Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 15 years.

The story of the Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990s in the Ivory Coast. After participating in a demonstration against the ruling party, they were jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and several years later learned that she had contracted HIV.

Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr. Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto gave birth to two healthy children, Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6.

Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay taxes and own their own home in Hercules, California. They are active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.

Mr. Tape is the owner of a small business, Melody's Carpet Cleaning & Upholstery, which has four other employees. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr. Tape was diagnosed with urologic cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life- long surveillance to monitor for recurrence of the disease.

In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto obtained a certificate to be a nurse's aide and currently works as a Resident Care Specialist at Creekside Health Care in San Pablo, California. She hopes to finish her schooling so that she can become a Registered Nurse. She is currently taking classes at Contra Costa Community College. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing life-threatening illnesses.

Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been afraid to return to Ivory Coast due to his prior association with President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape had previously sought to promote democracy and peace in the region in support of the current President Gbagbo's party. However, in 2006 Mr. Tape publically distanced himself from President Gbagbo's government when he accused the party of violence and corruption. As a result, Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be targeted if they return to Ivory Coast.

One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their two U.S. citizen children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the family returns to Ivory Coast, these two young children will be forced to enter the army.

This bill is the only hope for this family to remain in the United States. To send them back to Ivory Coast, where they may face persecution and inadequate medical treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to the family. They are contributing members of their community and have embraced the American dream with their strong work ethic and family values. I have received approximately 50 letters from the church community in support of this family.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for approximately 15 years.

The story of the Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990s in the Ivory Coast. After participating in a demonstration against the ruling party, they were jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally raped by her captors and several years later learned that she had contracted HIV.

Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr. Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto gave birth to two healthy children, Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6.

Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay taxes and own their own home in Hercules, California. They are active members of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.

Mr. Tape is the owner of a small business, Melody's Carpet Cleaning & Upholstery, which has four other employees. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr. Tape was diagnosed with urologic cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in remission, he will continue to require life- long surveillance to monitor for recurrence of the disease.

In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto obtained a certificate to be a nurse's aide and currently works as a Resident Care Specialist at Creekside Health Care in San Pablo, California. She hopes to finish her schooling so that she can become a Registered Nurse. She is currently taking classes at Contra Costa Community College. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing life-threatening illnesses.

Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been afraid to return to Ivory Coast due to his prior association with President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape had previously sought to promote democracy and peace in the region in support of the current President Gbagbo's party. However, in 2006 Mr. Tape publically distanced himself from President Gbagbo's government when he accused the party of violence and corruption. As a result, Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be targeted if they return to Ivory Coast.

One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have on their two U.S. citizen children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the family returns to Ivory Coast, these two young children will be forced to enter the army.

This bill is the only hope for this family to remain in the United States. To send them back to Ivory Coast, where they may face persecution and inadequate medical treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to the family. They are contributing members of their community and have embraced the American dream with their strong work ethic and family values. I have received approximately 50 letters from the church community in support of this family.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 10 a.m. to hear testimony on S. 3212, the ``Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act of 2008.''

Individuals and organizations that wish to submit a statement for the hearing record are requested to contact the Chief Clerk, Lynden Armstrong, at 224-7078.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to stimulate domestic film production and create jobs. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith.

Our bill, the Domestic Film Production Equity Act of 2008, would expand a tax deduction, known as the section 199 domestic production incentive, for qualifying U.S. film producers.

In 2008, this deduction will be worth 6 percent of a domestic manufacturer's qualifying production activities. It will increase to nine percent in 2010.

Specifically, our bill would expand the production incentive to allow studios to include wages paid to full-time short-term employees, including U.S. actors, writers, directors, and production personnel in determining the limit on the deduction amount.

The bill will treat films produced by partnerships between several studios as qualified property, each partner must have at least 20 percent interest in a project to qualify.

The bill will deduct income from the licensing of copyrights and trademarks relating to films; and lastly, the bill will deduct income from films and TV programs broadcast over the Internet.

Most film production companies receive only a limited benefit from the production incentive because the industry relies heavily on short- term contract work, and because many films are produced by multiple studios through partnerships.

As a matter of fairness, these domestic production incentives should be extended to fully benefit an industry that employs over 1.3 million Americans.

Filming a movie is different than traditional domestic manufacturing because short-term contract workers, including actors, writers, directors, and production personnel often work full-time on projects; multiple studios often produce one project; studios generate significant licensing fees associated with copyrights and trademarks related to films; and a number of media, including the Internet may be used to view each film or production.

Our bill takes these circumstances into account to modernize this section of the tax code.

The film industry is an important asset to the American economy.

More than 1.3 million Americans work in motion picture and television production.

In 2005, these jobs provided $30.24 billion in wages, with employees earning an average salary of $73,000.

Of these employees, 231,000 were short-term contractors, often working multiple projects each year.

California was the primary location for 365 film productions in 2005. This generated $42.2 billion in economic activity for my State.

Our bill would help studios continue to provide opportunities to these talented actors, writers, directors, and production personnel in America.

Expanding the Section 199 deduction to include these four categories is also a response to the competitive business of captivating an increasingly technology-adept viewing audience.

The film industry, like the music industry, is increasingly seeing their sales move to digital formats via the internet. On iTunes--an online digital music store operated by Apple--around 50,000 movies are rented or sold each day.

Moreover, by not allowing film studios to take advantage of domestic production tax incentives, we risk losing more operations abroad.

For example, Canada currently provides domestic film producers with a tax credit worth 15 percent of qualifying production costs. Foreign studios with operations in Canada may also receive a tax credit worth up to 16 percent of wages paid to Canadian residents.

The film industry plays a unique role in our society.

The world recognizes Hollywood as the center of the entertainment industry. Millions of tourists annually travel from across the globe to visit the sites that embody the golden age of film.

Hollywood film studios are American institutions that continue to produce some of the finest films in the world.

Needless to say, it is critical that studios continue to film in my State and across the country. If not, the golden age of Hollywood and the economic activity it brings may be a part of the past.

We are fortunate to have a vibrant domestic film industry.

This legislation will help ensure that the U.S. entertainment industry continues to be the world leader.

American workers and our economy stand to benefit.

Efforts to expand the production incentive for domestic films have enjoyed broad bi-partisan support. Our bill is similar to a provision included in the tax extenders package which passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 263-160 in May.

I am hopeful that the Senate will move quickly to enact this much- needed modernization of the tax code.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to stimulate domestic film production and create jobs. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith.

Our bill, the Domestic Film Production Equity Act of 2008, would expand a tax deduction, known as the section 199 domestic production incentive, for qualifying U.S. film producers.

In 2008, this deduction will be worth 6 percent of a domestic manufacturer's qualifying production activities. It will increase to nine percent in 2010.

Specifically, our bill would expand the production incentive to allow studios to include wages paid to full-time short-term employees, including U.S. actors, writers, directors, and production personnel in determining the limit on the deduction amount.

The bill will treat films produced by partnerships between several studios as qualified property, each partner must have at least 20 percent interest in a project to qualify.

The bill will deduct income from the licensing of copyrights and trademarks relating to films; and lastly, the bill will deduct income from films and TV programs broadcast over the Internet.

Most film production companies receive only a limited benefit from the production incentive because the industry relies heavily on short- term contract work, and because many films are produced by multiple studios through partnerships.

As a matter of fairness, these domestic production incentives should be extended to fully benefit an industry that employs over 1.3 million Americans.

Filming a movie is different than traditional domestic manufacturing because short-term contract workers, including actors, writers, directors, and production personnel often work full-time on projects; multiple studios often produce one project; studios generate significant licensing fees associated with copyrights and trademarks related to films; and a number of media, including the Internet may be used to view each film or production.

Our bill takes these circumstances into account to modernize this section of the tax code.

The film industry is an important asset to the American economy.

More than 1.3 million Americans work in motion picture and television production.

In 2005, these jobs provided $30.24 billion in wages, with employees earning an average salary of $73,000.

Of these employees, 231,000 were short-term contractors, often working multiple projects each year.

California was the primary location for 365 film productions in 2005. This generated $42.2 billion in economic activity for my State.

Our bill would help studios continue to provide opportunities to these talented actors, writers, directors, and production personnel in America.

Expanding the Section 199 deduction to include these four categories is also a response to the competitive business of captivating an increasingly technology-adept viewing audience.

The film industry, like the music industry, is increasingly seeing their sales move to digital formats via the internet. On iTunes--an online digital music store operated by Apple--around 50,000 movies are rented or sold each day.

Moreover, by not allowing film studios to take advantage of domestic production tax incentives, we risk losing more operations abroad.

For example, Canada currently provides domestic film producers with a tax credit worth 15 percent of qualifying production costs. Foreign studios with operations in Canada may also receive a tax credit worth up to 16 percent of wages paid to Canadian residents.

The film industry plays a unique role in our society.

The world recognizes Hollywood as the center of the entertainment industry. Millions of tourists annually travel from across the globe to visit the sites that embody the golden age of film.

Hollywood film studios are American institutions that continue to produce some of the finest films in the world.

Needless to say, it is critical that studios continue to film in my State and across the country. If not, the golden age of Hollywood and the economic activity it brings may be a part of the past.

We are fortunate to have a vibrant domestic film industry.

This legislation will help ensure that the U.S. entertainment industry continues to be the world leader.

American workers and our economy stand to benefit.

Efforts to expand the production incentive for domestic films have enjoyed broad bi-partisan support. Our bill is similar to a provision included in the tax extenders package which passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 263-160 in May.

I am hopeful that the Senate will move quickly to enact this much- needed modernization of the tax code.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 12 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish I could come to the floor and say there is a quick fix for gasoline prices at the pump. This is needed as much as anywhere in California where gas prices are high and at times the very highest. I wish I could say there was this quick fix, but I cannot. I wish I could say if we could drill all of the Outer Continental Shelf, if we could drill on all of the public land in America, the price of gasoline at the pump would drop immediately, but I cannot.

In all good conscience, I do not believe opening the Outer Continental Shelf to new drilling would lower the prices at the pump anytime in the near future. In the first place, it takes 2 years for MMS, Minerals and Management Service, to do the contracts. Secondly, all drilling rigs are now leased. There need to be new rigs. Thirdly, there is no additional refining capacity. Fourth, drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and on public lands in America over the last 8 years has increased by 361 percent and, at the same time, the price of oil has doubled. So there is no relationship between drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, drilling on public lands in America, and the price of oil. I deeply believe this.

Some say it is simply a problem of supply and demand, but physical supplies of oil and natural gas have remained relatively stable over the past year. In fact, if you remember, executives from oil companies testified before Congress recently and asserted that the price should be about $60 a barrel if it were just a matter of supply and demand.

Some point to instability in the Middle East and Africa's production regions. Others have pointed to the falling dollar. These are certainly factors. But I cannot explain the sharp uptick in prices we have seen at the pump over the last few months.

So what is really going on? What is new in this picture? Consumption in America has dropped 3 percent this year over the same period last year. So what is new? There is only one thing that is different, there is only one thing that is new, and it is a massive influx of speculation in the marketplace. This is the 800-pound gorilla.

Increasingly, experts now say rampant speculation in energy markets accounts for anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the energy price increase. Some will say even more. So I think we have to take a look at why this is the case and what we can do about it.

In May, Congress took a major step forward in the effort to bring more oversight to energy futures markets when we enacted legislation to close the notorious Enron loophole. The Senator from Minnesota just referred to it. I had worked on this for 6 years. I came to the floor when Phil Gramm argued against it. I lost. I got just 48 votes. We came back again. We finally got it in the farm bill this time, and the notorious Enron loophole today is closed.

What was that? This loophole was created in 2000 when a measure was inserted in the dark of night into a must-pass appropriations bill at the behest of Enron and others to essentially eliminate them from the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Two commodities were left out: energy and metals.

During the western energy crisis in 1999 and 2000, we saw the costs in my State soar from roughly $8 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and then to $27.5 billion in 2001. The reason for this was, in the main, manipulation, fraud, and reckless speculation of the worst sort, all because you could trade on electronic platforms with no transparency and there was no antifraud, antimanipulation oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

When all was said and done, these energy traders left California taxpayers with an increased bill of about $40 billion. To date, 32 companies have pled guilty to market manipulation and settled $6 billion in claims.

In recent years, we also saw the $6 billion collapse of the Amaranth hedge fund because of unregulated speculation in natural gas futures on electronic exchanges. And the list goes on.

This has typified the energy marketplace. So it became clear that a legislative fix was needed. We finally got that done, as I said.

The bill, which is now law, ensures that all major trades of energy futures that could drive up prices or have what is called a price discovery impact are placed under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The new law imposes limits on rampant speculation, prevents fraud and manipulation, requires traders for the first time to keep records, and provides an audit trail to the CFTC. This was a significant victory. It is signed into law.

But as we continue to learn more about what is really going on with energy futures markets, it is clear more work remains to be done. We are learning about additional loopholes that must be closed, and the legislation before us is critical to ensure that we can level the playing field in energy markets, that there is transparency there.

First, the problem of large institutional investors, such as pension funds; this is what is new in this market. From 2003 to 2008, institutional investments in commodity index funds rose from $13 billion to $317 billion. That is in 5 years, from $13 billion to $317 billion.

One might say, what does that have to do with it? Daniel Yergin, to a great extent, said what it has to do with it when he said:

Oil has become the ``new gold''--a financial asset in which

investors seek refuge as inflation rises and the dollar

weakens.

``Investors seek refuge.'' So the implications are potentially devastating, and here is why. Unlike gold, energy and agricultural commodities meet essential needs in everyday lives of average people. They are limited. They are not potbellies. Energy is limited in the amount we have.

These institutional investors, the big pension funds, such as my own, the California Public Employee Retirement Fund, has invested over $1 billion in these markets. These institutional investors are trading long on energy futures prices. In other words, they are betting that the prices in these future markets continue to rise. They are not hedging against the risk of changing oil prices, as airlines and utilities frequently do. They never take delivery of a product. They participate in the oil markets only on paper. Yet these investors, the big ones, are currently exempt from CFTC regulation when they execute these trades through brokers or dealers. These trades are called swaps.

Currently, the CFTC limits speculation positions to a total of 20 million barrels of oil and 3 million barrels of oil in the last 3 days of a contract. However, these same investors avoid these limits by executing their trades as swaps. This is a mistake. Institutional investors have become speculators.

Last month, the CFTC announced that it will review trading practices for these investors, and this is a positive step. But legislation is still needed to level the playing field and close the loophole. The bill before us will limit the size and influence of institutional investor positions in energy markets.

To further increase transparency, this bill also requires the CFTC to begin distinguishing between the institutional investor index trader and the swaps dealers who broker their trades. This legislation closes the swaps loophole, bringing transparency and speculative position limits to contracts executed through swaps dealers, in that way preventing a price discovery function as much as possible to keep prices from continuing to escalate.

Specifically, the bill gives the CFTC the authority to begin collecting data on large over-the-counter traders so that it can determine whether price manipulation or excessive speculation is taking place. This would ensure that the CFTC has a clear picture of all

trading in over-the-counter commodity markets.

The London loophole, what is the London loophole? I think we also must prevent U.S. crude oil contracts from being traded on international exchanges without robust oversight.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes, please.

A recent CFTC report found the traders were using the London exchange to trade U.S. crude oil futures to avoid U.S. regulations--in other words, go around it. Trades exceeded U.S. speculation limits every single week since 2006.

Last month, CFTC announced that it would limit this offshore market speculation and require recordkeeping and an audit trail for these traders. That is a start. But legislation is still needed to codify the regulation. This legislation will require foreign exchanges with customers in the United States to adopt the same speculation trading limits and reporting requirements that apply to U.S. trades, ending the regulatory race to the bottom. This language is based on legislation that Senator Levin and I introduced previously.

I believe very strongly that we must ensure that American energy commodities are protected from manipulation and excessive speculation, regardless of where the commodities are traded.

Bottom line, this bill brings transparency, it brings accountability, it brings recordkeeping, it brings oversight to the energy markets. It would impose sound, proven economic principles to markets that are currently broken and where speculation has increased so dramatically that it is pushing up the price. It would close regulatory and legislative loopholes that prevent the CFTC from enforcing the Commodity Exchange Act in energy commodity markets.

I hope my colleagues will support the bill. I suspect it may not pass. I hope it does because there is no question in my mind that the 800-pound gorilla in the price of gasoline at the pump is excessive speculation on commodities futures markets dealing with energy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I introduced Senate bill S. 3308, the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2008, with Senator Kerry, and our cosponsors: Senators Reid, Obama, Schumer, Leahy, Clinton, Murray and Wyden.

This is a simple, straightforward bill that shows our veterans the respect that they deserve. They have supported our nation, some at great risk and sacrifice. If the government is providing services, veterans should receive every opportunity to voice their vote.

More than a year ago, I learned of a controversy that emerged in California--where the Department of Veterans Affairs had been fighting since 2004 to bar voter registration services at a VA facility. Over the last 16 months, we have tried to encourage the VA to establish a fair, nonpartisan, standard policy that provides the best available support to veterans served by VA facilities.

The answers I received from the VA have been conflicting. First, the VA stated that they considered the possibility of following the National Voter Registration Act--but then determined it would be too costly. Given the only resources needed is a photocopy of a voter registration form, I find that hard to believe.

Then this year, Senator Kerry and I had exchanged multiple letters on this issue with the VA. The response then changed. VA officials asserted that they believed that providing support or allowing groups would violate the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act is a prohibition of partisan political activities conducted by Federal employees, on official time. It has not been interpreted to include nonpartisan voter registration by the Office of Special Counsel, which interprets the Hatch Act. Furthermore, the veterans served by VA facilities are generally not Federal employees.

The VA then argued that nonpartisan voter registration services would cause ``disruptions to facility operations.''

That claim is even more dubious. Unless ``Rock the Vote'' comes to VA facilities, voter registration drives are about as tame an activity as you can get.

The circumstances in this situation raise great concern. Our country faces issues of war and peace, challenges in foreign relations, and serious questions as to the treatment of our veteran population.

The most recent Census data we have--from a 2005 report--indicates that more than 20 percent of our veterans are not registered to vote. That means that almost 5 million veterans do not have an opportunity to cast their ballots.

The VA runs a massive program to assist our veterans to heal, as well as ensure that they thrive on their return from military service.

This is true whether the veteran is recently discharged for tours in Iraq, or served in World War II.

A recent report characterized the VA's services as including ``a 'safety net' for the many lower-income veterans who have come to depend on it.''

The question has emerged: Will this make the right kind of impact? Will this cause more veterans to be registered? The VA serves large numbers of veterans--in a variety of care facilities.

For example, the Veterans Health Administration operates 155 medical centers, 135 nursing homes, 717 ambulatory care and clinic facilities; 45 residential rehabilitation treatment programs, and 209 vet centers.

In total, there are 1,261 total facilities; where as many as 5 million veterans who are not registered to vote may use each year. That strikes me as a critical need unmet.

And it is a rational step for the government to make.

The National Voter Registration Act requires at least as much--if not more--from the States. Every State social service agency and motor vehicle agency is required to assist persons who use their agencies.

That is a mandate from the Federal Government to the States to register voters.

In the law, the Federal Government may choose to assist people to register to vote if the State requests NVRA designation and the agency accepts.

Immediately after the legislation was passed, then-President Clinton issued Executive Order 12926--which has not been rescinded by the current administration. That Executive order calls on all Federal agencies, ``to the greatest extent practicable'' to provide both voter registration information, and voter registration forms.

Some might claim that this legislation is premature--that under the scheme of the act, the State must request the Federal Government's involvement. Well, that has already occurred.

Several States, including my home State of California, under the leadership of Secretary Bowen, have asked that the VA designate the facilities within their States.

All three have been refused by this Department.

Ten secretaries of State--from both parties--have requested that the VA reverse its directive. Still no change.

In the case of Connecticut, secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz defied the VA's directive and attempted to gain entry to the West Haven VA facility.

There, she intended on providing nonpartisan voter registration services, as well as showing veterans how to use the new disabled- access voting systems.

Guess what. She was turned away at the door because of this new directive.

As she was standing outside the door to the VA facility, she met a 91-year-old gentleman, a veteran of World War II. Secretary Bysiewicz asked him if he would like to be registered to vote, and he said that he would.

After registering, he made the comment that ``I wanted to do this last year--but there was no-one there to help me.'' That is wholly unacceptable.

When we hear of why so many veterans express pride in their service and their sacrifice, we hear the phrase ``protecting the American way of life'' again and again.

At the cornerstone of our democracy is that every eligible citizen should be registered and receive their chance to cast their vote.

After many months of trying to work out a meaningful solution with the Department, I believe it is time the VA provides veterans the support they deserve to register, cast their vote, and have that vote counted.

This is why we are introduced the Veteran Voting Support Act of 2008. This legislation would: Require the VA to make voter registration services available at VA facilities in states that request it, in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act. These services include voter registration forms, answers to questions on registration issues and assistance with submitting voter registration forms. Those services are available to veterans using VA facilities.

Require the VA to assist veterans at facilities to receive and fill out absentee ballots if they choose to vote by absentee.

Allow nonpartisan groups and election officials to provide nonpartisan voter information and registration services to veterans.

Require an annual report to Congress from the Department of Veterans Affairs on progress related to this legislation.

I hope that my colleagues are willing to support this effort to reverse an overly bureaucratic and irrational burden at the VA.

Passage of this bill would recognize the long history in our country of nonpartisan and civil rights groups that have helped register those who have the greatest need for assistance.

And it respects election officials have long worked to register all eligible voters and provide them with the information and tools to cast a ballot.

I hope my colleagues join me in supporting S. 3308, the Veterans Voting Support Act of 2008.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator Boxer to introduce the Brower Palisade Designation Act and honor the life of one of our Nation's most influential environmental stewards, the late David Brower.

The Brower Palisade Designation Act renames the North Palisade--a prominent peak in the Sierra Nevada--``Brower Palisade'' in his honor.

David Brower dedicated his life to environmental advocacy and helped shape the conservation movement in California and across the Nation.

His efforts raised public awareness about the environment and the need to preserve our resources for future generations.

Former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall once referred to David Brower as the ``giant of 20th Century conservation in the United States.''

In 1952, David Brower was named the first executive director of the Sierra Club, one of the most prominent environmental and conservation organizations in the U.S. He held this position for nearly 2 decades.

David Brower's leadership led to the creation of many units of the National Park System, including North Cascades National Park, Redwood National Park and Point Reyes National Seashore.

He also played a significant role in helping to draft the Wilderness Act, which has preserved much of the Sierra Nevada, including his favorite group peaks, the Palisades.

Renaming the North Palisade peak ``Brower Palisade'' will be a lasting reminder of David Brower's leadership and invaluable contributions to the environmental community for generations to come.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Brower Palisade Designation Act and join me in honoring the achievements of one of our most notable environmental advocates, David Brower.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator Boxer to introduce the Brower Palisade Designation Act and honor the life of one of our Nation's most influential environmental stewards, the late David Brower.

The Brower Palisade Designation Act renames the North Palisade--a prominent peak in the Sierra Nevada--``Brower Palisade'' in his honor.

David Brower dedicated his life to environmental advocacy and helped shape the conservation movement in California and across the Nation.

His efforts raised public awareness about the environment and the need to preserve our resources for future generations.

Former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall once referred to David Brower as the ``giant of 20th Century conservation in the United States.''

In 1952, David Brower was named the first executive director of the Sierra Club, one of the most prominent environmental and conservation organizations in the U.S. He held this position for nearly 2 decades.

David Brower's leadership led to the creation of many units of the National Park System, including North Cascades National Park, Redwood National Park and Point Reyes National Seashore.

He also played a significant role in helping to draft the Wilderness Act, which has preserved much of the Sierra Nevada, including his favorite group peaks, the Palisades.

Renaming the North Palisade peak ``Brower Palisade'' will be a lasting reminder of David Brower's leadership and invaluable contributions to the environmental community for generations to come.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Brower Palisade Designation Act and join me in honoring the achievements of one of our most notable environmental advocates, David Brower.

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

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, July 6, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. to hear testimony on the Administration and Management Operations of the United States Capitol Police.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Howard Gantman at the Rules and Administration Committee, 224-6352.

Mr. President, I rise today to update the Senate on the deteriorating situation in California.

Simply put, the situation is untenable.

In the past 2 weeks, 1,781 wildfires have burned roughly 688,000 acres--an area roughly the size of Rhode Island. Today, 323 fires continue to burn including the Camp Fire, in Butte County. As a result of that fire, 14,000 residents have had to evacuate their homes and nearly 50 homes have been destroyed in the past 48 hours.

It is likely to get worse--with a heat wave and more lightning strikes forecast--just as State and Federal resources are being depleted.

Governor Schwarzenegger has told the Federal Government that California cannot continue to fight these fires--that with current resources the State cannot protect lives and property.

California needs the following: Personnel: The Governor needs 302 more hand crews to put on the front lines and 773 support personnel. The State has tapped out its resources; it is time for the Federal Government to step up to the plate.

And the Forest Service is also short on staff. Key supervisors and firefighters are missing from our national parks, hampering firefighting and brush clearing efforts. Last month the agency reported 380 vacancies in California--roughly 8.5 percent out of a total force of 4,432. These positions must be filled. Agriculture Under Secretary Mark Rey promised me these vacancies would be filled by July 8. But as of today only 289 positions have been filled. We need to do more.

A Full Emergency Declaration: Governor Schwarzenegger has declared emergencies in 11 counties: Butte, Trinity, Shasta, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Monterey, Mendocino, Santa Cruz, Plumas, Kern, and Mariposa. But President Bush has issued only a limited emergency declaration. California is asking the President for a full disaster declaration, which will open the State to broader assistance under the Stafford Act. I fully endorse this request.

Funding: California's fire emergency is burning up Federal firefighting dollars at an alarming rate. The Forest Service has already expended $704 million--more than half the $1.2 billion in available funds--and fire season has just begun. Therefore, I am asking for $910 million in emergency appropriations for the Forest Service and Interior Department.

This emergency funding, to be used throughout the United States as needed this year, includes: $610 million for wildfire suppression; $125 million for fuels reduction on State and private lands; $100 million for rehabilitation; $50 million for fuels reduction on Federal lands; and $25 million for firefighter recruitment and retention in high risk areas.

Air assets: The Governor has told President Bush that we need an additional 41 helicopters in California. I am committed to working with the President to make these aircraft available from other States, the military, or foreign nations. Whatever it takes, we need these resources.

We also need to permanently station military firefighting aircraft in California. It is increasingly clear to me that the key to these wildfires in remote geographic areas is immediate aerial assault on the fires. You cannot get firefighters into these areas fast enough. Earlier this year I asked the President and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to permanently station two C-130 tankers at Point Mugu. This is vital; several C-130s are working these fires today, but they had to travel great distances to get to California. This is unacceptable.

I am writing to the President again to renew this critical request.

Let me share with you a letter written by Henry Renteria, Director of Governor Schwarzenegger's Office of Emergency Services, to R. David Paulison, Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

It says in part:

We are in an unprecedented draw-down in the state's

emergency resources. Many fire departments are barely able to

maintain sufficient resources for initial attack on new

structure fires, while still participating in the statewide

mutual aid effort to address these wildfires.

Even with the assistance of more than 24,000 firefighters from 40 States, ``California has outstanding orders for fire resources that it is unable to fill,'' the letter states.

Yesterday there were requests for 230 engines that went unfilled, and at one point last week there were requests for 400 crews of 15-20 firefighters that were not met.

The Governor's letter continues:

California is in the untenable position of having orders

for firefighting resources remaining unfilled for multiple

days. The Governor has taken the extraordinary action this

week to direct the training of 400 California National Guard

soldiers in basic firefighting. These soldiers will be

assigned to the firefight as quickly as they can be trained

and equipped.

Mr. Renteria--again, the Governor's authorized representative-- concludes by warning that ``the cumulative impact of these disasters has exhausted state and local resources to the point in which California cannot avert threat to live and improved property adequately.''

This is without question a clear and present threat to the largest State in the Nation.

California is on the precipice of a major catastrophe. California has spent more than $300 million fighting these fires--that is more than it spent on last year's firestorms. And this is only the second week of July.

Let me remind you of what the fall brings to southern California. It brings strong Santa Ana winds, which fuel massive and deadly firestorms: In 2003 in California, huge wildfires burned roughly 1 million acres; killed 21; and destroyed more than 5,000 homes. And last year in California, wildfires blackened 1,087,110 acres; killed 10; and destroyed 3,079 structures.

We are in a new and dangerous time.

The great bulk of the fires that have burned since last month--more than 1,000--were sparked by more than 8,000 dry lightning strikes.

California is now faced with dry lightning strikes at a level that I cannot remember in my lifetime. And more are forecast this week.

The State is also facing extreme heat. Across the State, nearly in every county, there are excessive heat warnings.

And the State is in the midst of a serious drought--Governor Schwarzenegger has declared a drought emergency.

The State's reservoirs are below normal, and drought has produced record amounts of dry brush. In many areas, there is more dry brush than at any point in the 27-year recorded history of the data.

This dry brush is like an unexploded bomb.

Last month--the halfway point of the year--more than 272,969 acres in California had burned. That's up from 42,214 acres burned at the same point last year. And up from the 5-year average of 30,938 acres burned on State land at that time of year.

The facts are clear and cannot be ignored. California is in great peril. And California's peril is the Nation's peril, for the costs of fighting these fires is fast draining our Federal firefighting resources.

Bottom line: California and the Nation need help now. A potentially recordbreaking fire season is upon us. We need to do more. We need to prepare. And we need to do it now.

Mr. President, as the debate over the FISA legislation comes to a conclusion, and as a member of the Intelligence Committee for 7\1/2\ years, I would like to comment once again on why I support this bill.

Let there be no doubt: 7 years after 9/11, our country continues to face serious threats. There are some who seek to do us grave harm.

So there is no more important need than obtaining accurate, actionable intelligence to help prevent such an attack.

At the same time, there have to be strong safeguards to ensure that the Government does not infringe on Americans' constitutional rights.

I believe this bill strikes an appropriate balance. It protects Americans and their privacy rights.

This legislation is certainly better than the Protect America Act in that regard and makes improvements over the 1978 FISA law.

This bill provides for repeated court review of surveillance done for intelligence purposes. It ends, once and for all, the practice of warrantless surveillance. It protects Americans' constitutional rights both at home and abroad. It provides the Government flexibility to protect our Nation. It makes it crystal clear that FISA is the law of the land--and that this law must be obeyed.

For more than 5 years, President Bush ran a warrantless surveillance program--called the terrorist surveillance program--outside of the law.

The administration did not have to do this. This specific program could have been carried out under FISA--and I believe it should have been.

With this bill, we codify and clarify that this limited, intelligence program will be carried out under the law.

This legislation allows the Government to collect information from members of specific terrorist groups or specific foreign powers. It is focused on collecting the content of communications from specific people. If those people are Americans, a warrant is required. Period.

So today, we are faced with three options:

No. 1. We can pass this bill. It is comprehensive and improves protections for U.S. persons and updates the FISA law to meet today's national security challenges; or

No. 2. We can extend the Protect America Act. This bill was a stop- gap measure passed last August for a 6-month temporary period to provide time to develop this legislation. It was meant to be temporary, and it should be only temporary.

No. 3. We can do nothing. If we do not pass legislation before mid- August, America will essentially be laid bare--unable to gather the critical intelligence that we need.

We will lose the ability to collect information on calls into and out of the United States from specific terrorist groups. The fact is, like it or not, the collection of signals intelligence is indispensable if we are to prevent another attack on our homeland.

Given these three options, I think the choice is clear.

The legislation is a significant improvement over the Protect America Act and over the 1978 FISA legislation.

Let me indicate certain substantial improvements:

This bill ends warrantless surveillance. Except in rare emergency cases, all surveillance has to be conducted pursuant to a court order.

The FISA Court reviews the Government's procedures and applications before surveillance happens.

This bill strengthens the court's review. Not only must the FISA Court approve any surveillance before it is started, this court is given more discretion, with a higher standard of review, over the Government's proposals. The Protect America Act limited the court to a rubberstamp review. This bill changes that.

This bill requires that surveillance be subject to court-approved minimization.

In 1978, Congress said that the Government could carry out surveillance on U.S. persons under a court warrant but required the Government to minimize the amount of information on those Americans who get included in the intelligence reporting. In practice, this actually means that the National Security Agency only includes information about a U.S. person that is strictly necessary to convey the intelligence. Most of the time, the person's name is not included in the report. That is the minimization process.

If an American's communication is incidentally caught up in electronic surveillance while the Government is targeting someone else, minimization protects that person's private information.

Now, the Protect America Act did not provide for court review over this minimization process at all. But this bill requires the court in advance to approve the Government's minimization procedures prior to commencing with any minimization program. That is good. That is the third improvement.

This bill prohibits reverse targeting. There is an explicit ban on reverse targeting. Now, what is reverse targeting? That is the concern that the National Security Agency could get around the warrant requirement.

If the NSA wanted to get my communications but did not want to go to the FISA Court, they might try to figure out who I am talking with and collect the content of their calls to get to me. This bill says you cannot do that. You cannot reverse target. It is prohibited. This was a concern with the Protect America Act, and it is fixed in this bill.

This bill goes further than any legislation before it in protecting U.S. person privacy rights outside of the

United States. It requires the executive branch to get a warrant anytime it seeks to direct surveillance of collected content from a U.S. person anywhere in the world. Previously, no warrant was required for content collection outside the United States.

Finally, there are numerous requirements in the bill for various review of the surveillance activities by agency heads and by inspectors general. The FISA Court and the Congress will be kept fully informed on the operations of this program in the future.

Finally, exclusivity. Mr. President, I have spoken multiple times on this floor about the importance of FISA's exclusivity provisions.

Before 1978, there was no check on the President's ability to conduct electronic surveillance. However, in 1978, Congress passed FISA, intending it to be the only way. Congress intended that FISA would be the only way--the exclusive means--to conduct surveillance on U.S. persons in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. President Carter acknowledged that when he signed the bill.

Nonetheless, this administration took the position that FISA was not exclusive. First it stated that FISA didn't apply to these particular surveillance activities. Then it said that Congress gave it authority through the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Afghanistan. Then it said that the President couldn't be bound by an act of Congress because he had his own authority under the Constitution.

I reject all of these arguments. And now a Federal court has addressed the subject of exclusivity head-on.

On July 2, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California delivered a decision in a case brought against the U.S. Government for its surveillance. Judge Walker wrote:

Congress appears clearly to have intended to--and did--

establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence

surveillance activities to be conducted. Whatever power the

executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits

the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities

and it limits the executive branch's authority to assert the

state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the

legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.

(M:06-cv-01791-VRW, p. 23)

These are powerful words in the opinion.

So it is not just clear legislative intent, it is the current judicial position that FISA was and is exclusive.

Yet, before the recess, it was asserted on the floor that the President has authority under article II of the Constitution to go around FISA. He does not, in my view.

Moreover, they claim that the exclusivity language in the bill acknowledges the President's constitutional authority to conduct electronic surveillance outside of FISA. It does not.

As the author of this language, let me state emphatically that the clear intent of the language is to bind the Executive to this law.

Now, certain Senators are contending that this exclusivity language would allow the President to go outside of FISA.

Let me be clear: this provision is not intended to, nor does it, provide or recognize any new authority to conduct electronic surveillance in contravention of FISA.

It was drafted very carefully with input and agreement from people from both sides of the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The only way the President can move outside of FISA will be with another specific statute, passed by both Houses and signed by the President.

In summary, the exclusivity language in this bill absolutely does not recognize the President's claimed ``Article II'' authorities to conduct surveillance in contravention of FISA or any other law.

The bottom line is that FISA has always been the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance, and it continues to be the exclusive means. And no President, now or in the future, has the authority to move outside the law.

Finally, Mr. President, I want to set straight who in Congress was notified about the program and when. Some are saying that the Congress was briefed.

This is not true.

Eight Members of the House and Senate were briefed on the program around the time of its inception, shortly after September 11, 2001: the House and Senate leadership and the chairmen and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees.

The 13 rank-and-file members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who by law are to be kept ``fully and currently informed'' of intelligence activities, were not briefed until well after the program was publicly disclosed in the New York Times in December 2005--4 years later. I want to make this crystal clear.

The chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee--which shares jurisdiction over FISA--were not briefed until a significant period of time after the full membership of the Intelligence Committee was notified.

Finally, I want to say a few words about immunity.

Let me be clear, this particular immunity language is not ideal. I would have approached this issue differently.

When the legislation was before the Senate in February, I moved an amendment to require that the FISA Court conduct a review of whether the telecommunications companies acted lawfully and in good faith. Unfortunately, my amendment was not adopted, but I continue to believe it is the appropriate standard.

I have cosponsored an amendment by Senator Bingaman that would stay action on all pending lawsuits until 90 days after Congress receives a report, required elsewhere in this bill, by the relevant inspectors general on the President's surveillance program. That would give Congress a chance to decide on immunity based on a third-party review. If lawmakers took no action within 90 days, the provisions would go into effect.

I have spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter. I have read the legal opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. I have read the written requests to telecommunications companies. I have spoken to officials inside and outside the Government, including several meetings with the companies alleged to have participated in the program.

The companies were told after 9/11 that their assistance was needed to protect against further terrorist acts. This actually happened within weeks of 9/11. I think we can all understand and remember what the situation was in the 3 weeks following 9/11.

The companies were told the surveillance program was authorized and that it was legal.

I am one who believes it is right for the public and the private sector to support the Government at a time of need. When it is a matter of national security, it is all the more important.

I think the lion's share of the fault rests with the administration, not with the companies.

It was the administration who refused to go to the FISA Court to seek warrants. They could have gone to the FISA Court to seek these warrants on a program basis, and they have done so subsequently.

So I am pleased this bill includes independent reviews of the administration's actions to be conducted by the inspectors general of the relevant departments.

This bill does provide a limited measure of court review. It is not as robust as my amendment would have provided, but it does provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard in court, and it provides an opportunity for the court to review these request documents.

Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. It is the product of compromise designed to make sure that it provides the needed intelligence capabilities and the needed privacy protections.

I think the bill strikes that balance and that the Nation will be made more secure because of it.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, H.R. 6331. This bill makes much needed changes to the Medicare program, and will pay doctors at a rate that will allow them to continue to participate in this vital program.

Medicare is a great success story, providing retirees with a health care safety net, but the formula that determines physicians' payment levels is seriously flawed. Unless Congress takes action immediately, doctors will receive a 10.6 percent cut in their reimbursements.

The consequences of such cuts would be dire. According to the California Medical Association, more than 60 percent of California physicians say they would be forced to either stop taking new Medicare patients or leave the Medicare program altogether if these reductions occur.

The same payment rate reductions will apply for health care provided to our servicemembers and their families who receive coverage through the TRICARE program. Over 870,000 Californians and at least 8.9 million Americans depend on TRICARE for their health care. We owe these families, who have sacrificed so much for our country, access to physicians and medical care when they need it.

I voted to consider and pass this bill, because we need to block these cuts and make improvements for beneficiaries.

However, much to my dismay, this bill contains a delay on a program to competitively bid for durable medical equipment. Can you believe it? A block on competitive bidding of commonly available medical goods.

Let me tell you what this means. Medicare began a competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment on July 1 in 10 metropolitan areas across the country--including the Riverside-San Bernardino area in my home State of California.

The program enabled medical supply companies to bid on 10 products, including wheelchairs, diabetic supplies, oxygen concentrators, walkers and hospital beds, in those 10 metropolitan areas. Companies that offered the best prices were awarded contracts to supply Medicare beneficiaries with medical equipment.

As a result, seniors on Medicare in these areas can expect to pay a lot less for some of their medical supplies.

In Riverside, CA, diabetic test strips, once $37 will now be $18, and portable oxygen, which cost Riverside Medicare patients $77 per month, can now be bought for $61.

The bid prices are an average of 26 percent lower than prices set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid before the enactment of the competitive bidding program.

Because beneficiaries pay copayments equal to 20 percent of the cost of their healthcare and medical equipment, that savings is also felt by the elderly and disabled Americans who rely on Medicare.

Competitive bidding makes sense, because there is no good reason why Medicare or seniors should pay above-market prices for medical equipment--especially as other health care costs continue to skyrocket.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid discovered that it was paying $1,825 for a hospital bed that can be bought for $754 online. On the Internet, you can purchase a power wheelchair for $2,174--far less than the $4,023 Medicare pays out for the same product. z

Competitive bidding forces Medicare suppliers to compete for their customers--much like retailers do. It also helps to control costs while providing the elderly and the disabled with quality healthcare and medical supplies. Participating companies must be accredited, to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive high quality equipment and service.

Allowed to continue, the program is expected to save $125 million in its first year. Expanded nationwide, that number would grow to $1 billion in savings for taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries.

But just as this pilot program gets off the ground--another 70 metropolitan areas are expected to be added in 2009--this bill endangers the program's future.

Losing bidders have complained that the selection process was flawed and have convinced some of my colleagues to support a delay of the program for another 18 months and start the selection process over.

The bill before us today would terminate the existing competitively- bid contracts and delay the program launch for a year and a half.

This should not be permitted to happen. Seniors and taxpayers deserve to pay fair prices for their medical equipment. Medicare beneficiaries in Riverside, in Cleveland, in Dallas, learned about this new program, selected new providers, and are already saving money. Stopping this new effort midstream will only lead to confusion.

We all agree that entitlement programs like Medicare need to be reformed, but if we can't change a small portion of this sprawling entitlement program, how will we ever succeed in making major reforms?

Competitive bidding is a smart way to ensure that Medicare pays reasonable rates for medical equipment at a time when medical costs are soaring. We should not ask taxpayers to fund someone else's cash cow.

While I will vote to consider and pass this bill today, I will continue to work to see that competitive bidding moves forward, and I urge my colleagues do the same. This is a matter of common sense.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I am next in the order. I ask unanimous consent that following my presentation the Senator from Vermont be recognized on our side. I know Senator Chambliss is here on the Republican side and wishes to speak.

That was the intent.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I begin my remarks by thanking the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, the House Speaker, and the House leadership for their distinguished work on this piece of legislation. This has not been easy. It is certainly not without controversy. There are some major challenges to work through.

I want to begin by putting my remarks, at least, in context.

There is no more important requirement for national security than obtaining accurate, actionable intelligence. At the same time, there have to be strong safeguards in place to ensure that the Government does not infringe on Americans' constitutional rights.

Yet if Congress does not act and pass this bill, as it was passed overwhelmingly in the House, both of these goals,

I believe, are in jeopardy. Here is why. If this bill does not pass, our Nation would likely be forced to either extend the Protect America Act or leave the Nation bare until a new bill can be written. Neither of these are good options.

As I will describe, the Protect America Act does not adequately protect Americans' constitutional rights. It was written to be a temporary measure for 6 months, and it expired on February 5.

What many people do not understand is that surveillance conducted under the Protect America Act will cease by the middle of August. It will be impossible to write a new bill, to get it past both Houses, to have it signed by the President in time to meet this deadline.

If that bill expires without this Congress passing new legislation, we will be unable to conduct electronic surveillance on a large number of foreign targets. In other words, our intelligence apparatus will be laid bare and the Nation will go into greater jeopardy. I truly believe that.

The FISA legislation of 1978 cannot accommodate this number of targets. It is simply inadequate for this new task due to changes in technology and the communications industry. That is precisely why FISA needs to be modernized.

So taking no action means we will be opening ourselves, in my view, to the possibility of major attack. This is unacceptable.

So as I see it, our choice is a clear one: We either pass this legislation or we extend the Protect America Act. For me, this legislation is much the better option.

This bill, in some respects, improves even on the base bill, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It provides clear protections for U.S. persons both at home and abroad. It ensures that the Government cannot conduct electronic surveillance on an American anywhere in the world without a warrant. No legislation has done that up to this point.

I think the improvements in this bill over the Protect America Act and the 1978 legislation are important to understand, and I wish to list a few.

First, prior court review. This bill ensures that there will be no more warrantless surveillance. Now, why do I say this? Under the Protect America Act--which is expiring, but we are still collecting surveillance under it for now--the intelligence community was authorized to conduct electronic surveillance for a period of 4 months before submitting an application for a warrant to the FISA Court. Surveillance could actually proceed for 6 months before there was a warrant.

Under this bill, the Government must submit an application and receive a warrant from the FISA Court before surveillance begins. No more warrantless surveillance. This is, in fact, a major point.

In emergency cases, there can be a short period of collection--up to 7 days--as the application is prepared. There has been a provision for emergency cases under FISA for some 30 years now. So that is prior court review for a U.S. person anywhere in the world if content is collected.

Meaningful court review. This bill strengthens court review. Under the Protect America Act, the Government submitted to the FISA Court its determination that procedures were in place to ensure that only people outside the United States would be targeted. The court could only reject an application for a warrant if it found that determination to be ``clearly erroneous.'' This bill returns to the traditional FISA standard, empowering the court to decide whether the Government's determination is ``reasonable.'' This is a higher standard of review, so the court review under this bill is meaningful.

Next, minimization. These first two improvements ensure that the Government will only be targeting people outside the country. That is good, but it is not enough. There is always the possibility of someone outside the country talking to a U.S. person inside the country. The bill addresses this with a process known as minimization.

In 1978, Congress said that the Government could do surveillance on U.S. persons under a court warrant, but required the Government to minimize the amount of information on those Americans who get included in the intelligence reporting. In practice, this actually means that the National Security Agency only includes information about a U.S. person that is strictly necessary to convey the intelligence. Most of the time, the person's name is not included in the report. That is the minimization process.

If an American's communication is incidentally caught up in electronic surveillance while the Government is targeting someone else, minimization protects that person's private information.

Now, the Protect America Act did not provide for court review over this minimization process at all. But this bill requires the court in advance to approve the Government's minimization procedures prior to commencing with any minimization program. That is good. That is the third improvement.

Fourth, reverse targeting. There is an explicit ban on reverse targeting. Now, what is reverse targeting? That is the concern that the National Security Agency could get around the warrant requirement. If the NSA wanted to get my communications but did not want to go to the FISA Court, they might try to figure out who I am talking with and collect the content of their calls to get to me. This bill says you cannot do that. You cannot reverse target. It is prohibited. This was a concern with the Protect America Act, and it is fixed in this bill.

Those are four reasons--good reasons. Here is a fifth: U.S. person privacy outside the United States. This bill does more than Congress has ever done before to protect Americans' privacy regardless of where they are, anywhere in the world. Under this bill, the executive branch will be required to obtain a warrant any time it seeks to direct surveillance at a U.S. person anywhere in the world. So any U.S. person anywhere in the world is protected by the requirement that a warrant must be received from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before electronic surveillance can begin.

Previously, FISA only covered people inside the United States. The Protect America Act did the same thing.

Now, also under this bill, there will be reviews of surveillance authorities by the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the heads of all relevant agencies, and the inspectors general of all relevant agencies on a regular basis, and the FISA Court and the Congress will receive the results of those reviews.

So there will be regular reporting from the professionals in the arena on how this bill is being followed through on--how electronic surveillance is being carried out worldwide. The Intelligence and Judiciary Committees will receive those reports. That, too, is important.

Also, under this bill, there will be a retrospective review of the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program. That is the program that has stirred the furor. The bill requires an unclassified report on the facts of the program, including its limits, the legal justifications, and the role played by the FISA Court and any private actors involved. This will provide needed accountability.

In summary, all intelligence collection under the Terrorist Surveillance Program will be brought under court review and court orders.

Everything I have described brings this administration back under the law. There is no more Terrorist Surveillance Program. There is only court-approved, Congressionally reviewed collection.

But what is to keep this administration or any other administration from going around the law again? The answer is one word, and it is called exclusivity.

It means that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the only, the exclusive, means for conducting electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes.

The exclusivity language in this bill is identical in substance to the amendment I offered in February, which received 57 votes in this Senate. It is section 102 of this bill.

This language reiterates what FISA said in 1978, and it goes further. Here is what this bill says:

Never again will a President be able to say that his authority--or her authority, one day, I hope--as Commander in Chief can be used to violate a law duly enacted by Congress.

Never again can an Executive say that a law passed to do one thing-- such as use military force against our enemies--also overrides a ban on warrantless surveillance. The administration has said that the resolution to authorize the use of military force gave this President the right to go around FISA.

Never again can the Government go to private companies for their assistance in conducting surveillance that violates the law.

Now, this administration has a very broad view of Executive authority. Quite simply, it believes that when it comes to these matters, the President is above the law. I reject that notion in the strongest terms.

I think it is important to review the recent history with this administration to demonstrate why FISA exclusivity is so important.

At the very beginning of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, John Yoo, at the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a legal opinion that:

. . . [u]nless Congress made a clear statement in the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to

restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless

searches in the national security area--which it has not--

then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading.

That was the argument. I believe it is wrong. Congress wrote FISA in 1978 precisely in the field of national security; there are other, separate laws that govern wiretapping in the criminal context. In fact, the Department of Justice has repudiated Yoo's notion.

But if the Department admitted that FISA did apply, it found another excuse not to take the Terrorist Surveillance Program to the FISA Court.

The Department of Justice developed a new, convoluted argument that Congress had authorized the President to go around FISA by passing the authorization to use military force against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

This is as flimsy as the last argument.

There is nothing in the AUMF that talks about electronic surveillance or FISA, and I know of not one Member who believed we were suspending FISA when we authorized the President to go to war.

But that is another argument we lay to rest with this bill. Here is how we do it. We say in the language in this bill that FISA is exclusive. Now, here is the major part: Only a specific statutory grant of authority in future legislation can provide authority to the Chief Executive to conduct surveillance without a FISA warrant.

So we go a step further in exclusivity. We cover what Yoo was trying to argue and what others might argue on behalf of a Chief Executive in the future, by closing the loophole and saying: You need specific statutory authority by the Congress of the United States to go outside the law and the Constitution.

The final argument the President has made is that even if FISA was intended to apply, and even if the AUMF didn't override FISA's procedures, he still had the authority as Commander in Chief to disregard the law.

Now, I have spoken on the floor before about how the President believes he is above the law and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer case. In that case, Justice Jackson described how the President's power is at the ``lowest ebb'' when he is acting in contravention to the will of the Congress.

This bill, again, makes it clear that the will of Congress is that there will be no electronic surveillance inside the United States without a warrant, and it makes clear that any electronic surveillance that is conducted outside of FISA or outside of another express statutory authorization for surveillance is a criminal act. It is criminalized. This is the strongest statement of exclusivity in history.

The reason I am describing all this is to build a case of legislative intent in case this is ever litigated, and I suspect it may well be.

So, finally, I wish to read into the Record the comments on exclusivity from a June 19, 2008, letter that Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell wrote to the Congress. The letter recognizes that the exclusivity provision in this bill ``goes beyond the exclusive means provision that was passed as part of FISA [in 1978].''

So they essentially admit we are taking exclusivity to a new high. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that the provision in this bill ``would not restrict the authority of the government to conduct necessary surveillance for intelligence and law enforcement purposes in a way that would harm national security.''

I said in February I could not support a bill without exclusivity. This is what keeps history from repeating itself and another President from going outside the law. I believe that with this language we will prevent it from ever happening again.

Now, a comment on title II of the bill, which is the telecom immunity section. This bill also creates a legal process that may--and, in fact, is likely to--result in immunity for telecommunications companies that are alleged to have provided assistance to the Government.

I have spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter. I have read the legal opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. I have read the written requests to telecommunications companies. I have spoken to officials inside and outside the Government, including several meetings with the companies alleged to have participated in the program.

The companies were told after 9/11 that their assistance was needed to protect against further terrorist acts. This actually happened within weeks of 9/11. I think we can all understand and remember what the situation was in the 3 weeks following 9/11.

The companies were told the surveillance program was authorized and that it was legal, and they were prevented from doing their due diligence in reviewing the Government's request. In fact, very few people in these companies--these big telecoms--are actually cleared to receive this information and discuss it. So that creates a very limited universe of people who can do their due diligence within the confines of a given telecommunications company.

For the record, let me also address what I have heard some of my colleagues say. At the beginning of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, only four Senators were briefed. The Intelligence Committee was not, other than the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

I am one who believes it is right for the public and the private sector to support the Government at a time of need. When it is a matter of national security, it is all the more important.

I think the lion's share of the fault rests with the administration, not with the companies.

It was the administration who refused to go to the FISA Court to seek warrants. They could have gone to the FISA Court to seek these warrants on a program basis, and they have done so subsequently.

It was the administration who withheld this surveillance program from the vast majority of Members of Congress, and it was the administration who developed the legal theories to explain why it could, in fact, go around the law.

So I am pleased this bill includes independent reviews of the administration's actions to be conducted by the inspectors general of the relevant departments.

All of that said, when the legislation was before the Senate in February, I stated my belief that immunity should only be provided if the defendant companies acted legally, or if they acted in good faith with a reasonable belief that their actions were legal. That is what the law calls for.

I moved an amendment to require the court to review the written requests to companies to see whether they met the terms of the law. That law requires that a specific person send a certification in writing to a telecommunications company. That certification is required to state that no court order is required for the surveillance, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the assistance is required by the Government.

Unfortunately, my amendment was not adopted, but I continue to believe it is the appropriate standard.

Now, the pending legislation does not assess whether the request made by the Government was, in fact, legal, nor whether the companies had a good-faith and objective belief that the requests were legal. What this bill does provide is a limited measure of court

review. It is not as robust as my amendment would have provided, but it does provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard in court, and it provides an opportunity for the court to review these request documents.

I believe the court should not grant immunity without looking into the legality of the companies' actions. So if there is an amendment that does support this, I would intend to vote for it.

But I believe the Record should be clear in noting that if this bill does become law, in my view, it does not mean the Congress has passed judgment on whether any companies' actions were or were not legal. Rather, it should be interpreted as Congress recognizing the circumstances under which the companies were acting and the reality that we desperately need the voluntary assistance of the private sector to keep the Nation secure in the future.

I believe this bill balances security and privacy without sacrificing either. It is certainly better than the Protect America Act in that regard, and makes improvements over the 1978 FISA law.

As I said, if a new bill is not in place by mid-August, the Nation will be laid bare and unable to collect intelligence.

This bill provides for meaningful and repeated court review of surveillance done for intelligence purposes. It ends, once and for all, the practice of warrantless surveillance, and it protects Americans' constitutional rights both at home and abroad. It provides the Government with the flexibility it needs under the law to protect our Nation. It makes it crystal clear that this is the law of the land and that this law must be obeyed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank you very much.

I particularly salute the Senator from Maryland. I thank her for her leadership of our group of Democratic women. Senator Mikulski has, from the get-go, been there for the women of the Senate. This is the second time I have participated in this Checklist for Change, which she has put together.

I also salute Senator McCaskill, who was on the floor, who has brought a very talented dimension to our group of women.

I think, as the other Democratic women as well come to the floor to discuss this Checklist for Change, you are going to see one thing; and that one thing is, we are all very committed to this country and very committed to see this country do the right thing by her people.

So it is with a great deal of pleasure that I participate in this effort. I thank both of them and the women who will come after me speaking as well.

My comments are forged by 15 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee. With the exception of Senator Moseley-Braun for a short period of time, I am the only woman who has served in history on the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and also serving 7 years as a member of the Intelligence Committee.

I have always taken great stock in the fact that the United States of America has been a beacon of hope because people all over the world look to American justice and American human rights for inspiration.

We have represented not only a brighter future for people, but we have represented a government of law, a government under the Constitution, a government by the people, for the people, with justice for all--not just for a certain few but all.

Now that beacon has been dimmed. Despite President Bush's promise that the United States would fight the war on terror consistent with American values and ``in the finest traditions of valor,'' the decision was made, as Vice President Cheney said in 2001, to ``go to the dark side.''

Indeed, this administration has put our Nation on the wrong track in so many ways, including: creating a prisoner of war detention facility at Guantanamo Bay with a separate, lesser system of justice--now repudiated by the Supreme Court; authorizing interrogation techniques that constitute torture; reopening the nuclear door by seeking to develop low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons and 100-kiloton nuclear bunker busters; countenancing, for the first time, the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike against a nonnuclear threat, if chemical or biological weapons were threatened--not used but threatened--against the United States; preemptively invading Iraq, under the guise of weapons of mass destruction and a false nexus to al-Qaida.

So, today, we see America's credibility in the world diminished, and the administration's policies have become a recruiting tool for our enemies. So, in 7\1/2\ years, this great country has gone from a nation embraced to a nation often tarnished.

Yes, the time has come for a change. The time has come to: lay out an exit strategy in Iraq so we can begin to bring our people home; close Guantanamo, shut it down. The Secretary of Defense says shut it down. The former Secretary of State says shut it down. Governor Kean, Congressman Hamilton, a litany of four-star officers and flag officers have said shut it down. It does not become America's values.

The time has come to stop America's use of torture; establish a uniform standard for detentions and interrogations across our Government. This is part of the Senate's Intelligence authorization bill, and it will remain part of this bill. That bill essentially says all elements of the American Government will utilize the Army Field Manual and the procedures therein, both the prohibitions on eight specific items of torture as well as specific techniques to move ahead.

The time has come to use robust diplomacy; create coalitions; listen to allies; talk with adversaries. This makes us stronger, not weaker.

The time has come to develop a new, sensible nuclear weapons policy, so we do not encourage the very kind of proliferation we seek to prevent.

Yes, the time has come for change. The time has come to restore America's credibility as a moral and just nation, dedicated to liberty and justice.

We are the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen. Our global influence is unmatched. For the past half century, our country has embraced international cooperation, not out of vulnerability or weakness but from a position of strength.

Mr. President, if I can finish with this last statement.

Our strength as a nation emanates not just from our power but from our moral stature and our principled stand for truth, justice, and freedom. It must be restored.

I say to the Presiding Officer, thank you for your indulgence.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, whom I also compliment. I see my fellow colleague from California. They are part of Senator Mikulski's Checklist for Change.