Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am going to use my leader time so it does not interfere with the 20 minutes allocated.

Mr. President, earlier this year, we had a chance at comprehensive immigration reform. I agree with the President of the United States that we should do comprehensive immigration reform. President Bush and I, I repeat, were in agreement. That effort brought people together from both sides of the aisle, from all parts of the political spectrum. We agreed our current immigration system works well for no one. That effort brought Democrats and Republicans together in pursuit of a common good.

Many of us then were profoundly disappointed when this issue was stopped, not because of the President, but by Republicans in the Senate and a few Democrats. It was a real disappointment to me. We had spent so much time on the floor trying to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform.

I continue to believe that tough, fair, practical and comprehensive reform is the only way to get control of our broken immigration system and restore the rule of law. I remain committed to enacting comprehensive legislation as soon as we can. But until we can once again look forward to comprehensive immigration reform, we should, at the very least, enact the DREAM Act. We tried to offer this crucial legislation as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, but we were blocked from doing so by a small number of Republicans.

At that time, I committed to moving the DREAM Act for a vote before November 16. Today, that is where we are. We now turn to the DREAM Act as stand-alone legislation, and I once again rise to offer my strong support for this legislation. Anyone who believes as I do that education unlocks doors to limitless opportunity should join me in voting for this legislation.

We should vote for this legislation because the DREAM Act recognizes

that children should not be penalized for the actions of their parents. Many of the children this bill addresses came here when they were very young. Many don't even remember their home countries--in fact, most of them don't--or speak the language of their home countries. They are as loyal and devoted to our country as any American. Only children who came to the United States when they were 15 years old or younger and have been in the United States for at least 5 years and are now not yet 30 years old can apply. Those who are eligible must earn a high school diploma, demonstrate good moral character, and pass criminal and security clearances. They must also either go to college or serve in the military for 2 years.

I have met many star students in Nevada who qualify for the DREAM Act. With it, their futures are limitless. Without it, their hope is diminished greatly. What a waste it is to make it more difficult for children--children in our country--to go to college and get jobs or join the military when they can be making meaningful contributions to their communities and to our country. What good does it do anybody to prevent these young people from having a future? The answer is it does no good. It harms children who have done no wrong, and in the long run it greatly harms our country's economy.

I very much appreciate the hard work of Senator Durbin and Senator Hatch to bring this legislation to the floor. They have worked tirelessly to ensure this important bipartisan bill does not go away. We must now invoke cloture and pass this bill. Vote cloture and move to this legislation. If we do, we will put the American dream within the reach of far more children in Nevada and across America who want nothing more than a fair chance at success. That will be an accomplishment of which we can all be proud.

A lot of what we do is based on personal experiences. My memory goes back many years to a small rural community in Nevada called Smith Valley. It is one of the few farming areas we have left in the State of Nevada. It is a beautiful place. I spoke to an assembly at a small school, and I could tell this young lady wanted to speak to me when I finished. She was embarrassed, of course. But I asked her if she wanted to talk to me, and she was embarrassed--clearly embarrassed. She said words to this effect: I am the smartest kid in my class. I am graduating from high school soon. I can't go to college. My parents are illegals.

I have thought about that so much. I don't know where she is today. Is she doing domestic work someplace? What is she doing? She should have been able to go to college. Not a free education--that isn't what this bill calls for--but an opportunity to go to college.

In Reno and in Las Vegas we have scores of gangs--many of them Hispanic gangs--doing illegal things much of the time. Not all the time but much of the time. There is no question--I have been told by police officers, by high school counselors--that this legislation would give children an alternative, an alternative to going into the gangs.

So I appreciate this legislation. It is all-American legislation, which is so important for what we want to accomplish in this country. I would hope my fellow Senators will allow this legislation to move forward by voting yea on the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I now tell all Members, I have had a conversation with the distinguished Republican leader, and we are going to make a decision in the next hour or so as to what we are going to go to next. We were planning, of course, to go to this legislation. Cloture on the motion to proceed was not invoked. We have a number of things we are talking about, and we will make that decision this afternoon.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for a period not to exceed 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we are going to move to the Amtrak bill. There is an understanding that I have with Senator Lott that a number of Members on the Republican side want to be able to have a little extra time to do some amendments dealing with this bill. There are no games being played with this legislation. This is something which is long overdue, and we want to complete this.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 158, S. 294, the Amtrak authorization measure.

Mr. President, let me say this. We have a lot to do here. For people who are concerned with why we haven't been doing things this afternoon, it takes time getting things done, and I appreciate that. This is a bipartisan effort to move forward on this legislation. It is something I think we can do. There is no effort to do anything other than get a bill passed.

I have had a conversation with Senator Lott and with two other Republican Senators, and we have agreements with what we have talked about with them. It is a gentleman's agreement, but we will live up to it on our side.

Mr. President, there will be no more votes today. We hope there will be a good debate on this important issue today and hope there will be some amendments offered tomorrow and Friday.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at 10 a.m. in SR-328A. The committee will be considering the 2007 farm bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 24, 2007, at 2 p.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``International Accounting Standards: Opportunities, Challenges, and Global Convergence Issues.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

At this hearing, committee members will assess the state of innovation and competition in the radio market.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in order to hold a hearing on the Great Lakes region of Africa.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at 1:45 p.m., in order to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order

to conduct a hearing entitled ``Watching the Watch List: Building an Effective Terrorist Screening System.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations'' on Wednesday, October 24, 2007. The meeting will commence at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list

Panel I: Ronald Jay Tenpas to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice.

Panel II: Joseph N. Laplante to be United States District Judge for the District of New Hampshire; Reed Charles O'Connor to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division; Thomas D. Schroeder to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina; Amul R. Thapar to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of Federally- Funded University Research in the Patent System'' on Wednesday, October 24, 2007. The meeting will commence at 1:30 p.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness list

Arti K. Rai, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC; Elizabeth Hoffman, Executive Vice President and Provost, Iowa State University, Ames, IA; Robert Weissman, Director, Essential Action, Washington, DC; Dr. Charles Louis, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, in order to conduct a hearing on pending legislation. The committee will meet in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. without objection, it is so ordered.

special committee on aging

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirkson Senate Office Building for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to hold a hearing entitled, ``A hearing to examine America's Climate Security Act of 2007.

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

Madam President, the hour of 5 o'clock has arrived, and the occupant of the chair has now presided over the Senate for 100 hours. That is commendable. The Senator is the fourth to have done it this year. I am proud and appreciative of that. It is not easy to preside for 100 hours. Sometimes it is difficult. Frankly, having presided over the Senate many hours myself--never 100 in a year, as the Senator has done--I know it is a very grueling process. You not only see the debate going on here on the floor but all things going on, as it has happened today, outside of the microphones. So with the Senator's experience as a Government worker, we are so glad to have her in the Senate. The people of Missouri sent us a real dandy when they sent the Senator here. Congratulations.

What I didn't say is that when someone serves for 100 hours, they get a golden gavel, which is a nice award. It has a nice case, and it is something the Senator will always have to remember her first year in the Senate.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, it is never really easy. We have a lot of procedural stuff. I have tried to be as patient as I can be. I have acknowledged publicly that the two managers have done everything within their power to move this bill; 12:30 has passed but the good faith is still here. We are going to work through and finish this bill. We have lost a few hours, but I think with this agreement we will accomplish everything we need to do, even if we had completed this bill earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following be the only amendments or motions remaining in order to the bill; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that there be 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to a vote on the motion to commit; that no second- degree amendments be in order other than as specified in this agreement; that upon disposition of all amendments and motions, if the motion to commit is defeated, then the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill with the vote sequence as listed below.

I will talk specifically about the listing of the amendments and the order in which they will be voted upon because this has been negotiated for the last several hours. After the first vote, the time for each vote be 10 minutes each. They will be voted on in the following order: No. 1, Cardin, No. 3400; No. 2, Ensign, No. 3342; No. 3, Ensign, No. 3352; No. 4, Vitter, No. 3328, and that it be in order for the amendment to be modified if agreed upon by the managers or Senator Vitter; the Dorgan pending amendment, No. 3345, will be withdrawn--that will be done by either Senator Dorgan or the chairman, Senator

Harkin--No. 5, Bingaman, No. 3440, with 2 minutes each, Bingaman and Kyl; No. 6, Kennedy, No. 3433, as modified; No. 7, Grassley-Sanders, No. 3396, and that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk, and it is my understanding there will be a voice vote on that; No. 8, Schumer, No. 3404, as amended by the Durbin amendment, No. 3449--voice vote; No. 9, DeMint amendment on first-class air travel to be offered and agreed to; No. 10, Chambliss amendment No. 3391, as modified; No. 11, Republican motion to commit.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that upon the passage of H.R. 3043 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, and that the Senate then proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Leslie Southwick to be U.S. Circuit judge; that a cloture motion on the nomination be filed at that time; that there be 4 hours for debate on the motion with the time to be divided between Senators Leahy and Specter or their designees, and that 2 hours of that time be used today with the remaining time to be used tomorrow; following the Senate's convening at 9 a.m., that the Senate vote on cloture on the nomination to occur at 11 a.m. tomorrow; that if cloture is invoked, the Senate then vote immediately on confirmation of the nomination; if cloture is not invoked, the nomination be returned to the calendar and the Senate return to legislative session; if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session; that regardless of the outcome, once the Senate returns to legislative session there be 20 minutes equally divided for debate between the two leaders or their designees prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2205, the DREAM Act.

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

It is my understanding there is a unanimous consent pending; is that right?

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr President, I am going to vote for the amendment offered by Senator Ensign with respect to the U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement, and I wanted to take a few minutes to explain my thinking on this issue.

The United States has negotiated totalization agreements with more than 20 countries. These agreements establish mechanisms for coordinating our respective Social Security systems so that U.S. citizens working abroad are treated fairly. For example, the agreements help prevent Americans from being subject to unfair double taxation. They also help ensure that work in each country can be combined for purposes of qualifying for benefits, so that those who split their careers between countries are not left uncovered. Of course, while their purpose is to protect American interests, the agreements also provide reciprocal benefits to citizens of the other countries.

Totalization agreements can be win-win arrangements that benefit both sides, provided they are crafted carefully to ensure that their benefits and their burdens are reasonably balanced. No agreement, no matter how carefully drafted, is likely to impose identical costs on both countries. More likely, there will be some difference in the burdens borne and benefits received by each nation. And if the United States ends up paying far more in benefits to citizens of another country than American citizens receive, our national interests could dictate that we reject or renegotiate that agreement.

The need to carefully scrutinize a proposed totalization agreement is especially great because its costs could directly affect the Social Security benefits of virtually all Americans in the future. This type of agreement has the potential of imposing significant burdens on the Social Security trust fund. Although the Congressional Budget Office projects that the trust fund will be solvent through 2046, we should be careful before approving any measure that would worsen the program's long-term challenges. Otherwise, the end result could be unnecessarily deep cuts in benefits or excessive increases in taxes for Americans.

Given this, I believe it is important that President Bush not be given unilateral power to negotiate and implement agreements without significant congressional involvement. Current law allows Congress to reject an agreement, but this mechanism probably is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's Chadha decision, which invalidated so-called legislative vetoes. We need to develop a new mechanism, and I am pleased that Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have been working in a bipartisan manner to develop one.

While those efforts are ongoing, I believe it is appropriate to take interim steps to ensure that the Bush administration is not allowed to implement a totalization agreement unilaterally. That is what the Ensign amendment does. While not making a final determination about whether an agreement should be approved, the amendment effectively would ensure that, for the next fiscal year, an agreement with Mexico will not be implemented without congressional approval. I think that makes sense.

In my view, the Ensign amendment would have been stronger had it applied to all totalization agreements, not just the agreement with Mexico. Not only would that have helped ensure that all agreements serve our national interests, but it would have eliminated any perception that we are unfairly singling out Mexico for special treatment. Having said that, I do understand the view of the General Accounting Office that the Mexican agreement is, ``both qualitatively and quantitatively different than any other agreement signed to date,'' largely because of the potential impact of the many workers who have come from Mexico into the United States. The extent of that impact is unclear. In any case, surely this complex issue deserves to be considered seriously here in the Congress before any agreement is implemented.

The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session.

Mr. President, today following the remarks of the two leaders, the Senate will conduct a period of morning business for 1 hour. The time in morning business will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees. The Senate will then resume the Labor appropriations bill.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that after the morning business time has expired, whatever time Senator McConnell and I may use will not be deemed to go against the morning business for other Senators.

Mr. President, last Friday there was a 1 p.m. filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the bill. Today we should have a good idea of which amendments will be offered and will require rollcall votes. The Senate will vote today at 5:30 and there could be more than one rollcall vote. We will complete action on this bill tomorrow morning, so Members should be prepared to cast a number of votes prior to the Senate recessing for the caucus luncheons on Tuesday.

I have had my staff check with the managers of the bill and their staffs, and there could be anywhere from one to five votes tonight. It is up to the managers of this bill. Senators will be advised of that at some subsequent time.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am so pleased the Presiding Officer is the junior Senator from the State of Virginia. I don't believe there is a Senator during these last 9 months who has added more structure to the Iraq debate than the Senator from Virginia. I say that because today I received a call from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Nussle, who said: I am going to send you the rest of the supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Iraq. I said: Thank you very much.

We are now being asked to appropriate another $200 billion for 2008 for the war in Iraq. Another $200 billion. That is $200 billion on top of the $450 billion in the Defense appropriations bill. That is $650 billion--none of it paid for. The entire war in Iraq has been paid for with borrowed money. We are borrowing money from China, India, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Mexico to finance this war.

When we sent a bipartisan--and I mean bipartisan--children's health

care bill to the President, it was paid for. It was bipartisan. We had some of the most conservative Members of the Senate supporting the Children's Health Initiative. Senator Grassley from Iowa, Senator Hatch from Utah were the leaders, two of the leaders in moving this forward, a bill to provide health care for kids.

It was so important when this bill passed 10 years ago on a bipartisan basis, children's health. Why did it pass? Because we found there were children who did not qualify for Medicaid. The poorest of the poor get Medicaid. We found there were a number of children whose parents didn't make much money--100 percent of poverty, 200 percent of poverty. Therefore, we passed a bill for these children who had fallen through the cracks so they would be able to have some health insurance. Did it cover all children? No. But it covered a lot of the children who needed help. By the time 10 years had gone by, 6\1/2\ million children were covered.

This bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that passed here would provide for another 4.4 million children, for a total of 10 million children who would qualify for this program. Ninety-two percent of the children were on this program when the President vetoed it. Ninety-two percent of them were 200 percent above poverty. How much is that? It is debatable how much it is but about $35,000. How would parents with two children pay for health insurance? The average cost of health insurance for a family of 4 is $1,500 a month, $18,000 a year for health insurance for their children. When they only make $35,000 a year, half of their income would go for health insurance. There would be no money left for groceries. Also, they have to pay taxes, fuel costs, a place to live. So this is the group of people whom Congress decided to help.

What did the President and his people do? They came back and said it is a socialized medicine program. I don't know what that was supposed to mean, because the program is private insurance. The States issue the amount of money they have to health insurance companies, and the kids who are covered are privately insured there. The President is so far off base. He and his people also said one of the Congressmen from Nevada agreed with the President, and he couldn't support this because it helped illegal aliens. That is factually baseless, meaning not 1 percent of that statement is correct. In fact, in the legislation that was vetoed by the President, a child who is an immigrant would have to have been legally in the United States for 5 years before they qualified. Therefore, the program would not even cover legal immigrants, unless they have been here 5 years. It was totally paid for, unlike the Iraq war. It was all paid for.

Because of the President's hard-heartedness, in the State of Nevada, far more than 100,000 will be eliminated from the program.

The first elected job I had in the State of Nevada was for a county hospital, an indigent hospital, frankly. One of the problems we had was children who were uninsured. It is still that way. It is still that way. This is a program that would allow children who are sick or injured to go to a hospital--that hospital, the one where I was, now the University Medical Center--and the children's bills would be paid for by an insurance company. If not, those children who have no insurance come to the facility, and who pays for that? You do. I do. Everybody in this room pays for it, because their health insurance costs more money because of indigent care. Taxes are raised to take care of indigents' health care. Insurance premiums are raised to take care of all this. It affects us all. It is a very poor quality of care.

The President had the audacity to say not long ago that everybody has insurance, in effect. They can go to an emergency room if they are sick. The most inadequate care is administered in emergency rooms because it is not set up to be the family physician.

Every dime of the money for the Children's Health Initiative was paid for. It is no wonder the American people are frustrated. We have been fighting for America's priorities while the President continues investing only in his failed war strategy, and he wants us to come up with another $200 billion and sign off on it. That is what he said today. He gave his press statement today and he said: Those people who won't sign off on this bill immediately are not for the troops in Iraq. Isn't this getting to be a little old? Pretty soon we will be approaching the sixth year of this.

This war is costing the American people three-quarters of a trillion dollars, money borrowed from other countries. This is so even as his own Pentagon leadership is now on record saying our ground forces are stretched dangerously thin because of the current Iraq strategy. GEN Casey told Congress very recently:

The Army is out of balance and the current demand for our

forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with

meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to

provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other

potential contingencies.

This is the man who is in charge of the Army, the Secretary of the Army. He takes care of the Army. He is the commander of the Army. I don't remember the title; I have lost it momentarily. But he is the guy in charge. He certainly should know. The Iraq war is leaving us less secure and unprepared to fight an effective war on terror and spawning the unexpected. And the unexpected can come at any time. That is the world in which we live. President Bush should not expect Congress to rubberstamp this latest supplemental request. We will not do that, Mr. President.

In the coming weeks, we will hold it up to the light of day and fight for the redeployment and change in strategy that is long overdue.

I wish to comment on FISA, which has gotten so much attention. We will continue to stand up for the American people. We will continue to do the best we can to revise and improve the FISA bill. It is important that we do that. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is so important. It has been good for this country for many decades. We need to update that. We all agree it is important to improve the temporary surveillance law the President signed in August by enacting new legislation that provides strong intelligence tools to fight terrorism while protecting the privacy of law-abiding citizens. There is no contradiction between security and liberty. We can fight terrorism without compromising liberty and the values embedded in our Constitution.

Last Thursday, Senator Rockefeller and the Intelligence Committee, on a bipartisan basis with Senator Bond, took a step toward improving the flawed surveillance law the President signed in August. I appreciate the hard work of Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond and the members of the committee in seeking to address the complex issues that are at stake.

In the coming days, other Senators will examine in great detail the work of the Intelligence Committee. I am sure other Senators will weigh in with ideas for defining and improving the legislative efforts, so that all Americans can have high confidence in the effectiveness and constitutionality of our intelligence tools. In particular, the Senate Judiciary Committee has shared jurisdiction over the FISA law and is going to mark up the Intelligence Committee bill. The Judiciary Committee has an important role to make sure the final product protects the constitutionally and the legally sound basis that the Intelligence Committee sought.

Mr. President, I believe the administration has chosen again to stonewall Congress from finding the information and documents needed for Congress to properly consider this legislation. Remember, the Intelligence Committee said we are not going to deal with immunity until we look at those documents. They were able to look at the documents with nothing preconceived. They had the opportunity to look at those with no--I have talked to Senator Rockefeller, and there was no agreement between the administration and the Intelligence Committee as to what would happen if they looked at those documents.

Here is why I am so disturbed. The White House said, on October 19, through their advocate, Dana Perino--the question was asked:

I'm wondering if, in general terms, you can describe those

documents and perhaps lay out who else in Congress he may

allow to see them?

``He'' meaning the President.

Here is what she said:

The Senate Intelligence Committee . . . had showed a

willingness to want to include in their legislation

retroactive liability protection for companies that were

alleged to have helped the United States in the days after 9/

11. Because they were willing to do that, we were willing to

show them some of the documents they asked to see.

Mr. President, Jay Rockefeller told me within the past hour that there was no preconceived agreement at all. They wanted to see the document to find out what they should do legislatively.

She says:

But to the extent of anyone else being able to see the

documents, I think we will wait and see who else is willing

to include that provision in the bill.

I want the record to be very clear that the Judiciary Committee should be able to see those documents. How else can they make a judgment as to what they should do legislatively? They should not have to make some deal with the White House that ``we will let you look at these, but we will write the legislation for you.'' That is wrong. I think it is very clear that the House committees of jurisdiction should also see those documents. It is absolutely wrong for the White House to say, I repeat, that they will let you look at these, but only if you will agree to sign this legislation or you give your approval of the legislation.

We can't do that.

On Friday, the White House Press Secretary said the key documents would be held out to the congressional committees as a prize for anyone willing to commit to a specific legislative path. That is an insult to the American people and to Congress.

I repeat in the most emphatic terms that the administration must turn over these documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the relevant House committees to do their business as they must, and they must do so immediately.

We believe this administration should move forward quickly. I would like to do it before Thanksgiving. Why do I want to do that? This legislation which came out of the Intelligence Committee is good. It strengthens our national security. It provides the Intelligence Committee the tools it needs to go after foreign terrorists and other threats to the American security.

Does this mean the Judiciary Committee cannot improve the legislation? I am confident that perhaps they can. Is the Intelligence Committee's work the know-all and do-all? No. That is why we had joint referral. But it is a good piece of legislation. It gives better protection for America and increases the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Two, it requires court approval to target U.S. persons overseas. Three, it explicitly prohibits targeting any person reasonably believed to be in the United States. Four, it eliminates ambiguous language on warrantless domestic searches. Five, it states the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of domestic communications may be conducted.

Also, just as important, other than those five points, it increases oversight and accountability by expanding the requirements in the semiannual report submitted to the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees on intelligence collecting that is authorized by the act. It also requires the head of elements of the Intelligence Committee acting under their authority to conduct yearly audits of intelligence collection. Third, it requires the inspectors general of the Department of Justice and the Intelligence Committee to review the use of the new authority with respect to references to U.S. persons' identities and communications. And it grants limited immunity from potential liability to any telecommunications company that may have assisted the Government in the aftermath of September 11. That is why it is so vitally important that the Judiciary Committee and the respective House committees see what the Intelligence Committee saw without any preconceived arrangements by the White House. Five, it sets forth the procedures so that the Federal courts can review an attorney general certification to determine whether the electronic communication service provider acted within specific orders and in accordance with the certification as directly prescribed by statute. Finally, it sets a 6-year sunset to allow Congress to evaluate the new authority to be carried out, should any of this be changed. That is why we have joint referral, to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at this.

The Intelligence Committee has worked hard to come up with what should be the final legislation that comes to the floor. Finally, the House passes legislation, and we work it out in conference.

We want to move forward. It is important to do that. We acknowledge that. I think it is so wrong that the White House is saying: You can do this but only as we tell you how it can be written; otherwise, we are not going to show you the documents

That is defenseless on the part of the White House.

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

Mr. President, we have one vote to follow right now. The managers have been working to finish this piece of legislation as quickly as possible. The staff has worked through a number of amendments today--in fact, a significant number of amendments. We are on a glidepath to finish this legislation by 12:30 tomorrow, so everyone is going to have to cooperate and get things done. We have a lot to do this week, but the key to getting it done is finishing this bill.

Amendment No. 3347, as Modified

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators allowed to speak therein for a period of up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I was going to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2205 at a time to be determined, but I am advised that there would be a Republican objection. Therefore, I will not ask that unanimous consent. In view of that objection that would have been lodged, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 431, S. 2205, the DREAM Act, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Madam President, I withdraw the motion.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2201 be star printed with the changes that are at the desk.