Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, March 12, 2008, at 10 a.m. to hear testimony on ``Is the Myth of In-Person Voter Fraud Leading to Voter Disenfranchisement?''

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

Mr. President, as a part of National Peace Corps Week, I wish to join many of my colleagues in celebrating the 47th anniversary of the Peace Corps and honoring the important work of Peace Corps volunteers.

During this week, Peace Corps volunteers from around the world who have served over the years will share their overseas experiences with schools and community groups around the United States.

By giving presentations during Peace Corps Week, former Peace Corps volunteers will help Americans better understand the people and cultures they have experienced, and the many benefits of Peace Corps service.

By making presentations in classrooms, former volunteers will help create greater global awareness among students.

The Peace Corps is one of our most effective and successful foreign aid programs.

Since the establishment of the Peace Corps by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, more than 190,000 U.S. citizens, including 25,000 from my home State of California, have served their country in the cause of peace by living and working in 139 developing countries.

The world has changed since 1961--and the Peace Corps has succeeded in keeping up with these changes.

While education and agriculture are still an important part of what a Peace Corp volunteer does, today's volunteers also work on HIV/AIDS awareness, information technology, and business development.

Many volunteers work in orphanages with HIV-positive children, implement programs for at-risk youth, and create support groups for HIV-positive people.

Business volunteers conduct seminars on subjects like marketing, strategic planning, and tourism development. They work with women and minority groups to strengthen their participation in the economic system.

Agriculture volunteers may find themselves working with farmers to implement techniques to improve soil quality and conserve water--or on the business end conducting production cost-and-price analyses.

The Peace Corps also assists countries in need by supplying Crisis Corps volunteers--former volunteers who return to the field on a short- term basis. In 2005, for the first time in its history, Peace Corps deployed 272 Crisis Corps volunteers domestically to assist in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts along the gulf coast.

Also in 2005, Crisis Corps volunteers were deployed to Sri Lanka and Thailand to assist with rebuilding tsunami devastated areas, and to Guatemala following Hurricane Stan. As part of PEPFAR, Crisis Corps has deployed volunteers to Uganda, Kenya, Namibia and Zambia. Finally, Crisis Corps is working with Peace Corps posts in Central America and the Caribbean to address disaster preparedness in the region.

Today's Peace Corps is more vital than ever, working in emerging and essential areas such as information technology and business development. They have made significant and lasting contributions around the world in agriculture, education, health, HIV/AIDS, and the environment.

Peace Corps volunteers continue to help countless individuals who want to build a better life for themselves, their children, and their communities.

At a time when the United States is seeking to reclaim the respect and admiration of the world and once again be seen as a champion and a leader of democracy, justice, and human rights, Peace Corps volunteers revitalize faith in this country.

They are leaders and diplomats, and they serve as an inspiration not only to their fellow American citizens but to citizens all across the world.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Peace Corps and celebrate National Peace Corps Week.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have reserved time, 15 minutes, to speak in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, yesterday was a big day before the Senate. We had the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill. Today is an even bigger day because the intelligence authorization bill is going to be before the Senate, and today we will grapple with something that I think should be major in our consciousness and major in our deliberations. It is central to who we are as a nation. The question is whether the United States should continue to go to the ``dark side,'' down the road of torture, and continue to allow the CIA and other intelligence agencies to practice or outsource state-sanctioned torture. To me, the answer is clear, and I hope it is to everyone. The answer should be no.

Today we are living in a legal limbo, where the rules are shrouded by ambiguity. The time has come to change this once and for all. The way to do it is to support the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill, which would prohibit all interrogation techniques by the CIA and place the intelligence community under the uniform standard of the Army Field Manual. If that bill passes, and it has passed the House of Representatives, if it passes here today, we have a uniform standard for the entire American Government with respect to coercive interrogation techniques.

The Army Field Manual, which looks like this, has 19 interrogation protocols. They are proven, they are flexible, and they are effective. The CIA interrogation program, on the other hand, I believe, is immoral, illegal, sometimes ineffective, and often counterproductive. I wish to simply read something which appeared in the newspapers, and what this says is:

The book on interrogation has been written. We just need to

follow it.

And they refer to this book, Mr. President.

Cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners

under American control makes us less safe, violates our

Nation's values, and damages America's reputation in the

world. That is why, in 2004, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission

called for humane treatment of those captured by the United

States Government and our allies in the struggle against

terrorism. Congress and the Pentagon responded with clear and

comprehensive new rules for the military so that

interrogation techniques practiced by the military today are

both humane and effective. But not all United States agencies

are following these rules. Congress should require the entire

U.S. Government and those acting on its behalf to follow the

Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

Doing so will make us safer while safeguarding our cherished

values and our vital national interests.

This was signed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Warren Christopher, Lawrence Eagleburger, Slade Gorton, Lee Hamilton, Gary Hart, Rita Houser, Karla Hills, Thomas Kean, Anthony Lake, John Lehman, Richard Leon, Robert McFarlane, Donald McHenry, Sam Nunn, Thomas Pickering, Ted Sorensen, and John Whitehead. It is a bipartisan group that has come out with this, and I believe we should absorb it and use that information.

The Army Field Manual provision has the support of the Intelligence Committees. I offered the amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate on the intel authorization bill. It was passed by the Senate and it was passed by the House, and it is part of the bill, and as I said, the House has passed their bill. The amendment was the subject of passionate and considered debate in Congress. It has unique support--18 former security officials, as I have said--and this Army Field Manual was issued in its current form by the Department of the Army in September of 2006. It followed the requirements of the Detainee Treatment Act, and it applies uniformly across all elements of the military and civilian elements of the Department of Defense.

The manual was published after more than 3 years of drafting and coordination. This was the most scrutinized field manual the Army has ever produced, including reviews and comments by every relevant Pentagon office, every combatant commander, the White House, the DNI, the CIA, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Departments of Justice and State have also concurred with the manual's guidance. For the first time ever, the Army consulted with Congress in the persons of Senators McCain, Warner, and Levin in drafting the manual.

The manual complies with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions, and the Detainee Treatment Act. There is perhaps no more authoritative figure on the manual than our commanding officer in Iraq, GEN David Petraeus. In a response to a survey showing that American troops in Iraq would consider torture in order to save their comrades, Petraeus wrote to the entire multinational force on May 10, 2007, and here is some of what he said:

Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone

``talk''; however, what the individual says may be of

questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the

interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual

shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and

humanely in eliciting information from detainees.

Now, what does the manual do? It specifically authorizes 19 approaches--you could call them interrogation techniques--and they are well thought out and each one is several pages on how to apply it. One of them can only be used on unlawful army combatants with the prior approval of the combatant commander. These techniques describe ways to build rapport with the detainee in order to get him or her to share information.

GEN Michael Maples, the Director of the DIA, recently rebutted the contention that the Army Field Manual wouldn't have covered the interrogation method used by an FBI special agent to get Saddam Hussein to finally come clean that he had no weapons of mass destruction.

So the manual specifically prohibits eight techniques, and here is what they are:

Forcing a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over the

head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes; beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain; waterboarding--very much the talk of the Nation; use of military working dogs; inducing hypothermia or heat injury; conducting mock executions; depriving detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.

Those are the eight prohibited techniques in the Army Field Manual. It also incorporates what is called the ``golden rule,'' and this is important. It is an approach to interrogation. It requires military personnel to ask this question: If an interrogation technique were to be used against an American soldier, would I believe the soldier had been abused?

Adopting this conference report would extend that ``golden rule'' to CIA interrogations, to station agents all across the globe, and make sure that no coercive technique could be used if we would not be comfortable with the same technique being used against an American citizen.

Now, here are some facts about the CIA program. The CIA has used coercive techniques on detainees since September 11, 2001, under the President's authorization and approval of the Department of Justice. The CIA has waterboarded three detainees--Abu Zubaydah, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The White House believes that waterboarding could be used in the future, even though General Hayden has recently publicly questioned its legality. The CIA has used contractors for interrogations, as General Hayden admitted in an open, public hearing this past week. So the CIA has outsourced what is an inherently governmental function of questionable legality and morality.

More importantly, the CIA's interrogation techniques change. There is no uniform standard. There is no standard as to how they are to be combined, what the circumstances are. Think about this. Done with cold calculation, any interrogation technique, when applied over the course of hours or days or months, and in combination with other techniques, can cross the line into illegality. An interrogator can choose from a menu of coercive approaches, pick several of them, and go to work. So don't be fooled. Even the least coercive-sounding technique, when used relentlessly or in combination, can be torture.

Now, in addition to being immoral, I believe the CIA interrogation program is illegal.

I say this as a member of the Intelligence Committee, and I say this as one who has been briefed several times on these techniques. These techniques have violated the Convention Against Torture and the U.S. torture statute by inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering to others. It has violated Geneva Convention common article III, which prohibits outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

The medical research is clear. Coercive techniques cause severe pain and suffering. That is why both the AMA and the American Psychological Association have passed resolutions against their members participating in such interrogations.

In a letter dated September 13, 2006, retired General and former Secretary of State Powell wrote this:

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our

fight against terrorism.

I think that says it in a nutshell. As every Member knows, we will never win the war on terror by capturing or killing or torturing all our enemies. We will only win the war by our ideals and by removing any public support for al-Qaida's vision.

Using torture cuts away from our moral high ground. It takes America into the ``dark side,'' and thus it reduces our ability to win this war. I believe we should end this now.

The military is the segment of the U.S. population most likely to be captured and interrogated by our enemies. They know any technique we authorize can be used against them, and that is the point. If the United States uses waterboarding, you can be sure that waterboarding will be used against our station agents, against our military. It is a mistake to do so.

That is why 43 retired generals and admirals, including 10 four-star officers, have signed a letter to Congress denouncing coercive techniques and supporting the single unified uniform standard for the entire Government, the Army Field Manual.

Here is what they wrote:

We believe that it is vital to the safety of our men and

women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use

of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if

inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans. That

principle, embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided

generations of military personnel in combat.

And the letter goes on.

I have listened to the experts such as FBI Director Mueller and DIA Director General Maples. They all insist that even with hardened terrorists you get more and better intelligence with the gloves on than when you take them off.

The CIA cannot show that coercive techniques are more effective than noncoercive techniques. And I wish I could say what I know from a classified setting, but I cannot. They point to the anecdotes they have declassified, while the counterexamples remain classified.

So I can only summarize and say this: This is the moment where the Senate stands up. The House has stood up. They have passed a bill. If we want to ban waterboarding, if we want to ban the eight techniques banned by the Army Field Manual, this is our moment to do so. I think we should stand tall. I think we should adhere to our principles. I think we should raise what we say internally and once again regain the world's credibility. I hope we maintain the Senate bill as it is.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

I spoke earlier this morning, so I will be brief.

It would appear that the Senate is poised to pass a measure that would end the debate over torture in our Nation. It would require the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual when it comes to interrogations of detainees, and it would create a uniform standard for interrogation across the Government. It would prohibit waterboarding and certain other coercive interrogation techniques. I deeply believe it will go a long way toward restoring our Nation's credibility.

I have spoken with experts on interrogation, numerous retired three and four star generals, and human rights leaders. From our discussions, I am absolutely convinced that we must have a uniform standard for interrogation of detainees across the Government. That is what putting the CIA under the Army Field Manual would do.

This debate is about values. We are a nation of values, and we believe in the rule of law. It is fair to say that America has been diminished around the world. Our standing is at an all-time low, not only among our allies but also our enemies. This comes from Abu Ghraib. It comes from Guantanamo. It comes from renditions, and it comes from black sites. It comes from waterboarding, a technique used during the Spanish Inquisition to get religious dissenters to publicly disavow their beliefs.

Let me give one example of why a clear, single standard for all detainee interrogation is needed.

Until a couple of weeks ago, the executive branch refused to admit that it had waterboarded anyone.

Then last week, at a public hearing, General Hayden stated that the CIA has waterboarded three detainees: Abu Zubaydah, Abd al-Rahim al- Nashiri, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. General Hayden said this was done in the past and would not be used in the future.

In fact, General Hayden said that waterboarding itself was no longer necessary. These were two major revelations. The U.S. Government had, in fact, authorized waterboarding, and we weren't going to do it again.

The very next day, a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said the President could reauthorize the use of waterboarding at any time. At this point, we had returned to a state of confusion. The CIA was saying waterboarding was not authorized and not needed. The White House was saying waterboarding was still on the table.

That was not the end. The very next day, General Hayden testified in open session again, this time in front of the House Intelligence Committee. Here is what he said:

In my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department

of Justice, it is not certain that that technique--

Meaning waterboarding--

would be considered lawful under current statute. . . .

So here you have a mix of views. Here you have unclear American policy.

The bill which we have before us today clears up that confusion, and it states once and for all what the U.S. Government would do; that there would be 19 specific approaches documented over many pages for each approach in this volume, and 8 specific techniques that are banned, one of which is waterboarding.

So we have the opportunity today to take a stand--to clear the air and to say that the U.S. Government follows uniform specific standards for interrogation of detainees as put forward by the Army Field Manual.

I would like to quote a statement the President of the United States--President Bush--made on June 22, 2004. Here is his quote:

We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I

will never order torture. The values of this country are such

that torture is not a part of our soul and our being.

President Bush, if you stand by these words, you will sign this intelligence authorization bill.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, how much time do I have left out of the 5 minutes?

Mr. President, if I may, I very much would like to thank a few people who have been very helpful in this whole thing. The first is David Grannis, my intelligence liaison, who has been with me all the way. I thank the Partnership for a Secure America and the 18 former national security officials who wrote in support of the Army Field Manual.

I thank Senators Hagel and Snowe for taking a stand for what is right for America in the Intelligence Committee. I thank our chairman, Senator Rockefeller, for being willing to risk the passage of this legislation by supporting this very important amendment.

I also thank Senator Whitehouse. He offered this amendment when it was in the Senate Intelligence Committee. I thank him for his tireless efforts in support of this conference report. I have seen him on the Senate floor at least twice today. He was a cosponsor of the amendment I offered in the conference, and I know his staff has been very effective in working on this amendment.

I thank Senator Tom Carper of Delaware who has done a lot of work on this issue on the telephone.

I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Ron Wyden, who came earlier to the floor to speak on this issue.

So there have been many people working toward this vote, and it looks as if it may just happen. I would like them to know that we are very grateful for their support.

Oh, one more: Senator Feingold. Senator Feingold was a cosponsor

when I offered the amendment in the Intelligence Committee. I very much thank him for his steadfastness.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator McConnell, to introduce the Aung San Suu Kyi Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2008.

We are proud to be joined by 73 of our colleagues in sponsoring this measure to award the Congressional Gold Medal to a woman who has inspired us all with her commitment to nonviolence, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law for the people of Burma. On December 17, 2007, the House voted 400-0 to award Suu Kyi this honor and we urge the Senate to promptly follow suit.

Last September we witnessed the largest democratic demonstrations in Burma in almost 20 years. Tens of thousands of Burmese citizens took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations to speak out against the country's oppressive military regime, and to cry out for democracy.

I watched these courageous people with a deep sense of admiration and respect.

Led by respected Buddhist monks, the people of the ``Saffron Revolution'' called on the military junta to release all political prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and engage in a true dialogue on national reconciliation. Yet, as it had in the past, the military junta responded to the recent peaceful protests with violence and bloodshed. Soldiers used brutal force to break up the protests, beating and sometimes killing innocent civilians.

No amount of force, however, can crush the spirit of Aung San Suu Kyi and her peaceful quest for democracy and human rights. Indeed, she is a woman of unrivaled courage. In the face of threats, intimidation, harassment, and an assassination attempt, she has never wavered from her principles and continues to support national reconciliation for all the people of Burma.

By introducing this legislation, we seek not only to honor a remarkable woman who embodies the values and standards of the Congressional Gold Medal, but also to raise our voices once again in support of her cause which is our cause: a free and democratic Burma.

By now, her story is well known. Aung San Suu Kyi was born on June 19, 1945, in Rangoon to Aung San, commander of the Burma Independence Army, and Ma Khin Kyi. In August 1988, Suu Kyi, in her first political action, sent an open letter to the military-controlled government, asking for free, open and multi-party elections. The following month, she founded the National League for Democracy, which remains dedicated to a policy of nonviolence and civil disobedience. Suu Kyi was named its general-secretary.

Recognizing the threat Suu Kyi posted to their grip on power, the Burmese junta had her placed under house arrest and held without charges or trial. Yet, despite the best efforts of the military junta to suppress the growing democratic movement, in 1990 the National League for Democracy won 82 percent of the seats in parliamentary elections. But the junta annulled the election results and refused to release Suu Kyi.

Since then, the Burmese regime--now called the State Peace and Development Council--has refused to engage in a national dialogue with Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition, and intensified its campaign of oppression and abuse. In 2003, pro-government thugs attempted to assassinate Su Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy as they rode in a motorcade in the northern city of Depayin.

Last May, the military junta renewed her house arrest for another year. In fact, for most of the past 18 years, she has remained imprisoned or under house arrest, alone without

minimal contact with the outside world.

Yet, as in 1990, the regime has once again failed to stamp out Suu Kyi's message of democracy, human rights, non-violence and the rule of law. She continues to inspire not only the people of Burma but the entire world. Indeed, Suu Kyi's commitment to freedom and democracy has been widely recognized.

In 1990, Suu Kyi was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by the European Parliament. The prize honors efforts on behalf of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in opposition to injustice and oppression. It is named for the late Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

In 1991, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her commitment to nonviolence and support for freedom and democracy for Burma. She was not allowed to attend the ceremony. In its recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote:

In the good fight for peace and reconciliation, we are

dependent on persons who set examples, persons who can

symbolize what we are seeking and mobilize the best in us.

Aung San Suu Kyi is just such a person. She unites deep

commitment and tenacity with a vision in which the end and

the means form a single unit. Its most important elements

are: democracy, respect for human rights, reconciliation

between groups, non-violence, and personal and collective

discipline.

Suu Kyi donated her $1.3 million in prize money to establish a health and education fund for Burma. She is the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

In 2000, Suu Kyi was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, by President Bill Clinton.

Last year, 45 U.S. Senators signed a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu Kyi's release.

In letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of state--including former Filipino president Corazon Aquino, former Czech president Vaclav Havel, former British prime minister John Major and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush--called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted that ``Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, nonviolent dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.''

It is only fitting, that Congress join this international chorus in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and award her the Congressional Gold Medal.

As a U.S. Senator, I have worked hard to raise awareness about the situation in Burma and pass legislation to put pressure on the military junta to release Suu Kyi and begin a true dialogue on national reconciliation. In 1997, former Senator Bill Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the Democratic opposition. President Clinton issued the Executive Order in 1997 and the ban remains on the books today.

In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time for up to 3 years. It was signed into law and has been renewed one year at a time for each of the past 4 years.

Last year, the women of the United States Senate came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma to express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, call for her immediate release, urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma. At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady Laura Bush who added her own voice to those calling for peace and democracy in Burma. Our message is clear: We will not remain silent, we will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored in Burma.

This legislation is but one small step on the path to that goal. I remain hopeful that the military regime will heed the will of its people and the international community and we will be able to present Aung San Suu Kyi with this honor in person.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator McConnell, to introduce the Aung San Suu Kyi Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2008.

We are proud to be joined by 73 of our colleagues in sponsoring this measure to award the Congressional Gold Medal to a woman who has inspired us all with her commitment to nonviolence, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law for the people of Burma. On December 17, 2007, the House voted 400-0 to award Suu Kyi this honor and we urge the Senate to promptly follow suit.

Last September we witnessed the largest democratic demonstrations in Burma in almost 20 years. Tens of thousands of Burmese citizens took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations to speak out against the country's oppressive military regime, and to cry out for democracy.

I watched these courageous people with a deep sense of admiration and respect.

Led by respected Buddhist monks, the people of the ``Saffron Revolution'' called on the military junta to release all political prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and engage in a true dialogue on national reconciliation. Yet, as it had in the past, the military junta responded to the recent peaceful protests with violence and bloodshed. Soldiers used brutal force to break up the protests, beating and sometimes killing innocent civilians.

No amount of force, however, can crush the spirit of Aung San Suu Kyi and her peaceful quest for democracy and human rights. Indeed, she is a woman of unrivaled courage. In the face of threats, intimidation, harassment, and an assassination attempt, she has never wavered from her principles and continues to support national reconciliation for all the people of Burma.

By introducing this legislation, we seek not only to honor a remarkable woman who embodies the values and standards of the Congressional Gold Medal, but also to raise our voices once again in support of her cause which is our cause: a free and democratic Burma.

By now, her story is well known. Aung San Suu Kyi was born on June 19, 1945, in Rangoon to Aung San, commander of the Burma Independence Army, and Ma Khin Kyi. In August 1988, Suu Kyi, in her first political action, sent an open letter to the military-controlled government, asking for free, open and multi-party elections. The following month, she founded the National League for Democracy, which remains dedicated to a policy of nonviolence and civil disobedience. Suu Kyi was named its general-secretary.

Recognizing the threat Suu Kyi posted to their grip on power, the Burmese junta had her placed under house arrest and held without charges or trial. Yet, despite the best efforts of the military junta to suppress the growing democratic movement, in 1990 the National League for Democracy won 82 percent of the seats in parliamentary elections. But the junta annulled the election results and refused to release Suu Kyi.

Since then, the Burmese regime--now called the State Peace and Development Council--has refused to engage in a national dialogue with Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition, and intensified its campaign of oppression and abuse. In 2003, pro-government thugs attempted to assassinate Su Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy as they rode in a motorcade in the northern city of Depayin.

Last May, the military junta renewed her house arrest for another year. In fact, for most of the past 18 years, she has remained imprisoned or under house arrest, alone without

minimal contact with the outside world.

Yet, as in 1990, the regime has once again failed to stamp out Suu Kyi's message of democracy, human rights, non-violence and the rule of law. She continues to inspire not only the people of Burma but the entire world. Indeed, Suu Kyi's commitment to freedom and democracy has been widely recognized.

In 1990, Suu Kyi was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by the European Parliament. The prize honors efforts on behalf of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in opposition to injustice and oppression. It is named for the late Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

In 1991, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her commitment to nonviolence and support for freedom and democracy for Burma. She was not allowed to attend the ceremony. In its recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote:

In the good fight for peace and reconciliation, we are

dependent on persons who set examples, persons who can

symbolize what we are seeking and mobilize the best in us.

Aung San Suu Kyi is just such a person. She unites deep

commitment and tenacity with a vision in which the end and

the means form a single unit. Its most important elements

are: democracy, respect for human rights, reconciliation

between groups, non-violence, and personal and collective

discipline.

Suu Kyi donated her $1.3 million in prize money to establish a health and education fund for Burma. She is the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

In 2000, Suu Kyi was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, by President Bill Clinton.

Last year, 45 U.S. Senators signed a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu Kyi's release.

In letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of state--including former Filipino president Corazon Aquino, former Czech president Vaclav Havel, former British prime minister John Major and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush--called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted that ``Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, nonviolent dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.''

It is only fitting, that Congress join this international chorus in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and award her the Congressional Gold Medal.

As a U.S. Senator, I have worked hard to raise awareness about the situation in Burma and pass legislation to put pressure on the military junta to release Suu Kyi and begin a true dialogue on national reconciliation. In 1997, former Senator Bill Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the Democratic opposition. President Clinton issued the Executive Order in 1997 and the ban remains on the books today.

In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time for up to 3 years. It was signed into law and has been renewed one year at a time for each of the past 4 years.

Last year, the women of the United States Senate came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma to express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, call for her immediate release, urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma. At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady Laura Bush who added her own voice to those calling for peace and democracy in Burma. Our message is clear: We will not remain silent, we will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored in Burma.

This legislation is but one small step on the path to that goal. I remain hopeful that the military regime will heed the will of its people and the international community and we will be able to present Aung San Suu Kyi with this honor in person.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is 2 minutes evenly divided; is that correct?

Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the legal requirement that FISA is the exclusive authority for the electronic surveillance of Americans. When FISA was written in 1978, it followed 30 years of warrantless surveillance of communications and telegrams of hundreds of thousands of Americans sending messages outside the country. This would stress that FISA is the legal way for the collection of electronic surveillance against Americans.

In 2001, the administration decided they would not take the Terrorist Surveillance Program to the FISA Court, that they would perform this program outside of FISA, and it took until January of 2007 to bring this within the confines of FISA where it is to this day.

I think we need to make a strong statement in this bill that FISA is the exclusive authority for the electronic surveillance of all Americans, and this amendment aims to do that. It provides penalties for moving outside of the law, and I believe it would strengthen the opportunity to prevent the Chief Executive, either now or in the future, from moving outside of this law.

Mr. President, FISA has a law within it as to how you do electronic surveillance, and that law has specific provisions of what companies seeking to assist the Government must do. Essentially, what this amendment does is ask the FISA Court to review that compliance by the telecom companies to see that they complied with the elements of that part of FISA.

I think some Members have been able to look at the certification letter sent to telecoms, but most Members have not, and I think it is very important that the court have an opportunity to review these certifications and see if they are adequate under the provisions of the FISA law, and this is exactly what this amendment does.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall Privacy Act of 2008, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Specter, Senator Inouye and Senator Durbin. This is a simple, straight-forward bill that would allow continued political outreach through prerecorded phone messages, but protect American families from being inundated by calls all through the day and night.

In recent years, we have seen an unparalleled development of new technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters.

This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and should be protected. The vast majority of these technological developments bolster the Democratic process, promoting an interchange of information and ideas.

One of these is the so-called robocall, in which a prerecorded message can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost through computer automation.

With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these prerecorded calls can play an important role alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls.

A recent Pew Foundation poll found that 80 percent of Iowans in the recent primaries received automated political robocalls. A high level of sophistication goes into these robocalls--they are targeted and specific software dictates who is called, and when.

But the process can be abused. And we all have heard stories about people being called over and over and over again at all hours of the day and night.

I believe this is wrong. Not only is it interfering with the privacy rights of Americans, but it can turn people away from the political process itself.

Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list--with millions of individuals subscribing. But political calls were specifically exempted from that list.

Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls. Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some safeguards without halting the practice altogether.

The Robocall Privacy Act of 2008 bans political robocalls to any person from 9 p.m. in the evening and a.m. in the morning.

It also bans more than two political robocalls from each campaign to the same telephone number per day, bans the caller from blocking the ``caller identification'' number, and requires an announcement at the beginning of the call identifying the individual or organization making the call and the fact that it is a pre-recorded message. This is to prevent misinformation about the caller.

The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on stopping the worst of these calls. The bill creates a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law.

The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but not receive money damages. A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls.

Why are these provisions so important? Let me briefly describe some recent incidents:

Hundreds of robocalls woke voters up at 2 in the morning during a 2007 New York election--because of a software programming error. The calls were supposed to occur at 2 p.m.

In the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters complained to candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, containing poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim that his voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against him.

In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call.

The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue-- has indicated voters receive many calls a day. They have reported as much as 37 political phone calls in one day for one voter. That same organization reports that 40 percent of its membership indicated it received between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season.

In a recent Texas campaign, a negative robocall was sent to voters early in the morning--supposedly from one of the candidates. That candidate immediately protested it was not done on his behalf--but instead was an attempt to smear him by using his name. Voters became furious at the call.

In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, and enraged voters about the false, late- night call.

Repeated robocalls to Tennessee resident Jonathan Gregory caused him to complain to The Tennessean newspaper: ``It's extremely annoying, and it's like getting telemarketing calls at work. . . . I think they should have some type of limit on how many times they can call the same number.''

A February 1 Letter to the Editor of the Harrisburg Patriot-News, from a woman from East Pennsboro, PA, indicated that she received many political robocalls to her personal cell phone and was billed for each call.

I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for political speech and I want to encourage the free exchange of information about candidates.

But I also believe people should have a right to be protected from the most egregious forms of abuse.

However, the worst of these calls are disturbing people in their homes by forcing them to answer calls and listen again and again. Something must be done.

The bill does not ban robocalls. It merely provides a reasonable framework of tailored time, place, and manner restrictions.

I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act of 2008.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Robocall Privacy Act of 2008, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator Specter, Senator Inouye and Senator Durbin. This is a simple, straight-forward bill that would allow continued political outreach through prerecorded phone messages, but protect American families from being inundated by calls all through the day and night.

In recent years, we have seen an unparalleled development of new technologies that help political candidates reach out to voters.

This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and should be protected. The vast majority of these technological developments bolster the Democratic process, promoting an interchange of information and ideas.

One of these is the so-called robocall, in which a prerecorded message can be sent out to tens of thousands of voters at a minor cost through computer automation.

With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these prerecorded calls can play an important role alerting voters to a candidate's position and urging their support at the polls.

A recent Pew Foundation poll found that 80 percent of Iowans in the recent primaries received automated political robocalls. A high level of sophistication goes into these robocalls--they are targeted and specific software dictates who is called, and when.

But the process can be abused. And we all have heard stories about people being called over and over and over again at all hours of the day and night.

I believe this is wrong. Not only is it interfering with the privacy rights of Americans, but it can turn people away from the political process itself.

Commercial calls are already limited by the Federal Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list--with millions of individuals subscribing. But political calls were specifically exempted from that list.

Let me be clear: I am not seeking to eliminate all robocalls. Instead, this legislation is carefully designed to provide some safeguards without halting the practice altogether.

The Robocall Privacy Act of 2008 bans political robocalls to any person from 9 p.m. in the evening and a.m. in the morning.

It also bans more than two political robocalls from each campaign to the same telephone number per day, bans the caller from blocking the ``caller identification'' number, and requires an announcement at the beginning of the call identifying the individual or organization making the call and the fact that it is a pre-recorded message. This is to prevent misinformation about the caller.

The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on stopping the worst of these calls. The bill creates a civil fine for violators of the law, with additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law.

The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, but not receive money damages. A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls.

Why are these provisions so important? Let me briefly describe some recent incidents:

Hundreds of robocalls woke voters up at 2 in the morning during a 2007 New York election--because of a software programming error. The calls were supposed to occur at 2 p.m.

In the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters complained to candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, containing poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim that his voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against him.

In the 2006 Congressional elections, many calls wrongly implied that one candidate was making a robocall. The message began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about U.S. Representative Melissa Bean. Some voters called Bean's office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an opposing party committee as the sponsor--when most voters had hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing voters she had not made that call.

The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue-- has indicated voters receive many calls a day. They have reported as much as 37 political phone calls in one day for one voter. That same organization reports that 40 percent of its membership indicated it received between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season.

In a recent Texas campaign, a negative robocall was sent to voters early in the morning--supposedly from one of the candidates. That candidate immediately protested it was not done on his behalf--but instead was an attempt to smear him by using his name. Voters became furious at the call.

In a Maryland race in November 2006, in a conservative area residents received a middle-of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push,'' urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the election, and enraged voters about the false, late- night call.

Repeated robocalls to Tennessee resident Jonathan Gregory caused him to complain to The Tennessean newspaper: ``It's extremely annoying, and it's like getting telemarketing calls at work. . . . I think they should have some type of limit on how many times they can call the same number.''

A February 1 Letter to the Editor of the Harrisburg Patriot-News, from a woman from East Pennsboro, PA, indicated that she received many political robocalls to her personal cell phone and was billed for each call.

I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment protection for political speech and I want to encourage the free exchange of information about candidates.

But I also believe people should have a right to be protected from the most egregious forms of abuse.

However, the worst of these calls are disturbing people in their homes by forcing them to answer calls and listen again and again. Something must be done.

The bill does not ban robocalls. It merely provides a reasonable framework of tailored time, place, and manner restrictions.

I hope my colleagues join me in supporting the Robocall Privacy Act of 2008.

I thank the Senator. I would like to say a few words about Tom Lantos, he was a friend, and also speak on two amendments on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Mr. President, I had the great pleasure of knowing Tom Lantos as a friend and as a mentor. I have known him for many years. I last spoke with him about 3 weeks ago, maybe 4, and he said he was going to forego treatment, that he was ready for whatever would come, that he and Annette were going to remain in Washington, that he was very content with his medical treatment at Bethesda, and he did not believe he would try anything heroic.

Those of us who know, know cancer of the esophagus is devastating and unrelenting. From that point on, I began to think quite a bit about Tom Lantos. I thought back when Yahoo had the confrontation with China and did not stand up but gave in to China, and Tom stood on his feet, with amazing blue eyes and his gray hair, and said: They are moral pygmies.

He called it as it was. He stood for human rights. After 30 years in the House, he became Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Regretfully, his life ended before he had much more time than a year in that position.

Tom Lantos represented the district directly to the south of my city, San Francisco. He was a wonderful Representative. I watched him over the past 30 years as time went on. I watched his 18 grandchildren grow. I remember meeting them in the airport in Denver. I do not know whether Members know this; some of them were home schooled, and they went to college at the age of 14. That is pretty amazing; all high achievers, all very close, a tight family; a wife who was his childhood sweetheart.

This does not often happen. But then if you think back to Hungary in those days, and you think back to a young, blue-eyed man in the camps, escaping at night, being caught, coming back, leaving again, becoming part of Raoul Wallenberg's group, coming to this country, becoming educated and all the greatness of the country opening before him.

He truly measured up to the greatness of America. I was very proud to call Tom Lantos a friend and a mentor. He will be missed. He will be missed in his district, he will be missed in California, and he will be missed in the United States.

I yield the floor.

I will yield.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on two of the amendments in the list of amendments to be voted on tomorrow. The first is amendment 3910. That relates to making the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the exclusive authority for conducting electronic surveillance. This is cosponsored by Chairman Rockefeller, Chairman Leahy, by Senators Nelson of Florida, Whitehouse, Wyden, Hagel, Menendez, Snowe, Specter, Salazar, and I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Cantwell to that list.

For the information of my colleagues, I do not intend to modify this amendment, and so I will be seeking a vote on the amendment as it is currently drafted.

I voted in support of the FISA bill as a member of the Intelligence Committee. But I made clear in that committee, as well as in statements called additional views, which are attached to the report of the bill, that I coauthored with Senators Snowe and Hagel that changes were necessary.

In the Judiciary Committee, we were able to secure improvements to the Intelligence Committee's bill that I believed were needed. Most importantly,

the Judiciary Committee added strong exclusivity language similar to the amendment I have now before the Senate.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary package was not adopted on the floor. So the amendments we present are designed to restore the exclusivity language I believe is vital to FISA and goes to the heart of the debate on this bill, which is whether this President or any other President must follow the law.

With strong exclusivity language, which is what we try to add, we establish a legislative record that the language and the intent of the Congress compels a President now and in the future to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans for foreign intelligence purposes within the parameters and confines of this legislation.

The amendment makes the following important changes to the bill:

First, it reinforces the existing FISA exclusivity language in title 18 of the U.S. Code by restating what has been true in the statute since 1978--that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance, period. So legislative intent is clear.

Second, the amendment answers the so-called AUMF; that is, the authorization to use military force loophole used by the President to circumvent FISA.

What is that? The administration has argued that the authorization of military force against al-Qaida and the Taliban implicitly authorized warrantless electronic surveillance. This is an argument embroidered on fiction, made up from nothing.

Nonetheless, the executive has chosen to use it.

Under our amendment, it will be clear that only an express statutory authorization for electronic surveillance in future legislation shall constitute an additional authority outside of FISA. In other words, if you are going to conduct surveillance outside of FISA, there has to be a law that specifically enables you to do so. Otherwise, you stay within FISA.

Third, the amendment makes a change to the penalty section of FISA. Currently, FISA says it is a criminal penalty to conduct electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute. This amendment specifies that it is a criminal penalty to conduct electronic surveillance except as authorized by FISA or another express statutory authorization. This means that future surveillance conducted under an AUMF or other general legislation would bring on a criminal penalty. So follow the law or else there is a criminal penalty.

Fourth, the amendment requires more clarity in a certification the Government provides to a telecommunications company when it requests assistance for surveillance and there is no court order. Henceforth, the Government will be required to specify the specific statute upon which the authority rests for a request for assistance.

I believe our amendment will strengthen the exclusivity of FISA. I believe it is critical. Without this strong language, we run the risk that there will be future violations of FISA, just as there have been present violations of FISA. History tells us that this is very possible.

Let me go into the history for a minute because it is interesting how eerily similar events of the past were to events of today. Let me tell this body a little bit about something called Operation Shamrock.

In its landmark 1976 report, the Church Committee disclosed, among other abuses, the existence of an Operation titled ``Shamrock.'' What was Shamrock? It was a program run by the NSA and its predecessor organizations from August of 1945 until May of 1975. That is, for 30 years, the Government received copies of millions of international telegrams that were sent to, from, or transiting the United States. The telegrams were provided by major communications companies of the day-- RCA Global and ITT World Communications--without a warrant and in secret. A third company, Western Union International, provided a lower level of assistance as well.

It is estimated that at the height of the program, approximately 150,000 communications per month were reviewed by NSA analysts. So telegrams coming into the country and going out of the country all went through NSA.

According to the Church Committee report, the companies agreed to participate in the program, despite warnings from their lawyers, provided they received the personal assurance of the Attorney General and later the President that they would be protected from lawsuit.

The NSA analyzed the communications of Americans in these telegrams and disseminated intelligence from these communications in its reporting.

If all of this history sounds eerily familiar, it should. The parallels between Shamrock and the Terrorist Surveillance Program are uncanny, especially when one considers that FISA was passed in 1978 as a direct result of the Church Committee's report. Yet here we are, same place, again today.

Almost immediately after the Church Committee's report was unveiled, Congress went to work on what is now the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to put an end to warrantless surveillance of Americans. FISA states that when you target surveillance on Americans, you need a court order, period.

Some of my colleagues argue that FISA was not the exclusive authority since 1978 and that the President has inherent article II authorities to go around FISA.

On the first point, the legislative history and congressional intent from 1978 is clear: Congress clearly intended for FISA to be the exclusive authority under which the executive branch may conduct electronic surveillance.

Let me read what the Congress wrote in 1978 in report language accompanying the bill:

[d]espite any inherent power of the President--

That means despite any article II authority--

to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the

absence of legislation, by this bill and chapter 119 of title

18, Congress will have legislated with regard to electronic

surveillance in the United States, that legislation with its

procedures and safeguards, prohibits the President,

notwithstanding any inherent powers, from violating the terms

of that legislation.

That is the report language written in 1978.

The congressional debate also took on the Supreme Court's decision in the Keith case in which the Court ruled that since Congress hadn't enacted legislation in this area at that time, then it simply left the Presidential powers where it found them. Right? Wrong. In response to the Court's decision, the 1978 congressional report stated the following:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, however, does

not simply leave Presidential powers where it finds them. To

the contrary, this bill would substitute a clear legislative

authorization pursuant to statutory, not constitutional,

standards.

Clear. Distinct. Definitive.

It is important that the record here today clearly reiterates that in 1978 there was an unambiguous position that FISA was the exclusive authority under which electronic surveillance of Americans could be conducted. This was in the bill language and the report language as passed by the 95th Congress.

But FISA's exclusivity was recognized not just by the Congress. The executive branch also agreed that FISA was controlling and that any and all electronic surveillance would be conducted under the law.

President Carter at the time issued a signing statement to the bill. This wasn't a signing statement like we see today. It was not used to express the President's disagreement with the law or his intent not to follow part of the law. Rather, President Carter used his statement to explain his understanding of what the law meant.

Here it is in direct quote:

The bill requires, for the first time, a prior judicial

warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign

intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United

States in which communications of U.S. persons might be

intercepted.

Again, clear, distinct, definitive.

By issuing this statement, President Carter and the executive branch affirmed not only Congress's intent to limit when the executive branch could conduct surveillance, but it ratified that Congress had the power to define the parameters of executive authority in this area.

So there was an abuse--Operation Shamrock--similar to this incident with the telecoms today, followed by a clear act of Congress in passing

This amendment is about allowing a court to review the request for immunity for the telecommunications companies, but in a way that is carefully tailored to meet this unique set of suits. It allows for the good faith defense if the companies reasonably believed the assistance they provided the Government was legal.

As Members know, the FISA Court comprises 11 Federal district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice. It has heard thousands of applications for FISA warrants and has recently made determinations on the executive's procedures under the Protect America Act. In January of 2007, the Court put the entire Terrorist Surveillance Program under its jurisdiction. Its judges and its staff are experts in surveillance law, and the Court protects national security secrets.

Let me describe the amendment briefly. Under this amendment, the FISA Court is directed to conduct a tailored, three-part review.

Part one: The FISA Court will determine whether a telecommunications company actually provided the assistance to the Federal Government as

part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. If not, those cases are dismissed. So if you didn't give help and you have litigation pending, the case is dismissed, period.

Second: If assistance was provided, the Court would review the request letters sent from the Government to the companies every 30 to 45 days. The FISA Court would then have to determine whether these letters, in fact, met the requirements of the applicable law. There is law on this. It is part of FISA. It is 18 U.S.C. 2511. If they met the requirements, the cases against the companies are dismissed.

Now, let me tell my colleagues what the law says. Sections 2511(2)(a)(ii)(A) and (ii)(B) state that companies are allowed to provide assistance to the Government if they receive a certification in writing by a specified person (usually the Attorney General or a law enforcement officer specifically designated by the Attorney General).

The certification is required to state that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required by the Government. Now that is what the law says. It is short, it is succinct, it is to the point.

The question is: Do the specifics of the actual documents requesting assistance meet the letter of this law with respect to contents and timing. If they did, the companies would be shielded from lawsuits. Why? Because that is the law. That is what the law says. No one would want us not to follow the law.

Finally, in any case where the defendant company did provide assistance but did not have a certification that complied with the requirements I have read, the FISA Court would assess whether the company acted in good faith, as has been provided under common law.

There are several cases of common law that describe what is called the good faith defense--the U.S. v. Barker, Smith v. Nixon, Halperin v. Kissinger, and Jacobson v. Bell Telephone. So there is common law on the subject.

There would be at least three lines of defense for defendant companies in this situation. They could argue that the assistance was lawful under the statutes other than 18 U.S.C. 2511--the law I have cited; that they believed, perhaps wrongly, that the letters from the Government were lawful certifications; or that complying with the request for assistance was lawful because the President had article II authority to conduct this surveillance. They could make their arguments, and the plaintiffs, against the defendant companies, could make their arguments.

In this case, the FISA Court would then determine whether the company acted in good faith and whether it had an objectively reasonable belief that compliance with the Government's written request or directives for assistance were lawful. If the Court finds that the company met this standard, the lawsuits would be dismissed.

I believe this very narrow three-part test strikes the right balance between the competing interests in the immunity debate. This amendment neither dismisses the cases wholesale, nor does it allow the cases to proceed if the companies had an objectively reasonable belief that their compliance was lawful.

Let me point out for a moment some of the history relevant to this issue.

First: Requests for assistance from the Government to the telecoms came about 1 month following the worst terrorist attack against our Nation. That is fact. There was an ongoing acute national threat. That is a fact. The administration was warning that more attacks might be imminent. That was fact. And we now know that there was a plot to launch a second wave of attacks against the west coast.

Two: Certain telecom companies received letters every 30 to 45 days from very senior Government officials. That is fact. I have read them. The letters said the President had authorized their assistance. That is fact. They also said the Attorney General had confirmed the legality of the program. That is fact. These assurances were from the highest levels of the Government.

Third: Only a very small number of people in these companies had the security clearances to be allowed to read the letters, and they could not consult others with respect to their legal responsibility, nor are these telecommunication company executives expert in separation of powers law--either article II legal arguments or the flawed AUMF argument.

Fourth: As I mentioned, common law has historically provided that if the Government asks a private party for help and makes such assurances that help is legal, the person or company should be allowed to provide assistance without fear of being held liable. That is true. Common law does this. One would think this would be especially true in the case of protecting our Nation's security.

Fifth, taking no legislative action on the pending cases ignores the fact that these companies face serious, potentially extraordinarily costly litigation but are unable at the present time to defend themselves in court. The Government has invoked the state secrets defense.

Now, this is a sort of insidious defense. It places the companies in a fundamentally unfair place. Individuals and groups have made allegations to which companies cannot respond. They cannot answer charges, nor can they respond to what they believe are misstatements of fact and untruths.

Bottom line, they cannot correct false allegations or misstatements, they cannot give testimony before the court, and they cannot defend themselves in public or in private.

While I have concerns about striking immunity altogether or substituting the Government for the companies, I don't believe full immunity is the best option without having a court review the certification and the good-faith defense.

Currently, under FISA there is a procedure that allows the Government to receive assistance from telecommunications companies. As I have already described, title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 2511, states that the Government must provide a court order or a certification in writing that states:

No warrant or court order is required by law, that all

statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified

assistance is required, setting forth the period of time

during which the provision of the information, facilities, or

technical assistance is authorized and specifying the

information, facilities, or technical assistance required. .

. .

That is it. Under the law, these are the circumstances under which a telecommunications company may provide information and services to the Government. Unfortunately, the administration chose not to go to the FISA Court in the fall of 2001 for a warrant. I will never understand why. Instead, it asserted that Article II of the Constitution allowed the President to act outside of FISA.

However, as I said, by January of 2007--more than 5 years later--the entire Terrorist Surveillance Program was, in fact, brought under the FISA Court's jurisdiction. So, ultimately, the administration agreed that the program can and should be conducted under the law.

Senators Nelson, Cardin, Salazar, Whitehouse, and I believe the question of whether telecommunications companies should receive immunity should hinge on whether the letters the Government sent to these companies met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2511 or, if not, if the companies had an objectionably reasonable belief their assistance was lawful, and what that objective belief was.

In other words, we should not grant immunity if companies were willingly and knowingly violating the law.

So the best way to answer this question is to allow an independent court, skilled in intelligence matters, to review the applicable law and determine whether the requirements of the law or the common law principle were, in fact, met. If they were, the companies would receive immunity; if not, they would not. But a court would make that decision, not a body, some of whom have seen the letters but most of whom have not. But it would be a court that is skilled in this particular kind of law.

I want to briefly comment on procedure. I very much regret that this amendment faces a 60-vote threshold when the other two amendments relating to telecom immunity face majority votes. Clearly, someone was afraid this might get a majority vote and, therefore, they put on a 60- vote requirement.

This, I believe, is prejudicial, and it places a higher burden on this amendment. And the irony is, this amendment could be an acceptable solution

for the other House, which has passed a bill that doesn't contain any provisions for immunity and has said they would not provide any provision for immunity. This is the way to handle that particular issue.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support this amendment both on the merits and so that we can finish the FISA legislation. I hope the conferees will take a strong vote on this amendment--whether it reaches 60 Senators to vote aye or not--as a signal that it is a good solution when the legislation goes to conference.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on both of these amendments.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to secure the ability, following this vote, to call up one of my amendments, if I might. My understanding is that maybe I can do it now.

All right.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the present amendment be set aside in order for me to call up amendment No. 3910 on FISA exclusivity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I voted for this FISA legislation in the Intelligence Committee. I indicated then that I had some concerns about it. I filed additional views with respect to the need for stronger exclusivity provisions. Then the Judiciary Committee reported out a bill that included its view with respect to strengthening the fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would be the exclusive manner in which electronic surveillance against Americans could be conducted.

The Judiciary bill subsequently failed on the floor of the Senate. The amendment I have at the desk is essentially the exclusivity language from that Judiciary Committee amendment. It has several cosponsors: the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rockefeller; chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Leahy; Senator Nelson of Florida; Senator Whitehouse; Senator Wyden; Senator Hagel; Senator Menendez; Senator Snowe; and Senator Specter.

As filed this is an amendment that only covers exclusivity. In the interim period, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee approached me about the possibility of a modification of the amendment that would allow the administration to be able to operate outside of FISA for a time.

We have not been able to come to terms on that amendment. I could not agree to the length of time that Mr. Bond proposed, which was 45 days plus an additional 45 days, for a total of 3 months, enabling the administration to operate without a FISA warrant.

The fact is, since January of 2007, the entire Terrorist Surveillance Program has operated within the confines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and under orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That is, I believe, as it should be.

I have a modification to my exclusivity amendment that would limit the period of time outside of FISA following a declaration of war, an authorization for the use of military force, or a major attack against the nation to 30 days. The question is whether I would have unanimous consent from the vice chairman to be able to call up that modification of my amendment. But that has not been given to me yet.

So at this time, I am going to rest my case on the exclusivity amendment, and I will have an opportunity, I hope, to argue it later.

I would now like to call up my amendment, No. 3919.

Mr. President, I wish to make another amendment pending, so I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3919. This is the FISA Court review of immunity amendment. This is my second amendment which is part of the unanimous consent agreement. I do this just to get it before the body.

I ask that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Martinez to introduce legislation that takes a major step forward in curbing the abusive lending practices which contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis. With foreclosures at record levels, the housing market in steady decline, a global credit crunch, and the economy nearing recession, it is imperative that we act quickly to restore confidence in the American dream of home ownership.

Our legislation will eliminate bad actors from the mortgage business, and require that brokers and lenders meet minimum national standards which ensure they are professional, competent, and trustworthy.

First, it would create a comprehensive database of all residential mortgage loan originators. This includes mortgage brokers and lenders, as well as loan officers of national banks and their subsidiaries.

Second, it would establish national licensing standards to ensure that mortgage brokers and lenders are trained in legal aspects of lending, ethics, and consumer protection.

Our bill is similar to H.R. 3012, introduced in the House by Representative Spencer Bachus, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Financial Services. The national licensing concept for loan originators has enjoyed bipartisan support and was included in the comprehensive mortgage reform bill, H.R. 3915, which recently passed the House.

A combination of low interest rates and sophisticated mortgage products, among other factors, helped increase home ownership to record levels just 3 years ago.

Subprime and exotic mortgages allowed millions of Americans--many with little or no down payment and questionable credit--to purchase homes by using adjustable-rate products with low initial monthly payments.

There was explosive growth in the use of these sub-prime loans: in just 2 years, from 2004 to 2006, the number of subprime mortgages in California increased 110 percent, from 273,000 to 573,000--29.4 percent of total mortgages in the State.

While the majority of lenders and brokers offered these mortgages in a responsible fashion, many others relied upon predatory lending tactics to place unsuspecting borrowers in mortgages they could not afford. Competitive pressures and lax oversight resulted in loans of increasingly poor quality being written.

To make matters worse, consumers were not adequately protected from bad actors in the mortgage industry.

The FBI recently reported that complaints of mortgage fraud have skyrocketed over the last few years.

In 2003, the number of suspicious activity reports reviewed by the FBI economic crimes unit numbered 3,000. The number of mortgage fraud complaints increased to 48,000 last year, representing a jump of 1500 percent.

Most mortgage brokers and non-bank lenders are only lightly regulated by State agencies. Standards of accountability have not kept pace with the increasing sophistication of the mortgage industry.

As adjustable-rate mortgages reset to higher rates, many American families find themselves in homes they can no longer afford. The percentage of homeowners currently behind on their mortgage payments is at its highest level in 21 years.

Mr. President, 2.2 million homeowners filed for foreclosure last year and many lenders have gone out of business or sought bankruptcy protection.

It is projected that as many as 2 million Americans will be forced to file for foreclosure before this crisis abates, representing $160 billion in lost equity. The Center for Responsible Lending has projected that one out of every five subprime loans issued between 2005 and 2006 will fail.

California has been especially hard hit. Mr. President, 5 of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure rate in the Nation are in California. The foreclosure rate in California is roughly twice the national average, with 1 foreclosure filing for every 258 households in the State.

Lenders repossessed 84,375 California homes last year, a sixfold increase from 12,672 in 2006. Default notices--the initial step in the foreclosure process--increased 143 percent between 2006 and 2007, rising from 104,977 in 2006 to 254,824 in 2007. In San Diego County alone, foreclosures were up 353 percent in 2007.

According to the FBI economic crimes unit, California has been identified as one of the top 10 ``mortgage fraud hot spots'' in the Nation.

American families are hurting, and Californians are at the center of the storm. With close to 500,000 adjustable-rate mortgages scheduled to reset in California over the next 2 years, the situation is likely to worsen in 2008.

The subprime mortgage crisis has threatened both the global economy and the American dream of home ownership. Accountability, professional standards, and oversight must be enhanced for everyone in the mortgage industry.

This bill will make it so, and will help to ensure such a crisis never happens again.

Specifically, the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act would require that all residential mortgage loan originators are licensed, providing fingerprints, a summary of work experience, and consent for a background check to authorities.

Additionally, minimum criteria are established that individuals must meet to obtain a license, including: no felony

convictions; no similar license revoked; a demonstrated record of financial responsibility; successful completion of education requirements, 20 hours of approved courses, to include at least 3 hours related to Federal laws, 4 hours on ethics and consumer protection in mortgage lending, and 2 hours on the subprime mortgage marketplace; and, passage of a written exam, the exam must be at least 100 questions and a minimum score of 75 percent is required to pass.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation must also register all residential mortgage loan originators employed by national banks.

Lastly, State regulators must develop a satisfactory licensing system within 1 year following enactment of this legislation.

If this does not occur, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary is empowered to develop the national registry and license, generating revenue for its implementation through fees to license applicants.

The subprime mortgage crisis is wreaking havoc on American homeowners and the national economy. The damage is truly staggering--more than 2 million foreclosure filings last year and another 2 million expected before this year is over.

Many Americans simply cannot keep pace with adjustable-rate mortgages that are resetting, and some were steered into these obligations by unscrupulous actors.

It is essential that this body take action to address some of the factors that got us here.

This legislation does not assign blame, but rather provides a workable solution to protect homebuyers and begin to restore confidence in the American dream of homeownership.

I hope that my colleagues will join us in moving this important bill through the Senate quickly.

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 Senator Martinez to introduce legislation that takes a major step forward in curbing the abusive lending practices which contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis. With foreclosures at record levels, the housing market in steady decline, a global credit crunch, and the economy nearing recession, it is imperative that we act quickly to restore confidence in the American dream of home ownership.

Our legislation will eliminate bad actors from the mortgage business, and require that brokers and lenders meet minimum national standards which ensure they are professional, competent, and trustworthy.

First, it would create a comprehensive database of all residential mortgage loan originators. This includes mortgage brokers and lenders, as well as loan officers of national banks and their subsidiaries.

Second, it would establish national licensing standards to ensure that mortgage brokers and lenders are trained in legal aspects of lending, ethics, and consumer protection.

Our bill is similar to H.R. 3012, introduced in the House by Representative Spencer Bachus, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Financial Services. The national licensing concept for loan originators has enjoyed bipartisan support and was included in the comprehensive mortgage reform bill, H.R. 3915, which recently passed the House.

A combination of low interest rates and sophisticated mortgage products, among other factors, helped increase home ownership to record levels just 3 years ago.

Subprime and exotic mortgages allowed millions of Americans--many with little or no down payment and questionable credit--to purchase homes by using adjustable-rate products with low initial monthly payments.

There was explosive growth in the use of these sub-prime loans: in just 2 years, from 2004 to 2006, the number of subprime mortgages in California increased 110 percent, from 273,000 to 573,000--29.4 percent of total mortgages in the State.

While the majority of lenders and brokers offered these mortgages in a responsible fashion, many others relied upon predatory lending tactics to place unsuspecting borrowers in mortgages they could not afford. Competitive pressures and lax oversight resulted in loans of increasingly poor quality being written.

To make matters worse, consumers were not adequately protected from bad actors in the mortgage industry.

The FBI recently reported that complaints of mortgage fraud have skyrocketed over the last few years.

In 2003, the number of suspicious activity reports reviewed by the FBI economic crimes unit numbered 3,000. The number of mortgage fraud complaints increased to 48,000 last year, representing a jump of 1500 percent.

Most mortgage brokers and non-bank lenders are only lightly regulated by State agencies. Standards of accountability have not kept pace with the increasing sophistication of the mortgage industry.

As adjustable-rate mortgages reset to higher rates, many American families find themselves in homes they can no longer afford. The percentage of homeowners currently behind on their mortgage payments is at its highest level in 21 years.

Mr. President, 2.2 million homeowners filed for foreclosure last year and many lenders have gone out of business or sought bankruptcy protection.

It is projected that as many as 2 million Americans will be forced to file for foreclosure before this crisis abates, representing $160 billion in lost equity. The Center for Responsible Lending has projected that one out of every five subprime loans issued between 2005 and 2006 will fail.

California has been especially hard hit. Mr. President, 5 of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure rate in the Nation are in California. The foreclosure rate in California is roughly twice the national average, with 1 foreclosure filing for every 258 households in the State.

Lenders repossessed 84,375 California homes last year, a sixfold increase from 12,672 in 2006. Default notices--the initial step in the foreclosure process--increased 143 percent between 2006 and 2007, rising from 104,977 in 2006 to 254,824 in 2007. In San Diego County alone, foreclosures were up 353 percent in 2007.

According to the FBI economic crimes unit, California has been identified as one of the top 10 ``mortgage fraud hot spots'' in the Nation.

American families are hurting, and Californians are at the center of the storm. With close to 500,000 adjustable-rate mortgages scheduled to reset in California over the next 2 years, the situation is likely to worsen in 2008.

The subprime mortgage crisis has threatened both the global economy and the American dream of home ownership. Accountability, professional standards, and oversight must be enhanced for everyone in the mortgage industry.

This bill will make it so, and will help to ensure such a crisis never happens again.

Specifically, the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act would require that all residential mortgage loan originators are licensed, providing fingerprints, a summary of work experience, and consent for a background check to authorities.

Additionally, minimum criteria are established that individuals must meet to obtain a license, including: no felony

convictions; no similar license revoked; a demonstrated record of financial responsibility; successful completion of education requirements, 20 hours of approved courses, to include at least 3 hours related to Federal laws, 4 hours on ethics and consumer protection in mortgage lending, and 2 hours on the subprime mortgage marketplace; and, passage of a written exam, the exam must be at least 100 questions and a minimum score of 75 percent is required to pass.

The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation must also register all residential mortgage loan originators employed by national banks.

Lastly, State regulators must develop a satisfactory licensing system within 1 year following enactment of this legislation.

If this does not occur, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary is empowered to develop the national registry and license, generating revenue for its implementation through fees to license applicants.

The subprime mortgage crisis is wreaking havoc on American homeowners and the national economy. The damage is truly staggering--more than 2 million foreclosure filings last year and another 2 million expected before this year is over.

Many Americans simply cannot keep pace with adjustable-rate mortgages that are resetting, and some were steered into these obligations by unscrupulous actors.

It is essential that this body take action to address some of the factors that got us here.

This legislation does not assign blame, but rather provides a workable solution to protect homebuyers and begin to restore confidence in the American dream of homeownership.

I hope that my colleagues will join us in moving this important bill through the Senate quickly.

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