, our predecessors in this Chamber embodied that solution in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FISA law. FISA confirmed the President's power to conduct surveillance of international conversations involving anyone in the United States, provided that the Federal FISA Court issued warrants ensuring that wiretapping was aimed at safeguarding our security and nothing else. The President's own Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, explained the rationale in an interview last summer:

The United States did not want to allow [the intelligence

community] to conduct . . . electronic surveillance of

Americans for foreign intelligence unless you had a warrant,

so that was required.

As originally written in 1978 and as amended numerous times, I might add, FISA has accomplished its mission. It has been a valuable-- invaluable tool for conducting needed surveillance of those who would do us great harm and those who would harm our country. Every time Presidents have come to Congress openly to ask for more leeway under FISA, our Congresses have worked with them. Congress has negotiated, and together Congress and the executive branch have struck a balance that safeguards America while doing its utmost to protect our privacy.

Last summer, Congress made a technical correction to FISA enabling the President to wiretap without a warrant conversations between two foreign targets, even if those conversations are routed through American computers. For other reasons, I believed that this past summer's legislation went too far, and I opposed it. But the point is that Congress once again proved its willingness to work with the President on FISA.

Isn't that enough?

Just this past October and November, the Senate of the U.S. Intelligence and Judiciary Committees worked with the President to further refine FISA and ensure that, in a true emergency, the FISA Court would do nothing to slow down intelligence gathering.

Wasn't that enough?

And, as for the FISA Court, between 1978 and 2004, according to the Washington Post, the FISA Court approved--and listen to these numbers-- 18,748 warrants from 1978 to 2004--18,748 warrants. It rejected 5; 18,748 warrants were approved; 5 were rejected between 1978 and 2004. The FISA Court has sided with the executive branch 99.9 percent of the time. Wouldn't you think that would be enough? Is anything lacking? Have we forgotten something here? Isn't all of this enough to keep us safe? There were numerous amendments in 30 years to a piece of legislation to strike the balance between security and liberty.

Of course, we all know the answer we have received. This complex, finely tuned machinery, crafted over 3 decades by 3 branches of Government, 4 Presidents, and 12 Congresses, was ignored for 5 long years. It was totally ignored. It was a system primed to bless nearly any eavesdropping a President could conceive of, and spying still happened illegally--18,748 warrants approved from 1978 on; 5 were turned down. Yet this administration completely disregarded the FISA Court in seeking the warrantless wiretapping by the telecom industry.

If the shock of that decision has yet to sink in, think of it this way: President Bush ignored not just a Federal court but a secret Federal court; not just a secret Federal court but a secret Federal court prepared to sign off on his actions 99.9 percent of the time. A more compliant court has never been conceived. Yet still that wasn't good enough.

I ask my colleagues of this body candidly, and candidly it already knows the answer: Is this about security or is it about power? Why are some fighting so hard for retroactive immunity? The answer, I believe, is that immunity means secrecy, and secrecy means power. It is no coincidence that the man who proclaimed ``if the President does it, it is not illegal''--Richard Nixon--was the same man who raised executive secrecy to an art form. The Senators of the Church committee 30 years ago--bipartisan, by the way--expressed succinctly the deep flaw in the Nixonian executive: ``Abuse thrives on secrecy,'' they said, and in the exhaustive catalog of that report, they proved it.

In this push for immunity, secrecy, I believe, is at the center of it. We find proof in immunity's original version, a proposal to protect not just the telecoms, but everyone involved in the wiretapping program. Remember that in the original proposal of what is before us today, or will be before us, that is what they wanted to immunize-- themselves. The administration asked that everyone be immunized. To their credit, the Intelligence Committee rejected that request, but it ought to be instructive that the Bush administration requested total blanket immunity for everyone involved in that program.

What does that tell you about their intentions or their motivations? Think about it. It speaks to their fear and perhaps their guilt, their guilt that they have broken the law and their fear that in the years to come they would be found liable or convicted.

They knew better than anyone else what they had done. They must have had good reason to be concerned.

Thankfully, immunity for the Executive is not part of this bill, and, again, I congratulate the committee. But don't ever forget it was asked for. That will tell you something about motivations.

The original proposal tells us something very important, that this is and always has been a self preservation bill. Otherwise, why not have the trial and get it over with? If the proponents of retroactive immunity are right, that the documentation alone is all you need to prove legality, the corporations will win in a walk. After all, in the official telling, the telecoms were ordered in documents to help the President spy without a warrant, and they patriotically complied. We have even heard on this floor the comparison between the telecom corporations to the men and women laying their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But ignore comparison which, frankly, I find deeply offensive. Ignore for a moment the fact that in America we obey the laws, not the President's orders. Ignore that not even the President has the right to scare or bully you into breaking the law, though it seems that tactic has proven surprisingly fruitful. Ignore that the telecoms were not unanimous. One of them, Qwest, wanted to see the legal basis for the order, never received it, and so refused to comply. Not everyone decided that documentation alone was a legal justification for 5 years of vacuuming up the private information of American citizens.

Ignore that a judge presiding over the case ruled:

AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in

its position could have believed that the alleged domestic

dragnet was legal.

Ignore all of that: If the order the telecoms received was legally binding then they have a easy case to prove. The corporations only need to show a judge the authority and the assurances they were given and they will be in and out of court in 5 minutes. If the telecoms are as defensible as the President says, why doesn't the President let them defend themselves? If the case is so easy to make, why doesn't he let them make it?

It can't be that they are afraid of leaks. Our Federal court system has dealt for decades with the most delicate national security matters, building up an expertise in protecting classified information behind closed doors, ex parte and in camera. We can expect no less in these cases. No intelligence sources need be compromised. No state secrets need to be exposed. After litigation at both the district court and circuit court levels, no state secrets have been exposed.

In fact, Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker--a Republican appointee, I might point out; the quotes are from him--has already ruled that the issue can go to trial without putting state secrets in jeopardy. Walker reasonably pointed out--Ronald Reagan's appointee to the bench, I point out--the existence of the terrorist surveillance program is hardly a secret at all.

The Government has [already] disclosed the general contours

of the ``terrorist surveillance program,'' which requires the

assistance of a telecommunications provider.

As the state secrets privilege is invoked to stall these high-profile cases, it is useful to consider that privilege's history. In fact, the privilege was tainted at its birth by a President of my own party, Harry Truman. In 1952, President Truman successfully invoked the new privilege to prevent public exposure of a report on a plane crash that killed three Air Force contractors. When the report was finally declassified, 50 years later I might add, decades after anyone in the Truman administration was within reach, it contained no state secrets at all, only facts about the repeated maintenance failures that would have seriously embarrassed some important people. So the state secrets privilege began its career, not to protect our Nation, but to protect some powerful people.

In his opinion, Judge Walker argued, even when it is reasonably grounded--let me quote him:

. . . the state secrets privilege still has its limits.

While the court recognizes and respects the executive's

constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the

court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to

adjudicate the disputes that come before it. To defer to a

blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that

duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this

litigation has been so publicly aired.

Again, that is not some wild-eyed liberal judge drawing the conclusion in this case. That is a sober conservative judge who reminds us of the balance that is necessary; why there is a coequal branch called the judiciary, where that body, not elected representatives in a voting Chamber, should determine the legality of this action taken by these companies.

He went on to say--the judge's words:

The compromise between liberty and security remains a

difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would

sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.

That is a judge reminding this body that to suggest somehow we grant blanket immunity to these companies is to dismiss this case at the outset, as he points out, sacrificing liberty with no apparent enhancement of our security.

And that ought to be the epitaph of this administration: ``sacrificing liberty for no apparent enhancement of our security.'' Worse than selling our soul, we are giving it away for free.

It is equally wrong to claim that failing to grant this retroactive immunity will make the telecoms less likely to cooperate with surveillance in the future. Baloney. I do not believe it. The truth is, after the 1970s, FISA has compelled telecommunications companies to cooperate with surveillance when it was warranted. What is more, it immunizes them. It has done that for more than a quarter of a century. So cooperation in warranted wiretapping is not at stake today, and despite the claims of supporters of immunity, it never has been. Collusion in warrantless illegal wiretapping is. And the warrant makes all the difference, because it is precisely the court's blessing that brings Presidential power under the rule of law, even when that warrant, as we permit, is granted after the surveillance has already begun, as you can under the FISA law.

In sum, we know that giving the telecoms their day in court, giving the American people their day in court, would not jeopardize an ounce of our security. It does jeopardize our liberty. And it would only expose one secret: the extent to which the rule of law has been trampled upon. Does documentation qualify as legal authority? Again, that is not a matter for a majority in this Chamber to decide by a vote. It is a matter for our courts to determine: Were these letters that were transmitted--was there a legal justification? Why didn't the administration go to the FISA Court, where 18,748 requests have been made since 1978 and granted, and only 5 rejected, a secret Federal court where a warrant could have been granted after the fact of the surveillance actually having begun? Why didn't they do that? Why did they send out letters? Why didn't they go before that court? I am not concluding they did it wrongfully, but I don't know they didn't do it wrongfully. That ought to be determined by the courts of law, not to be above the law.

That is the choice at stake today: Will the secrets of the last years remain closed in the dark, as they will once we grant this immunity, or will they be open for generations to come? What will they think of us? I revere what this Congress did in 1978, Democrats and Republicans, standing up to executive powers and abuses. They fashioned a law that granted us greater protection over those who would do us harm while simultaneously protecting our rights and liberties. What a great Senate. What a great Congress that had the courage to stand up and put aside partisan differences and stand up for 200 more years of this Nation's history of liberty, of freedom.

What will be said about this Congress? When a future generation looks back at this hour, what did we do when faced with a similar fact situation and were confronted with that choice? Or will we be open to the generations to come, as I said, to our successors in this Chamber so they can prepare themselves to defend against future outrages, as they will surely occur, of power and usurpations of law from future Presidents of either party? As I stand here this evening, I promise you it will happen. It has never not happened in the past; it will in the future. That is why we have these shared powers to maintain that balance. We are going to concede that by suggesting that in this most important of all cases we are going to grant retroactive immunity. For what? For what? Can anyone even begin to make the case that our security gets enhanced because we deprive Americans who feel they may have been wronged by determining whether the actions taken by these companies at the behest of an administration were legal?

Now, 30 years after the Church committee, history has repeated itself. If those who come after us are to prevent it from happening again, they need the full truth. That is why we must not allow these secrets to go quietly into the night. I am here this evening because the truth is no one's private property; it belongs to every one of us. It demands to be heard.

``State secrets,'' ``patriotic duty,'' those, as weak as they are, are the arguments the telecoms' advocates use when they are feeling high-minded. When their thoughts turn baser, they make their arguments as amateur economists.

Here is how Mike McConnell put it:

If you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it

would bankrupt these companies. So we have to provide

liability protection to these private sector entities.

To begin with, that is a clear exaggeration. We are talking about some of the wealthiest, most successful companies in America. Some of them have continued to earn record profits and sign up record numbers of subscribers at the same time as this very public litigation, totally undermining the argument that these lawsuits are doing the telecoms severe reputational damage, as Mike McConnell suggested. Companies of that size could not be completely wiped out by anything but the most exorbitant and unlikely judgment. To assume that the telecoms

would lose, and that their judges would then hand down such back- breaking penalties, is already to take several leaps.

Opponents of immunity, including myself, have stated that we would support a reasonable alternative to a blanket retroactive immunity. No one seriously wants to cripple the telecommunications industry. The point is to bring checks and balances back to domestic spying. Accepting that precedent would hardly require a crippling judgment. It is much more troubling, though, that the Director of National Intelligence would even suggest such an argument. I might understand if the Secretary of the Treasury made that case, or some economist at the World Blank or the IMF or the Federal Reserve. But to have the Intelligence Director of our country suggest liability protections for private sector entities, even to speak of that, is rather incredible. This is not the Secretary of Commerce we are talking about but the head of our Nation's intelligence efforts.

For that matter, how does that even begin to be relevant to letting this case go forward? Since when did we throw out entire suits because the defendants stood to lose too much? It astounds me that some can speak in the same breath about national security and bottom lines. Approve immunity, and Congress will state clearly: The richer you are, the more successful you are, the more lawless you are entitled to be. A suit against you is a danger to the Republic.

And so, at the rock bottom of its justifications, the telecoms' advocates are essentially arguing that immunity can be bought. The truth is, of course, exactly the opposite, or it should be. The larger the corporation, unfortunately, the greater the potential for abuse.

No one suggests that success should make a company suspect. Companies grow large and essential to our economy because they are excellent at what they do, and most of them are overwhelmingly well managed. But the size and wealth open the realm of possibility for abuse far beyond the scope of the individual.

After all, if the allegations are true, we are talking about one of the most massive violations of privacy in American history. Shouldn't there be some retribution or penalty? If reasonable search and seizure means opening a drug dealer's apartment, the telecoms' alleged actions would be the equivalent of strip-searching everyone in the building, ransacking their bedrooms, and prying up all of the floorboards.

The scale of these corporations opens unprecedented possibilities for abuse, possibilities far beyond the power of the individual. What the telecoms have been accused of could not be done by one man or even 10. It would be inconceivable without the size and resources of a large corporation, the same size that makes Mike McConnell fear the corporation's day in court. That is the massive scale we are talking about. And that massive scale is precisely why no corporation must be above the law.

On that scale, it is impossible to plead ignorance. As Judge Walker ruled:

AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in

its position could have believed that the alleged domestic

dragnet was legal.

Again, Ronald Reagan's appointee to the Federal bench. But the arguments of the President's allies sink even lower. Listen to words of a House Republican leader spoken on FOX News. They are shameful:

I believe that they deserve immunity from lawsuits out

there from typical trial lawyers trying to find a way to get

into the pockets of American companies.

Of course, some of the ``typical greedy trial lawyers'' bringing these suits actually work for a nonprofit. And the telecoms that some want to portray as pitiful little Davids actually employ hundreds of attorneys, retain the best corporate law firms, and spend multimillion dollar legal budgets every year.

But if the facts actually mattered to immunity supporters, we would not be here. For some, the prewritten narrative takes precedence far above the mere facts; and here it is the perennial narrative of the greedy trial lawyers.

With that, some can rest content. They can conclude that we were not ever serious about law, or about privacy, or about checks and balances; it was all about money all along.

There can no longer be any doubt: One by one the arguments of the immunity supporters, of the telecoms' advocates, fail.

I wish to spend, if I could, a few minutes reviewing in detail those claims and their failures. I will put up some of these quotes here for you.

The first argument is: The President has the authority to decide whether the telecoms should be granted immunity.

The facts are the judiciary, not the executive branch, should be allowed to determine whether the President of the United States has exceeded his powers by obtaining from the telecoms wholesale access to domestic communications of millions of ordinary citizens. That is one of the arguments of those who argue that the granting of immunity is a Presidential prerogative. I argue quite the opposite. The court should not simply be in the business of certifying that the companies received some form of documentation, some letters that they received; rather, they should be allowed to evaluate the validity of the legal arguments attested to in the document. Was the request legal or not? Is a letter a legal document that requires you to cooperate?

Remember, the administration's original immunity proposal protected everyone, as I said a moment ago, involved in the wiretapping program, not just the companies. In their original proposal to the Congress, they wanted to immunize themselves as well. As I said, thankfully the committee disregarded that request. They made it. But, again, I think that is instructive.

The second argument: Immunity supporters claim that only foreign communications were targeted, not Americans' domestic calls.

And here, litigation against the telecom companies is based upon clear, firsthand evidence, authenticated by those corporations in court. Every e-mail, every text message, every phone call, foreign or domestic carried over the massive fiber optic links of 16 separate companies, routed through AT&T's Internet hub in San Francisco, have been knowingly diverted by AT&T by means of multiple splitters into a secret room controlled exclusively by the NSA. There may be other such rooms as well.

This was given to the courts by the individual who was involved directly in the program. So the argument was only conversations between foreign targets that they have argued is completely and factually wrong.

The third argument immunity supporters make is that: A lack of immunity will make the telecoms less likely to cooperate.

Again, I made this case a moment ago. But for more than 25 years the FISA legislation has compelled the telecommunications companies to cooperate. This is not a choice if, in fact, the FISA courts demanded it. In fact, when they have done that, what they do is they also immunize, so they can protect these companies against future litigation that can occur from people who claim they have done something wrong in the process.

But to argue somehow these companies might never again be helpful is to not understand existing law. For 25 years they have, in fact, been compelled to comply and, in fact, we provided the immunity when they have done so.

Why in this case, after 25 years, did the Bush administration completely disregard this? And instead of compelling their compliance, and providing the immunity they would have gotten immediately, they decided to send a letter instead, without any legal documentation, without any argument at all. But they are relying on that thin reed of a letter saying, ``You should do this.'' ``We want you to do this.''

Not all of them complied. Qwest said: Wait a minute, that is not legal. A letter is not enough. They did not comply, and obviously they did not get involved in the program and they were not asked to do so further. So I am rather mystified. Shouldn't we know the answer to that question? Is it wrong for us to say: I think you ought to explain why you think that was legal?

Why was a document legal? The fact that we are immunizing, in effect, through retroactive immunity, their actions, what sort of precedent are we setting? That we are in a sense, if you

will, almost sanctioning that action. While we are saying it should never happen again, I will almost guarantee you that someday someone will do something like it and will refer to this Congress's decision to, in effect, sanction the use of letters alone without documentation to determine the legality of their actions.

The fourth argument: Immunity supporters argue that telecoms can't defend themselves without exposing State secrets. This is highly offensive. Again, Judge Walker has already ruled the issue can go to trial. In fact, he was incensed, as I quoted earlier.

``The Government,'' he said, ``has [already] disclosed the general contours of the `terrorist surveillance program,' which requires the assistance of a telecommunications provider.''

The suggestion that State secrets--I know the Presiding Officer is a former attorney general, and I am preaching to the choir on these matters, but I am confident he knows that for decades Federal courts meeting ex parte in camera have religiously guarded State secrets when they have been asked to make judicial decisions about matters involving information that could fall into the area of State secrets. I don't know of any example where leaks have occurred. So the suggestion that if you allow this to go into Federal court to determine the legality of this action, actions that now are publicly well known, that somehow we are going to have a leak of State secrets, there is not a scintilla of evidence that has ever been the case. It is a phony argument to suggest that somehow State secrets would be jeopardized.

Five: Immunity supporters claim they are already protected by common law principles. In this case, of course, the fact is that common law immunities do not trump specific legal duties imposed by statute, such as the specific duties Congress has long imposed on the telecommunications companies to protect customer privacy and records. In the pending case against AT&T, the judge already has ruled unequivocally that AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed the alleged domestic dragnet was legal. Even so, the telecommunications company defendants can and should have the opportunity to present these defenses to the courts, and the courts--not Congress preemptively--should decide whether they are sufficient. Again, common law does not trump specific legal duties imposed by statute.

The sixth argument immunity supporters claim is that leaks from the trial might damage national security. I have already talked about this. I said that the Federal courts over the years have handled matters very well, and this is a red herring. When, if ever, then, can we challenge the legality of actions in Federal courts? If the case is made in this case, if this is upheld and we buy into that argument on this matter, which is already publicly known but also, in a sense, siding, if you will, with this argument by granting retroactive immunity, then in cases where, in fact, national security information may, in fact, be at risk, I suspect the same argument will be made, and they will be relying on the actions taken by the Senate, in this case, involving the telecom companies. This is the kind of precedent-setting action that could occur by our vote to grant retroactive immunity, if we buy into this very argument, which is a dangerous argument, indeed, to suggest somehow that our Federal courts are incapable of providing the kind of security where national security leaks could occur. We can be increasingly confident that these cases will not expose State secrets based on history.

The seventh argument made by the supporters of this effort to grant retroactive immunity, they claim that litigation will harm the telecoms by causing them reputational damage. I hesitate to even make an argument against this, it is so offensive to me. The fact that the Director of the National Security Agency would suggest somehow there was a financial loss to the companies if we went further with this, that is not the kind of argument I expect to be made by someone who is in charge of intelligence. That is an economic argument. It doesn't hold up, in my view. We are talking about wealthy companies. But even so, I don't know if anyone is suggesting that these actions, if, in fact, they prove to be true, that, in fact, there was an illegal action taken here, would necessarily warrant an overexcessive judgment that would somehow cripple these 17 companies from their financial well- being.

There is plenty of evidence that they are doing tremendously well. But the idea somehow that a company ought not to be sued, that a plaintiff ought not to bring a case because you might win and there might be damage financially, that is a ludicrous argument on its face to make when we are talking about millions of people's rights of privacy being invaded for 5 years by 17 companies vacuuming up every bit of information, that you might be damaged because the plaintiffs might win. It is a foolish argument and a dangerous one to make as well.

The eighth argument, immunity supporters claim the lawsuits will bankrupt the companies. It is the same argument as I made about financial damage. The fact is, if we accept that premise about financial damage or reputational damage, if we could conceive of a corporation so wealthy, so integral to our economy that its riches place it outside the law altogether, that is a frightening concept, and I hope it will be rejected by our colleagues. Ensuring a day in court is not the same as ensuring a verdict. When that day comes, if it does--and I doubt it will, in light of the votes that have been cast in the past--I have absolutely no investment in a verdict either way. But I am bothered by it. I am bothered that the administration didn't go to the FISA Court, as others had 18,748 times since 1978, and on five occasions the warrants were rejected, and in 18,748 cases, the warrants were granted, that this administration decided not to go that route, I have my doubts. But nonetheless, what I am calling for is not a verdict by this body. All I am calling for is to allow a judgment to be rendered by a court of law, allow plaintiffs to make their case, allow a Federal judge in that coequal branch of government to determine whether what occurred was legal. If it was legal, case over. If it was not, then allow the plaintiffs to make their case and be rewarded accordingly.

But by a vote of 51 to 49 or whatever the vote may be here, we are going to superimpose our judgment for a legal argument. I think letting a political judgment replace a legal judgment is a dangerous precedent indeed. This is a big matter. We ought to have the courage to stand up to this administration, after a litany of abuses over the last 7 years. As I said some time ago, if this had been for a week, a month, a year, after 9/11, I would not be here tonight. I am a reasonable, practical person. The emotions were high; fears were great after we were attacked. The fact that someone might have rushed in and done something like this, I might not like it, I may worry about it, but I wouldn't prejudge it. Emotions could be such that one would take those actions. But this went on for 5 years and would still be going on if a whistleblower hadn't stood and said: This is what is happening. And it was reported widely in the national media. That is the only reason it stopped. If not, it would be still going on. So it wasn't one of these early events that can sometimes happen in which reasonable people ought to be able to step back and say: I understand why that happened.

If we were talking about an administration that had been upholding the rule of law over the last 7 years or had been defending it, I might also not be standing here. But how many lessons do we have to learn about an Attorney General politicizing U.S. attorneys, rendition, torture, walking away from habeas corpus, walking away from the Geneva Conventions? How many more examples do we have to have of how this administration regarded the rule of law? And yet at the end of all that, within months of this administration leaving town, this body is going to say: We are going to side with the administration, grant immunity, and we will never find out what went on here. Why did this crowd seek immunity for itself, if it wasn't fearful about a judgment or a court of law examining what happened here? When letters became the legal basis rather than going to the very court that had been around for 30 years, that had provided warrants over and over again in 99.9 percent of the cases, why did this administration decide not to go that route and seek that

kind of a warrant from the very secret court established to strike that balance between the needed security and surveillance we should have and balancing those rights so the judgments could be rendered?

Just as it would be absurd to declare the telecoms clearly guilty, it would be equally absurd to close the case in Congress without a decision. That is immunity.

Throughout this debate, telecoms' advocates have needed to show not just that they were right but that they are so right and that they are so far beyond the pale that we can shut down the argument right here and now with a vote, grant them immunity. That is a burden they have clearly not met, in my view, in any of the arguments, all eight of them, that they have made. They cannot expect to meet it when a large majority of our colleagues who will make that decision have not even seen the secret documents that are supposed to prove the case for retroactive immunity.

My trust is in the courts, in the cases argued openly, in the judges who preside over them, and in the juries of American citizens who decide them. They should be our pride, not our embarrassment. They deserve to do their jobs. That is what the Founders created. It has been a great system of checks and balances, coequal, three coequal branches of Government--an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch. We have an executive branch that took action. We are going to have a legislative branch that is going to sanction it by granting immunity without ever allowing that coequal branch of Government to determine the legality of their actions. We are depriving what the very Founders of our country insisted upon.

This isn't about being a Democrat, a Republican, a liberal or a conservative. It is about whether you understand the rule of law, that no man, not even the President, is above it. Whether this President was of my party or anyone else's, I would stand here with the same degree of passion in making this case. A case I know I have lost in the past but I care so deeply about that I want my children and my grandchildren one day to know that their father and grandfather at this moment stood for the rule of law. And I believe my colleagues, if given the chance to think about this, will reach the same conclusion.

This is one of those moments. They don't happen very often, but they do happen here. We have learned about them only after the fact too often. But this one is before us as it has been over the last number of months. We owe it not only to ourselves but to future generations to stand for these timeless principles of the rule of law, liberty, and security. As complex, as diverse, as relentless as the assault on the rule of law has been, our answer to it is a simple one. Far more than any President's lawlessness, the American way of justice remains deeply rooted in our character that no President can disturb.

So on this evening, I am full of hope, on a dark day, when it may seem we are going to lose this case once again, I would like to have faith that we can unite security and justice because we have already done it. It is not a choice, one or the other. It can never be that. That is a false choice and a false dichotomy. Justice and security is what our forebears have given us, what our predecessors have struggled with, and which we now must wrestle with ourselves. It is never perfect. There is always one side maybe a bit more weighty than the other, but it is our responsibility to try and strike that balance, to keep us secure in the face of those who would do us great harm and to do so at a time without giving up our rights and liberties. To do so is to change the very nature of who we are as a people. To succumb to the fears of those who would suggest that you have to make choices about being more secure or being free, I don't believe that.

In fact, I think if we give up freedoms, we become far less secure and far less safe. That is the judgment we must now make, whether we can be secure and free and guarantee those liberties to go forward.

My father was the executive trial counsel at the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and 1946. I have never forgotten the example he set, as Justice Robert Jackson said in the opening statement at the Nuremberg trials, a statement, by the way, that my parents made us memorize as children because it captured the essence of the Nuremberg trials. The rule of law is what motivated those who insisted upon that trial. The overwhelming majority of people did not want a trial. Why should you spend the money giving these 21 defendants a lawyer? Fifty-five million people had died at the hands of the Nazis and their allies; 6 million Jews had been incinerated in the concentration camps; 5 million others had the same fate befall them because of their political affiliation, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation; 11 million people incinerated; 45 million died at their hands. Why in the world would you ever give them a trial?

Why not, as Winston Churchill suggested, just line them up and shoot them? Just line them up and shoot them. They did not deserve civility. But Robert Jackson; Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt--a Republican, I might add; the only one in Roosevelt's Cabinet--Samuel Rosenman, a great speechwriter for Franklin Roosevelt; Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court Justice, and a handful of others stood up and said: No, that war was not about treasury or treasure or land, it was about values and principles, and the principle of the rule of law is something we stood for.

So despite all of the appetite for vengeance, we are not going to give these defendants that which they gave to their victims. We are going to prove the difference. We are going to give them that which they never gave their victims. They are going to get a day in court. They are going to live with the rule of law.

Robert Jackson, speaking to that Court, in the summer of 1945, said the following, which I memorized years ago. Speaking about the Soviet Union, the French, the British, and ourselves, he said the following:

That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung

with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily

submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is

one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid

to Reason.

It is a remarkable sentence, and it captured the essence of Nuremberg--the rule of law. From that experience, America led the way in creating the structures in architecture that gave us almost 70 years of global peace. The IMF, the World Bank, Bretton Woods, the expansion of the United Nations, NATO--all of those institutions occurred because of the moral high ground we achieved by insisting upon the rule of law.

It was Nuremberg, in many ways, that conjured up the image of who we were as a people. Compare that with the words ``Guantanamo,'' ``Abu Ghraib,'' ``renditions,'' ``torture,'' ``habeas corpus,'' ``walking away from the Geneva Conventions.'' This is not who we are. Nuremberg was who we are, not Guantanamo, not giving retroactive immunity where the rule of law is being abused, or potentially being abused. That is why we are here.

Each generation has been asked to defend these principles and values, and each generation in its own way has done that. I believe our generation can and must as well. Therefore, the challenge before us is not a simple one, but an easy one, in my view; that is, to stand up for this principle.

The world is not going to collapse, the sky is not going to fall if some companies have to face some plaintiffs and explain why they vacuumed up all their private information for more than 5 years. What was the legal justification for that action? To grant retroactive immunity would, in fact, do just that.

So what is the tribute that Power owes to Reason? That America stands for a transcendent idea, the idea that laws should rule, and not men, the idea that the Constitution does not get suspended for vengeance, the idea that this Nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.

The tribute that Power owes to Reason is due today as well. I know we can find the strength to pay it. And if we cannot, we will have to answer for it, I fear.

There is a famous military recruiting poster that comes to mind. A man is sitting in an easy chair with his son

and daughter on his lap, after some future war has ended. His daughter is asking him, ``What did you do in the war?'' And his face is shocked and shamed because he knows he did nothing.

My little daughters, Grace and Christina, are 6 and 3. They are growing up--I hope sound asleep at this hour, as I speak in the late night hours here, but they are growing up in a time of two great conflicts: one between our Nation and its enemies, and another between what is best and worst in our American soul. And someday soon, I know I am going to hear that question: What did you do at the time when this conflict was emerging? What side did you take? I want more than anything else, when that day comes, to give the right answer, that I stood for the rule of law.

That question is coming to each and every one of us in our own way. Every single one of us will be judged by a jury from whom there is no hiding: our sons and daughters and grandchildren. Someday soon, they will read in their textbooks the stories of a great nation--one that threw down tyrants and oppressors for two centuries, one that rid the world of Nazism and Soviet communism, one that proved that great strength can serve great virtue, that right can truly make might.

And then they will read how, in the early years of the 21st century, that nation could have lost its way. We do not have the power to strike that chapter. But we cannot go back. We cannot un-destroy the CIA's interrogation tapes. We cannot un-pass the Military Commissions Act. We cannot un-speak Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the Congress. We cannot un-torture innocent people. We, perhaps, sadly and shamefully, cannot stop retroactive immunity. We cannot undo anything that has been done in the last 6 years for the cause of lawlessness and fear. We cannot block out that chapter. But we can begin the next chapter, even this evening, even in the days to come, as we debate this issue. And let its first words read: Finally, in the month of June of 2008, the Senate of the United States--Democrats and Republicans--said: Enough. Enough is enough.

I implore my colleagues to write it with me. I implore my colleagues to vote against retroactive immunity and vote against cloture when that opportunity arrives in the next day or so. I think it would be a mistake to grant it. I think we can do better. I think we can reform the law. But we ought not to have any decision be above the law, as is the danger here.

Mr. President, I want to, if I can, share with my colleagues, and those who may be listening to all this, some articles because their eloquence is far greater than mine when they talk about the importance of all of this, and they are worth noting and reading as we examine this question before us.

There have been editorials and others that have addressed this issue. There is an editorial in the New York Times from June 18, entitled: ``Mr. Bush v. the Bill of Rights.''

In the waning months of his tenure, President Bush and his

allies are once again trying to scare Congress into expanding

the president's powers to spy on Americans without a court

order.

This week, the White House and Democratic and Republican

leaders on Capitol Hill hope to announce a ``compromise'' on

a domestic spying bill. If they do, it will be presented as

an indispensable tool for protecting the nation's security

that still safeguards our civil liberties. The White House

will paint opponents as weak-kneed liberals who do not

understand and cannot stand up to the threat of terrorism.

The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being

worked out, but all indications are that many of its

provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of

Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who

support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine

the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic

spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the

telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping

Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, or FISA,

requires that government to get a warrant to intercept

communications between anyone in this country and anyone

outside it. The 1978 law created a special court that has

approved all but a handful of the government's many thousands

of warrant requests.

Still, after Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush bypassed the FISA

court and authorized the interception of international calls

and e-mail messages without a warrant. Then, when The Times

disclosed the operation in late 2005, Mr. Bush claimed that

FISA did not allow the United States to act quickly enough to

stop terrorists. That was nonsense. FISA always gave the

government the power to start listening and then get a

warrant--a grace period that has been extended since Sept 11.

More fundamental, Mr. Bush's powers do not supersede laws

passed by Congress or the constitution's protections against

unreasonable searches and seizures.

The ensuing debate did turn up an Internet-age problem with

FISA: It requires a warrant to eavesdrop on foreign

communications that go through American computers. There was

an easy fix, but when Congress made it last year, the White

House muscled in amendments that seriously diluted the

courts' ability to restrain the government from spying on its

own citizens.

That law expires on Aug. 3, and Mr. Bush is demanding even

more power to spy. He also wants immunity for the

telecommunications companies that provided the government

with Americans' private data without a warrant after Sept.

11.

Lawsuits against those companies are the best hope of

finding out the extent of Mr. Bush's lawless spying. But

Democratic leaders in Congress are reported to have agreed to

a phony compromise drafted by [one of our colleagues], the

Republican vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Under the so-called compromise, the question of immunity

would be decided by federal district court--a concession by

Mr. Bond [our colleague from Missouri], who originally wanted

the FISA court, which meets in secret and is unsuited to the

task, to decide. What is unacceptable, though, is that the

district court would be instructed to decide based solely on

whether the Bush administration certifies that the companies

were told the spying was legal. If the aim is to allow a

court hearing on the president's spying, the lawsuits should

be allowed to proceed--and the courts should be able to

resolve them the way they resolve every other case.

Republicans, who complain about judges making laws from the

bench, should not be making judicial decision from Capitol

Hill.

This week, House and Senate leaders were trying to allay

the concerns of some lawmakers that approving the immunity

would be tantamount to retroactively declaring the spying

operation to have been legal. Those lawmakers are right.

Granting the corporations immunity would send that exact

message.

The new bill has other problems. It gives the government

too much leeway to acquire communications in the United

States without individual warrants or even a showing of

probable cause. It greatly reduces judicial review, and it

would remain in force for six years, which is too long.

If Congress cannot pass a clean bill that fixes the one

real problem with FISA, it should simply extend the temporary

authorization. At a minimum . . .

It talks about what other steps can be taken.

There are several other articles I want to share with colleagues, but let me also say to my colleagues, we are in a postcloture environment here on the housing bill. We will be in cloture until tomorrow evening on the 30 hours required under the housing bill, unless some intervening action is taken. I know we are supposed to consider voting on cloture on this bill sometime tomorrow morning. I reserve the right to use whatever vehicle is available to me. While I am upset we are not dealing with the housing bill--I believe that is a priority on which Americans expect something to be done. You have 8,400 people filing for foreclosure every day in this country. It is a massive economic issue that is crippling the livelihood and the future wealth and security of too many American families. I would object to any unanimous consent request to go to the FISA bill. If we do get to a cloture motion, I will be urging my colleagues to vote against cloture, to send this bill back to the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and craft some reforms of FISA, but stay away from this retroactive immunity. It is not needed. It is unnecessary. It is shameful it is even being requested in this bill for all the reasons I have identified earlier.

Let me read, if I can, from the New Jersey Star-Ledger. Again, this paper calls for rejecting the wiretap bill, as well. This editorial says:

The House of Representatives is to vote today on a

wiretapping bill that would give some of America's biggest

and richest companies a get-out-of-jail card for breaking the

law and that also would help the government carry out

unsupervised snooping for years in the future.

But Verizon and other telecommunications companies should

not be rewarded with immunity against lawsuits for agreeing

to perform President Bush's illegal eavesdropping. They

should answer for their actions in court, just like any other

citizen.

And Congress should not gut the current law that says a

federal judge's review is essential to avoid the very abuses

of power that Bush's White House embraced.

The House ``compromise'' wiretapping bill is not a

compromise at all. It would give the telecommunications

companies absolute immunity from the suits pending against

them for wiretapping if they can simply show that the Bush

administration told them at the time that the snooping was

legal. Which everyone agrees the administration did indeed

do.

It is not a debate. They sent letters. The question is, were the letters and the documentation a legal justification? We already know they sent the letters, so all they are providing for us in here is tantamount to acknowledging what we already know occurred. What we are not getting to is the legal conclusion that those documents not seeking the warrants of the FISA court was a legal justification for their actions. It does not take a legal scholar to see the danger in this approach. It means that the law becomes whatever the President wants it to be, never mind what the statutes or even the Constitution may say. That is why the courts exist. That is why you have Federal judges to make those determinations.

This editorial goes on to say:

The President also very much wants the other major part of

the new wiretapping law, the section that amounts to an

aggressive broadening of federal surveillance powers. The

provisions would emasculate the ability of federal judges to

review wiretapping orders, especially if the orders were for

a general information ``dragnet'' as opposed to targeting

specific persons.

Snooping government agents would be officially free to plug

into phone and data lines and copy and review untold millions

of calls and e-mails, all without serious adult supervision.

Effective checks and balances in government this is not.

Bush and Attorney General Michael Mukasey want the new

law--

The editorial goes on to say--

and they want it now. House Members--

Talking about the House-passed bill--

should not give it to them. Government wiretapping is now

operating under a series of interim laws set to expire in

early August.

There is no evidence that these interim rules are too

anemic to protect the Nation for a while longer. Congress

should extend them. If the wiretapping law needs major

revisions, these can be done under a new President.

One who, unlike Bush, didn't begin a secret, illegal

wiretapping months before September 11, 2001.

This is from the Denver Post. I wonder why I chose that one to read to the Presiding Officer, my good friend and colleague from Denver, CO. I suspect he may have seen this one himself, so I apologize if I am reading an editorial he has already probably read himself. This is dated June 5. ``Another Dose of Courage Needed on FISA'' is the title.

Congress once again is discussing a compromise on a long-

stalled rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

with the idea of getting something passed before its August

recess.

The White House assuredly will play the national security

card again as it seeks retroactive immunity for telecoms that

give in to demands for information under the President's

warrantless wiretapping program.

We hope Congress stands firm as it did in February. Frame

it any way you want, but the issue is accountability.

Proponents are making a last-ditch effort--

The Denver Post says--

to squelch some 40 lawsuits that could bear witness to the

breadth of Bush administration spying that took place outside

the auspices of FISA.

Congress must not capitulate on this key point.

It's important to keep in mind how this country came to

have FISA. Enacted in 1978, FISA was a response to widespread

government abuse of wiretaps in the name of national

security. The act set rules for government spying on foreign

powers on their agents.

A secret FISA Court hears government eavesdropping requests

and almost without exception approves them. The

administration can even wiretap without a FISA warrant and

get one later.

After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush decided to do an end

run around the FISA Court, shifting approval for wiretaps

from the judiciary to the executive branch. That program was

secret until 2005 when the New York Times exposed its

existence.

As I pointed out earlier, conceivably it would still be operating today but for that revealing by the whistleblower.

Last year, the administration employed fear mongering and

convinced Congress--

The Denver Post says--

to legitimize the program through the Protect America Act, a

temporary provision that expired this year.

The battle now is over a permanent extension, the

centerpiece of which would be lawsuit immunity for the

telecommunication companies that cooperated with the

warrantless spying program.

Administration officials say they are very concerned about

getting cooperation from the communications companies unless

the companies have immunity.

We find it hard to believe that these telecoms would refuse

to comply with the FISA Court order. FISA has been in

operation for 30 years and that seems to have not been a

problem in the past.

Let me just cut in here and point out that over the past 25 years, as I noted earlier, the FISA Courts have compelled companies to provide information and simultaneously granted them immunity when doing so. So this idea that we hope they will willingly cooperate--the courts have the power to compel cooperation when we want surveillance of individuals that could be doing us harm. So the argument that if we don't grant immunity they might not show up again when we ask them to provide surveillance that we need in order to guarantee our security-- we hope they will cooperate, but if they don't, we have the ability to compel cooperation.

Back to the editorial. It concludes by saying:

It's also important to keep in mind that the Federal courts

where these telecom lawsuits are being heard can--and have--

dismissed some actions on the grounds that they could

endanger national security. So it's not as if there is no

protection at work.

The last time immunity was debated in Congress, House

Democrats held firm, saying that they thought the

administration's modifications would amount to a suspension

of the Constitution. We hope they have the same courage of

their convictions this time around.

I applaud the Denver Post for its brilliant and thoughtful editorial in that regard.

This is an editorial from the Register-Guard in Eugene, OR, so we get the breadth of this across the country. This one is entitled ``Sinking the Boat: House Approves Flawed Electronic Surveillance Bill,'' June 24, 2008.

Congressional leaders have crafted a deeply flawed bill on

electronic eavesdropping, caving once again to White House

warnings that failure to give the executive branch broad

license to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant would make

it harder to protect Americans from terrorists.

In one of the most disappointing votes of the 110th

Congress, the House on Friday approved a compromise over a

contentious intelligence surveillance bill. The House measure

would allow the Federal Government to intercept international

telephone calls or e-mails without prior court approval if

the executive branch claims it is necessary in an emergency.

It would also grant de facto immunity to telecommunications

companies that cooperated in the administration's secret and

blatantly unconstitutional surveillance program after the

September 11 attacks.

Congressman Peter DeFazio deserves credit for voting, along

with 127 other Democrats, against the House bill. ``We do not

trample over the U.S. Constitution in order to protect

Americans from terrorism--that is akin to sinking the boat so

the enemy can't sink it,'' the Oregon Democrat said.

After September 11, President Bush authorized the National

Security Agency to monitor, without the prior court approval

required by the Constitution, e-mails and phone conversations

between suspected terrorists of United States residents.

Called the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the initiative

ignored the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which

required a special Federal court to authorize electronic

spying on Americans.

The editorial goes on to say:

The Bush administration grudgingly accepted judicial

oversight of the program only after its existence was leaked

to the media and Congress howled in outrage. That outrage has

since been muffled by a White House campaign intended to

scare Americans and to allow the administration to further

expand the chief executive's powers and erode civil

liberties. And, oh, yes, to ensure that no one is held

accountable for the illegal wiretapping that Bush ordered

after September 11.

The House bill is a modest improvement over the earlier

versions. While it unwisely allows the administration to

authorize monitoring of international calls or e-mails, it

requires the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

to review and enforce protections for U.S. residents, and it

bars surveillance until those procedures are approved

except in ``exigent circumstances.''

The Senate should improve the House bill by requiring court

supervision of any surveillance that can involve American

citizens or others in the United States. That's a

constitutional red line the Bush administration--or any

other--should not be allowed to cross.

The Senate should also make certain that the courts are

allowed to decide whether telecommunication companies

violated the

law by handing over data to the government over the past five

years without a court order. The Senate should also demand a

full accounting to Congress of all surveillance conducted

since September 11--accounting the White House has refused to

provide, telling lawmakers and the American public to instead

``trust us'' with their freedoms.

Congress still has a chance to make certain that the

Federal Government Surveillance Program complies with the

rule of law. History would suggest the failure to do so could

leave the door open to lawless behavior as long as the

current President remains in office--

And, I would argue, set a precedent for future administrations where that could occur as well.

Again, let me suggest here that what we are talking about is not the choice between security and liberty. This is not an issue that ought to divide people based on our party affiliation or how one is characterized and where they sit in the political spectrum. This is an issue that goes to the heart of who we are. It is talking about the rule of law and the Constitution. Everyone here takes an oath of office to protect and defend our country and to protect the Constitution. Certainly that is what this ought to involve.

Are the courts going to make a determination about the legality of this effort? Again, I don't know of another instance in our Nation's history where for 5 long years, 17 companies were allowed to virtually sweep up every phone call, every e-mail, every fax, every text message that was sent by every citizen of this country, and that is exactly what happened and would still be ongoing if it hadn't been revealed.

Do we require that there be some justification as to whether this was legally occurring? That ought not to be a matter of political choice. That ought to be a matter for the courts. That is why we established the third branch of government--the judiciary--to determine the constitutionality and legality of actions taken by the executive or legislative branches. We are shortcutting in the legislative branch, at the request of the executive, the ability of that branch to make that determination. We are sanctioning, in effect. We are closing the door, never to know why this happened, who ordered it, why did they avoid FISA, what was behind their thinking. That is a dangerous step for us to take.

That is the only case I am making. I have my doubts, as I said, about the legality of it, but that is just one Senator. I have the right to certainly have my doubts about certain actions. I don't have the right to determine the legality of it. I am a Senator, I am not a Federal judge. I don't sit in that third branch, I sit in the second branch. I sit in the Congress of the United States. It is my job here to stand up and see to it that we don't take actions that would deprive that branch--the legal branch, the judicial branch--from asserting its rights under our Constitution--exactly what the Founders intended.

So while I know there are those who are going to argue and make the case that those of us who stand up here to defend the rule of law, somehow we are weak-kneed when it comes to terrorism, that is hardly the case. I don't want to give terrorists a greater victory. As profoundly sad, as tragic, and as violent as the attack was on 9/11 that destroyed so much and showed us how dangerous the world is today, to grant them the power--those terrorists--to allow them to deprive us of our liberties is to grant them a victory even greater than they achieved that day. It must be our common determination to see to it that we stand up and not allow these rights and these liberties we enjoy as citizens to be eroded at our own hand.

Let's say to terrorists around the world: We will fight you and defeat you as you try to do us and others great harm, but you will not bring down the pillars of our constitutional form of government and the rule of law. That is what this is all about, while it is argued and we are told that we have to do this and if we don't do it, that somehow we are succumbing to those terrorists who wish to do us great physical harm.

Let me, if I can, sort of wrap up because I know I am taking a little bit of time. I want to leave some time to argue my housing bill. I am consuming the time on my housing bill to do this, but I want people to understand, at least from my perspective, why this is a dangerous conclusion, why we ought to vote against cloture, and why I am going to use my power as a Senator to object to going to that cloture vote, at least as long as a cloture vote exists on dealing with the housing legislation.

I think retroactive immunity is a disgrace. In the last months, I believe we proved that beyond any doubt whatsoever. As I said, I believe it is more disgraceful in all that it represents. It is the mindset that the Church Committee summed up so eloquently three decades ago. As I read these words--they are no longer with us. A lot of these Members have long since left us, not only from this Chamber but who have since passed away. But it is worthwhile for us to read their words, these Democrats and Republicans. There were those who suggested somehow they were weak-kneed when it came to giving the President the power to protect our national security. But listen to their words of three decades ago:

The view that the traditional American principles of

justice and fair play have no place in our struggle against

the enemies of freedom, that view created the Nixonian

secrecy of the 1970s.

The Church committee wrote those words in part as a rebuke to our predecessors in this Chamber who for years allowed secrecy and executive abuses to slide. But today those words take on new meaning. Today, they rebuke us, in a way. Today they shame us for a lack of faith that we can, at the same time, keep our country safe and our Constitution whole.

As I said before, when the 21st century version of the Church committee convenes to investigate the abuses of the past years, how will we be judged? When it reads through the records of our debates-- not if, Mr. President, but when--what will they find? When the President asked us to repudiate the Geneva Conventions and strip away the rights of habeas corpus, how did we respond? What was our Congress? What did we say about that? When stories of secret prisons and outsourced torture became impossible to deny, what did that Congress do in 2008 and 2007? In June of 2008 when we were asked to put corporations explicitly outside the law and accept at face value the argument that some are literally too rich to be sued, how did that Congress, how did that Senate vote on that matter?

All of these questions are coming to us, Mr. President. All of them and more. And in the quiet of his or her own conscience, each Senator knows what the answers are.

Remember, this is about more than a few telephone calls, a few companies, or a few lawsuits. If the supporters of retroactive immunity keep this argument a technical one, they will win. A technical argument obscures the defining question: the rule of law or the rule of men? That question never goes away. As long as there are free societies, generations of leaders will struggle mightily to answer it. Each generation must ascertain an answer for itself. Just because our Founders answered it correctly doesn't mean we are bound by their choice. In that, as in all decisions, we are entirely free.

The burden falls not on history but on each one of us--the 100 of us who serve in this remarkable Chamber. But we can take counsel, listen to those who came before us, who made the right choice even when our Nation's survival was at risk. They knew the rule of law was far more rooted in our character than any one man's lawlessness. From the beginning, they advised us to fight that lawlessness whenever we found it. At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison said:

The means of defense against foreign danger historically

have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

He also said:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of

the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments

of those in power than by violent and sudden assertion.

As long as we are temporary custodians of the Constitution, as we are, we have a duty to guard against those gradual and silent encroachments. That is exactly what this is. It is a gradual and silent encroachment. It doesn't come in a burst, it comes slowly. Our Founders knew these threats were coming. They could predict, persuade, and warn, but when it comes time to stand up against those threats in our own time, they cannot act for us. They can only teach us, they

can warn us, they can remind us that they would come. And they have. They are here. They are before us. They cannot act for us. The choice is ours and ours alone.

Tomorrow or the following day, when we are asked to vote on this, the choice will be ours. We have been warned and cautioned by history. The decision now rests with each and every one of us to decide whether we have listened to them and not only answer them but provide the answer for generations to come, as generations before us have answered that question. May we rise to that moment, Mr. President, and defeat this legislation. May we reject this retroactive immunity for a handful of companies so that we may determine whether their actions were legal or whether they were above the law or whether they were the rule of law or the rule of men. That is the important choice we will have to make.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 600, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago, our colleague in the other Chamber, John Lewis, joined us for lunch and brought along several Freedom Riders who knew very well the wonderful young people we are recognizing by this resolution who lost their lives in the quest for freedom and democracy during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. It was a moving opportunity to listen to these remarkable individuals who, today, are gray in hair and getting older, but in their youth they stood up for democracy and freedom. It is worthy that this institution is recognizing them. I wanted to mention that this evening, as we agreed to this resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., tomorrow, Wednesday, June 25; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 3221, the housing legislation, and that the time during the adjournment count against cloture. I further ask that the mandatory quorum rule XXII with respect to H.R. 6304 be waived.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, today I honor the career of Josephine Long, a wonderful woman and extraordinary teacher. Ms. Long has worked in the District of Columbia Public School System for 33 years, touching the lives of hundreds of children. Ms. Long was born in Raleigh, NC, and moved to Washington, DC, as a child. She has lived here ever since, raising two daughters and two sons. Ms. Long received certification in early childhood education from both Gallaudet University and Prince George's Community College. Since then, Ms. Long has had a positive impact in many classrooms, working for the majority of her career with special needs children and for the past 2 years at the School-Within-School at Peabody, a DC public school.

Colleagues have long admired Ms. Long for her optimistic attitude and the special concern and attention she gave to her students with special health concerns. Perhaps Ms. Long's most impressive strength as a teacher was the respect she showed her students; she spoke to them and treated them with maturity, sharing her life experiences, recounting daily encounters, and listening intently when they shared their thoughts as well. Ms. Long made her students laugh and was always generous; every day, she shared her lunch cookies among 22 different students.

As both a father and the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families, I know very well the importance of a quality education. While many factors contribute to the success of our schools, perhaps none can make more of a difference than a teacher with the ability to connect with her students. Ms. Long did just that for more than 30 years, and I commend her for her dedication to the District of Columbia Public School System. On behalf of all the students she has touched over her many years of teaching, I thank her for her unwavering commitment to the education of her students. I congratulate Josephine on her retirement and wish her only the best in the years to come.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I want to explain to my colleagues who may come over, who are desirous of bringing up amendments also, Senator Sanders has expressed a strong desire to have an amendment considered regarding LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. There is some difficulty with that. Obviously, there is some objection on the other side to that coming up.

Out of respect to Senator Sanders, who could not be here this morning, I object to any effort to set aside the pending amendments before that matter is resolved.

I say that respectfully to the Senator from Georgia, as well as others who may come here to do exactly that. We will be moving forward on legislation. Today we will entertain debate and discussion on this bill but will be constrained from going forward in the absence of a larger agreement that would allow Senator Sanders to bring up his amendment. So I object.

Reserving the right to object, I will repeat what I said a moment ago. Senator Sanders of Vermont is unavoidably absent this morning. He has wanted to bring up the low-income energy assistance program. While it is not germane, it is relevant, obviously, to the subject matter of the bill--home heating. But there is objection on the Republican side for that amendment to be considered. As a result, he is objecting to any unanimous consent request to lay aside the pending amendment. So there is a reason that I will momentarily object.

Let me also say for clarity that the very provision the Senator from Nevada has raised here, the renewable energy program, was part of the extender bill last week. Obviously, any bill like that is going to have pieces you like and pieces you don't like. I have rarely seen a piece of legislation around here that had the unanimous support of everyone. Nonetheless, we had an opportunity to deal with that piece of legislation, and because we couldn't get cloture on it, that was rejected by the Republican minority. They did not want that bill to come up, so we did not debate it at all. An opportunity to deal with the very provision that enjoyed such broad-based support could have been part of that and gone down to the President for his signature.

So on this bill here, while I have supported this proposal--it was part of the earlier housing bill--until we resolve the matter dealing with low-income energy assistance, then, at the request of the Senator from Vermont and the leadership here, I will object to any effort to set aside the pending amendments.

I object.

Madam President, I wish to take a few minutes, if I may, and sort of review the events of yesterday, a historic day here in many ways in that we were able to bring up a rather comprehensive housing proposal, thanks to the work of Senator Shelby, my colleague from Alabama, the former chairman of the Banking Committee and my ranking member, along with 17 other members of the committee, Republican and Democrats, on a vote of 19 to 2 out of the Banking Committee, that brought forth the final piece of this housing package for the consideration of our colleagues.

I heard repeatedly mentioned yesterday that this was a large bill. It is. It is 660 or 670 pages. And the question was raised about how we had not had a chance to see this bill. I remind my colleagues that you have already voted for two-thirds of that bill because they are previous matters we have considered on two separate occasions, with some very minor, minor but significant changes, but not voluminous in their quantity. So the greater part of this legislation has already been examined and debated extensively on this floor. The remaining piece, the one that came out of the committee 19 to 2, was voted out of the committee about a month ago--a little more than a month ago--and has been the subject of significant reporting as to what it included. It is very similar, I might point out, to what was adopted by the other body. So this is a moment where we have had ample opportunity.

If you do not hear it on the floor, go back home and listen to your constituents talk about foreclosure problems. As I pointed out yesterday, we are now averaging 8,427 filings for foreclosure on a daily basis in the country. So every single day in this country, more than 8,000 people, between 8,000 and 9,000 people are in the process of losing their homes. There are 1.5 million of our fellow citizens who have already lost their homes over the last year or so, and with resets of adjustable rate mortgages coming up in July, the estimates are those numbers will explode even further. In fact, it is been reported by Credit Suisse and the Mortgage Bankers Association that as many as one out of every eight homes in America could be in foreclosure if we do not come up with some means by which we can address this issue.

The economic crisis we face in our country has at its heart the housing crisis, which has at its heart the foreclosure crisis. The problems are exacerbated, are expanded, obviously, by the rising costs of gasoline and health care, higher education, the fact that now more than 300,000 jobs in the last few weeks have been lost in this country, unemployment rates are rising, and inflation is beginning to creep up.

This issue of getting our Nation back on its feet economically, restoring confidence and optimism of the American people, particularly when it comes to the most important asset most Americans will ever have, which is their homes--nothing we can do is more important to the stability of our neighborhoods, our communities, and our families, than making it possible for people to be able to maintain and own their own homes.

That is the heart of what we are trying to do. That has been the effort over the last number of weeks, with the passage of two previous pieces of legislation and the adoption now, I hope, in the coming days, of this comprehensive bill.

Let me review the bidding, if I can, as to what is in this bill. And the efforts that were made yesterday to strip out all of this were soundly defeated by margins that we rarely see in a body such as this that is so equally divided, 51 to 49. But, again, thanks to the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans, the leadership of the majority leader, Harry Reid, as well as the cooperation of the minority leader, we were able to get to this bill, we were able to address these underlying questions and then vote overwhelmingly to reject the efforts that would have stripped this legislation of its heart.

We have a strong regulator in this legislation. This has been an effort which has been sought over the last 6 or 7 years. Yet we have been unable to deal with the problem of the government-sponsored enterprises, principally Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are critical to the liquidity that is needed in our housing markets. Yet we also know that those institutions have been losing billions of dollars as a result of the housing crisis. A strong regulator is necessary and some additional reforms to make sure that these GSEs, these government- sponsored enterprises, particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will be on a sound footing. This bill does that, and we were able to achieve that through the cooperation I mentioned a moment ago. That is absolutely essential if we are going to have any hopes at all of stabilizing the housing problems.

We establish in this bill a permanent affordable housing program, not a temporary one, not for 1 or 2, 3 or 5 years, but a permanent affordable housing program.

I cited yesterday the statistics of the millions of Americans who are finding any kind of shelter further and further from their grasp economically. Today when you discover that you have people literally spending more than 50, 60, or 70 percent of their income on rental housing and, in some cases, when you talk about people who are disabled, the SSI payments, in fact, don't even equal the cost of the housing they are in today, we need to have a program that provides affordable shelter.

Decent, affordable shelter has never been a partisan issue. In fact, 60 years ago, the administration of Harry Truman brought together Democrats and Republicans in 1948 and insisted upon the issue of affordable shelter for all Americans. Over the years, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives, liberals, moderates have all worked together on this issue. As I was growing up, the man who was called Mr. Housing was a guy named John Sparkman, a Senator from Alabama, the same State as my ranking member from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. John Sparkman was Mr. Housing.

Through the 1950s and 1960s, as a Member of this body, he fought year after year to see to it that we would have affordable, decent shelter for all Americans. We began to slip over the last 15 or 20 years, as fewer and fewer dollars are being invested in affordable shelter for Americans.

In this piece of legislation, as a result of the efforts of our colleague from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, along with others, we now will have a permanent, affordable housing program in America that will not require any tax increases. The support of that program will come from the resources coming out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs. So for the first time in a long time, if ever, we will have a consistent and reliable source of support for decent, affordable shelter for Americans. That is a part of this bill.

The legislation also includes the HOPE for Homeowners Act. It will help at least 450,000 of our hard-working families save their homes. Again, this idea is not new. It was tried years ago, back in the 1920s and 1930s during the Great Depression, the last time, I might point out, that we had a significant housing crisis such as the one we are in today.

Back in those days, the Congress, working with Franklin Roosevelt, crafted a program that had the Federal Government actually purchase highly distressed, troubled mortgages and then put those families back on their feet by a fixed-rate mortgage they could afford. That program actually produced a surplus for the American Government of some $16 million. We don't have a program like that, but it is similar. Instead of actually purchasing distressed mortgages, we are insuring them by insisting that the

lender reduce the amount they are asking for and settle on a fixed-rate cost that the borrower can afford. Therefore, the lender does not lose everything. It costs them in order to take this arrangement, but the borrower also gets to stay in their home, and they end up paying that insurance and also contributing back to the cost of the program.

The Congressional Budget Office has examined this idea which is temporary, voluntary; you don't have to be in it if you don't want to. We are trying to create a structure to allow people to end up with a mortgage they can afford and, for lenders who worry about losing everything, an opportunity to get something back out of this rather than losing all their resources. It is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that this program could actually save American taxpayers $250 million. That is their estimate of what we may actually have coming back as a result of this effort.

This has been a bipartisan proposal--a bicameral one, for that matter. The House has adopted a very similar program in their bill. There was an effort to strip this program out of the bill yesterday. Our colleagues voted 77 to 11 to reject such an effort. We don't get votes like that often, but I commend my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, for sticking with an idea that was recommended to us by a broad consensus on the political spectrum. So it was very important. We had strong votes yesterday for the regulatory reform for GSEs. The effort to strip out the affordable housing program was soundly defeated as well. The amendment relative to the HOPE for Homeowners Act was also resoundingly defeated.

We are on the brink of adopting the most comprehensive piece of housing legislation in a long time, and it is not coming any too soon either. As I have reported, when you have more than 8,000 people every day slipping into foreclosure, with already a million and a half, and some estimates are those numbers will explode in the coming weeks and months, it is a timely decision for Congress to do everything we can to restore confidence and optimism, to keep people in their homes, and to get our economy back on a sound footing. We will not do that in the absence of dealing with the housing crisis.

Again, I commend my colleague from Alabama. I thank him immensely for his work. I thank the leadership, principally our majority leader, for making it possible for us to get to this moment where we could adopt this legislation. My hope is that the other body, the House of Representatives, will consider what we have done, how difficult it is, and how precariously close we have come to having this matter blow up on us on at least several occasions in the last several days. We need to send this package to the President for his signature. He is threatening a veto. I hope he doesn't do that. It would be a great tragedy to have the President decide to veto this legislation.

I am told the reason he wants to veto it is because we include money for the Community Development Block Grant Program, some $3.9 billion. That is an emergency effort. The reason we have that is because our mayors, county supervisors, and Governors already have foreclosed properties, many of them in their communities. These moneys are exclusively to be used for the rehabilitation of these homes so they can be resold, to make them more attractive and available so we can revitalize neighborhoods that have been affected by foreclosure.

I have pointed out on many occasions in the past while debating these bills, if you end up with one foreclosure on a city block, the value of every other home on that block declines immediately by more than 1 percent. Crime rates go up by at least 2 percent in those neighborhoods. You start losing value in other homes, even if they are not on the market. We know today we have some 15 million homes where the debt exceeds the equity. Despite efforts over the years to increase that equity, to become part of retirement and deal with a family crisis, such as a higher education cost, many families now are living in homes where the debt on the mortgage exceeds the value of the house. That is an unhealthy situation. We need to do everything we can by cleaning up where foreclosed properties exist and getting them back on the market.

Let me commend Senator Baucus of Montana and Senator Grassley of Iowa, chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee, the tax- writing committee. Part of this bill includes provisions to deal with mortgage revenue bonds, to deal with a tax incentive approach to take foreclosed properties and encourage homeowners who would move into them to buy them. We need to do everything we can to allow this market to get back on its feet and moving.

That is a quick brief of what this bill includes. Again, it is a very good piece of legislation. It is not perfect. If I were writing it myself, it would look different, as I am sure it would if each Member could write the bill. But we serve in a body of 100 Members. We must work with a body that has 435 Members down the hall. Of course, we must work with the White House. That is how our system works. You don't get to write these things on your own. You have to work with people with whom you may have fundamental disagreements in order to resolve those disagreements, to find common ground, and then craft ideas that can make a difference for the American people who depend upon us.

That is what we have done with this bill. It is a sound, reliable, strong piece of legislation that will make a difference for the American people and, particularly, families fearing they may lose the most important and valuable asset they will ever have, the family home. What a difference it can make to a family to have that house in which to raise their family and feel secure that the home they are living in and raising their children in will be theirs and not be lost through foreclosure.

We are hopeful this legislation will be adopted in the early part of next week, and the President will sign it into law. What a greater gift on Independence Day, as we break for a week to go back to our respective States, than to have the President sign into law a piece of legislation that would allow the American people to enjoy a certain amount of independence as well in living in their homes without fear of foreclosure.

I urge my colleagues to continue to be supportive of this effort, and I thank those who have been responsible for bringing us to this point.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is truly a privilege and pleasure this morning to welcome to the Senate a remarkable individual who opened the Senate with a prayer this morning. He has lived an equally remarkable life and today resides in the community of Southington, CT.

In the 80 years we have enjoyed the fortune of having the Reverend Ralph Lord Roy in our midst, he has been an author and columnist, an activist, a teacher, and a radio host, and, of course, a pastor to some 12 different churches and ministries in New York and for some 36 years in Connecticut. At each stop along the way, he has spread the same message: one of justice and tolerance in the face of fear, resentment, anger, and prejudice.

In 1961, as part of the Congress of Racial Equality, Reverend Roy was one of the fabled ``Freedom Fighters'' who traveled to protest segregation policies in the South, for which he was arrested in Tallahassee.

A year later, he led a prayer pilgrimage to Albany, GA, at Martin Luther King's personal request. For his peaceful protests there, praying for the cause of desegregation, Reverend Roy was also arrested. In leading the largest group of clergy to be arrested in American history in Albany, GA, Reverend Roy became the first Caucasian Methodist minister in our Nation to be imprisoned for standing up for the civil rights of all Americans. The message he and his fellow clergy men and women sent at that moment--some 75 Jewish and Catholic laymen and clerics, most of them White, standing peacefully in solidarity with Dr. Martin Luther King on the sidewalk before the Albany City Hall-- reverberates to this very day. It echoes in the books and articles that Reverend Roy has penned on social and faith issues and in his powerful and personal accounts of his experiences with the slain civil rights leader. It echoes as well in his

radio shows and travels across the world. And today, of course, it echoes in the Halls of the Senate.

A remarkable 80 years, making a significant contribution to the improvement and the betterment of our great country. So it is truly an honor to welcome Reverend Roy from Southington, CT, who has opened our Senate session this morning with his wonderful, thoughtful prayer. We wish him and his family the very best, and we thank him for his wonderful contributions to our country.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; and the respective Members of our two parties, but particularly the leadership for their ability to make it possible for us to move forward on this very important piece of housing legislation. We have been at this for some time.

Every Member in this Chamber, as well as the American people, realize the seriousness of the problem we face as a nation. We have a serious economic crisis in the country, and the heart of that economic crisis is the housing crisis. The heart of the housing crisis is the foreclosure crisis.

Let me begin this discussion by noting that several months ago on two previous occasions we dealt with housing legislation--which I will point out is a part of this larger package today--and at that time we were having about 7,100 foreclosures a day. At least that was the number of filings of foreclosures when I first announced the level of foreclosures that were occurring. The numbers from May have just come in. The numbers are now close to 8,500, or 1,500 more than they were even 1 month ago. So we are now approaching 9,000 filings of foreclosures on a daily basis in our country.

In light of these numbers, I hope no one will suggest the problem is not a serious and growing one. We have not even hit July 1 yet when, of course, we realize the resets on some of these adjustable rate mortgages will begin to kick in; and as they do, we are warned by those following this issue almost on an hourly basis that the tidal wave of foreclosures will increase in the coming months, not decrease.

Obviously, with 1.5 million people who have already lost their homes, we are talking about a problem that is now spreading to commercial lending, municipal financing, student loans, and even having global implications as well for those who purchased these mortgage-backed securities. This is not confined to our own country. These were being purchased across the globe. So the problem begins with the foreclosure crisis, and yet the effects of it have spread far beyond the individual home, which is obviously the heart of most people's dreams in our country.

So the fact we were able to have our leadership, and Senator Shelby will obviously speak for himself, but both of us, I can say with confidence, are very grateful to Senators Reid and McConnell for making it possible for us to move forward on this legislation.

I will guarantee that if I were able to write this bill all on my own, it would look different. And I promise that Senator Shelby would probably write a different bill himself. But we don't live in a world where we get to write these things on our own. We serve in a body with 100 Members, and we have to work closely with others in the Chamber and the other body with 435 Members. We have a White House and an administration with which we have to deal. There are also, obviously, private interests around the country, from consumer groups and lending institutions, all having a deep interest in what we are trying to put together. So it is no easy task to cobble together a piece of legislation that will allow us to deal with this crisis, get us back on our feet again, restore some confidence and optimism among the American people so we can see capital begin to flow again, and thus wring ourselves out of this foreclosure issue and begin to see our economy grow and prosper.

That is what brings us to this very moment. I can't begin to express my gratitude to Senator Shelby, who is the former chairman of this committee, to the members on the Democratic side of the Banking Committee, beginning with Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, along with, of course, the Republican members as well. On two previous occasions we have brought forth pieces of legislation that have been adopted overwhelmingly by this body with 84 votes on the first bill and 90 votes on the second.

On the matter that will be a part of this bill, which has not been considered by the full Chamber, it passed our Banking Committee 19 to 2 back on May 20. So we come to this day having spent a great deal of time working with our colleagues, listening and working with the Members of the other body, as well as those who bring unique and special expertise to these very complicated issues. That is what we hope in the coming days to be able to complete, send our product to the other body, and hope they will endorse and support it, and then send the bill to the President for his signature.

With that as background, let me share a few thoughts about what are in these bills. As I mentioned already, most of what we are talking about has been voted on overwhelmingly by the Members of this body. On April 10, the Senate passed the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, and passed it by an overwhelming majority. At that time, I shared my view of the legislation, and that it did not quite live up to the title. I told this body we had more work to do to prevent foreclosures in this country and to strengthen the housing finance system before we could say we had lived up to the name of that bill.

I am very happy to report this morning that the Banking Committee of the Senate went back and did that work, and today Senator Shelby and I are reporting back to the Senate the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. This legislation incorporates all of the housing provisions of H.R. 3221 as it passed the Senate on April 10 by a vote of 84 to 12. It also includes the HOPE for Homeowners Act of 2008, which will help at least 400,000 families, we are told, and maybe more, to save their homes from this fate of 8,427 foreclosure filings a day. We need to try to put a break on that, if we can, and spare what it does to individual homeowners.

The bill creates a new, strong, independent regulator for the housing government-sponsored enterprises--the so-called GSEs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the 12 Federal home loan banks. It also establishes a new permanent fund that will help build affordable rental housing for low- and moderate-income families.

I will review these titles in more detail momentarily, but first let me remind my colleagues why Senator Shelby and I have been working so hard on this issue for the past number of months and throughout this entire Congress. Quite simply, we are living through the worst housing market since the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s. Here are the facts, Mr. President.

Residential construction in the United States fell by over 30 percent in the first quarter of this year. Sales of existing homes fell by 13 percent over

the past year. And while the new data for April indicates that sales may have finally picked up slightly, most analysts believe that pickup in home sales occurred only because home prices have continued to fall. They call this ``price capitulation,'' which means homeowners finally gave up and are dropping prices precipitously at a great loss to their financial security.

The number of new homes that remain unsold continues to rise, reaching the highest number in over a quarter of a century. Adding to this number are the increasing number of foreclosed homes.

Foreclosures have hit a new all-time record, according to the Mortgage Banker's Association--MBA. This data shows that almost one in every 11 homes with a mortgage in the country is in default or foreclosure, as of the end of March. That is the highest level since the MBA began tracking foreclosures in 1979. Foreclosure rates have been growing at record levels for some time and last year alone 1.5 million American homes entered into foreclosure.

During each and every day of May, more than 8,400 American families entered foreclosure and the projections are that foreclosure rates will remain at historic highs for the foreseeable future. In fact, the investment bank Credit Suisse recently released a report in which they predict that 6.5 million homes will fall into foreclosure over the next 5 years. They state:

The coming flood of new foreclosures could put 8.4 percent

of total homeowners, or 12.7 percent of homeowners with

mortgages, out of their homes.

The scenario that they are describing is one in which one out of every 8 American families with a mortgage would lose their homes. That is a chilling prediction.

The effect that this is having on our economy cannot be overstated. Martin Feldstein, who served as President Reagan's chief economist, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

The 10 percent decline in house prices has cut household

wealth by more than $2 trillion, reducing consumer spending

and increasing the risk of a deep recession.

That means that American families have lost more than $2 trillion of wealth. Losses of that magnitude are staggering. That is almost 20 percent of our Nation's annual GDP. Put another way, a national loss of wealth of $2 trillion means that a typical family of four will have lost over $25,000 of wealth due to the current housing market crisis.

This sharp loss in wealth for the average American homeowner comes at a time when they face record-high prices for the essentials of American life--food, gas, health care, and higher education. So the so-called foreclosure crisis is affecting more than those facing foreclosure. It is affecting nearly all of us. As one home falls into foreclosure, the values of countless other homes decline rapidly, if not immediately.

Robert Shiller, the widely respected economist, predicted recently that home prices will fall by 30 percent nationally. If that happens, the loss to American families will exceed $6 trillion. That is more than half of our Nation's annual GDP. It would mean that the typical family of four would have lost approximately $80,000 of wealth. That is more than most American families earn in an entire year.

The nationwide implications of this crisis help explain why consumer sentiment is at historic lows. Americans' expectations for future economic growth are at the lowest levels in 35 years, since the deep recession of the early 1970s.

These negative views about our economic prospects are based on the real experiences of most Americans. The Pew Center recently conducted a survey on Americans' views on not only the economy as a whole, but on their personal well being. The Washington Post characterized the Pew Center's findings as:

Offering the gloomiest assessment of economic well-being in

close to half a century, a new survey has found that most

Americans say they have not made progress over the past five

years as their incomes have stagnated and they have

increasingly borrowed money to finance their lifestyles.

By almost any measure--by any measure, Americans are struggling more than at any time in recent memory. Real median family income has fallen this decade as the costs of gas, health care, and college tuition have risen at levels far outstripping any increases in paychecks. Just to keep pace with these rising costs, Americans have turned to borrowing from credit cards and their homes. But now, as the crisis in our capital markets begins to threaten sources of liquidity for people, such as mortgages, student loans and other types of lending, the American economy is in a precarious place. That is why we need new policies and new action to prevent this recession from becoming more severe, and to lay the foundation for our recovery.

We have a responsibility to the American people to respond to their plight and to their pessimism, and to renew their confidence in the promise of the American dream.

The package Senator Shelby and I bring before the Senate today meets this test. Is it perfect? Hardly. Never is there a piece of legislation that is perfect. Would either of us have done it a bit differently? I am confident we would. Are we guaranteeing it will work? Absolutely not. All we know is this is our best judgment, having worked together now for the last year and a half to listen to people at some 50 different hearings on a wide range of subject matters. Then we put together legislation that has enjoyed, I say again with thanks to our colleagues, overwhelming support in this Chamber on a bipartisan basis. That is not something we have done with great frequency, I might point out, in recent years. The package is a good one. It is one we think covers many of the issues, if not most of them, with which we are grappling.

Let me review the major provisions included in this package.

First, FHA Modernization. FHA Modernization will help hundreds of thousands of homeowners gain access to safer, more affordable loans. FHA does not insure the kinds of risky, adjustable rate mortgages that so many homeowners were steered into, to their great peril and eventual sorrow. I want to point out to my colleagues that the only change from the FHA Modernization provisions passed in April is hat we have increased the maximum loan limit to $625,000, a provision that will expand the reach of this crucial mortgage lifeline to a broader cross- section of the country.

Veterans housing provisions--a number of our colleagues included important improvements to update the loan limits for VA loans; assist returning soldiers avoid rising mortgage rates and foreclosure; and expand housing benefits to disabled veterans.

CDBG funds--the bill includes about $3.9 billion in emergency CDBG funds directed to those communities most affected by the foreclosure crisis. These resources will be used to buy foreclosed homes at a discount, renovate them, and return them to the market. These funds will help turn around neighborhoods decimated by disinvestment by bringing in new capital to start rebuilding homes and communities.

Counseling Funds--the bill also includes $150 million in additional funds for housing counselors to help keep people out of foreclosure. There are many Members who care about this and were involved and talked about it. This language we have already adopted, but it is in this bill as well.

The HOPE for Homeowners Act of 2008, another provision in this legislation, creates a new fund at FHA to make loans to distressed borrowers to refinance them out of mortgages with payments they cannot make into safe, affordable, 30-year fixed rate loans.

Only homeowners--not investors or speculators--will qualify for these loans. And the lenders must agree to take steep discounts from the existing outstanding mortgages.

Only homeowners who cannot afford their current payments will qualify, and, once they take out the new loan, they will have to agree to share all newly created equity and future appreciation with FHA to help defray the Government's cost.

We have heard many people voice concerns about this bill, calling it a taxpayer bailout. Let me assure my colleagues, the Congressional Budget Office makes it clear that no taxpayer money will be used to fund this program. We pay for this important new program by all or part of the first 3 year's funding from the affordable housing fund created in the GSE portion of the legislation. Then we have

an additional $2 billion cushion at the Treasury Department, should there be any negative implications.

In fact, according to the CBO, this program will make nearly $250 million for the taxpayers over the next 10 years. In return, we will be saving the American dream for hundreds of thousands of elderly and hard-working families; stopping the bleeding in our communities; and helping restore confidence in our capital markets.

Finally, this package establishes a new, independent, world class regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks, known as the housing Government-sponsored enterprises, GSEs. The legislation endows this regulator with broad new authority, equivalent to the authority of other Federal financial regulators, to ensure the safe and sound operations of the GSEs. Let me recite the powers included in this legislation: Establish capital standards; establish prudential management standards, including internal controls, audits, risk management, and management of the portfolio; enforce its orders through cease and desist authority, civil money penalties, and the authority to remove officers and directors; restrict asset growth and capital distributions for undercapitalized institutions; put a regulated entity into receivership; and review and approve, subject to notice and comment, new product offerings.

As we all know, the housing GSEs have played the central role in keeping the mortgage markets functioning. Yet in recent months, like many others in the mortgage industry, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have lost billions of dollars. It is their very importance that makes it imperative that we assure ourselves, and the American people, that the GSEs are on solid financial footing so they can continue to serve that crucial function. A strong and of active regulator can help make sure that the GSEs continue to operate in a safe, sound, and effective manner.

The new legislation significantly enhances the affordable housing component of the GSEs' mission, and expands the number of families Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can serve by raising the loan limits in high-cost areas to 150 percent of the comforming loan limit. Currently, this limit would be $625,000.

The legislation tightens targeting requirements of the affordable housing goals, and rewrites those goals to ensure that the enterprises provide liquidity to both ownership and rental housing markets for low- and very-low income families.

Finally, the legislation creates a permanent, new Housing Trust Fund and a Capital Magnet Fund, financed by annual contributions from the enterprises, which will used for the acquisition or construction of affordable rental housing, some ownership housing, and economic development for low-income families and communities.

This new affordable housing fund--financed fully by the enterprises-- will provide a steady stream of financing to build housing for those most in need. The Capital Magnet Fund requires that each dollar leverage at least an additional $10. Together, these programs will provide billions of dollars for new affordable housing in years to come. I want to acknowledge the important contributions of Senator Jack Reed to this part of the legislation. This is going to be a permanent program that will make a difference for millions of people in years in come.

I thank my ranking member, Senator Shelby, and his staff, for their hard work to reach consensus on this whole package.

This is what we are supposed to be doing. This is what we get elected to do. We don't get elected to decide exactly what we want to do at the expense of everyone else. It means sitting down and working together to come up with solid ideas that can make a difference in our country. Today, 8,427 people are going to start to lose their homes. Tomorrow another 8,427 will have that happen, and that will happen every single day until we do something to bring this to a halt. That number has gone up by 1,000 families in the last 2 months. We cannot waste another day. There is no other issue which demands our attention and our action more than this one, and any effort to be dilatory and to stop us from saving these people and keeping them in their homes ought to be rejected by every Member of this body.

This is a cancer in our society, and it is causing us deep problems. We need to do something about it. Senator Shelby and our staffs and the members of our committee have worked hard and long to bring this package forward. It enjoys broad-based bipartisan support, as we hoped it would. Now we have a chance to complete action on this and to make a difference and to say to the American people: In this Congress, we did something. We stepped up and tried to make a difference for that great dream of home ownership, of raising your family in a decent house, of being able to provide for your long-term security, of making a difference for your neighborhoods and communities. We are going to do everything we can to see to it that these numbers decline, that foreclosures at this rate on a daily basis are going to stop in our country.

Again, we say to you, we realize not everyone agrees with what we are doing here.

You never can here. I have been here for 27 years. The greatest moments of this body are where people have come together to try and make a difference, not trying to get their own way all the time. You are part of a larger body representing a great country. And even though you come from one State and one area of the Nation, we all have a job to do, to take care of all of us in this country.

While this problem does not affect every citizen of the country, it is growing. If we do not do something soon about it, we will be indicted by history for not doing it.

I thank my great friend from Alabama, who has been a great chairman of this subcommittee, been a great member of this committee, and he has worked awfully hard to bring us to this moment. I am grateful to Harry Reid and to Mitch McConnell for making it possible.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague from Alabama.

I want to read this list into the Record to give our colleagues some sense of the broad support this proposal has developed. Let me quote from several of our major editorials as well as major economists representing the political spectrum in our country. I will share this with you.

Alex Pollack, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute:

This is an appropriate and targeted approach to the

downward spiral caused by the deflation of the great housing

and mortgage bubble of the 21st century.

Alan Blinder, an economist at Princeton University and the former vice chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

I think that the HOPE for Homeowners bill is the most

important piece of economic legislation before the Congress

today.

The Miami Herald:

The Senate represents a bipartisan compromise that deserves

wide support.

The Boston Globe:

There is no bailout or windfall here. Congress is merely

offering a fighting chance for families and credit markets to

recover.

Newsday:

The Senate program is called Hope for Homeowners. That's

just what families facing foreclosure need.

Fran Grossman, the senior vice president of Shore Bank in Chicago:

With millions of hard working Americans torn between

looking for work and putting gas in the tank or paying their

mortgage, we must enact legislation to provide access to the

resources that will help families to hold onto the American

dream and get our economy moving again.

Robert Shiller, as I pointed out earlier, supports this legislation. He is highly respected, by the way, as someone who deals with the issue of the index dealing with housing values.

Again, groups from the American Enterprise Institute to the Consumer Federation of America.

Alan Fishbein. Let me quote him:

With foreclosures on the rise a stepped-up Federal lifeline

is desperately needed if many hard-pressed families are to

save their homes.

From the Consumer Federation of America to members of the American Enterprise Institute, former members of the Federal Reserve Board, members of the Reagan administration, the Council of Economic Advisers, others, all are advocating--and I am not suggesting dotting every ``i'' and crossing every ``t.'' But they have taken this work of Senator Shelby and 17 of our other colleagues of the 21-member committee, 19 out of 21 having gone through all of the hearings, 50 of them over the last year, listening to all sorts of people talking about what needs to be done. It is now the bipartisan overwhelming majority opinion of us on that committee that this package we offer here is our best step forward.

Having done the work for a year now, spending the hours that we have listening to people and getting solid advice, this is what we believe, as they believe, is the best response America can make at this moment.

Remember, this HOPE for Homeowners is voluntary; it does not mandate anything. It creates an opportunity for people. We hope they will take advantage of it when this legislation is signed into law.

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

Mr. President, let the games begin. We are open for business. If Members have amendments they would like to raise, Senator Shelby and I are here, and we would like to move along. I know there are Members who have plans they would like to do later this week, perhaps for the weekend, but if we can move quickly, who knows what might happen, since we have done two-thirds of the bill already with overwhelming votes, with a couple modest changes in it. We have increased loan limits in a couple of areas. We invite our colleagues to come over. If they want any questions answered about this, we have staff here as well as members of the committee. We are prepared to entertain amendments and move forward on this very important piece of legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Let me say, first of all, I will be very brief. I know my colleague from Iowa wants to be heard on the bill. I wish to say to Senator Bond that what we will do is try to figure out a way to handle these in order, all three of them in one or in order, or whether we will go back and forth. But we will keep him posted.

I do not how long my colleague from Iowa wants to be heard on the bill. I wish to respond to the Senator from Missouri on the issues. I presume my colleague from Alabama may want to do so as well. We will try to take them in the order the Senator offered them. We will keep him posted on how we will proceed.

Madam President, we are going to try to work out an arrangement so people have some sense of the order in which people will be heard. We now have three Bond amendments. There is an amendment by Senator Dole that has been offered. Obviously, we have the pending amendment of Senator Reid. These are all second-degree amendments to the Reid amendment. At some point, I will want to bring closure to these amendments so we can deal with them. Senator Isakson may have an amendment. I would like to get to a point where we can manage those amendments, debate them, and then ask the leadership for an appropriate time to have a series of maybe three or four or five votes, depending upon what is necessary.

I yield the floor to the request for a time sequence of speakers, if I may.

Madam President, let me begin briefly by thanking our colleagues who have come and spoken on the bill already this morning. I thank Senator Bob Casey, of Pennsylvania, a member of Senator Shelby's and my committee, the Banking Committee, for his remarks. I also thank Judd Gregg, of New Hampshire, who, while not a member of the committee, has followed our work very closely and has been intimately involved with the committee over the last number of months as we were developing the Homeowners Act, an idea he brought to the table. He brings a good historical perspective--going back to the Resolution Trust Corporation and dealing with another housing crisis and how well that idea worked; and while we are not exactly duplicating it, he has knowledge of how that worked and an understanding of the basic idea behind the bill that we have authored over the last several months, which is very helpful.

I know Senator Shelby and I are grateful, as are other members of the committee, for having a nonmember of the committee understand the issue as well as he does. His support of what we are trying to do is very helpful.

I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley as well. Senator Shelby and I are not dealing with the tax-writing provisions of this bill and they have been helpful and cooperative and, obviously, their ideas are a strong complement to what we are trying to achieve--with mortgage revenue bonds and tax incentives for those who acquire foreclosed properties, and the like, are very helpful. They have disregarded earlier provisions included in the tax proposals and, candidly, I think those ideas being kept out of this bill is healthy. I don't dwell on it. Frankly, I think their appraisal of the various ideas is very constructive. We thank the tax-writing committee, the Finance Committee, which has done a good job in complementing what we are trying to do.

Senator Johnny Isakson, of Georgia, deserves a great deal of credit. He brought up the idea of trying to create some incentives for those who might purchase foreclosed properties. In his previous life, he worked in this area, and he has a firm knowledge of it. So his cooperation on that, as well as other aspects of the bill, his enforcement and support of this legislation and his intention to back it is a further indication of the effort we have made on a bipartisan basis to make this a good bill, not just because it has bipartisan support, but I think that is indicative of the kind of effort that has been made that brings us to this moment.

I note that in this morning's local newspaper, the Washington Post, the leading headline is, ``DC Region's Foreclosure Rate Soars.'' It says that although communities have felt the effects of the housing crisis for months, the report reveals that foreclosures in the Washington region have been increasing at a surprisingly quick pace, outstripping those of most metropolitan areas. It points out that while foreclosures were practically nonexistent in Washington 18 months ago, it is now very prevalent and way above the national average.

I point that out because that is unique here. It makes a point. As I showed earlier this morning, with the graph we put up, we have the numbers now for May on the foreclosure rates. Over 8,400 people are going to foreclosure every single day in America. That number was below 8,000, in the mid-7,500 area, only a few weeks ago.

For those who would suggest that we ought to wait this out, or see what happens down the road, explain that to the 8,000 families today who may lose their homes, the 8,000 tomorrow and the 8,000 the following day and the day after that and all next week, as we grapple with this bill, where as many as 50,000 or 60,000 families will be adversely affected while we debate whether this is a perfect bill. My patience is thin. We have worked so hard on this. So for those who suggest it is a bailout for a lender--I have heard a lot of arguments, and when you have people losing homes every day, neighborhoods being destroyed because of it, including financial aid for students, municipal finance, commercial lending, and the global implications and trying to put a bill together that will bring some confidence back to the marketplace, and to suggest this is a bailout for some bank--it is anything but that. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Senator Shelby and I have had 50 hearings since last March on this subject matter-- almost exclusively on this subject matter--and we have had these individuals before our committees explaining to us why they were giving out adjustable rate mortgages to people on fixed incomes, knowing very well these people could never, ever pay the final fully indexed price of those properties. Yet they did it, day in and day out, knowing full well what the implications would be.

The very companies they claim are being bailed out are exactly the ones that were engaging in that, and the last thing we are doing is providing any kind of support and assistance for them. We are trying to see to it that we restore some semblance of confidence in this area and we are planning to keep as many people in their homes as we can.

Have we written a miracle? Absolutely not. Will this work? I hope so. Do I have an assurance it will? No. All I know is it is our best judgment, based on the wonderful, competent people who don't bring an ideological perspective to this--from the American Heritage Foundation to the Consumer Federation of America and groups in between. They have said this is the best idea we could come up with to address this issue. They would also be the ones to tell you there is no assurance it is going to work. It is a voluntary program. We don't mandate anything here; we are just creating the opportunity.

I say to my colleagues that history is somewhat of a teacher in all of this. Back in the last period when we had a housing crisis of this magnitude, back in the 1920s and 1930s, another Congress did it differently. In that case, the Federal Government actually purchased distressed mortgages. Senator Shelby and I are not suggesting anything such as that. We are talking about an insurance program. It is a voluntary program that creates a new, temporary program. It ends in a few years. It is merely an effort to step in here and try to make a difference in all of this.

I will go back over some of the specifics of this--the HOPE for Homeowners Act--as well as the issue dealing with the affordable housing provision and how we managed to do this without a tax increase. We have a wonderful symmetry of liquidity being strengthened, a regulator being imposed on these GSEs, and a source of revenue coming from that which can also assist in another area of needed housing.

We think this has a rather good sense of balance.

But again, I am very grateful to the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, and to the Members who have spoken out, both Democrats and Republicans, this morning, those who have come together and said this is a good bill deserving of our support. We hope the rest of our colleagues, as they come forward with these amendments, will be so inclined to stand with us and support this bill, and urge the White House to sign it into law.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I wish to thank our colleague from California. She is absolutely correct. Arizona, Nevada, Florida--there are States that are being affected, but no State is paying the price as much as California. It is the epicenter of this problem for many reasons.

Earlier this morning, I highlighted the growing problem, as the Senator from California has done with her charts. We are now averaging on a daily basis, I say to my colleague from California, 8,427 foreclosure filings in the country every single day. That is up almost--somewhere in the area of 1,000 more than it was 2 months ago when it was up to 7,500 or in that range. Now we are getting close to 9,000 every day for foreclosure filings.

The estimates are that when you get the resets that will be occurring on these adjustable rate mortgages coming in July or shortly after July, we will face another tidal wave of foreclosures coming. So the Senator's numbers, as bad as they are today, will be worse, quite candidly. So every day we wait, every day there is a delay, it is going to cost us dearly.

I can't guarantee our bill is going to solve every problem. All I can tell my colleagues is what we have done is listen to very good people. We have held 50 different hearings over the last number of months listening to people from the American Heritage Foundation, the Consumer Federation of America, and they all have come to this conclusion. So when people start telling me this is written for some special interest, believe me, if you have been to the 50 hearings and listened to people talk about this idea--one that we actually tried once before; a very similar idea back in the early part of the 20th century during the Great Depression is the last time we had a crisis such as this and it worked, and it made a difference in the lives of people and families.

I listened to the Senator's personal story, which is very moving. But what a difference there is today in our country that we have been able to make housing and home ownership available to so many more people and to watch it happen, and now watch this fall apart and what it does to neighborhoods and families and communities. There is nothing more stabilizing than the idea of having an equity interest in where you live.

So this is an issue that has far broader implications than just housing, but it is at the heart of who we are and the dreams that people have in this country. So it is very important we get this done. I thank the Senator immensely for her comments, as well as the data which she is supplying to reinforce this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by our colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, Senator Schumer be recognized.

Mr. President, I return that compliment. To have a former Secretary of HUD as a member of the Banking Committee is a pretty good asset. When we talk about these issues, to have someone who ran that agency and knows these programs as intimately as Senator Mel Martinez has been a great asset for the committee in developing this product. I will say this publicly. I am deeply grateful to him. Senator Shelby is, as well, as are all of the members of the committee.

We have had an active and involved committee. The 21 members of the committee have been deeply engaged in this debate over the last year and a half, or more, as we have had some 50 hearings--most of which have been related to the subject matter--to gather the best information and advice we could get in developing the product we have here. The Senator from Florida has been a key element in doing that.

Mr. President, Senator Schumer was, by consent, supposed to follow Senator Martinez, but the Senator had to attend another meeting. Let me ask my colleague, how long is my colleague from New Hampshire going to be?

Madam President, before he leaves the floor--I will recognize Senator Kohl and Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer is on the floor. We heard from Senator Martinez and others.

This doesn't happen miraculously. Senator Carper has been deeply involved and committed to these issues for a long time. There was a while when I couldn't see him without ``GSE'' being the first thing out of his mouth.

I thank him for his persistence over the months when we developed this final product, and I thank him immensely for his work.

Madam President, I will try and propound a unanimous consent request one more time.

I ask unanimous consent that at or about 4:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, and that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, the vote time for the second vote be 10 minutes, with no intervening amendments in order: Bond amendment No. 4986 and the Bond amendment No. 4985. Further, that time be allocated as follows: Senator Dole has requested 5 minutes to talk about a proposal she is offering; Senator Bond for 10 minutes; Senator Shelby for 10 minutes; and myself for 15 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

Reserving the right to object, I haven't had a chance to look at it. I would have to take a minute to look at what he is proposing.

Are you going to resubmit the modification?

Reserving the right to object, as I understand what my colleague from Missouri is suggesting is that the existing affordable housing program under the GSE, that whatever language is there that would have affected that is taken out by this modification.

But the modification corrects that.

The underlying amendment would object to the proposed addition to the affordable housing program authored by Senator Reid in the bill. That still is the substance of the amendment?

I have no objection to the modification.

Madam President, let me take a few minutes, if I may, because I have yet to really address these two amendments and also the one I know our colleague from North Carolina is going to propose or is in the process of proposing.

Amendment No. 4985

Madam President, let me deal, first of all, with the HOPE for Homeowners Program. I raised earlier this morning--and I will do it again, if necessary--that 8,427 people as of today will file for foreclosure. That number was for every day in the month of May. That is in excess of the numbers back in April and even back in March. But they are growing. So every single day we delay moving on this, we have, on average, again, some 8,000 to 9,000 people in our country who are entering the foreclosure process and losing their homes, and 1.5 million people have already. We have been told and warned by those who acknowledge and follow these issues that this is a crisis that is not shrinking; it is growing. It is growing by the hour, let alone by the day.

The HOPE for Homeowners Act that Senator Shelby and I and 17 others of our committee have fashioned together--very similar to what the other body has done--is designed specifically to offer some relief to these people facing foreclosure. Both lenders and borrowers will take what is called a ``haircut.'' It will be painful. It will not be easy. It is voluntary. It is temporary. But it offers some hope that we can put the brakes on this ever-escalating problem of foreclosures in our country.

It is not only affecting homeowners, which is obviously bad enough, it is affecting commercial loans, student loans, municipal finance. The global implications are obvious to anyone who has paid any attention to the issue. So this idea, which is central to this bill, is critical.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri would eliminate this program altogether, despite all the recommendations from the American Enterprise Institute, the Consumer Federation of America, other lending institutions, the Federal Reserve members. In fact, the present Chairman of the Federal Reserve, while not endorsing the bill, has called for this kind of action.

Quite simply, we are living through one of the worst housing market crises since the Great Depression. Almost 1 in every 11 homes with a mortgage in this country is in default or foreclosure as of the end of March. This is the highest level since the Mortgage Bankers Association began collecting data in 1979. Foreclosure rates have grown and grown at record levels for some time, and last year about 1.5 million, as I have said, have already gone into that status.

This foreclosure crisis hurts everyone, as we all know. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently stated:

[H]igh rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have

substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the

financial markets, and the broader economy. Therefore, doing

what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in

the interest of lenders and borrowers. It is in everybody's

interest.

The HOPE for Homeowners Program is built on a concept raised by Chairman Bernanke:

The best solution may be a write down of principal or other

permanent modification of the loan by the servicer, perhaps

combined with a refinancing by the Federal Housing

Administration or another lender.

That is also from Chairman Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com recently wrote:

Unless policymakers soon become more creative and

aggressive, the risks are rising that the current recession

will be more severe and the ultimate recovery more

disappointing than anyone currently anticipates.

The evidence is overwhelming. The recommendations come from across the political spectrum. This is absolutely critical at this pivotal moment on this economic issue. Senator Kerry earlier talked about that at the heart of our economic crisis is the housing crisis, and the heart of the housing crisis is the foreclosure crisis. Were the Bond amendment to be adopted, the very bipartisan effort we have spent months working on to achieve here would be lost.

I urge my colleagues, as they have heard from our colleagues--Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, Senator Martinez, Senator Isakson; and on our side, Senator Boxer, Senator Schumer, and Senator Casey; and, obviously, Senator Shelby and myself--across the spectrum here--we recognize this idea may not solve every problem, but if we can keep 400,000 to 500,000 people in their homes, that is a step forward in the right direction to help Americans facing these kinds of crises. I urge my colleagues, at the appropriate moment, when this matter is before us, to say, respectfully, to my friend from Missouri that we reject this amendment and will keep this very critical element of this very important housing bill.

Amendment No. 4986, as Modified

Madam President, the second proposal by Senator Bond also, in my view, should be rejected. We have modified the amendment, so any possible inference he would be striking the existing program has been taken out of this bill. I applaud him for that, and I thank him for that. But the problem still persists.

As Senator Kerry of Massachusetts just pointed out, this problem with affordable housing is growing. It is staggering in its proportions. Over 3.5 million people in our country, including

1.3 million children, experience homelessness each year. For most of these families, all that is needed is affordable housing.

The gap between rental costs and wages of low-income people is significant. To give you some idea as to the housing assistance necessary for many working Americans, a person has to earn over $17 an hour just to afford the average fair market rental without forgoing other basic needs. That is three times the current minimum wage.

There are 7.4 million disabled Americans on SSI. SSI benefits are lower than the average fair market rent. Rental costs are more than 100 percent of their SSI benefits. Without housing assistance, these people who are disabled in our country cannot afford housing. That is a fact.

The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University found in their report, ``The State of the Nation's Housing 2007,'' that in just 1 year, the number of severely cost-burdened households--those that pay more than half of their income toward rent--jumps by 2.1 million to a total of 17 million. This is one in seven U.S. households in the country affected.

The data goes on and on. This is a very important element of this matter: affordable, decent shelter.

Harry Truman, in a bipartisan effort, in the late 1940s--60 years ago--called upon Americans. John Sparkman of Alabama was ``Mr. Housing'' back in the 1950s and 1960s. This was never a partisan issue: decent, affordable shelter for Americans--all Americans.

We heard our colleagues today: Senator Martinez talking about his family getting that first home when they arrived in this country. Senator Boxer grew up her entire life never owning their own home, and she was able to buy one as a young mother, and they stayed there for 40 years to raise their family.

Madam President, 17 million people in our country today deserve decent shelter. You should not have to strip every bit of income you have to try to afford it. So what Jack Reed has put together here is decency--common decency. In our moment of difficulty, if we cannot do something to provide affordable shelter and to ask that funding flow come out of these government-sponsored enterprises, which have been so lucrative, for them to share in that wealth, to make it possible for working families in this country to have a decent place to live--I do not think that is too much to ask in this hour of need.

We heard our colleagues across the spectrum politically support this program, and having a vote of 19 to 2 in our committee, with Democrats and Republicans coming together at a moment such as this to say: We hear you. We care about what you are going through. We have designed a program not by increasing taxes but by asking existing institutions to share, to see to it all Americans can enjoy that affordable and decent shelter they deserve as Americans.

I ask my colleagues to reject that amendment as well.

Madam President, I will address my colleague from Vermont through the Chair. As I understand it, we have heard from the Members who want to be heard on the amendments. Unless there is an objection, I know my colleague wants to take a few minutes to propose an amendment; is that correct?

The only danger is, of course, we would have to get back on the matter before us to vote on the underlying amendments that we agreed, by unanimous consent, to do at or about 4:30.

There is an objection being voiced.

I say to my colleague, we will have a couple votes fairly quickly, and then I will be here to entertain my colleague's proposal.

Yes.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Certainly. I will again make the same recommendation I have made to our colleague from Vermont. If the Senator from Georgia will wait a few minutes, we will be glad to take--in fact, I invite, as my colleague from Alabama does, any other amendments besides those we have heard about here that people want to raise. We are anxious to do business. We are going to have a couple votes, but obviously there may be some other thoughts people have on the subject matter. Certainly, I will be here to entertain that amendment.

Madam President, again, I do not know if other Members wish to be heard on the pending matters; that is, the two Bond amendments, which are the subject of the pending votes.

Does my colleague from Vermont wish to be heard on the pending amendments?

Well, there could be. I can't say that is not going to be the case. But getting a vote, that is certainly a possibility. Let me talk with others and see what the intention would be.

Madam President, let me inquire, as I understand, the Senator from Missouri has 8 additional minutes remaining on the UC?

Madam President, I know Senator Shelby had some time remaining. I don't know if he intends to use it. He may not.

I would have to object. There is an objection being raised.

Madam President, I have 2 minutes or 3 minutes remaining, and I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, let me briefly say to my colleagues that this is the second Bond amendment. This amendment would eliminate the HOPE for Homeowners Act, almost the centerpiece of this legislation. This is an idea that was recommended to us by a broad spectrum of people on the economic agenda here dealing with the issue of how we keep people in their homes. This idea has been endorsed by the American Enterprise Institute, the Consumer Federation of America, and many other groups and organizations that have suggested this idea could possibly keep as many as 400,000 to 500,000 people in their homes.

Every day in the month of May, 8,427 people filed for foreclosure. Every single day. Every day, over 8,000 people are filing for foreclosure in our country. Every day that goes on and we fail to take a step to do what we can to see that we can keep people in their homes and get our economy back on its feet, a day is lost and it endangers our economy even further.

The Bond amendment strips this bill, the HOPE for Homeowners Act, which we passed 19 to 2 out of the Banking Committee. We have had extensive hearings on it. It is a bipartisan proposal that we hope will make a difference in our country. What better step could we take this evening than to reject this amendment and endorse the idea that we are going to do everything we can to keep homeowners in their home?

I will make a point of order, Madam President, after Senator Bond has spoken.

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. This is the pay-go point of order.

Mr. President, my good friend, the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, asked if he could speak for 2 or 3 minutes on an unrelated matter.

Mr. President, if I may, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Virginia.

No objection.

Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to one of my dearest friends in this body, Senator John Warner, and to Jim Webb, who did a great job of this. All of us are grateful for the tremendous work they have done. Needless to say, millions of veterans deeply appreciate their commitment to this. I am not surprised that these two Virginians will be leading the charge in this. I thank them.

I wish to give my thanks to our colleagues. Well done.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. President, I yield time to my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the leader. Senator Shelby and I are prepared to be here even for a little longer this evening, for those who might want to talk on the bill, or they can tell us what they may want to offer. So we will be around.

Mr. President, there is no time agreement, so it is a matter of recognition.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to remember Tim Russert--a remarkable individual, a journalist, a former staff member in this body, a dedicated husband, and above all else, a father. And I would like to add my voice to the chorus of those who have sung his praises these sad past several days.

Tim Russert was a force in American politics--and a force for integrity in our media. For 17 years, millions of Americans have looked to Tim on Sunday mornings for his insight into our political process. From his days serving as an aide to our former colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan, through every minute of his remarkable tenure at NBC, Tim never lost his enthusiasm for vibrant but respectful political discourse. It was in so many ways his lifeblood.

Like few others, Tim understood the role politics played not just in the media--but in our daily lives. He saw politics for what it was--not a fight among partisans, but rather the medium in which the diversity of views and values in our society are arbitrated to a national conclusion.

In that sense, under Tim's stewardship, ``Meet the Press'' became the premier forum for showcasing the fundamentally decent side of politics that is almost entirely lost today--where people of very different views, backgrounds and perspectives, could come together to debate their differences respectfully and constructively.

Indeed, one saw that in Tim's approach to matters of faith--where his own views and values were very formidable indeed. A year ago, Senator Brownback and I shared the stage with Tim at Boston College, where we each talked about our shared Catholic faith and the role the Church played in our lives, shaping our politics and our society. With all the controversy around faith in politics over the last several years, some wondered about the fireworks that could have ensued.

But what Tim, a practicing Catholic, wanted was not two Senators delivering sermons, if you will--about how to ``use'' faith as a political weapon. Rather, as someone who once said that the nuns in Catholic school, ``taught me to read and write, but also how to tell right from wrong,'' Tim wanted us to talk about our formative experiences as Catholics. He wanted to engage us in a robust conversation about all that we shared--even in areas we vigorously disagreed with one another.

To be sure, in that sense, Tim was very much doing God's work each and every Sunday morning.

I was a guest on ``Meet the Press'' many, many times over Tim's years hosting the program. He was without question the most tenacious questioner I have ever known. Never once did I feel like Tim let me off easy. Never once did I feel he was being unfair or trying to score points. Every time I was on, most recently just a few weeks ago, he pressed me, pushed me, poked and prodded me as he did thousands of guests.

We were all the same in his eyes--no matter how many years we had been in public life, no matter how accomplished we were. He simply wanted to get at the truth--and if you didn't give it to him, Tim made sure that the whole world would know.

Certainly, there are many guests over the years who ``bombed'' on ``Meet the Press.'' One of the things I loved about Tim was that while he might let you embarrass yourself on national television, he would never embarrass you.

Part of that was his fundamental decency--but so, too, was it the special appreciation Tim had for his guests, having been on the other side himself, walking these very halls on behalf of our departed colleague from New York. Tim understood as well as anyone what those of us in public life did for a living--and I wish more in his profession were afforded his perspective.

Of course, Tim appreciated nothing more than family. Every time I saw Tim, he always wanted to know how your family was doing. Indeed, for all of his famously aggressive journalistic acumen, it is impossible to not mention the other side of that gregarious personality--the warmth and generosity. When I was on ``Meet the Press'' last year, Tim took the time after our interview to jump around and dance with my two young daughters. The twinkle in his eye was unmistakable when you talked family with Tim.

Lastly, I want to say a word about one of Tim's greatest legacies, and that is fatherhood--his contributions to what being a father means in America. His call to our responsibilities as fathers and the difference an active, involved, caring father can make in a child's life will be one of Tim's most significant legacies.

My colleagues know I have spoken many times on this floor about what my father meant to me--how more than anything or anyone else, it was my father's example that compelled me into public service.

Tim and I shared that bond, I think. Indeed, we both wrote books about our fathers--I having published long lost letters from my father as a prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials, Tim writing two books, including one about the lessons he learned from his father, ``Big Russ'' in Buffalo.

At a time when some debate the condition of the American family, Tim's meditations on fatherhood--on the wisdom and character passed down by his father--struck a deep, resonant chord.

It was one of the saddest ironies of all that his next broadcast would have been on Father's Day. But perhaps it was meant to be that way--remembering Tim on a day in which we were all celebrating our fathers.

Jackie and I send our deepest sympathies to Maureen, Luke, Big Russ, and the rest of the Russert family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them--Tim will be dearly missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a bill I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to amend the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve program. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her tremendous leadership on the problem this bill is designed to address, which is a critically important issue for our region that we have worked together on for many years. That issue is the skyrocketing price of heating oil, which millions of families in the Northeast are dependent on to heat their homes through our long, cold winters.

According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency, EIA, 6.2 million of the 8 million households in the U.S. that use heating oil to heat their homes are in the Northeast, or approximately 78 percent. As crude oil and gasoline prices have risen higher and higher, the cost of heating oil has risen as well. Currently, heating oil is far and away the costliest method of heating homes, costing families an average of nearly $2000 per year, and much more in the coldest areas. Overall, heating a home with heating oil costs twice the national average of all fuels combined, yet most families in the Northeast have little choice. Even in some of our region's cities, there are no natural gas lines or other sources of home heating available to residents.

This dependence on heating oil is stretching many families' budgets to the breaking point. Where once low and moderate income families could struggle through the winter, soaring heating oil prices are forcing people to choose between heating their homes, driving their cars to and from work, and putting food on the table for their families. The EIA estimated that this year, it will cost $1,962 to heat a home with oil, a 33 percent increase from last year and a 117 percent increase since 2004. In just 4 short years, the cost of heating a home with oil has gone up more than $1000 dollars! Many families and seniors living on fixed incomes simply cannot bear this burden.

That is why Senator Snowe and I are proposing a price trigger to provide for oil to be released from the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. This is a 2-million barrel reserve I originally worked to create in 2000, along with my colleague from Maine and other Senators from the Northeast, to protect the residents of the region from severe price shocks to the heating oil market. Given the record heating oil prices we are experiencing today, we believe it would be reasonable to use this reserve to try to cushion those dependent on heating oil to get through the winter. From November through March, the Secretary of Energy would conduct a survey to determine the price of a gallon of heating oil on the first of each month. If the price meets or exceeds $4 per gallon, this would trigger an immediate release of 20 percent of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. This oil would then be sold on the open market to lower the price of heating oil in the region.

The revenue raised by the sale would then be devoted to the Weatherization Assistance Program to help low income heating oil customers increase the energy efficiency of their homes. Experience has shown that properly weatherizing homes can increase their energy efficiency by 20-30 percent, reducing energy consumption and lowering monthly utility bills. However, most low and middle income families cannot afford the upfront investment necessary to reap these benefits. The Weatherization Assistance Program is an enormously successful program designed to help families make that initial investment.

This bill will not solve our Nation's energy crisis, nor will this alone solve the problem of high heating oil prices in the Northeast. As the Senator from Maine well knows, we need to devote far more money to programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and we need to take a serious look at restructuring our Nation's comprehensive energy policy. But this legislation is a very good first step toward easing the pain so many residents of the Northeast and my State of Connecticut are feeling. I urge my colleagues to support us in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a bill I am introducing with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to amend the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve program. I want to thank Senator Snowe for her tremendous leadership on the problem this bill is designed to address, which is a critically important issue for our region that we have worked together on for many years. That issue is the skyrocketing price of heating oil, which millions of families in the Northeast are dependent on to heat their homes through our long, cold winters.

According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency, EIA, 6.2 million of the 8 million households in the U.S. that use heating oil to heat their homes are in the Northeast, or approximately 78 percent. As crude oil and gasoline prices have risen higher and higher, the cost of heating oil has risen as well. Currently, heating oil is far and away the costliest method of heating homes, costing families an average of nearly $2000 per year, and much more in the coldest areas. Overall, heating a home with heating oil costs twice the national average of all fuels combined, yet most families in the Northeast have little choice. Even in some of our region's cities, there are no natural gas lines or other sources of home heating available to residents.

This dependence on heating oil is stretching many families' budgets to the breaking point. Where once low and moderate income families could struggle through the winter, soaring heating oil prices are forcing people to choose between heating their homes, driving their cars to and from work, and putting food on the table for their families. The EIA estimated that this year, it will cost $1,962 to heat a home with oil, a 33 percent increase from last year and a 117 percent increase since 2004. In just 4 short years, the cost of heating a home with oil has gone up more than $1000 dollars! Many families and seniors living on fixed incomes simply cannot bear this burden.

That is why Senator Snowe and I are proposing a price trigger to provide for oil to be released from the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. This is a 2-million barrel reserve I originally worked to create in 2000, along with my colleague from Maine and other Senators from the Northeast, to protect the residents of the region from severe price shocks to the heating oil market. Given the record heating oil prices we are experiencing today, we believe it would be reasonable to use this reserve to try to cushion those dependent on heating oil to get through the winter. From November through March, the Secretary of Energy would conduct a survey to determine the price of a gallon of heating oil on the first of each month. If the price meets or exceeds $4 per gallon, this would trigger an immediate release of 20 percent of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. This oil would then be sold on the open market to lower the price of heating oil in the region.

The revenue raised by the sale would then be devoted to the Weatherization Assistance Program to help low income heating oil customers increase the energy efficiency of their homes. Experience has shown that properly weatherizing homes can increase their energy efficiency by 20-30 percent, reducing energy consumption and lowering monthly utility bills. However, most low and middle income families cannot afford the upfront investment necessary to reap these benefits. The Weatherization Assistance Program is an enormously successful program designed to help families make that initial investment.

This bill will not solve our Nation's energy crisis, nor will this alone solve the problem of high heating oil prices in the Northeast. As the Senator from Maine well knows, we need to devote far more money to programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and we need to take a serious look at restructuring our Nation's comprehensive energy policy. But this legislation is a very good first step toward easing the pain so many residents of the Northeast and my State of Connecticut are feeling. I urge my colleagues to support us in this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 19, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Two Years after the MINER Act: How Safe is Mining Today?'' on Thursday, June 19, 2008, at l0 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 19, at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 19, 2008, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 19, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 19, 2008, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Management Challenges Facing the Federal Protective Service: What is at Risk?''