Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the Senate being in pro forma session on Friday, February 15, that the Record remain open until 12 noon for bill introductions and statements.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, February 15; that on Friday, the Senate meet in pro forma session only with no business conducted; that the Senate recess until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, February 19, for a pro forma session only, with no business conducted; the Senate then recess until 10 a.m. on Friday, February 22, for a pro forma session only; that at the close of Friday's session, the Senate adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, February 25; further that the Journal of proceedings be agreed to, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and following the reading of the Washington's Farewell Address, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, as under the previous order.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk due for their second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to these bills, and I object en bloc.

Mr. President, following my remarks and any the Republican leader wishes to make, we will resume consideration of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator Dorgan and Senator Murkowski are here. I believe this is our fourth day. Someone told me yesterday: But they were short days. The only reason they were short is because nobody has been here to offer any amendments. They would have been longer days, as I indicated last night.

I hope people will come and offer amendments. That is what we need to do. We need to move through this legislation. We have been told that Members who have amendments are waiting to offer them. I hope they will do that. We are going to finish the bill this week. We have a break coming next week. We really would like to get the work done. We could finish it today. I hope we can do so.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum be rescinded.

Mr. President, if there were ever a time and a piece of legislation where we should try to help the people whom this legislation is directed to help, it is this--Native Americans Indians. But that is not the case. For reasons I do not comprehend, we are not able to legislate on this most vital piece of legislation to an underclass in America that we created--Native Americans.

There is--I knew it--a stall going on in regard to this legislation. I understood the direction of the minority on FISA legislation. They wanted to stall it at the last minute so that the House would have no time to work on it. They accomplished that. But why on this? Why now, when we can legislate to try to help a group of people who badly need help? And the place they need help more than any other place is their ability to be taken care of when they are sick and injured.

Look what has happened in the State of Nevada. We used to have hospitals for Native Americans in Nevada. They are gone. They have been taken away over the years. The health care for Native Americans in Nevada is extremely limited. They are not served well.

We have an obligation--an obligation as a country--to help these people. This is our opportunity, after years, to legislate in that regard, and we are not going to do it. I am saddened to hear about this. I am saddened that the Republican minority is even filibustering Indians. What is this place coming to? Why are they doing this? There is no reason we cannot legislate here, offer amendments dealing with Native Americans. But that is where we are. I am very disappointed.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I am sorry about that.

I did not want to interrupt the distinguished Republican leader. Have you finished?

Sure.

My understanding is, there are millions of dollars owed to the telephone companies, Mr. President.

Mr. President, my friend from Texas talked about a publicity stunt. That is what we have, but it is inverse. The publicity stunt is all from the White House, supported by the people in the Senate, the Republicans, who always walk lockstep with whatever President Bush wants.

First of all, Mr. President, legal scholars are almost uniform in saying that existing orders are broad enough and they would be broad enough for the next year. Whatever is happening now is good for next year. In fact, if someone disagrees with that, you have existing FISA law that allows application for an emergency.

Mr. President, let me say this: I sent to the President of the United States today a letter. Let me read this:

Dear Mr. President:

I regret your reckless attempt to manufacture a crisis over

the reauthorization of foreign surveillance laws. Instead of

needlessly frightening the country, you should work with

Congress in a calm, constructive way to provide our

intelligence professionals with all needed tools while

respecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

Both the House and the Senate have passed bills to

reauthorize and improve the Protect America Act. Democrats

stand ready to negotiate with Republicans to resolve the

differences between the House and Senate bills. That is how

the legislative process works. Your unrealistic demand that

the House simply acquiesce in the Senate version is

preventing that negotiation from moving forward.

Our bicameral system of government was designed to ensure

broad bipartisan consensus for important laws. A FISA bill

negotiated between the House and the Senate would have firmer

support in Congress and among the American people, which

would serve the intelligence community's interest in creating

stronger legal certainty for surveillance activities.

That negotiation should take place immediately. In the

meantime, we should extend the current Protect America Act.

Earlier this week you threatened to veto an extension, and at

your behest Senate Republicans have blocked such a bill.

Yesterday every House Republican voted against an extension.

So it is obvious the marching orders have come from the White House. That was a paraphrase from me. That was not in the letter. I continue the letter:

Your opposition to an extension is inexplicable. Just last

week, Director of National Intelligence McConnell and

Attorney General Mukasey wrote to Congress that ``it is

critical that the authorities contained in the Protect

America Act not be allowed to expire.''

In commentary, Mr. President, I say this is from the head of the National Intelligence Agency, Director McConnell, and General Mukasey, our Attorney General. They said:

[I]t is critical that the authorities contained in the

Protect America Act not be allowed to expire.

Similarly, House Minority Leader Boehner has said

``allowing the Protect America Act to expire would undermine

our national security and endanger American lives, and that

is unacceptable.'' And you yourself said at the White House

today--

That is today, Thursday--

``There is really no excuse for letting this critical

legislation expire.'' I agree.

I agree, Mr. President.

Nonetheless, you have chosen to let the Protect America Act

expire. You bear responsibility for any intelligence

collection gap that may result.

Fortunately, your decision to allow the Protect America Act

to expire does not, in reality, threaten the safety of

Americans. As you are well aware, existing surveillance

orders under the law remain in effect for an additional year,

and the 1978 FISA law itself remains available for new

surveillance orders. Your suggestion that the law's

expiration would prevent intelligence agents from listening

to the conversations of terrorists is utterly false.

In sum, there is no crisis that should lead you to cancel

your trip to Africa. But whether or not you cancel your trip,

Democrats stand ready to negotiate a final bill, and we

remain willing to extend existing law for as short a time

or as long a time as is needed to complete work on such a

bill.

I signed that ``Harry Reid.''

Mr. President, the President has created a crisis. As I have said on the Senate floor, during the past 7 years he has become increasingly proficient at scaring the American people. That is what he is trying to do again today. Cancel his trip to Africa for this? But we, Mr. President, are willing to work with him. The expiration of the law stands on the shoulders of one person: George Bush. I am sure his ear has been whispered in several times in the last week or so by the Vice President. But the President is the one responsible ultimately. He has instructed Republicans in the House not to agree to any extension, and obviously the Senate Republicans also.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2615

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 571, S. 2615; the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

This is a 15-day extension.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate request the House to return the papers of H.R. 3773, FISA legislation; and that if the House agrees to the request, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with no intervening action or debate.

Is it my understanding the first request was objected to. Is that right?

Mr. President, facts are stubborn. The facts are that within the last few days, we received a communication from the Attorney General of the United States and the man who is the Director of National Intelligence saying: ``It is critical the authorities contained in the Protect America Act not be allowed to expire.'' That is a fact. That was followed up with a statement by the House minority leader who said: ``Allowing the Protect America Act to expire would undermine our national security and endanger American lives, and that is unacceptable.'' And today, the President of the United States said: ``There is really no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire.''

Those are the facts. So when we ask to accomplish what they want, there is an objection.

It is very clear, this is not an effort by the White House to protect the American people, it is an effort to protect the phone companies. It is not the American people.

We heard from the Attorney General, we heard from the Director of National Intelligence, the minority leader of the House, and the President of the United States. We agreed to do what they want to do to try to extend. The Republicans were given the orders not to do what they wanted. Those are the facts.

Now another issue that is very important: The majority in the House of Representatives and the majority in the Senate have both spoken. A basic elementary rule of this Government is that we have a bicameral legislature. We have the House and the Senate. In November, the House passed by a majority what they thought should happen in the way of extending this. We, a few days ago, decided what we thought we should do. It is elementary that after that happens, there must be a conference. They won't let us go to conference--``they'' meaning the Republicans. So a majority of the House voted in November for a different bill. That is why we need a negotiation. That is why we need a conference. That is how a bill becomes law. That is the way it is. That is the law. We have already decided that facts are stubborn. Clearly, if we were arguing this case to a jury--and I think probably as well the American people--they probably know that this is an effort by the President to scare us and in exchange for that, he wants to try to take care of the phone companies, not the American people.

Mr. President, it is difficult to speak publicly or privately expressing your views that you are glad someone is dead, but I say, through the Chair to my friend, the distinguished Republican leader, I join in his remarks. This was a vicious man.

There is nothing we can do to restore the lives of those he is responsible for killing, the number of which we don't know.

But what happened yesterday will cause this man not to be involved in killing other innocent people. So as difficult as it is to recognize that someone's life has been snuffed out, it goes without saying that for mankind this was the right thing to do. However it happened, it was the right thing to do. This was a person who was waiting for the next opportunity to see what he could do to act out his devilish ways.

cloture motion

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the substitute amendment.

Mr. President, I send a second cloture motion to the desk on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment occur at 5:30 p.m., Monday, February 25; that if cloture is invoked on the substitute, all postcloture time be yielded back except for the times specified in this agreement, and that the managers each have 10 minutes of debate for their use;

that all debate time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that Senator DeMint be recognized for up to 1 hour to speak with respect to any of his pending germane amendments; that with respect to the Vitter amendment No. 3896 and a first-degree germane amendment from the majority on the subject matter of Vitter, that debate time on these two amendments be limited to 60 minutes each; that the Smith amendment No. 3897 be limited to 20 minutes of debate; that no further amendments be in order, and that upon the use of time with respect to the DeMint amendments, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments; that the vote sequence occur in the order in which the amendments are listed in this agreement except the majority amendment with respect to the Vitter amendment would occur first; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote; further, that upon the disposition of all pending amendments, the substitute, as amended be agreed to, and the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill; that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back, and without further intervening action or debate, the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1328, the House companion, and the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1200, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon passage of H.R. 1328, S. 1200 be returned to the calendar; further, that the mandatory quorum be waived; provided further that if cloture is not invoked, this agreement is null and void.

I would further inform all Members that debate time utilized will be utilized on Monday. We will have three votes on Monday beginning at 5:30, and we will have the other two votes Tuesday morning. Senator Kyl asked for this. I think it is reasonable.

Mr. President, let me say that I send my appreciation to Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Murkowski. They worked very hard. Of course, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Kyl who has been involved in our getting to this point. He has been a big help to our getting here. It has been a difficult road.

It is a bill that is long overdue but certainly is necessary to do. I appreciate everyone's cooperation. I am going to confer briefly, in a matter of minutes, with the distinguished Republican leader to determine if there is any reason for us to be in session tomorrow. That announcement will be made very quickly.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business, with 1 hour equally divided, prior to a cloture vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2008.

Order of Procedure

On the majority side, I ask that the time of 30 minutes be divided, with 15 minutes for Senator Feinstein, 10 minutes for Senator Rockefeller, and 5 minutes for Senator Wyden.

Mr. President, this morning the statement was made by the President in the Oval Office that he will refuse to sign a temporary extension of the current FISA law. This is a statement from the person who wants to unite, not divide. This is part of the Orwellian-speak we have had for 7 years out of the White House.

Let's be very clear. President Bush, obviously, is more interested in politicizing intelligence than finding solutions to the problems we are facing in this difficult situation. Today, he continues to try to bully Congress. Let's not forget that we would not even be discussing this issue if not for his actions.

What were some of those actions? In their unyielding efforts to expand Presidential powers, President Bush and Vice President Cheney created a system to conduct wiretapping, eavesdropping--including on American citizens--outside the bounds of longstanding Federal law. The President could easily have come to us and said: Let's change this law, and we would have gone along with probably little effort. But, no, he did not do that. He just went around the law, and when we passed the law to try to change it, he went around that too.

Congress has repeatedly amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to reflect new technology and the legitimate needs of the intelligence community. We have done that often and for good reason. But, whether out of convenience, incompetence, or disdain for the rule of law, this administration chose to ignore Congress and basically ignored the law, ignored the Constitution.

Congress is working updates to the FISA law as we speak. Senate Republicans and the White House have spent many weeks slow-walking the bill as part of the Republican strategy to jam the House. We have known that, we have talked about it, and they did a good job because we were not able to pass this bill until last night. I believe it is wrong and irresponsible for the White House to do this. Due to months of White House foot-dragging, the relevant House committees have only now just gotten important documents related to whether the Bush administration followed the law and the Constitution. I cannot speak about those documents on the floor, but people need time to review and analyze these documents. It is not four or five pages. So we must not let this critical issue be

resolved by the White House trying to push everybody around.

Let's work together on this issue. We are all working for the same goal: to protect American citizens against acts of terror. Congress is prepared to extend current law, the Protect America Act, by any length for Congress to complete the indepth analysis and negotiations necessary for long-term law broadly supported by the American people. If the President chooses to veto a short-term extension, as he said he would this morning, the responsibility for any ensuing intelligence- collecting gap lies on his shoulders and that of Vice President Cheney and theirs alone, no one else.

Mr. President, in brief response to the distinguished Republican leader's remarks about the FISA extension, I acknowledge the bill passed yesterday. I voted against it, and I voted against cloture on the bill, but it was a bipartisan passage. I understand that. I don't dispute that. I saw what the numbers were. The bill was changed a little as it came from the committee, but it passed. It was bipartisan. I recognize that.

But the efforts made to extend this should be bipartisan. The House is going to do what they do, and they are going to send us a piece of legislation. They have not had time--I have spoken to the Speaker, and she has not had time, through her committees, for them to come up with the necessary work to have a conference that is meaningful because they are not ready for that. So they are going to send us a message and we are going to have to act on that.

If we pass it, it will not be what the President wants. If we have a little more time, the House, which has been working recently with the White House quite well on the stimulus package and other things, maybe could work something out. But you can't create something out of nothing, and that is what the President wants. He is looking for an excuse to wave his banner of ``be afraid, terror.'' That is what he and the Vice President have done.

We understand the law is important. We believe it should be extended for a short period of time. If it is not extended, it is not the fault of the Congress, it is the fault of Bush and Cheney. We are doing everything we can to work this out. If it doesn't pass in the manner he wants, and it won't in the next few days--he wants total immunity for these phone companies that have cooperated or haven't cooperated with him, whatever the evidence shows. So I repeat, if we don't get an extension, the law will lapse. It is not the fault of the Congress, it is the fault of the White House.

Mr. President, I think we should announce what we are going to be doing here today.

Mr. President, I will use leader time to make a statement.

We are going to vote in a few moments whether to invoke cloture on the intelligence authorization conference report. It is my understanding the minority is going to support us on this vote. I appreciate that very much.

America has been without an intelligence authorization bill for almost 3 years. That is certainly long enough. The bill before us contains many important provisions that will strengthen our intelligence capabilities to fight terrorism and keep our country safe. The bill includes a number of provisions that will begin to restore proper congressional oversight and includes a provision sponsored by Senator Feinstein that will require all intelligence professionals in the U.S. Government to adhere to the interrogation standards included in the Army Field Manual.

I appreciate the work of Senator Feinstein, who has dedicated much of her life to making our country safer. She spends untold hours, along with other Intelligence Committee members, in the Hart Building, listening to and evaluating what is happening in the intelligence community in our country and around the world. She is a good Senator, and her insight into what needs to be done in this instance speaks volumes. I underline and underscore my appreciation for her work. I urge all my colleagues to join with me in voting to support her in this effort. We will have that opportunity because cloture is going to be invoked.

It is my understanding a Republican or a Democrat will raise a point of order regarding the Feinstein amendment. The reason a Democrat would do it is to move this along, to get this over with. There is no reason to wait 30 hours postcloture, with everyone wondering when it will come up. We should do it, get it out of the way, work out some agreeable time with my colleagues, or we will go ahead and do it ourselves. There is an hour under the rule to debate the motion. There will be an effort to waive this point of order which, under the rules, requires 60 votes. Should Republicans force a vote to waive the point of order, I urge all my colleagues to waive the point of order.

This is a question of moral authority. The Senate should stand as one to declare that America has one standard of interrogation. We are living as Americans in a world where everything we do is watched and watched very closely. We are asking other countries to follow our moral lead, to embrace our way of life, to aspire to the American standard of liberty. Yet I fear too often this administration's actions betray those goals.

A couple weeks ago, Attorney General Mukasey refused to say that waterboarding is legal. What is waterboarding? We know what it is. It came from the Inquisition and King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. That is where it originated. It is nothing new. It has been going on for centuries, and it is torture at its worst where you, in effect, drown somebody and revive them after they can no longer breathe.

Last week, CIA Director Hayden publicly confirmed the United States had waterboarded individuals who were in our custody. The next day, the White House affirmatively declared waterboarding is legal and President Bush is free to authorize our intelligence agencies to resume its use.

President Bush may not care much what we in Congress, Democrats or Republicans, think. For 6 years, he had carte blanche to do what he wanted.

The last year has not been that way. We are an equal branch of Government, and it is time we made him understand this.

The administration can develop as many novel and convoluted legal theories as it wishes, but they cannot change the simple fact that has long been settled law, that waterboarding is torture and it is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it is illegal throughout the world. In decades past, America has prosecuted our enemies and even our own troops for waterboarding.

This debate is not just about one kind of torture. It is not just about waterboarding. It is about ensuring that no form of torture, cruel or inhumane interrogation techniques that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions and prohibited by the Army Field Manual, are used. This includes beating prisoners. This includes sexually humiliating prisoners. It includes threatening them with dogs, depriving them of food and water, performing mock executions, putting electricity charges on various parts of their body, burning them.

These techniques are repugnant. They are repugnant to every American. They fly in the face of our most basic values. They should be completely off limits to the U.S. Government. We have already seen the damage these torture efforts can cause. The world saw it in the Abu Ghraib prison situation. The revelation that American personnel had engaged in such terrible behavior, behavior we have always strongly condemned when used by others, caused tremendous damage to our Nation's moral authority. The recruiting opportunity it provided our terrorist enemies cannot be understated and cannot be undone.

This is not a Senator saying this. Forty-three retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces have written us a letter strongly stating that all U.S. personnel, military and civilian, should be held to a single standard. These honored leaders wrote:

We believe 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.

They stated the interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual ``have proven effective'' and that they ``are sophisticated and flexible.''

My friend, the ranking member of this committee, says these horrible techniques are necessary. They are not. They are not necessary. There are many things that have been used and can be used, as indicated by these 43 leading military experts. They say present interrogation techniques, setting these others aside, are sophisticated and flexible and they work. They explicitly reject the argument that the field manual is too simplistic for civilian interrogators.

Our commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, a four-star general, whom we like to throw around here as knowing all and has done a wonderful job in Iraq, wrote an open letter to the troops in May. He had this to say:

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we

sanctioned torture and other expedient methods to obtain

information from the enemy.

He went on to say:

They would be wrong. . . . [H]istory shows that [such

actions] are frequently neither useful nor necessary.

Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone

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

questionable value.

We all know that.

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.

So says General Petraeus.

Mr. President, just yesterday, a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts joined to call upon Congress to endorse the application of the Army Field Manual standards across all U.S. agencies.

The group included, but was not limited to, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Keane and Congressman Hamilton; two former Secretaries of State; three former national security advisers; a former Secretary of the Navy; and other highly regarded officials from both parties.

The Bush administration's continued insistence on its right to use abusive techniques gives license to our enemies abroad, puts at risk our soldiers and citizens who may fall into enemy hands, and serves as an ongoing recruiting tool for militant extremists.

Meanwhile, the widespread belief that our country uses abusive interrogation methods has weakened our ability to create coalitions of our allies to fight our enemies because other countries have at times refused to join us.

Mr. President, many of us thought the Congress had addressed the issue of torture once and for all when we overwhelmingly passed the McCain amendment in 2005.

But President Bush immediately issued a signing statement casting doubt on his willingness to enforce a ban on torture, and his administration has worked ever since to undermine what Senator McCain offered and was passed here overwhelmingly.

This vote today gives Congress the chance to show President Bush that we meant what we said 3 years ago when we passed the McCain amendment.

Today, we have an opportunity to begin to rebuild America's precious and diminished moral authority. Today, we can strengthen the war on terror.

I urge us to stand together to support cloture and, if necessary, to vote to waive the point of order on the Feinstein amendment, which is part of the very good conference report dealing with intelligence authorization.

Mr. President, don't you think this great country of ours-- the moral authority of the world--can continue our work, our interrogation of prisoners, both military and civilian, by not beating them, sexually humiliating them, bringing dogs and having dogs chomp at them, like at Abu Ghraib? Do we need to deprive them of food and water, provide mock executions, shock them with electricity, as was done during the first gulf war to American prisoners who were captured by the Iraqis, one of whom was from Nevada? We don't need to do that. We don't need to burn them. We don't need to cause them other types of pain that are listed in field manuals.

Mr. President, we have 43 leading military experts who have told us that. We have had the two people who led the 9/11 Commission who have told us that you don't need that, along with former Secretaries of State and national security advisers to various Presidents, Democrats and Republicans.

America is better than this. We don't need to do this. The CIA can get along without having to do all these terrible things. We are told by General Petraeus that these techniques don't work anyway and that any of the information you get is unreliable. Listen to General Petraeus. Let's do the right thing on this issue when it comes up, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act, occur at 4:30 p.m. today; that no points of order be in order; and that the time until then be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

So there is an equal balance of time in the next--we have 2 hours. I think it should work out fine. Either side will have approximately an hour, so that should work out well.

Madam President, I move to reconsider vote.

Madam President, I believe the regular order now is Indian Health. I would ask the Chair to report if that is in fact the case.

Madam President, Senator Tester has indicated to me that he has an amendment to work on. There are a number of people who want to offer amendments, and I think it would be to our advantage--it is not as if it is the middle of the night; it is still in the 4s--if there could be some amendments offered. We are going to work on this all day tomorrow and hopefully we can finish it Friday. If not, we are going to stay here until we finish it.

Indian health deserves this. There is no group of people in America who deserves our attention more than Indians. It is that way with the 22 different organizations in Nevada and all over the country. So I would hope we can work together.

I think we have had some success during these first few weeks of this year of Congress. We were at the White House with the President signing the stimulus bill. It is time to celebrate that. Was it everything we wanted? No. But it is good work, and we should all be proud of that.

We passed this conference report on intelligence, and the President will have to make a decision on that in the future, as to what he wants to do, but it is out of this body.

I hope we could move forward on Indian health. We have been waiting years to direct the attention to them. The attention is now directed, and with the result of what has happened here, we can spend some quality time on this matter. I hope those who wanted to offer amendments will do so. We can work into the night. I hope we can have some votes tonight. Senator Dorgan and Senator Murkowski are anxious to move forward.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I want to recognize and honor an individual who has committed much of his life to the preservation of Western rangeland and its ecosystems. Dr. James Albert Young retired on January 3, 2008, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service after 33 years of dedicated work on issues important to the environmental health of the Great Basin.

The Great Basin is North America's largest desert, encompassing 135 million acres of land between the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountains in western North America. It includes parts of Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Land in the Great Basin is arid, receiving less than 12 inches of rain annually. Today, population growth, wildfires, and invasive species are reducing the quality of native rangelands at an accelerating rate. Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey and others predict that climate change could well be expected to accelerate these changes and associated impacts. Dr. Young's professional life was focused on understanding the specific challenges facing the Great Basin, finding ways to reverse the trends that threaten its environmental health, and educating people about the uniqueness of this beautiful land.

In 1965, Dr. Young started his career with USDA's Agricultural Research Service as a range scientist for the range and pasture unit in Reno, NV. He served as research leader of that unit from 1986 to 1998 and was known by many as the ``Encyclopedia of Western Rangelands.'' Over the years his expertise and commitment to rangeland issues was recognized through various awards, such as United States Department of Agriculture Scientist of the Year, Weed Science Society of America Award of Excellence, Society for Range Management W. R. Chapline Research Award, Outstanding Achievement Award, and Fellow Award, as well as the Society for Range Management Nevada Section Researcher of the Year Award.

The State of Nevada awarded Dr. Young with the very first Nevada Weed Management Award, which they named the ``James A. Young Award,'' for his tireless work on invasive weed management issues. Dr. Young has authored and co-authored over 700 scientific articles, including many books. His books have received national recognition, some of which include ``Collecting, Processing, and Germinating Seeds of Wildland Plants;'' ``Endless Tracks in the Woods''; ``Purshia: The Wild and Bitter Roses''; and ``Cattle in the Cold Desert.'' Dr. Young recently finished a book, ``Cheatgrass: Fire and Forage on the Range,'' which is an illustration of the breadth of knowledge that he has on the most popular weed in the Intermountain West. It is often stated that Dr. Young has probably forgotten more information on the ecology of Western rangelands that most people in resource management will ever learn.

Early in Dr. Young's career he developed the hypothesis that the nature and structure of a wildland plant community is largely controlled by the process that eliminated the previous plant community that occupied the site. Now known as the stand renewal process, this hypothesis is one of his ecological trademarks.

Dr. Young was also an outstanding educator. Over the years, he introduced dozens of high school and college students to the field of range science, some of whom became Area Directors for the Agricultural Research Service. His continued interest in educating natural resource specialists, as well as the general public, on science based management of Natural Resources has been a tremendous achievement over his career.

We owe a great debt to individuals like Dr. Young who, make their life's work protecting our natural world. Thank you, Dr. Young, for all you have done.

Mr. President, following the remarks that I will make and perhaps the Republican leader will make, we are going to resume consideration of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and will immediately proceed to a series of rollcall votes in relation to the remaining amendments and cloture on the bill. The managers are working on a couple of amendments to see if they can be accepted by voice vote. But there could be as many as nine rollcall votes. If we have not completed voting on these items prior to the caucus time, we will resume votes after the recess.

Mr. President, the order before the Senate allows me and the Republican leader 10 minutes any time during this debate to make a presentation. I will do that later. I do want to say, based on the remarks of the distinguished Republican leader, I, too, appreciate the work of Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond, but I also appreciate the work done by the Judiciary Committee and Senator Leahy. As a result of that work, the bill has already been made better and, hopefully, we can adopt some of these amendments today.

We, for example, have as a result of the work done by the Judiciary Committee a compromise reached on a number of amendments that have made this bill better, including a Feingold amendment providing Congress with FISA Court documents that will facilitate congressional oversight and enable Congress to better understand the court's interpretation of the laws we passed; a Whitehouse amendment giving the FISA Court the discretion to stay lower FISA Court decisions pending appeal rather than requiring a stay; a Kennedy amendment providing that under the new authority provided by this bill the Government may not intentionally acquire communications when it knows ahead of time that the sender and all intended recipients are in the United States.

The bill has been made better. The bill that Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond did is not a bill that is perfect in nature, and I hope they will acknowledge that point. The bill has been made better as a result of work done by the Judiciary Committee. We have members of the Intelligence Committee who also serve on the Judiciary Committee. Two who come to my mind are Senator Feinstein and Senator Whitehouse. They have worked very hard in the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee to improve this legislation.

We should understand where we are. We are now doing different wiretaps, and I think the situation today that is so concerning to most of us is the President has been advised by his lawyers that he does not have to follow the law anyway. Whatever we do here, he has been told by his lawyers that he need not follow the law. He can do whatever he wants; he is the boss; he is someone who does not have to follow the law, does not even have to give a signing statement saying he rejects it. He can just go ahead and do it.

I do not think this should be a day of celebration. This should be a day of concern for the American people. I am very happy we have been able to improve the product that came out of the Intelligence Committee. Hopefully, by the voting today we can improve it more.