Floor Statements

Mr. President, as I think we all know, far too many families in America are seeing the American dream of owning their own home slip away.

Over the Easter break, I toured the State of Missouri. In every community around the State I met with people who are struggling under the threat of foreclosure, neighborhood groups concerned about the impact of foreclosure on their families and on their communities, mayors, city council leaders who are seeing their communities threatened seriously by this spate of subprime foreclosures, and most of all mothers and fathers with children who are facing the loss of their home.

I did not talk with speculators, investors, or the folks on Wall Street, but the people I talked to did have a number of thoughts-- thoughts they believe would help them keep the promise of keeping their home. They did not want a Federal bailout. But they were looking for ways to make the system work for them.

Some of the suggestions they made were at the macro level and, among others, they said there ought to be regulation--probably Federal regulation--of those who originate mortgages. Now, many of the bricks- and-mortar lending institutions--banks, and savings and loans in the community--are regulated, but there are many mortgages, subprime mortgages, that were sold over the Internet and by fax. Whenever I go home, my fax machine is filled with 1 percent mortgage teaser rates.

They also want to see HUD be able to move more quickly in getting the FHA secured loans. That is a good idea--to go in and to help homeowners whose mortgages have reset and caused them to lose their homes--but it is too narrow. They think that ought to be reformed.

I believe that through FHA, we, as taxpayers, should not be put at risk by insuring loans where there is zero downpayment. Regrettably, zero downpayment too often means the homeowner can't afford that mortgage and they walk away. The often cited program, the Nehemiah Program, which provides charitable contributions to take care of the downpayment requirements, has an appalling 30 percent default rate. That is a raid on the Federal Treasury. We ought not to be doing that. Before people make a loan, they ought to have counseling and education to make sure their finances, their income will support the mortgage payments.

Also, when you buy a home, you might have to support the replacement of a furnace that blows or a leaky roof, things that renters don't have to pay. If they can't afford to buy a home, we want to see them in a good home that could be a rental home.

But the most important thing they said we could do now is provide counseling, to bring together those homeowners whose homes are in foreclosure or who are facing foreclosure, to sit down with the lenders and see if they can work out an agreement before they go to foreclosure. Everybody says: Well, what interest does a lender have in avoiding foreclosure? Well, foreclosures are expensive. They drive down the value of the property and potentially put at risk the value behind other mortgages they may own in the same community.

Last fall, Senator Dodd and I agreed to include $180 million in the Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill to begin counseling. The first $130 million has gone out. We are beginning to see the results of that. Those counseling dollars can help homeowners, if they will go to a counseling entity such as The United Way or local governments to get counseling, before they wind up on the courthouse steps.

In addition, there need to be dollars available to buy down mortgages where the mortgage rates have skyrocketed because of the subprime crisis. That is why, in the SAFE Act which I have introduced with my colleagues--the Security Against Foreclosure and Education Act--we make sure there is money available through the State Housing Finance agencies. I know well the Housing Finance Agency in Missouri--the Missouri Housing Development Corporation--and they have a great plan. If they can have more money, maybe $160 million to $180 million, possibly $200 million in Missouri, they could go in and buy out mortgages where the private mortgage holder has had to increase substantially the rate because of the overall market conditions. If these HFAs can sell paper, tax-exempt paper, they can bring back the mortgage rates to the level that was affordable initially.

It is very important for fixed-income homeowners to count on a certain mortgage payment. Some have seen it go up 50 percent, and too many of them are being forced to the choice of walking away because they can't meet it. We need to get HFAs to have the ability to go in and refinance those mortgages.

In addition, with Senator Isakson, we have included in the SAFE Act a measure to provide a tax credit for families willing to buy a home in foreclosure or going into foreclosure. In other words, it would be a $5,000 tax credit for each of 3 years for families who would move into one of these homes either in foreclosure or facing foreclosure. That not only gives a boost to first-time home buyers, but the most important thing it can do for communities is avoid the problem of having a community with 20 percent of the homes in foreclosure.

This isn't a problem for just the 20 percent of the families who are facing foreclosure; that is a potential disaster for the other 80 percent of the homeowners because what it does to the value of their homes and to the value of every house in that community is to drive the values down significantly, so they may find their home is worth less than the value of the mortgage.

Finally, we want loan transparency. As a former lawyer, I have had the dubious pleasure of going through home purchasing documents several times recently. They give you a stack of paper this high that has all been written by lawyers, God bless them, and it has every contingency spelled out. But most people who go through the purchase process spend 40 minutes signing the papers without knowing what is in them. What we want is a very simple disclosure on top, which is binding on the lender and on the borrower, that says what the rate will be, if it is adjustable, how high it can adjust, when it can adjust, if there is a prepayment penalty, and what are the other terms that might cause significant economic distress to the home buyer. They need to know that in advance. Also, there ought to be counseling to help those prospective home buyers measure their financial ability, their ability, through their income, to buy a home and to make sure they can afford the mortgage they are seeking.

I hope this is the basis on which almost all of us in this body can agree. We have heard a lot about what is going on at the macro level. There are important things happening with the Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac, such as getting $200 billion more that they can loan, and the Federal Reserve moving in. All these things are important on a large national scale.

This is not only, however, a national and international problem; most of all, it is a community problem. The proposals we have set forth in the SAFE Act are designed to help build up from the community level the solutions we need for home buyers and homeowners, particularly those threatened with foreclosure. We are only going to solve

this problem if we work community by community. The SAFE Act is designed to help homeowners, counselors, and local government officials deal with the problem in their communities and build, community by community nationwide, the solutions to the problem that affects not just homeowners but affects our entire country.

I invite our colleagues to look at this legislation. I hope we can discuss it, as our leader has said, and come to agreement on some things we can pass, and pass right now, because too many homeowners are facing a crisis and need help.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President the first small business incubator in St. Charles County was opened 15 years ago in March 1993 by the Economic Development Center at 5988 Mid Rivers Mall Drive in St. Peters, MO.

The EDC business incubator has become a landmark in the heart of St. Charles County serving as a beacon for new entrepreneurs and business owners and hosting countless special events for the business community and general public.

More than 150 companies with 500 jobs have graduated from the EDC incubator into the general marketplace and grown those jobs into more than 1,000 impacting St. Charles County and the St. Louis region.

The EDC incubator facilities provide startup assistance, month-to- month leases, shared office equipment, conference rooms, professional support staff, and access to important resources such as training and financial assistance; and,

When the EDC opened its doors in 1993, St. Charles County had a total labor force of 132,602, total population of 232,360, and total assessed valuation of less than $2 billion.

Thanks to the efforts of the EDC and a myriad of organizations and individuals in St. Charles County, today the area has a total labor force of 189,862, total population of nearly 350,000, and total assessed valuation of more than $7 billion.

Local community leaders in business and government along with State and Federal officials helped to foster the development and dynamic 15- year track record of the EDC's business incubator and other specialized business services.

The tremendous impact and importance of the Economic Development Center's small business incubator facility will certainly continue to grow successful businesses, well-paying local jobs, the expanding local tax base, and the exceptional quality of life enjoyed in St. Charles County, MO.

Mr. President, since his college graduation from Quincy University in 1982, Mr. Robert Dooley has been teaching high school and middle school band and vocal music at Clark County R-1 High School. Throughout his teaching career, Mr. Dooley has instructed 2,823 students in band alone at the Clark County R-1 High School. In addition, Mr. Dooley has brought together over 150 parents and volunteers to bolster the Fine Arts Booster Organization in Clark County, which has fundraised, supported, and made possible the fine arts department in Clark County.

Clark County R-1 School has one of the finest music and band programs in the State of Missouri. In 2006 Mr. Dooley was named Kiwanis Club Teacher of the Year and received the Missouri Association of Rural Education Outstanding Rural Secondary Teacher of the Year Award. In June 2008, the Marching Indians will be traveling to Hawaii to march in the King Kamehameha Parade and will perform at Pearl Harbor aboard the USS Missouri. These achievements are due largely to Mr. Robert Dooley's commitment to excellence in teaching and inspiring the young musicians in Clark County.

Having a strong school system is a strong asset for any community. Mr. Dooley's talents and achievements in teaching at Clark County R-1 School have added great value to the Clark County R-1 School district and the lives of the children and families in that community.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about three issues that I think are vitally important for our national security. First, there is this matter of terrorist surveillance and our national security.

This body passed the bipartisan FISA Act bill overwhelmingly--more than 2 to 1--several days before the Protect America Act was to expire. The Director of National Intelligence has told us how important this bill is because without it, intelligence gaps likely will reopen, putting the safety of America--those of us in the United States--and our troops on the battlefield at risk. Yet the House Speaker refuses to allow a vote on the Senate's bill, even though a majority of House Members support its passage. If you vote, that means something. If you win, you win; if you lose, you lose. But the leadership in the House apparently thinks those rules don't apply to the FISA debate.

Even though the Speaker failed to pass a 21-day extension of the existing law in her own body, the leadership has acted as though the PAA deadline was extended. There has been no action.

So what is the House going to do this week? Well, the Speaker has signaled that the House will vote on overriding the President's veto of the 2008 intelligence authorization bill, even though she knows there are not enough votes to override the vote. Why? Because apparently, the House leadership has decided it is more important to make a political statement about interrogation techniques than to give the intelligence community the tools it needs to conduct surveillance of foreign intelligence.

The IC--the intelligence community--needs these tools and authorities that are provided in the bill we passed. They are working tirelessly to protect us from real and constant terrorist threats, and they should not have to wait any longer for the House to pass that measure.

Secondly, let me talk about Korea briefly. I just came from an Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing with General Bell, our commanding general in Korea. He told us that not just a brave new wind but a typhoon has blown through South Korea, and the previous government that was in many ways anti-American was totally willing to accommodate North Korea in all of its efforts, which included building missiles and nuclear weapons, and rebuff the United States.

Well, the people of Korea had enough, and they overwhelmingly elected a new President, President Lee Myung-bak, who ran on a platform of revitalizing the economy, making any actions with North Korea reciprocal, and improving their alliance with the U.S. position. The candidate who came in second agreed with him on these issues. The previous leadership candidate got single digits.

The most important things we can do are to increase our trade and our military assistance to South Korea. South

Korea is already our largest importer for military equipment, and they live in a very dangerous part of the world. They are right next door to China and close to bordering on Russia, just across the straits from Japan, and they are potentially--they have been and they will be our most important ally. But we have given higher foreign military sales status to three former Soviet Union States and five countries from the Warsaw Pact, none of which are as good friends as South Korea.

I have filed a bill, S. 1846, the United States-Republic of Korea Defense Cooperation and Improvement Act of 2007, that would give them the status of NATO plus 3, so we could continue to expand on our vital defense trade with them. He says this is his top priority. We are already cooperating with them. There is new cooperation. There is an opportunity to build an even stronger ally in the region to help keep that region safe, peaceful, and secure.

Secondarily, for Korea, we also need to approve the United States- Korea Free Trade Agreement. Free trade is one of the best ways we have of assuring that other countries get the development they need, we can develop the friendship we have and improve our economy and theirs. A Korea-United States trade agreement would give lower tariff barriers, and get rid of many of them, to keep our agriculture, machine goods, and high-tech goods from going into South Korea. We need to do that.

But there are political objections. That brings me to the third important point: Colombia. Colombia has pending with the United States a United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. As I have just said, trade and commercial ties are one of the most effective arrows in our quiver of smart power. In Colombia, it is an affirmation of support to our friends. They are our strongest ally on an increasingly left- leaning continent--another area where they are our best friends in a dangerous area.

The administration of the President of Colombia, President Uribe, finds itself surrounded by states determined to undermine Colombia's burgeoning democracy. The states around them provide safe haven to insurgent terrorist groups, allowing them freedom to maneuver in border areas, and they even provide monetary support for drug and terror activities against President Uribe's government in Colombia. If we are serious, as we must be, about maintaining peace, security, and stability in Latin America, the northern part of Latin America, we must work with them.

Free trade will not only expand our economic and commercial ties, but it will strengthen the critical cultural ties and strategic alliances, and that will lead to a more peaceful and stable world.

At a time when America's image is suffering in the world and our economy at home is slumping, we should be helping our friends and allies and expanding our export opportunities to create jobs here.

If the Democratic leadership in Congress is so concerned about improving America's image abroad and helping our slumping economy, why don't we start by helping our friends? We can do that by opening up markets for exports. Friends like Colombia and Korea are fighting terrorism, embracing America's values. It is a solid security rock for us to build upon.

In Colombia, the interdiction of two high-value targets--senior terror planners and former operators--is a testimony to the Uribe administration's commitment to ending terror in his country. It is important to remember that the terrorist group FARC currently holds more than 700 political and military prisoners. Three of them are Americans. Yet our Democratic colleagues, through all their rhetoric, seem to care more about improving our image with rogue regimes such as Syria and Iran than helping our friends in places such as Colombia and Korea. Their rejection of the free-trade agreements damages our strategic alliances and says to the world that the United States is closed for business. And it does so at a time when we need to be open for business, open for better ties.

So why, in light of the economic and strategic benefits of the Colombia FTA, are the Democrats determined to delay and deny these benefits? Why, through their actions, are they emboldening Venezuelan leftist Hugo Chavez and undercutting the President of Colombia, who is a friend? President Uribe has done more to reduce violence in Colombia than any modern leader in Bogota, including crimes against labor unionists. He has pushed back Marxist guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC, and the National Liberation Army, the ELN. He has reduced crime and substantially improved Colombia's security and economic situations, with official statistics showing murders plummeting by as much as 50 percent and kidnappings by as much as 75 percent.

Today's Wall Street Journal, which I will submit later, is entitled ``Delaying and Denying.'' They sum it up like this:

What is it about Democrats and Hugo Chavez? Even as the

Venezuelan strongman was threatening war last week against

Colombia, Congress was threatening to hand him a huge

strategic victory by spurning Colombia's free trade overtures

to the U.S.

This isn't the first time Democrats have come to Mr.

Chavez's aid, but it would be the most destructive. The

Venezuelan is engaged in a high-stakes competition over the

political and economic direction of Latin America. He wants

the region to follow his path of ever greater state control

of the economy, while assisting U.S. enemies wherever he can.

He's already won converts in Bolivia and Ecuador, and he came

far too close for American comfort in Mexico's election last

year.

Meanwhile, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is embracing

greater economic and political freedom. He has bravely

assisted the U.S. fight against narco-traffickers, and he now

wants to link his country more closely to America with a free

trade accord. As a strategic matter, to reject Colombia's

offer now would tell everyone in Latin America that it is far

more dangerous to trust America than it is to trash it.

Mr. President, continuing to deny and delay Colombia TPA will be a great disadvantage to America's economy, damage our reputation in Colombia and throughout Latin America, undercut a key ally in President Uribe, and further embolden anti-American dictators like Hugo Chavez, ultimately resulting in a less secure and stable Latin America.

Mr. President, I call upon and urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to let us bring up for a vote and pass the Korean free- trade agreement and the Colombia free-trade agreement. Not only will that benefit us economically, it will strengthen the U.S. image throughout the world and help build a stable, strategic ally in Colombia that can stop the threat of more regimes committed to the Marxism that Cuba so famously demonstrated, which brought destruction and hardship to the people of Cuba.

These are important foreign policy matters. One leader in the majority on the other side of the body said: Well, politically, we cannot do it. Politically, we cannot help those who help us? Politically, we cannot pass a bill that will keep our country safer by passing the FISA bill? Politically, we cannot help an ally such as South Korea, which is in a very strategic position? And politically, we cannot help Colombia, which is fighting narcotraffickers as well as the efforts by Hugo Chavez for spreading a Marxist regime and the totalitarian government which impoverishes and denies rights to his citizens?

Mr. President, the time to act is now. I urge my colleagues on both sides to make these matters a serious concern and see if we can do the job for which we were elected--to help keep our country safe and secure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Wall Street Journal of today, March 10, 2008, called ``The Chavez Democrats'' be printed in the Record, along with a similar and very compelling article on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, by Jackson Diehl, called ``The FARC's Guardian Angel,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Joshua Kors on winning the George Polk Award for magazine reporting and his selection as a finalist for Harvard's Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting.

I am grateful for the work Mr. Kors has done on behalf of our troops and for the leadership he has demonstrated in his relentless pursuit of the facts.

America counts on its investigative reporters to expose corruption, mismanagement and abuse, particularly in government. Mr. Kors' work brought to light the military's appalling misuse of administrative discharges for many of our combat-wounded soldiers.

Mr. Kors' profile of the difficulties SPC Jon Town encountered after returning from Iraq showed all of us in troubling detail the devastating impact of the Pentagon's policy on one soldier and his family--a story which is repeated in the lives of too many others similarly discharged.

With the lives and livelihoods of these wounded warriors on the line, Mr. Kors' reporting has clearly made a difference already.

It is now up to Congress to ensure that the Department of Defense treats our soldiers fairly. Our troops have courageously put themselves in harm's way and it is incumbent upon our government to ensure that they receive the best possible care when they return.

Many of us on Capitol Hill have pledged to continue to fight to eliminate the misuse of personality discharges through all legislative and administrative means at our disposal.

I thank Mr. Kors for his outstanding work and congratulate him on his accomplishments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as I described last Friday, too many families in Missouri and across the Nation are feeling the pain of this Housing crisis, and they need our help now. We have 57,000 people in Missouri delinquent on their mortgages, with 20 percent of Missouri subprime borrowers behind on their payments. These families, unfortunately, similar to many across America in I imagine almost every State, can least afford higher housing costs as they are being hit with higher heating bills, higher health care costs, and more pain at the gas pump.

That is why today I, in partnership with Senator Isakson, Senator Coleman, and several other Republican colleagues, will proudly introduce the Security Against Foreclosure and Education, or SAFE, Act of 2008. This bill focuses solely on the housing needs of our families and neighborhoods.

A growing economy free of excess litigation and cumbersome regulation will help the most people find the most good-paying jobs and the relief they need. The HOME Act we introduced last week on our side included both housing relief provisions as well as tax relief for American families, litigation reform, and capital markets reform.

However, we do not want Congress to lose sight of the housing crisis that too many American people are facing and the help they need right now. Therefore, we are introducing this measure today to focus solely on the housing help our families and neighborhoods need.

Last week, I spoke about one person in need, suffering in the current subprime mortgage meltdown. That was Willie Clay of Kansas City, MO, a Vietnam vet unable to meet rising variable mortgage payments. Unfortunately, there are many more like him.

Today I share with my colleagues the story of Katherine Gwinn of St. Louis, MO. Her story appeared in the St. Louis Dispatch last year. She is a disabled 53 year old living on Social Security and disability payments. Mrs. Gwinn refinanced her home three times to get lower payments and help pay off debt. Her subprime loan's initial fixed rate expired after 1 year. Since then, her payments have gone up 40 percent, now taking a large chunk of her $916 monthly income.

Ms. Gwinn said the last time she refinanced, her mortgage broker fast-talked her into a subprime loan with provisions she did not understand. The result is her variable rate payments are now at $566 per month. As I said earlier, Ms. Gwinn's monthly income of Social Security and disability payments is only $916 per month. How many of us could pay for food, gas, medicine, and heating bills on the remaining $350 per month? That is why I believe so strongly that we need to help folks such as Katherine Gwinn across the Nation.

First, the Republican SAFE Act will help folks such as Katherine Gwinn and Willie Clay with $10 billion to State housing finance authorities to refinance distressed subprime mortgages. Our proposal would authorize the State housing finance agencies to issue $10 billion in tax-exempt bonds and use the proceeds to help refinance subprime mortgages, refinancing them at or near the original level which they could afford.

Secondly, in order to help families avoid foreclosure and keep them in their homes, we propose to expedite the delivery of $180 million approved by Congress in December to assure counseling help to families in distress. As I announced last week, the first block of these funds has gone out, and we will ensure that remaining funds are delivered as quickly as possible after we can confirm that counseling is having the desired effect. This counseling is important because borrowers need to know and lenders need to know the best way to get out of this crisis is not to have foreclosures that throw families out of their homes. That not only hurts the family, it hurts the lender because they have to spend money on foreclosures, and it drives down the price of housing that is in their stock. In addition, it hurts communities, because when you have a community with significant numbers of foreclosures, you put a blanket of debt and hopelessness on communities which cannot remain viable.

Thirdly, we support helping struggling neighborhoods by providing $15,000 in tax credits available over 3 years for purchasing a home in or approaching foreclosure. This provision, initially proposed by Senator Isakson, will help neighbors take down foreclosure signs and stop the slide in property values. We also support the so-called net operating loss carryback tax provisions to help firms that suffered operating losses lower their tax burden, so we enable homebuilders to get through this crisis.

Our proposal includes no new loan disclosure requirements for prominent and plain English explanation of key loan conditions. Anybody who has purchased a house recently knows you are confronted with a stack of papers a half a foot high, with all kinds of legal gobbledygook and with provisions, if you looked hard enough, that may tell you what is going to happen to you if you borrow the money. Most of it is legalese that we as lawyers--and I admit to having been one-- like to put in to cover every possible contingency. What borrowers need to see is in big type: ``Teaser, introductory rates,'' their payments, and when it expires. They need to know that if they are agreeing to an adjustable rate, what that rate could be and how much the new payment penalty will be or if there is going to be a repayment penalty. That information needs to be portrayed on the first page so you can see on the first page what you are getting into and how much it would cost you to get out. They will be reminded that there is no guarantee they will be able to refinance their loan before the introductory rate expires.

These are the very things Katherine Gwinn and Willie Clay and thousands of borrowers did not understand when they agreed to their loans. We hope this will protect future families who want their share of the American dream.

I also believe that providing the tax credit will help many first- time homeowners get into a house and give them the extra cash they need to be able to meet their mortgage payments.

Now, there are two new provisions added to our measure that we did not introduce last week. Senator Coleman provided language to give returning war veterans more time to avoid home foreclosure. Currently, they have a 3-month window from their return to the private sector to work out any mortgage difficulties they may have. That may not be enough time for a vet newly returned from the war zone and dealing with a host of family and financial problems. Our proposal would extend the returned war veteran protection against foreclosure to 6 months after they return.

We have also introduced provisions of the Federal Housing Act reform bill that passed the Senate 93 to 1 last year. That bipartisan, near unanimous reform bill deserves to become law, and it will assist the FHA in stepping up to the plate in many areas where that agency can provide the kind of help and assistance we initially intended it to provide.

Now, in contrast to the housing proposal introduced on the other side, Republicans will avoid making home ownership more expensive, especially for low-income families, through harmful bankruptcy changes that increase the cost of borrowing or encourage costly litigation.

If we put in law the fact that bankruptcy judges will be able to cram down on lenders' onerous terms that were not included in the initial mortgage, they will find that mortgage companies may increase their rates by 1.5 to 2 percent. That could mean at least 6 million Americans would no longer be able to afford a mortgage to buy the home they need.

Also, we will oppose plowing billions of dollars into big Government programs that will not help our neediest families now. We will also oppose adding more dollars to programs that are still flush with funds that were given them in December.

Together, these housing proposals will help families such as those of Katherine Gwinn and Willie Clay and neighborhoods across the country get through this crisis. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I invite all colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us to see if we cannot pass something that will provide relief now for the many families across this Nation who are suffering because of the subprime mortgage meltdown and the resulting financial pressures it puts on the lending industry and, through them, to the families themselves.

This is the time. Now is the time for congressional action. I hope that with a broad coalition of my colleagues, we will be able to make these additions and provide assistance to suffering American families.

Mr. President, as I described last Friday, too many families in Missouri and across the Nation are feeling the pain of this Housing crisis, and they need our help now. We have 57,000 people in Missouri delinquent on their mortgages, with 20 percent of Missouri subprime borrowers behind on their payments. These families, unfortunately, similar to many across America in I imagine almost every State, can least afford higher housing costs as they are being hit with higher heating bills, higher health care costs, and more pain at the gas pump.

That is why today I, in partnership with Senator Isakson, Senator Coleman, and several other Republican colleagues, will proudly introduce the Security Against Foreclosure and Education, or SAFE, Act of 2008. This bill focuses solely on the housing needs of our families and neighborhoods.

A growing economy free of excess litigation and cumbersome regulation will help the most people find the most good-paying jobs and the relief they need. The HOME Act we introduced last week on our side included both housing relief provisions as well as tax relief for American families, litigation reform, and capital markets reform.

However, we do not want Congress to lose sight of the housing crisis that too many American people are facing and the help they need right now. Therefore, we are introducing this measure today to focus solely on the housing help our families and neighborhoods need.

Last week, I spoke about one person in need, suffering in the current subprime mortgage meltdown. That was Willie Clay of Kansas City, MO, a Vietnam vet unable to meet rising variable mortgage payments. Unfortunately, there are many more like him.

Today I share with my colleagues the story of Katherine Gwinn of St. Louis, MO. Her story appeared in the St. Louis Dispatch last year. She is a disabled 53 year old living on Social Security and disability payments. Mrs. Gwinn refinanced her home three times to get lower payments and help pay off debt. Her subprime loan's initial fixed rate expired after 1 year. Since then, her payments have gone up 40 percent, now taking a large chunk of her $916 monthly income.

Ms. Gwinn said the last time she refinanced, her mortgage broker fast-talked her into a subprime loan with provisions she did not understand. The result is her variable rate payments are now at $566 per month. As I said earlier, Ms. Gwinn's monthly income of Social Security and disability payments is only $916 per month. How many of us could pay for food, gas, medicine, and heating bills on the remaining $350 per month? That is why I believe so strongly that we need to help folks such as Katherine Gwinn across the Nation.

First, the Republican SAFE Act will help folks such as Katherine Gwinn and Willie Clay with $10 billion to State housing finance authorities to refinance distressed subprime mortgages. Our proposal would authorize the State housing finance agencies to issue $10 billion in tax-exempt bonds and use the proceeds to help refinance subprime mortgages, refinancing them at or near the original level which they could afford.

Secondly, in order to help families avoid foreclosure and keep them in their homes, we propose to expedite the delivery of $180 million approved by Congress in December to assure counseling help to families in distress. As I announced last week, the first block of these funds has gone out, and we will ensure that remaining funds are delivered as quickly as possible after we can confirm that counseling is having the desired effect. This counseling is important because borrowers need to know and lenders need to know the best way to get out of this crisis is not to have foreclosures that throw families out of their homes. That not only hurts the family, it hurts the lender because they have to spend money on foreclosures, and it drives down the price of housing that is in their stock. In addition, it hurts communities, because when you have a community with significant numbers of foreclosures, you put a blanket of debt and hopelessness on communities which cannot remain viable.

Thirdly, we support helping struggling neighborhoods by providing $15,000 in tax credits available over 3 years for purchasing a home in or approaching foreclosure. This provision, initially proposed by Senator Isakson, will help neighbors take down foreclosure signs and stop the slide in property values. We also support the so-called net operating loss carryback tax provisions to help firms that suffered operating losses lower their tax burden, so we enable homebuilders to get through this crisis.

Our proposal includes no new loan disclosure requirements for prominent and plain English explanation of key loan conditions. Anybody who has purchased a house recently knows you are confronted with a stack of papers a half a foot high, with all kinds of legal gobbledygook and with provisions, if you looked hard enough, that may tell you what is going to happen to you if you borrow the money. Most of it is legalese that we as lawyers--and I admit to having been one-- like to put in to cover every possible contingency. What borrowers need to see is in big type: ``Teaser, introductory rates,'' their payments, and when it expires. They need to know that if they are agreeing to an adjustable rate, what that rate could be and how much the new payment penalty will be or if there is going to be a repayment penalty. That information needs to be portrayed on the first page so you can see on the first page what you are getting into and how much it would cost you to get out. They will be reminded that there is no guarantee they will be able to refinance their loan before the introductory rate expires.

These are the very things Katherine Gwinn and Willie Clay and thousands of borrowers did not understand when they agreed to their loans. We hope this will protect future families who want their share of the American dream.

I also believe that providing the tax credit will help many first- time homeowners get into a house and give them the extra cash they need to be able to meet their mortgage payments.

Now, there are two new provisions added to our measure that we did not introduce last week. Senator Coleman provided language to give returning war veterans more time to avoid home foreclosure. Currently, they have a 3-month window from their return to the private sector to work out any mortgage difficulties they may have. That may not be enough time for a vet newly returned from the war zone and dealing with a host of family and financial problems. Our proposal would extend the returned war veteran protection against foreclosure to 6 months after they return.

We have also introduced provisions of the Federal Housing Act reform bill that passed the Senate 93 to 1 last year. That bipartisan, near unanimous reform bill deserves to become law, and it will assist the FHA in stepping up to the plate in many areas where that agency can provide the kind of help and assistance we initially intended it to provide.

Now, in contrast to the housing proposal introduced on the other side, Republicans will avoid making home ownership more expensive, especially for low-income families, through harmful bankruptcy changes that increase the cost of borrowing or encourage costly litigation.

If we put in law the fact that bankruptcy judges will be able to cram down on lenders' onerous terms that were not included in the initial mortgage, they will find that mortgage companies may increase their rates by 1.5 to 2 percent. That could mean at least 6 million Americans would no longer be able to afford a mortgage to buy the home they need.

Also, we will oppose plowing billions of dollars into big Government programs that will not help our neediest families now. We will also oppose adding more dollars to programs that are still flush with funds that were given them in December.

Together, these housing proposals will help families such as those of Katherine Gwinn and Willie Clay and neighborhoods across the country get through this crisis. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I invite all colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us to see if we cannot pass something that will provide relief now for the many families across this Nation who are suffering because of the subprime mortgage meltdown and the resulting financial pressures it puts on the lending industry and, through them, to the families themselves.

This is the time. Now is the time for congressional action. I hope that with a broad coalition of my colleagues, we will be able to make these additions and provide assistance to suffering American families.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I call the Farm Red Tape Reduction Act.

This act will give farmers a voice in Federal rulemakings whenever a new Federal regulation threatens to impose severe economic pain on farmers.

As we saw with small businesses, many times the Government overlooks the plight of the little guy, who does not have the resources or know- how to weigh-in with big Government agencies in Washington. In 1976, Congress created the Office of Advocacy to ensure that small businesses have an advocate in Government and a seat at the table when new regulations affecting them are drafted. I want to share that same success now with farmers.

The idea is simple. This act would help provide a more transparent Government that listens to the people most affected by the regulations. It will hold the Government more accountable for its actions. It is a message that the Federal Government is meant to serve to its citizens, not bully them. We want to make this an easy process. Citizens should be heard while the Government is deciding on a regulation that affects them--not after the decision is made. The difference is subtle, but important. Listen to farmers and agriculture first--be inclusive.

Cutting unnecessary red tape will provide greater flexibility for agriculture businesses by removing barriers to enterprise. Encouraging enterprise is essential if the United States is to compete in a global environment.

Farms and other agricultural businesses will benefit from simplified rules.

This measure will help in cutting red tape with a view to improving the environment for agricultural business. My experience on the Small Business Committee tells me that there are currently dozens of regulatory proposals before Federal agencies--but most without a true assessment of impact on the very people they will most affect.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: Are all these initiatives necessary and what are the consequences? I want agencies to look into this question. The best way to do that is to hear from the folks most affected.

The Office of Advocacy celebrated its 30th anniversary this year. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, is 27 years old and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, is 11 years old.

The common theme: They have all gone a long way in making agencies aware of the unique concerns of small business. With the passage of these laws small business concerns were given a voice at the table, they have been putting that voice to use ever since--with great success.

These laws have been successful. Early intervention and improved compliance have led to less burdensome regulations. For example, in fiscal year 2001, involvement in agency rulemakings helped save small businesses an estimated $4.4 billion in new regulatory compliance costs.

Similarly, in fiscal year 2002, efforts to improve agency compliance with the RFA on behalf of small entities secured more than $21 billion in first-year cost savings, with an additional $10 billion in annually recurring cost savings. Most recently, in fiscal year 2003, they achieved more than $6.3 billion in regulatory cost savings and more than $5.7 billion in recurring annual savings on behalf of small entities.

If we can add farmers to the table and save them any portion of that kind of money--just that fact will make this bill a success.

Just as important is that these laws have not hindered the development of regulations. In fact, these laws are credited with helping regulators come up with better plans. Plans that work--because the people who will be regulated are involved in the development of the rules. This gives them some ownership and that makes successful compliance and implementation.

Our economy and the lives of farmers is constantly changing--this is due in no small part to what we are doing today--making changes to farm legislation, new technologies, new trade deals, new regulations of every kind being implemented year round. This creates new and constant challenges for analyzing regulatory impacts on farmers. If there was ever a time farmers needed a voice at the table when new regulations are made--it is now.

It is not my intention to throw out regulations simply as a matter of principle if, for example, they involve costs for businesses. I am more concerned with obtaining solid impact analyses that can serve as a basis for informed decision-making.

It is also quite clear that better regulations will be possible only if those affected also play their part, since it is they who will be responsible for implementation.

What I have heard from some who oppose this, is that they are concerned about the burden of red tape. However, they are not concerned about the burden of red tape on farmers. They are concerned about the burden of red tape on Washington regulators working to impose red tape on farmers.

Surely the Senate should be more concerned with red tape on our farmers than red tape on our Washington regulators. We should have a rulemaking advocate for farmers just as we have one at Small Business Administration for small businesses. Advocates do not have the power to change standards or stop regulations, only inform them. We should all support a more informed process so burdens are reduced and regulations are more effective and widely supported. We all know what having a USDA rulemaking advocate means in Washington; there will still be 20 officials from other agencies in the room working to regulate farmers. But now, there may be one from USDA also in the room.

This bill has received support from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Cotton Council, the American Soybean Association, National Milk Producers Federation, South East Dairy Farmers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, USA Rice Federation, Western United Dairymen, and the National Pork Producers Council.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill and join me in helping farmers and agricultural business reduce unnecessary bureaucratic red tape by including them at the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I call the Farm Red Tape Reduction Act.

This act will give farmers a voice in Federal rulemakings whenever a new Federal regulation threatens to impose severe economic pain on farmers.

As we saw with small businesses, many times the Government overlooks the plight of the little guy, who does not have the resources or know- how to weigh-in with big Government agencies in Washington. In 1976, Congress created the Office of Advocacy to ensure that small businesses have an advocate in Government and a seat at the table when new regulations affecting them are drafted. I want to share that same success now with farmers.

The idea is simple. This act would help provide a more transparent Government that listens to the people most affected by the regulations. It will hold the Government more accountable for its actions. It is a message that the Federal Government is meant to serve to its citizens, not bully them. We want to make this an easy process. Citizens should be heard while the Government is deciding on a regulation that affects them--not after the decision is made. The difference is subtle, but important. Listen to farmers and agriculture first--be inclusive.

Cutting unnecessary red tape will provide greater flexibility for agriculture businesses by removing barriers to enterprise. Encouraging enterprise is essential if the United States is to compete in a global environment.

Farms and other agricultural businesses will benefit from simplified rules.

This measure will help in cutting red tape with a view to improving the environment for agricultural business. My experience on the Small Business Committee tells me that there are currently dozens of regulatory proposals before Federal agencies--but most without a true assessment of impact on the very people they will most affect.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: Are all these initiatives necessary and what are the consequences? I want agencies to look into this question. The best way to do that is to hear from the folks most affected.

The Office of Advocacy celebrated its 30th anniversary this year. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, RFA, is 27 years old and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, SBREFA, is 11 years old.

The common theme: They have all gone a long way in making agencies aware of the unique concerns of small business. With the passage of these laws small business concerns were given a voice at the table, they have been putting that voice to use ever since--with great success.

These laws have been successful. Early intervention and improved compliance have led to less burdensome regulations. For example, in fiscal year 2001, involvement in agency rulemakings helped save small businesses an estimated $4.4 billion in new regulatory compliance costs.

Similarly, in fiscal year 2002, efforts to improve agency compliance with the RFA on behalf of small entities secured more than $21 billion in first-year cost savings, with an additional $10 billion in annually recurring cost savings. Most recently, in fiscal year 2003, they achieved more than $6.3 billion in regulatory cost savings and more than $5.7 billion in recurring annual savings on behalf of small entities.

If we can add farmers to the table and save them any portion of that kind of money--just that fact will make this bill a success.

Just as important is that these laws have not hindered the development of regulations. In fact, these laws are credited with helping regulators come up with better plans. Plans that work--because the people who will be regulated are involved in the development of the rules. This gives them some ownership and that makes successful compliance and implementation.

Our economy and the lives of farmers is constantly changing--this is due in no small part to what we are doing today--making changes to farm legislation, new technologies, new trade deals, new regulations of every kind being implemented year round. This creates new and constant challenges for analyzing regulatory impacts on farmers. If there was ever a time farmers needed a voice at the table when new regulations are made--it is now.

It is not my intention to throw out regulations simply as a matter of principle if, for example, they involve costs for businesses. I am more concerned with obtaining solid impact analyses that can serve as a basis for informed decision-making.

It is also quite clear that better regulations will be possible only if those affected also play their part, since it is they who will be responsible for implementation.

What I have heard from some who oppose this, is that they are concerned about the burden of red tape. However, they are not concerned about the burden of red tape on farmers. They are concerned about the burden of red tape on Washington regulators working to impose red tape on farmers.

Surely the Senate should be more concerned with red tape on our farmers than red tape on our Washington regulators. We should have a rulemaking advocate for farmers just as we have one at Small Business Administration for small businesses. Advocates do not have the power to change standards or stop regulations, only inform them. We should all support a more informed process so burdens are reduced and regulations are more effective and widely supported. We all know what having a USDA rulemaking advocate means in Washington; there will still be 20 officials from other agencies in the room working to regulate farmers. But now, there may be one from USDA also in the room.

This bill has received support from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Cotton Council, the American Soybean Association, National Milk Producers Federation, South East Dairy Farmers Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, USA Rice Federation, Western United Dairymen, and the National Pork Producers Council.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill and join me in helping farmers and agricultural business reduce unnecessary bureaucratic red tape by including them at the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about some very positive things that the Republicans in the Senate hope to do to help those people who are caught in a real crisis. We have the HOME Act that my colleague from New Mexico has discussed, and I want to discuss some specific housing proposals that we believe will help people who are caught in the tremendous crisis of the subprime meltdown and the economic conditions it imposes on them.

Too many families in my State of Missouri and across the Nation, including in West Virginia, the State of the Presiding Officer, are feeling the pain of the housing crisis, and they need our help now.

There are 57,000 people in Missouri who are delinquent on their mortgages, with 20 percent of Missouri subprime borrowers behind on their payments. These families, like many across America, can least afford higher housing costs as they are being hit with heating bills, higher health care costs, and more pain at the gas pump.

I am proud to gather with my Republican colleagues to introduce the Home Ownership, Manufacturing and Economic Growth Act, or HOME Act, of 2008.

The housing relief provisions of the Republican HOME Act will provide help for folks such as Willie Clay of Kansas City, MO, caught up in this subprime mortgage mess. Willie is a former Vietnam war paratrooper who lives mainly on Government disability checks. Willie was recently highlighted in a Kansas City Star article entitled ``American Dreams Built on a Shaky Foundation of Subprime Loans.''

Willie Clay lives in the Kansas City neighborhood of Ruskin Heights, a modest community of hard-working families and tidy ranch homes, a place where folks of modest means can share in the American dream by owning their own home.

In 2004, Willie refinanced his mortgage for a total of $101,000. As you can see from the size of the loan, Willie was not a rich man. He was like so many other Americans--just looking for a little bit of money to pay off medical bills, his car loan, and some credit card bills.

Willie took out a subprime loan with an adjustable rate. It started out at a fixed 8.2 percent. He had no problem making his payments. But then, last October, the fixed rate interest ended and the new adjustable rate reset at 11.2 percent. It is set to rise again in March to 12.2 percent, and even higher in the coming months.

Willie told the Kansas City Star:

If the rate goes up again, I can't afford it.

Willie and his wife Ina will have to give up their home and move to an apartment. Willie now admits that he never fully understood how an adjustable rate worked when he agreed to the new loan. ``I didn't have the education to understand it,'' Willie said. ``And they didn't explain it to me. I thought if the interest [rate] went down, the payment went down. If the interest rate went up, your payment stayed the same.''

Willie was also trapped with a $2,500 prepayment penalty, committing him to the loan for at least 3 years. Willie is not alone. His entire neighborhood is suffering through this crisis. There are more than 500 foreclosures in his ZIP Code alone. On Willie's block, there are already several empty houses.

This is wreaking havoc on the neighborhood, its property values, even its basic fabric, as families struggle to make ends meet.

That is why I believe so strongly that we need to help folks such as Willie Clay and families across the Nation. The Kansas City Star suggested that we require tougher disclosure requirements so that borrowers have no question about the terms of the deal. They believe home buyers should encounter crystal clear disclosure forms, stating the loan amount, interest rate, whether the rate will reset under certain conditions, and any prepayment penalty.

We heard the needs of Willie Clay and thousands of families like his across America. We heard the suggestions of the Kansas City Star and many others with ideas on how to fix this mess, and we propose taking action. This institution must take action.

First, the Republican HOME Act will help families like Willie's suffering now with $10 billion to refinance distressed subprime mortgages. Our proposal would authorize State housing finance agencies to issue $10 billion in tax-exempt bonds and use the proceeds to help homeowners refinance subprime mortgages.

Second, in order to help families avoid foreclosure and help them keep their homes, Republicans will expedite the delivery of $180 million approved by Congress in December to provide counseling and help for families in distress. I was proud to cosponsor that in the appropriations bill with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd.

As I announced earlier this week, the first block of these funds has just gone out, and we will ensure that remaining funds are delivered as quickly as possible.

Third, Republicans support helping neighborhoods like Willie's by providing $15,000 tax credits to purchase over the next year a home in or approaching foreclosure. Senator Isakson of Georgia will talk more about that.

We support the so-called net operating loss carryback provision to help firms that suffered operating losses lower their tax burdens.

Last, Republicans support protecting families who are applying for new loans. People deserve to know and understand what they are signing before they sign it. Anyone who ever bought a house and confronted the stack of small-type paperwork written in legalese knows what I mean. I used to be a lawyer, and I have been presented with those stacks of documents. They are so overwhelming that, unless you have a half day to spend, you are never going to read them. Even as a lawyer, I will tell you they are not the easiest things to understand.

Our proposal will require a plain English explanation of key loan conditions. Borrowers will see in big type any teaser or introductory rate, their payment, and when it expires. They need to know they are agreeing to an adjustable rate and what that rate will be and how much a new payment will be. I doubt that Willie Clay was ever told his mortgage rate could go up over 12 percent. That is unconscionable. I don't think they ought to be allowed to raise adjustable rates beyond what they disclose in the initial disclosures to the borrowers. They need to be notified of any prepayment penalty, and they will be reminded there is no guarantee they can refinance their loan before the introductory rate expires. These are the very things Willie and thousands of borrowers did not understand when they agreed to their loans. Hopefully, this will protect future families who want to share in the American dream.

In contrast to the Democrats' plan, Republicans will avoid making home ownership more expensive, especially for low-income families through harmful bankruptcy changes that increase the cost of borrowing or encourage costly litigation.

If my colleagues on the other side succeed in using bankruptcy to write down all the mortgages and essentially destroy the basic terms of the contract, guess what will happen. What will happen is that nobody will get a loan at a reasonable rate anymore. Any rates that are offered to homeowners will have to have a risk premium built in, probably 1.5 percent or more. Each quarter of a percent will mean 500,000 families cannot get a loan. So that would mean that if this proposal coming from the other side is implemented, some 6.5 million, at least, families will be denied the opportunity to get a home loan because of the risk built in by a congressionally mandated cram-down of the interest rate terms, breaking the terms of the contracts which have been signed.

Republicans will also oppose plowing billions of dollars into big Government programs that do not help our neediest families now. We will oppose adding more dollars to programs that are still flush with funds they were given in December. We want a responsible, effective, and fiscally conservative package that can be adopted without wreaking havoc on our economy, without destroying our budget, yet helping the people who most need help.

Right now, we are threatened by the position of the majority leader of being shut out from offering any amendments. We want to move forward. We want to move forward on a responsible plan that allows the Republicans to decide what amendments they will offer. We are not going to be told by the majority leader that he is the one who decides what amendments we offer. Where has that ever worked in this Senate, telling a block of Senators, minority Senators, 49 of us, that we cannot offer an amendment unless we get the approval of the majority leader? There is a body on the other side of the Capitol that may be able to do that, but the strength of this body is we do not get crammed down on the amendments we can offer.

I have talked with a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and they agree that our proposals make sense. We just want to have votes on the proposals we think are effective, fiscally conservative, and will not endanger the homeowners whom we seek to help.

If we can work together--and I believe there is plenty of opportunity for a bipartisan compromise--on housing proposals we will help families like Willie Clay's and neighborhoods such as Ruskin Heights in Kansas City to get through this crisis. I urge my colleagues to support the home proposals we will be offering when we are given an opportunity to offer those amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article to which I referred from the Kansas City Star.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to make a number of points on the two Feingold bills which are before us. I will be happy, after I conclude my remarks, if my neighbor from Illinois, the majority whip, wants to come back and discuss some of the points he made. I believe I disagree strongly with them. But I wish to take the time to lay out my views of what is happening in Iraq and in our battle against al-Qaida and why the two measures before us make absolutely no sense.

On the second Feingold bill, he asks for a strategy dealing with al- Qaida. Let me assure you, as the ranking Republican, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I know one of the most important elements we have in dealing with al-Qaida is to be able to listen in on their electronic communications. That is covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

On February 16, 2008, after being extended for an additional 15 days--and we agreed, the Republicans agreed, the President agreed to give an additional 15-day extension on the Protect America Act, but it expired. The Protect America Act which I was pleased to sponsor passed in Congress in August 2007 to provide a short-term legislative solution to intelligence gaps that were occurring because of the outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which put a 6-month sunset on the PAA to give Congress ample time to work on permanent changes to FISA.

Our Intelligence Committee, in September, immediately answered the call. We went to work, and after many discussions among staff on both sides, members on both sides, visits to NSA, and in close collaboration with the intelligence community, we passed out a

bill that was a strong bipartisan bill that would, with a few modifications, ultimately become the bill the Senate passed. The majority leader, however, did not act on this bill until the final days of the session in December. Even though it was passed out in October, on December 17 several Democrats led a filibuster preventing the Senate from considering this vital intelligence legislation.

I find it ironic that the assistant majority leader is now accusing Republicans of taking up postcloture time on S. 2633, the troop withdrawal bill, when it was one of his own members who filibustered even bringing FISA to the floor last December by demanding postcloture time that killed moving to the FISA legislation in 2007. And it aided in jamming us with a deadline of the expiration of the PAA. That was the Senate Democrats, not Republicans, who jammed this body on the FISA deadline.

Again, when Congress returned from its recess in January, the PAA was set to expire in a few short weeks. The majority leader did not take up this important legislation, however, but he went to a debate on the Indian health bill. With the original PAA deadline looming, a short 15- day extension of the PAA was agreed to with the understanding that both House and Senate would be able to act within that time.

Why the majority leader wanted to put the Senate up against this deadline, I have no idea. He claimed the Senate Republicans did that. Well, I can assure you that it is not the Senate Republicans who filibustered moving the bill in December and insisted on bringing up Indian health before FISA in January. Why was that done? We just passed Indian health recently. It was an important bill, but there was no deadline requiring us to bring up that bill before we went to FISA. Unfortunately, once we did get on the FISA bill, more time was wasted trying to come up with a bipartisan agreement on how to handle amendments.

Ultimately, the Senate passed its bill on Tuesday, February 12--5 days before the expiration of the Protect America Act. The Intelligence Committee bill has been available for review by both Houses since its passage in October. As I said, there are a few modifications in the bill passed by the Senate, but the authorities and concepts remained unchanged.

Additionally, Senate and House majority staff were in close coordination during the deliberation of our bill in the Senate. And it happened more than once, when we were trying to move forward on the Senate floor, that Democrats had to pull their staff out of meetings with our House counterparts to talk to us so we could move forward in passing the bill out of the Senate.

After we passed our bill, the House Speaker refused to allow the Senate's bill to come up for a vote, even after she failed to get agreement from her own body to extend the PAA a second time. The House refused to grant an extension. The Speaker spent the remaining period of time before the recess considering censure resolutions against current and former administration officials and debating and listening to the potential steroid abuse by Major League Baseball players. She had been assured by the majority of her colleagues in the House, Republican and Democrat, that they would pass the Senate bill were she to allow it to come up for a vote. Nonetheless, she allowed the Protect America Act to expire on February 16, and the House went home on recess, as we did in the Senate.

We all know the Senate's bill was passed by a strong, bipartisan 68- to-29 vote. As we all know, this bill goes further than ever before in providing a role for the FISA Court in foreign intelligence collection. It requires, for the first time in history, that the Government obtain a court order to target a U.S. person overseas. And let me be clear, this is not even a requirement in criminal matters, but it is for intercepting terrorist communications. We have gone further in protecting civil liberties than ever intended by Congress previously in FISA or other measures, permitting law enforcement authorities to listen in on conversations or intercepted communications of people engaged in criminal activities.

Finally, of the utmost importance, the Senate bill afforded civil liberties to those companies that aided us with the President's terrorist surveillance program following the September 11 terrorist attack. Why is this last point so important? Well, the events of this past week should make it clear that we need the voluntary cooperation of our private partners in order to collect timely intelligence. The PAA did not provide any civil liberty protections for those providers that assisted with the terrorist surveillance program. It did, however, give prospective liability protection to companies that complied with the directives while the PAA was in existence.

Let me address one point that has been brought up on the floor. The President authorized the use of the terrorist surveillance program under his constitutional article II authorities, which have been used consistently by many Presidents throughout history.

I understand--and I was not involved at the time--that the administration talked with the top leaders on the intelligence committees in both bodies, the Senate and the House, on a bipartisan basis, about trying to get the FISA law changed before they instituted collection. It was the advice of those leaders that the President not try to wait until we could amend and change FISA.

It is a good thing they gave that advice because, as we have seen, trying to get a long-term FISA amendment passed has taken an inordinate amount of time since we first were advised of the need to amend FISA last April when one of the courts involved in this issued an order saying that because technology had changed, we could no longer intercept communications of foreign terrorists whose communications, because of modern technology, came through the United States. That is what shut us down, and that is what still continues to bother us today. That still continues to limit us today, with the expiration of the Protect America Act.

Once the PAA expired, the liability protections as well as the Government's ability to compel assistance were thrown into doubt. Providers that were being threatened with hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from frivolous lawsuits because they helped their country after 9/11 began to delay or refuse assistance with directives under the now expired PAA. And who can blame them? These providers have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders, and if the law becomes uncertain, as it now does with the expiration of the PAA, it becomes harder to satisfy those obligations, especially when they are faced with the ongoing frivolous litigation that was described here a few moments ago.

There is a very real difference between having the authorization to make the collections and being able to collect. Being able to exercise those authorities requires that the intelligence community have the full cooperation of the intelligence community and that the intelligence community have the full cooperation of the private telecom carriers.

Based on the opinions and legal documents I have read, they were required by law, by the Constitution, to participate. Yet having participated, now they are being faced with frivolous lawsuits which will, I am confident, never show any wrongdoing by the telecommunications companies. The purpose of these lawsuits is not to collect intelligence but, rather, to destroy the ability of the intelligence community to collect information by imposing unbearable public costs on the companies, threatening not only their reputations and potentially a very large amount of their shareholder value but also exposing their personnel and facilities here and abroad to retaliation by terrorist groups.

Finally, the lawsuits, which were applauded recently, have the very real potential of providing more information to terrorists on how we collect their electronic communications. The more we tell them about what we do to collect against them, the better off they are in being able to avoid those collections.

The Director of National Intelligence has told us that now, after a lag, the surveillance under existing directives has resumed. That is good news. But what this means for collection tomorrow, next week, or next month is simply unknown, especially if, for example, the need arises to issue a new directive to a new provider, if some new terrorist group, some new target comes

up not covered by previous orders. It is this uncertainty due to Congress's inaction that the DNI and the Attorney General have said is their greatest concern. Let me assure you, the providers share this concern. It is only because of the heroic around-the-clock efforts of the men and women of the intelligence community and the Department of Justice that the providers have agreed to cooperate for the time being, but it is only for the time being. We should not be lulled into thinking we have time, certainly not time for another extension of the 15 days after the 6-month sunsetting bill, to get this legislation to the President for signature. Just as easily, any one provider could decide at any one time that it is no longer in its business's best interest to comply with the Government's lawful request for assistance when the legal authority has expired. Losing the cooperation of just one provider could mean losing thousands of pieces of intelligence on a daily basis. Moreover, because we have already lost cooperation for several days, we lost the foreign intelligence information that will likely never be within our ability to recall.

What terrorist communications we have missed or will miss in the future because of this 1-week gap we cannot calculate. We do not know. I for one believe we were elected in Congress to establish the framework for protecting our national security and for encouraging assistance from our citizens to serve their country rather than encouraging or allowing a state of fear to fall upon our citizens and companies that would dare to assist their Government in a time of need.

Is this really the message we want to send? Do we really want to send the message: Don't help your country or you will get sued and your elected officials will condemn you? Isn't that really the main issue and the heart of the message here? I am afraid it is. I deeply regret that is what we are seeing on this floor.

Some in Congress, particularly in the House Democratic leadership, have asserted that even though the PAA has expired, the country is just as safe as we were after the PAA was enacted. They claim the procedures under FISA are more than adequate to allow the intelligence community to do its job. They point out that the certifications already issued under PAA do not expire until at least August. These arguments simply do not carry water. Those who claim we can revert simply to emergency FISA orders demonstrate they really don't understand how the FISA process works. The intelligence gaps that led to the need for PAA were caused not by backlogs in processing FISA warrants but because of the way FISA was being applied to foreign intelligence collection, and seeking emergency authorization is not simply a solution, as though the intelligence community could just tell the Attorney General they are intercepting terrorist communications and then build a case for probable cause. Rather, the intelligence community must first establish probable cause on each target before they go to the Attorney General for emergency authorization.

The problem prior to PAA--and it is the same problem that exists now that the PAA has expired--is that the probable cause standard cannot always be satisfied easily when we are talking about foreign terrorists, foreign terrorists who are not entitled to constitutional protections. Analysts who should be spending their time tracking the terrorists will be forced to expend countless hours, hundreds of hours, to develop enough information to support the FISA probable cause standard. We all understand the merits of a probable cause determination when we are talking about U.S. citizens. That is what the fourth amendment is all about. But when we are talking about foreign terrorists, applying such a standard absolutely makes no sense.

Is the House Democratic leadership really advocating a system that imposes unreasonable burdens on our intelligence analysts at the expense of our ability to track terrorists and affords foreign terrorists the same fourth amendment protections our own citizens have? I would hope not. The people I talk to back home don't think that makes sense. There is a lot of common sense around the country. When you go out and talk to people and you listen to them, you hear that common sense. They say: What are we doing, giving our constitutional rights to foreign terrorists who seek to harm us?

These points were reiterated this past week by the DNI and the Attorney General in their letter to House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes. The DNI and AG disagreed that FISA could be employed in place of the PAA, pointing out that it was ``the very framework that created intelligence gaps in the past.''

Further, just because existing authorities will continue in effect at least until August doesn't mean the intelligence community has the flexibility and authorities it needs to address future unknown threats or technologies. Having the authorization doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability, particularly in the situation in which we have placed our vital private sector partners who must cooperate with us.

As the DNI noted this weekend in an interview:

A new personality, a new phone number, a new location--we

now have to put it into the system to be able to collect that

information. That's the question, because the private sector

partners said nothing new. So we had to negotiate that

because what it created was uncertainty, and the position

from the private sector point of view, ``Am I protected?

Does the law allow you to compel me to comply?'' And when

the act expired last week, that's in question. And that's

why we feel that we are less capable of doing our job.

The immediate problem for the intelligence community is how to address this uncertainty so that new threats not covered under current certifications or directives may be pursued. And the DNI has told us this is no longer a hypothetical concern. While I cannot discuss details publicly, any Member may come to the Intelligence Committee's spaces for a classified briefing on this issue.

Simply to sum up on the second Feingold amendment--for the safety of our country, the safety of our troops abroad, the safety of our allies, the House must bring up and pass our bipartisan FISA bill now.

Turning to the first Feingold amendment, that is another one seeking to renew and rejuvenate a measure that we have voted down more than 40 times in this body: that we cut and run, that we declare defeat and retreat from Iraq. I thought it was interesting; this morning I saw a Presidential candidate on the trail stating that al-Qaida was not even in Iraq before we went in to take out Saddam Hussein. If you take time to get informed about what was going on in Iraq, as we have in the Intelligence Committee, you will know there was a very vibrant group, a very vibrant Islamic terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam. Its leader was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. We got to know him well because he was that vicious villain who beheaded his enemies on television. Innocent citizens, American troops, journalists, he took great delight in lopping off their heads in front of television.

And, yes, his group, Ansar al-Islam, picked up the major franchise. He joined officially what he had been unofficially, and that was an ally of al-Qaida. His group is now called al-Qaida in Iraq. They may have changed the name, but the people were there. The terrorists were there. David Kay went into Iraq after we deposed Saddam Hussein. He was sent there with a group called the Iraqi Survey Group to find out why we got the information wrong. There were wrong things in our intelligence. We made assumptions that weren't correct. But we missed other dangers, such as his ballistic missile program, the fact that he found Iraq to have been a very dangerous place in which terrorist groups were running loose and where Saddam's government had the ability to start a just-in-time inventory production of weapons of mass destruction.

The conclusion of the Iraqi Survey Group, which was discussed with us many times in the Intelligence Committee and was then stated publicly: Iraq was a far more dangerous place ever than we knew. That is what the best intelligence post-fall of Saddam Hussein had to say for those who question why we went in. We didn't get it all right. But we had enough right to make the right decisions. From the intelligence we know now, al-Qaida was not only in Iraq before we went in, it is the primary danger we fight there now, and its leaders have said repeatedly

that they want to make their headquarters for their worldwide caliphate in Iraq.

Fortunately, our military leaders have developed a strategy that is working against them: General Petraeus, the surge and, most importantly, the counterinsurgency strategy, COIN, to go in, clear, hold, and build.

We can't just knock out a terrorist activity. We have to go in and make sure al-Qaida doesn't come back. We have to go in with Iraqi security forces to make sure the area can be safe so they don't come in and retaliate against citizens who cooperate with us.

We have been hearing on the floor some very compelling testimony by my colleagues who have recently returned from Iraq about the tremendous progress that has been made there. My last trip to Iraq was in May of 2007. We saw, when our Intelligence Committee was there, the beginning of a turnaround that showed that the COIN strategy of General Petraeus was working. But last night, I had an opportunity for an extensive conversation with a Marine combat platoon commander who went back to Al Anbar province in March of 2007, having left there 1 year previously after spending 13 months there on his first tour in Fallujah.

In March of last year, it was a very difficult situation, and al- Qaida was still hanging on to control in Al Anbar. The Marine platoon commander had left there in February 2006. We were working toward progress, but then al-Qaida bombed the Golden Mosque at Samarra and the ensuing chaos allowed al-Qaida to establish a firm foothold in Al Anbar and served up grave sectarian stress.

Things began to change in the spring with the COIN strategy. American and Iraqi forces were clearing, holding, and building, embedded in the communities they had cleared. As of May of last year, Marine outposts and Iraqi Army outposts were still being bombarded with mortars, threatened by IEDs, and continually harassed by small arms fire, a deadly combination of attacks on them. But when the American troops demonstrated they came in to clear and help Iraqis hold a secure area, things started changing dramatically. Iraqi security forces began working better among themselves and with their forces. There was much greater civilian cooperation, and Iraqi civilians became our most vital source of intelligence. That intelligence, combined with the good work of the Iraqi security forces and Marine action, essentially eliminated most of the kinetic threats, the killing threats.

By the end of July 2007, the Iraqi Army was no longer needed in Al Anbar and moved on to other areas to chase al-Qaida. They turned the security in Al Anbar back to the Iraqi police, backed up by the Marines.

This began a very positive trajectory that continued throughout the time the platoon commander was there. In the last 4 months he was there, he said the 2nd Battalion 6th Marines did not suffer any injuries from hostile kinetic attack--mortars, IEDs, small arms fire. But probably the most important thing was that al-Qaida lost its traction. It was denied the assistance and support of local populations. And for the Iraqis, the most significant thing was the Iraqis were much safer themselves, having less to fear from the terrorists who killed Muslims as freely as they killed Americans.

In my view, that is a military strategy for success. Al-Qaida forces must be driven out wherever they amass to mount attacks against us or our allies or peaceful Iraqis. Iraqis are taking over security with their Army and police. We must continue to train and support them and back them up when al-Qaida amasses forces against them. That is essential.

Al-Qaida will not go away anytime in the near future. But right now the military battle is in Iraq, and we must continue to strengthen the ISF to fight al-Qaida jointly with them and enable the ISF to do the basic job of assuring security and stability in Iraq. Al-Qaida will no doubt try to establish other beachheads, and we will attack them where we find them.

That is our military strategy. That depends upon good intelligence. That depends upon the passage of FISA. Our intelligence strategy is clear. We must have the FISA bill, and it is time for the House to act. It is the only way we can monitor top-level communications of al-Qaida leaders.

Working with our Pakistani allies, we have seen the death recently of Abu Laith al-Libi, the fifth-in-line operational chief of al-Qaida, who became eliminated. Fortunately for us, the operational leaders, the ones who give the orders, are taken out on a regular basis because we can get the information on them and we can work with our allies to take them out.

I would say, parenthetically, we need a clear, hold, and build strategy wherever terrorism threatens. That means before a radical group steps up and takes over a country. That means we must reject protectionist calls from those who would stop American economic ties and development activities, educational exchanges, with Islamic and Third World countries where terrorism seeks to gain a foothold.

What we call smart power is the essential element in maintaining long-term safety and security. The battle against terrorism is 20 percent kinetic. That is what our military does so well, and we are doing it well in Iraq. We need to be aggressive in going after their kinetic threats, against terrorists. We need strong intelligence activities. But 80 percent of the battle is economic development, personal contact, educational exchange, helping those countries know we are with them in partnership to assure their democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity through free markets in their countries. That strategy is working in Iraq, and we need to apply that strategy wherever the danger exists or where it may exist.

What is working in Iraq right now? We have seen the COIN strategy. Attacks by insurgents and rival militias have fallen by 80 percent in Baghdad. Our marines have returned from Al Anbar on success, having routed al-Qaida. Al-Qaida once controlled big chunks of Iraq and is now fighting to maintain its last stronghold in the country in Mosul. According to senior Iraqi military officials, concrete blast walls that divide the capital can soon be removed.

These dramatic security improvements and our COIN strategy have, as intended, created an environment in which Iraqi political leaders can reconcile. Everybody wanted to see them act quicker than this body, Congress, can act. They passed a debaathification law, a provincial election law, an amnesty law, a $50 billion budget. These things are going to go through the political process. One of them was vetoed. But they are making the process work, and that is what we can expect, not that they will move more efficiently and effectively than we do.

Despite all the progress, some on the other side remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal. The artificial deadlines, timelines would jeopardize Iraq's very real chances that it will emerge as a secure and stable state.

Are the Democrats so intent on denying President Bush a victory for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory--a secure and stable Iraq? Trying to blame the Iraq war on Karl Rove is a political shot that has to be dismissed as nothing more.

The Iraqi Government has its problems, and there is too much sectarianism in the Government and the Iraqi Security Forces. But saying the benchmarks have not been met--and damning the war to failure on that basis--is shortsighted, defeatist, and yesterday's sound bite. We do not need any more sound bites. We do not need any more political campaigning on keeping our country safe. It is time we got serious about assuring our troops they have the support they need and that our intelligence agencies have the ability to use their full capabilities, technical capabilities in partnership with the private companies, to make sure we get the best intelligence available.

No responsible Iraqi official thinks we can leave now, nor do our U.S. commanders, and nor do any responsible world leaders, regardless of whether they felt we were right to go into Iraq in the first place.

If you think our world standing has gone down as a result of Iraq, watch it take a nosedive if we pull out precipitously and irresponsibly, leaving a mess in our wake: Chaos, widespread killing, potential regionwide sectarian

wars, and the reestablishment of an al-Qaida safe haven, a caliphate.

The same people who were wrong about the surge a year ago are determined to remain wrong about it now. We must defeat the retreat- and-defeat resolution. We must defeat an effort to establish our al- Qaida fighting strategy in public. We have a strategy. Anybody who wants to learn about it can learn about it. Some of it is classified. We are not going to talk about it publicly. But I join with my colleagues in urging defeat of both the Feingold amendments.

Now, Mr. President, I yield the floor for my colleague from Florida.

Madam President, I will take a minute to update my colleagues on some information we received from the Director of National Intelligence in an open hearing that is going on in Hart 216 right now. I thought it was important to clarify some points that he made in response to some very important questions raised by Chairman Rockefeller.

Chairman Rockefeller asked what would happen if FISA expires--as it does on February 15--without being renewed. He asked, could these collections not continue? There is a very important ``yes, but''--for acquisitions that have been ordered by the FISA Court which have years in length; it is possible that those could continue. But the major problem the Director sees and the attorneys with him see is that if they needed to change targets, if they needed to change methods, if they needed to change means by which they gathered the information, they would not be able to do so.

Furthermore, he highlighted a very real problem having to do with the private sector. As we have said on the floor before, the private sector carriers are absolutely essential to the operation, not only of FISA, foreign intelligence surveillance, but for work with the FBI and others on criminal matters. The fact that we have left the telecom carriers, that are alleged to have participated in the President's lawful terror surveillance program without liability protection, they are being advised by their general counsel of their responsibility under Sarbanes-Oxley, and others, that they could only cooperate with a fresh court order. Since there is no authority for additional court orders, they have a grave question as to whether they are risking not only their firm's reputation but under Sarbanes-Oxley certain duties to shareholders. That is why he felt it was necessary to get this measure that has passed the Senate implemented by the House.

I also noted in my comments that the House passed its bill almost as long ago as the Senate passed its bill. At that time, the intelligence community said it was not workable, that the Rockefeller-Bond proposal that passed overwhelmingly 2 days ago was the only thing that was workable; and the fact that the House says they don't have time to work on it ignores the fact that they have known for a couple of months that they were going to have to make significant revisions in their measure if they wanted it to be passed and signed into law. So my sympathies for the House. I understand they are pressed for time, but they knew this was coming. They have a measure before them that could be passed, which I hope they will pass.

One other thing. I asked the Director about some of the very misdirected, improper, wrong and, in some instances, irresponsible suggestions made on the floor about the tactics that the CIA may use in questioning high-value detainees. The DNI made it clear, as I attempted to make clear yesterday, all of the things banned by the Army Field Manual, such as burning, electrocuting, beating, sexual harassment--all

those things are not only repugnant but they are not permitted to be used by any of our intelligence agencies. He reiterated that waterboarding is not permitted under the political guidelines that include legislation and that we have passed here in direct orders.

So what was done yesterday does not prevent torture. That is prevented already. It doesn't prevent cruel, degrading, and inhumane interrogation techniques. It does not prevent other cruel, degrading, or inhumane acts by the intelligence agencies. Those are already prohibited.

What the measure that was passed yesterday does--were it to be signed into law, and I certainly hope it will not be--would be to deny the intelligence community the ability to use techniques that are similar to but different from the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. These enhanced techniques have been used only on roughly a couple of dozen detainees in the custody of the CIA. They are lawful, and they have produced some of the most important intelligence that the intelligence community has gathered to identify high-level members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, and to interfere, impede, and stop terror attacks directed not only at our troops abroad, our allies, but the United States.

Unfortunately, some people were misled by comments that were bordering on irresponsible on the floor yesterday, to say that we banned torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading conduct. That is not what happened. We tied the hands of the CIA with the purported provision that would severely limit their ability to gain information using totally lawful techniques in questioning high-value detainees. Rather than being a blow for freedom, reaffirming our values, it merely proposed to cripple our intelligence collection.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague with whom I have worked closely on this and many other matters.

One of the most important means that Congress has for conducting oversight of the intelligence community is through the annual authorization bill for the intelligence agency. Regrettably, we can't call it an annual Intelligence Authorization bill because Congress was unable to pass a bill in 2006 and 2007. Unfortunately, it appears we are on a path that may prevent us from getting an authorization bill signed for fiscal year 2008.

When I assumed the duties as vice chairman of the select committee at the beginning of this Congress, one of my top priorities--and that of the committee--was to get an Intelligence Authorization bill signed into law. During the first month of our tenure, we tried to resuscitate the fiscal year 2007 bill but could not get it out of the Senate. When the time came to fashion a bill for fiscal year 2008, we had better luck. But as Louis Pasteur once said, ``Chance favors the prepared mind.'' The committee worked hard to include in the chairman and vice chairman's mark only those provisions that had strong bipartisan support. Our rule was if either side objected to a provision, it would not be included. After our markup, we added a number of other good government provisions that had strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the committee also added a number of problematic provisions that caused our bill to stall on the floor.

I believed we had largely succeeded in our process of accomplishing the goals of a bipartisan bill. We worked closely with the administration to address some of their concerns. Some were easier to resolve than others. We all know there is one very problematic amendment relating to the Army Field Manual that was added during the conference between the House and the Senate. I will address that later. But now I wish to talk about some of the good things in this conference report.

First, I have often said--and I believe responsible observers now agree--that in creating the Director of National Intelligence, we gave him a tremendous amount of responsibility but darn little authority to get the job done. This conference report attempts to address that problem by giving the DNI clearer authority and greater flexibility to oversee the intelligence community. For example, section 410 gives the DNI statutory authority to use national intelligence program funds quickly to address deficiencies or needs relating to

intelligence information or access or sharing capabilities. The DNI may also use funds to pay for non-NIP--national intelligence program-- activities and to address critical gaps in those areas.

Section 409 expands the number of officials in the office of the DNI who can protect sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. This authority may now be delegated to the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence and the chief information officer of the intelligence community. These are all good things, all things the administration needs. We also included provisions that will ensure that the men and women of our intelligence community who must work undercover may do so at less risk of disclosure and, consequently, less risk to their personal safety.

Section 305 allows the DNI to delegate the authority to authorize travel on any common carrier for purposes of preserving cover of certain employees. Section 325 extends to the head of each intelligence community element the authority to exempt certain gifts from otherwise applicable reporting requirements. Without this exemption, detailed information about the receipt of gifts from foreign governments must be published in the Federal Register. Imagine if an undercover agent receives a gift from one of the targets he is working and has to report it in the Federal Register. That not only blows his cover, it probably ends his life. That is a great national security concern to operatives who have received such gifts as part of their covert actions.

One particular provision will reduce the personnel and resources used to respond to many congressional reporting requirements. In section 330--again, in response to a request of the DNI--we eliminated a number of reporting requirements. It is a small step but an important one, as each reporting requirement diverts valuable resources from the intended purpose. I hope, within the 2009 Intelligence Authorization bill, we can make even greater progress in reducing unnecessary and duplicative reporting requirements that burden the intelligence community.

There are a number of provisions in this conference report that are essential for promoting good government. Too often we have seen programs or acquisitions of major systems balloon in cost and decrease in performance. That is unacceptable. We as taxpayers are spending substantial sums of money to ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep us safe. If we don't demand accountability in how these tools are operated or created, then we are failing the taxpayers. We are failing the intelligence community. We are failing the mission I would hope we all agree is essential.

I sponsored several amendments that require the intelligence community to perform vulnerability assessments of major systems and to keep track of excessive cost growth of major systems. This latter provision is modeled on the Nunn-McCurdy provision which has guided Defense Department acquisitions for years. I believe these provisions will encourage earlier identification, the solving of problems relating to the acquisition of major systems. Too often such problems have not been identified until exorbitant sums of money have been spent. In some cases, several billions of dollars have been blown before the waste stopped. Unfortunately, too often, once they have sunk a bunch of money into a project, they refuse to cancel it, even though they are continuing to throw good money after bad.

Similarly, the intelligence community must get a handle on their personnel. I don't share the belief some have that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is too large. In fact, I think we need to make sure our National Counterterrorism Center and National Counterproliferation Center have more resources, not less. They are the ultimate idea for creating a centralized intelligence community, bringing analysts and collectors together from all of the 16 different elements of the community.

I am concerned about the number of contractors used by the intelligence community to perform functions better left to Government employees. There are some jobs that demand the use of contractors--for example, certain technical jobs or short-term functions--but too often the quick fix is to hire contractors, not long-term support. So this conference report includes a provision calling for an annual personnel level assessment for the intelligence community. These assessments will ensure that before more people are brought in, there are adequate resources to support them and enough work to keep them busy.

Finally, we have included section 312, which requires the DNI to create a business enterprise architecture that defines all intelligence community business systems. The endgame is to encourage implementation of interoperable intelligence community business systems, getting everyone on the same page; in sum, making sure everybody is talking to each other and everybody who needs to know can listen in, a simple but not-yet-achieved objective. Given the substantial sums of money we are spending on these systems, we should be making certain the systems are efficiently and effectively coordinated; again, a good government provision.

There were a number of adjustments we had to make. We responded to concerns of the administration, and I worked particularly with my Democratic colleagues--and I thank them for their support--to make adjustments that would allow the bill to clear the Senate for the first time in 2 years. Let me highlight some of those adjustments because it is important to remember how much effort it took to return the bill to a bipartisan state.

No. 1, we struck a section that would have required the President to provide Congress with any President's daily brief involving Iraq during a certain time period. The PDBs have not been disclosed. As a matter of fact, they only came to light when a former official in the previous administration put some PDBs in his BVDs and stuck them out at the archives for reasons no one has adequately explained.

We struck two sections that contained controversial notification and funding restrictions. We struck a provision requiring declassification of the budgetary top line of the national intelligence program because it had already passed Congress in S. 4, the so-called 9/11 bill. We struck a section that required the CIA Director to make available to the public a declassified version of a CIA inspector general report on CIA accountability related to the terrorist attacks. That was also required by S. 4. It was about time the CIA internal IG report be made available. Everybody else had to air their failings, and it was time the CIA did so as well.

We struck a section that would have allowed the public interest declassification board to conduct declassification reviews at the request of Congress, regardless of whether the review is requested by the President. We also struck a provision that would have required a national intelligence estimate on global climate change, largely because the DNI, which is not equipped to conduct an NIE on climate change, had outsourced the responsibility for putting together an assessment, and there was no need to mandate this in law.

Finally, we made modifications to at least seven other provisions to address concerns raised by the administration and by our Senate colleagues. The end result was, we get a fiscal year 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill passed out of the Senate by unanimous consent in early October 2007. I thank my colleagues for allowing us to do that. It was long overdue, and it was a badly needed action. Then, however, we went to conference.

I urged my conferees to avoid inclusion of controversial provisions. We kept our negotiations to the base text of both bills. Given that we hadn't had an intel bill during the past 2 years, there were a lot provisions to negotiate. I guess you could say there was a lot of pent- up oversight. After a lot of hard work, we were able to merge the two bills in a manner we believed would receive strong bipartisan support. Unfortunately, despite my warnings, history again repeated itself. During the conference markup, the Senate adopted, by a one-vote margin, a controversial provision that limits the intelligence community to using only those interrogation techniques authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on human intelligence collector operations. As I will discuss later, to adopt that provision and put it into law

would, according to the Director of the CIA, shut down the most valuable intelligence collection program the CIA has, a program that has protected our homeland and our troops abroad from terrorist attacks. Because it was adopted, I couldn't sign the conference report that I and my colleagues worked so hard to enact.

Another consequence of that vote was it caused the conference report to languish in the Senate for more than 2 months now. Shortly after the passage of the conference report, the administration released a statement of administration policy and--certainly not to my surprise-- at the top of their list of objectionable provisions was the limitation on interrogation techniques provisions. We have heard some misstatements on this floor about interrogation and the techniques used. Frankly, I share some of the same concerns raised by the administration with respect to this provision. Statements made about the interrogation program of the CIA are not accurate. They have been blown totally out of context, and they deserve a response. This section, if it were enacted in law--and it will not be--would prevent the intelligence community from conducting the interrogation of senior al-Qaida terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect the country from attack.

During its consideration of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Congress wisely decided that while the Army Field Manual was a good standard for military interrogators who number in the tens of thousands, with limited supervision and limited training, it was not the standard that should be used by the CIA.

CIA interrogators are highly trained, operate under tremendous oversight and rules and supervision in interrogating those top hardened terrorist leaders, who have information on how the system operates and who the major players are. They do not outsource this job to contractors such as Blackwater or others. It is my understanding if they use contractors, it is former interrogators who are brought back in because of their experience. They are subject to the supervision of the CIA, with multiple layers of supervision and oversight by video cameras. It is highly irresponsible to say the CIA has outsourced torture. We do not do torture.

Now, a lot of people say we have lost a lot because of our inhumane treatment. They are referring to Abu Ghraib. We all agree that what was done at Abu Ghraib was inhuman and degrading. But it was not done by anybody in the intelligence field or for intelligence purposes. It was done by renegade troops who have been prosecuted, punished, and imprisoned for the violations of basic decency. Yes, that has hurt us worldwide, but that is not the standard which is allowable, permissible, or acceptable by any of our interrogators.

Mention has been made of eight techniques that are banned in the Army Field Manual. I agree, those techniques that are banned in the Army Field Manual should be banned. Those are not techniques that should be used. The Army Field Manual was meant for the Army in limiting the number of techniques that can be used. It applies to them only for the Army, for the Army's use. There are quite a number of techniques that fall within the same category that are not torture, inhuman, degrading, or cruel. If they are not included in the Army Field Manual, then they would not be permitted to be used, if this were made law, by the CIA, the FBI, or anybody else.

But to apply the Army Field Manual--it says you can only use these interrogation techniques if you get authorization from ``the first 0-6 in the interrogator's chain-of-command''--well, that would mean the CIA would have to go over to the Army and say: Do you have an 0-6 who can come over and look over the shoulders of our interrogators? Well, you do not have to worry about that because the CIA program would be ending.

It allows the Army to set the interrogation standards for the entire intelligence community. It is important that my colleagues recognize this interrogation provision is not an antitorture provision. The previous speakers have said we need to pass this law to outlaw torture. It is outlawed. The law prohibits the United States from using torture. This provision prevents the intelligence community from engaging in other lawful interrogation techniques that fall outside the scope of the Army Field Manual.

Why is that important? Because everything in the Army Field Manual has been published in the al-Qaida manuals. The top officials of al- Qaida know those techniques better than the interrogators know them. They know how to resist them, and they are ineffective.

Now, some on the other side of the aisle would like to frame this provision as being about waterboarding. It is not.

The Attorney General has publicly stated that the CIA no longer uses waterboarding. The technique is not one of the approved techniques. The Director of the CIA has publicly stated that there were only three individuals waterboarded and the technique has not been used since 2003. It was used in the crisis right after 2001, when tremendous amounts of valuable information were gained from the three individuals waterboarded.

What we are talking about here is not waterboarding. Some of my colleagues have said that the EITs are not effective--enhanced interrogation techniques. Well, that is absolutely not true. That is precisely the opposite of what the CIA Director has told us in our classified hearings and explained it.

Now, the CIA Director has said they have held less than 100 people in their custody, and less than one-third of those have been submitted to enhanced interrogation techniques.

These are the hardened terrorists who have the most information that is needed to protect our troops, our allies abroad, and those of us here at home.

Those techniques--which are different from but no harsher than the techniques that are in the Army Field Manual--are unknown to the detainees. Those detainees on whom the EITs--not including waterboarding--have been used have produced the most productive information and intelligence. Literally thousands upon thousands of the most important intelligent collections have come from the cooperating detainees who did not know what was going to happen to them, even though no torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading techniques were used on them.

Many of the techniques that are used--and I have reviewed them--are far less coercive or strenuous than what we apply to our military volunteers: young men and women of America who join the Marines, the SEALs, the Special Operations Forces, or pilots who go through the survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training, or the SERE training. We do not even use the most strenuous of those techniques on our detainees.

Those who say we do not want our enemies to use any more harsh techniques than we use on them--well, good luck. You have seen Abu Musab al-Zarqawi beheading people. Those are not techniques that anybody would suggest. A beheading probably eliminates a source of further information.

But the problem is, the techniques that are used would be banned. The techniques--that are not cruel, that are not inhuman, that are used on our own voluntary military enlistees--are prohibited because they are not included in the Army Field Manual. One good reason they are not is because we do not want to publicize them or they would no longer be effective in use against those high-value detainees who will not cooperate otherwise. I cannot support a bill that contains that provision.

So here we are on the floor--the farthest we have gotten in 3 years. It looks as though history is going to repeat itself. No wonder congressional ratings are at an all-time low. I believe our inability to work in a bipartisan fashion on a consistent basis may be harming us. Yesterday's success with the FISA Amendments Act is a model example of what can be accomplished when we work together. For the most part, the committee's work on the Intel bill followed that model, although we were unable to protect the bipartisan compromise in the end.

As the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have invested a very significant amount of time and effort to provide meaningful

oversight of the intelligence community through this bill. I know my distinguished chairman, Senator Rockefeller, has made those same efforts and shares the goal.

However, I have often said that no bill is better than a bad bill. Right now, with this provision in it, this is a bad bill because what it would do, according to the Director of National Intelligence, is to shut down the most effective interrogation program the CIA has to use to induce cooperation from those leaders of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations who know about the plots to attack the United States and to attack our allies.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support cloture so we can move forward on the process on this legislation, but the President has stated he will veto the bill and, regrettably, I must say that despite all the good things in the bill, he is correct. We cannot afford the risk to this country, to our personal safety, to our desire to avoid another 9/11, by saying we can no longer allow the CIA to use the acceptable techniques that are not published but that are very effective in assuring cooperation of high-value detainees whom we in this country capture through the CIA. Regrettably, while I urge my colleagues to support cloture, I cannot urge them to pass this measure.

I yield the floor.

That is acceptable. No objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes after that, if that could be part of the request.

Mr. President, I have enjoyed a good working relationship with my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, but, unfortunately, he did not listen to all the testimony we had from the leaders of the intelligence community.

While he suggests we must fight terrorism and uphold our values, that is precisely what the CIA program is designed to do. Going forward, that is the program that will comport with all our values and our views, but it will be necessary.

The CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques, on which he and I have had the opportunity to be briefed, are different from but not outside the scope of those included for use in the Army Field Manual.

As I stated previously, the difference is that since they are not published, as the Army Field Manual is, they are not included in the al-Qaida handbook, they are not known to high-value targets with whom we may come in contact and be able to capture. We are talking only of a couple or three dozen at the most who require those techniques.

He said the FBI Director does not use any harsh techniques. But if you recall, in answer to one of my questions describing one of the techniques one of the FBI interrogators used, it is not in the Army Field Manual. They use different techniques. They use different techniques, but they would be limited to the Army Field Manual.

I suggest that when they are dealing with the criminals who may not be part of an organized terrorist conspiracy, they would not necessarily need to use them.

General Hayden did say that waterboarding was used three times in the past. He has stated clearly it is not being used now. He stated the different enhanced interrogation techniques that are similar to, but different from, the Army Field Manual are only used in very limited circumstances, and those circumstances are the circumstances in which high-value detainees, with knowledge of the organization, the threats they pose, the plots they are planning to undertake, will not talk as long as they are subjected only to techniques they are familiar with in the Army Field Manual.

Yes, the CIA, a couple, three dozen, somewhere in there, may have used enhanced interrogation techniques. Almost 10,000 valuable pieces of information have come from the CIA's program. We are safer in the United States because we have disrupted plots from Fort Dix to Lackawanna to Chicago to Torrance, CA--across this Nation--because of good intelligence--electronic surveillance and enhanced interrogation of high-value detainees.

If we take this step in the Congress, I believe the President will veto it, as he should, because to say that the CIA should be fitted into the Army Field Manual standard is, I believe, a real threat to the effectiveness of our collection.

Regrettably, discussions that imply on this floor that we continue to use or will continue to use any techniques that are cruel, inhumane, degrading or torture is not only simply wrong--flat wrong--but it is irresponsible because there are ears and eyes out there in the world, Al-Jazeera's and others, who will be picking them up, who will be transmitting them, and who will use that to tar the reputation of our intelligence collectors. They do not deserve that. Our security does not deserve that.

Let's be clear, we are not talking about any cruel, inhumane, degrading or torture techniques. They are different than what is published in the Army Field Manual. That is the only reason they are effective.

I regret the measure before us has this ban that will shut down the most valuable source of information our intelligence community has.

I cannot urge my colleagues to support final passage of this conference report.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, regrettably, the record doesn't meet the issue before us. Waterboarding is not an issue here. Waterboarding is not banned. The techniques that are being used are in compliance with all of the convention. They are not torture, cruel, or humanly degrading.

The only reason to have a separate program, which Congress recognized in the 2005 Military Detainee Act, for having a different standard was for a few high-value targets who needed different techniques--not more harsh techniques but techniques that are less severe than the training techniques we put our enlisted Marines, SEALs, Special Forces, and the pilots through. If they are not published in the Army Field Manual, they don't know about them, and that leads them to cooperate.

The most successful intelligence collection program that the CIA has does not involve torture or any kind of unlawful conduct. It is unfortunate--and I regret to say very harmful--to the United States to suggest that it does. I strongly believe we cannot afford to shut down the CIA's interrogation of high-value detainees.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I believe it is important to clear up for the record, for the benefit of my colleagues and the American people, some statements that were made earlier today about waterboarding, interrogation techniques and the Army Field Manual.

During the House and Senate conference for the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill, an amendment--section 327--was adopted that would prevent any element of the intelligence community from using any interrogation technique not authorized by the Army Field Manual.

Earlier today, we heard that the full membership of the conference committee, the full membership of the House Intelligence Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee all came to the conclusion that all interrogations should be conducted within the terms of the U.S. Army Field Manual.

Let's be clear: this particular amendment only passed by a one-vote margin. The conference was sharply divided on this issue, as reflected by the fact that no House Republicans signed the conference report and only two Senate Republicans signed the report.

The problem with this provision is not that it says that interrogators cannot use certain techniques. Most of the techniques prohibited by the field manual are so repugnant that I think we can all agree they should never be used.

In fact, this vote is not about torture, and it is not about waterboarding. We all think that torture is repugnant. And whether one believes that waterboarding is torture is really irrelevant because waterboarding is not in the CIA's interrogation program.

The problem is that the provision in the conference report establishes a very limited set of techniques, and these are the only techniques that any interrogator may use.

So the vote is really about whether the FBI and CIA should be restricted to a set of 19 unclassified techniques, designed for the Army, which have not been examined fully by some agencies.

If this legislation passes and is signed into law, all of us need to understand fully that FBI and CIA interrogators may only use the 19 techniques authorized in the field manual. And all of us need to understand that no one can say for sure that this will not impact our future intelligence collection.

As CIA Director Hayden has said: ``I don't know of anyone who has looked at the Army Field Manual who could make the claim that what's contained in there exhausts the universe of lawful interrogation techniques consistent with the Geneva Convention.''

If we are going to demand that all Government agencies must use only these techniques, we must make sure that the field manual does not leave out other moral and legal techniques needed by these agencies. And I don't believe that the Intelligence Committee has adequately pursued this issue.

Having a single interrogation standard does not account for the significant differences in why and how intelligence is collected by the military, CIA, and FBI.

Much has been made of the FBI saying that they do not use coercive techniques. That is accurate. The FBI operates in a different world-- where confessions are usually admitted into evidence during a prosecution. This means that they have to satisfy standards of voluntariness that do not bind either the military or the CIA.

But significant concerns have been raised about whether the FBI would even be able to conduct ordinary interrogations using only those techniques authorized by the field manual.

A time-honored technique, one that has led to countless successful prosecutions, is deception--for example, telling a suspect that his associate has confessed even though the associate has refused to cooperate. But, it's unclear where this type of deception is authorized in the field manual. So, under this amendment, the FBI could be barred from using this simple, yet invaluable, technique.

FBI lawyers have told us that they need more time to conduct a full legal review of the field manual and determine along with their counterintelligence and counterterrorism divisions what impact using only the field manual would have on interrogations. We should give them time to do this review before we pass a bill that could severely undermine their interrogation practices.

Aside from these concerns, the Army Field Manual on Interrogation was designed as a training document. It is changeable, which means the Congress--and the CIA and FBI have no idea what techniques may be added--or subtracted--tomorrow, next month, or next year. A moving document is not a sound basis for good legislation.

There are also practical consequences to applying this unclassified military training manual to civilian agencies; as we heard earlier, having one standard that can be publicly judged by the entire world. We are talking about intelligence interrogations. We should not broadcast to the world, to our enemies, exactly what techniques our intelligence professionals may use when seeking information from terrorists.

The wide availability of the field manual on the internet makes it almost certain that al-Qaida is training its operatives to resist the authorized techniques.

Supporters of this provision also argue that the Army Field Manual gives interrogators sufficient flexibility to shape the interrogation. Yet, some of the techniques in the field manual are allowed only if the interrogator obtains permission from ``the first O-6 in the interrogator's chain of command.'' What that means is that an interrogator has to get permission from an Army or Marine Corps colonel or a Navy captain before proceeding. So in order to have any flexibility, will the CIA and FBI have to bring colonels and captains to all of their interrogations? These interrogations will get awfully crowded pretty quickly.

We have been told that the field manual incorporates the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do to unto you is an admirable standard. But when dealing with terrorists who have shown no regard for morality, humanity, and decency, it is somewhat out of place.

Do we really expect that if we restrict ourselves to techniques in the Field Manual that al-Qaida will do the same? While we are arguing about whether waterboarding is torture, they are chopping off heads and using women and children to conduct their suicide bombings. Now, I am not suggesting that we resort to their barbaric tactics. I am simply saying that we should not base this important decision that will bind all of our intelligence interrogations on the hope that al-Qaida will discover civility.

Let me also clarify a comment from our distinguished committee chairman about the interrogation of Ibn Shaykh al-Libi. It was suggested that al-Libi lied to interrogators because of the CIA's ``coercive'' techniques. However, al-Libi was not in CIA custody--or foreign custody for that matter--when he made claims about Iraq training al-Qaida members in poisons and gases.

In fact, it was only when al-Libi was interviewed by CIA officers that he recanted his earlier statements.

I believe we still have a lot of work to do before we impose restrictions on CIA and FBI interrogations that could have severe consequences for our intelligence collection.

Now, I want to make clear what my position is here today. For the past several months, I have worked hard to put together a reasonable bill that allows the Intelligence Committees to conduct necessary oversight, while cognizant of the administration's concerns about resources and executive branch prerogatives.

I understand that no administration likes oversight. But oversight is essential to what Congress does: We have an obligation to the taxpayers to make laws and appropriate funds responsibly. And in order to do this, we have to know how the money is being spent and what activities are being conducted.

I have reviewed closely the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill and I am confident that we have addressed or resolved all but one of the concerns listed there. One provision remains that merits a veto and that is the amendment before us: the Army Field Manual interrogation techniques.

At the end of the day, if this provision is removed, I will support this bill. But in its current form, I cannot support it and I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has played the lead in so many things, such as the Detainee Treatment Act and other major pieces of legislation, for his very thoughtful discussion of these issues.

It has been very troubling to me to hear on the floor today some things about what the CIA does that are absolutely not true. We have heard all kinds of descriptions of techniques that are barred by the Army Field Manual. The techniques barred by the Army Field Manual, the horrors that were outlined, are not tactics the CIA uses. They do not use them. They would probably violate the Geneva Conventions and many other laws, which absolutely do cover interrogations by the CIA. When one raises the spectrum that the CIA may be torturing detainees, No. 1, it is not true; No. 2, for those who know what is going on, it is irresponsible; No. 3, it is the kind of thing

that fuels the media of our enemies. I would not be surprised to see some of these comments reported in Al-Jazeera.

What happened at Abu Ghraib was tragic. There were criminal acts by American troops. We punished them, but nobody talks about the fact that we punished them and sent them to prison. They went to the brig, as they should. Now we have heard discussions attributing to the CIA all manner of activities that are wrong, improper, not usable, and are not used.

I think it is important we clear the record. I wish some of the people who know better would say I didn't mean to say that the CIA does these things, because the people on the Intelligence Committee know precisely what is done and what is not done.

I am happy to.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Virginia. He is one of the real experts in this body on military and intelligence affairs. I can tell you that having talked with General Hayden and the other top officers of the Agency, getting to know Attorney General Mike Mukasey and those other responsible, high- principled officials who are overseeing it, it is not a danger that we are going to see torture or inhumane or degrading treatment used.

Now, again, during the House-Senate conference for the fiscal year 2008 Intelligence authorization bill, an amendment--section 327--was adopted that would prevent any element of the intelligence community from using an interrogation technique not authorized by the Army Field Manual.

Earlier today, it was stated on the floor that the full membership of the conference committee, the full membership of the House Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the conclusion that interrogations should be conducted within the terms of the U.S. Army Field Manual.

Let me be particularly clear that this amendment only passed by a one-vote margin. The conference was sharply divided on the issue, as reflected by the fact that no House Republicans signed the conference report and only two Senate Republicans signed the report.

The problem with this provision is not that it says the interrogators cannot use certain techniques. Most of the techniques prohibited by the Army Field Manual are so repugnant that I think we can all agree they should not be and would never be used.

In fact, this vote is not about torture or about waterboarding. Despite what you have heard on the floor, it is not about waterboarding. Torture is repugnant. We have stated that time and time again--in the Detainee Treatment Act and in other laws we passed. Whether one believes it is torture is irrelevant because waterboarding is not in the CIA's interrogation program.

The problem is the provision in the conference report establishes a very limited set of techniques, and these are the only techniques any interrogator may use. So the vote is about whether the FBI and CIA should be restricted to a set of 19 unclassified techniques, designed for the Army, which have not been examined fully by some agencies. I say ``19 unclassified techniques'' because those techniques not only have been published widely, but they are included in al-Qaida training manuals. So the al-Qaida high-value leaders--the people with the information--know precisely what it is all about.

If this legislation passes, and were it to be signed into law--which all of us know it will not--we all need to understand fully that the FBI and CIA interrogators may only use the 19 techniques authorized in the field manual. According to the field manual, they would have to get a clearance from an OC-6, a military officer. That was designed for the military, not for the CIA, not for the FBI. When my distinguished colleague from Virginia passed the Detainee Treatment Act, he and the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, expressly left the CIA out of the limitations to the Army Field Manual.

As CIA Director Michael Hayden has said:

I don't know anyone who has looked at the Army Field Manual

who could make the claim that what's contained in there

exhausts the universe of lawful interrogation techniques

consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

He described a whole area of techniques. There are a whole group of techniques that we use on the volunteers who join our Marines, Special Forces, our SEALs, our pilots, which I described earlier today. Many tactics are far more difficult to withstand than the techniques that are used by the CIA in its interrogation.

If we are going to demand that all Government agencies must use only these techniques, we must make sure the Army Field Manual doesn't leave out other moral and legal techniques needed by these agencies. I don't believe the Intelligence Committee has adequately pursued this issue.

How many of those techniques do we want to publish so our al-Qaida targets will know how to resist them? Having a single interrogation standard does not account for the significant differences in why and how intelligence is collected by the military, CIA and FBI, and from whom it is collected.

Much has been made of the FBI saying they do not use coercive techniques. That is accurate. The FBI operates in a different world-- where confessions are usually admitted into evidence during a prosecution. This means they have to satisfy standards of voluntariness that do not bind either the military or CIA. When they question somebody, they are trying to stop a terrorist attack from happening in the future. They are in the field. The FBI is investigating a crime that has been committed in the hopes of punishing those people. There are significant concerns about whether the FBI would even be able to conduct ordinary interrogations using the techniques in the Army Field Manual.

A time-honored technique, one that has led to countless successful prosecutions, is deception--for example, telling a suspect that his associate has confessed even though the associate has refused to cooperate. But as I read the Army Field Manual, I don't see that that is authorized. So under this amendment, the FBI could be barred from using this simple, yet invaluable, technique.

FBI lawyers have told us they need more time to conduct a full legal review of the Army Field Manual to determine, along with their counterintelligence and counterterrorism divisions, what impact using only the field manual would have on interrogations. We should give them time to do this review before we pass a bill that could severely undermine their interrogation practices.

Aside from these concerns, the Army Field Manual on Interrogation was designed as a training document. It is changeable, which means the Congress--and the CIA and FBI--has no idea what techniques may be added or subtracted tomorrow, next month or next year.

Are we really ready in this body to define something as a standard, a changing field manual? When do we ever do that, saying everybody has to follow the Army Field Manual, and the Army Field Manual can be changed when and if it is ready. There are practical consequences. The unclassified military training level is not applicable to questioning high-value detainees.

This is, I suggest, a very bad measure. I believe the bill without this amendment would have been a very good one. I cannot urge my colleagues to vote for it.