Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wanted to affirm my support of the Higher Education Act, which will help many young Americans realize their dream of a college education.

As president of West Virginia Wesleyan years ago, I saw firsthand that given the opportunity, student will perform to the highest degree. Our goal as legislators should be to provide quality, affordable education for every American. While we have done a good job giving high school students the opportunity to attend higher education, the time has come to do more to make it affordable.

Tuition rates have steadily increased over the last few years while our Nation's financial aid programs have failed to keep up, causing college students to graduate with higher amounts of debt than ever before. In West Virginia alone, the cost of college education has increased at least 30 percent since the 2000-2001 school year, while the median family income of most West Virginians has increased only 13 percent. Additionally, the percentage of higher education that is paid for with grants has decreased significantly, from 77 percent in 1975- 1976 to just 20 percent in 2004-2005.

The Higher Education Act before us today will modernize the financial aid system. The act will revitalize title IV loans, including Pell grants. Pell grants help over 35,000 West Virginia students attend college, a value of $92 million annually. An increase in assistance is needed to help students cope with the rising cost of tuition. The bill will invest $20 billion to improve Pell grants. The loan amount will increase approximately $500 next year, and in 2012, the maximum Pell grant should be $5,400. These improvements will allow more low-income students to have the opportunity to pursue higher education that before would have been out of their reach.

An important provision in the act will protect students by giving them greater access to information about their loans by requiring student loan providers to be up front about terms and rates. This new law will reduce interest rates on Federal student loans, allowing students to graduate college with less debt and on a stable financial foundation. The law even addresses the real concern about the rising costs of textbooks with balanced provisions to disclose prices.

The act would also increase TRIO funding and provide better tools to encourage high school students to apply for college. Every year, I meet with TRIO leaders and students from across the state of West Virginia about the importance of this program. The Higher Education Reauthorization Act allows our dedicated TRIO counselors to focus on tutoring, college exam preparation, and assisting students with application and financial aid applications. West Virginia has 30 TRIO programs which will benefit by the increase in the grant duration and funding. This increased support, will better enable the 8,000 plus West Virginian TRIO students to reach their potential in high school, and achieve their goal of pursuing higher education.

Another vital part of this legislation is the emphasis it places on sciences and mathematics. The greater assistance and grant money going to students who study science and mathematics, will ensure that our Nation has a group of educated individuals who are ready to handle future challenges.

To support our troops and their families, this legislation allows service members to defer payments on loans, and stop interest on Federal direct loans while they are on active duty. It will ensure that military benefits do not count against service members' eligibility for Federal grants and loans they need to pay for college. It will provide for easy reenrollment for service members when they return from duty and go back to school.

The Higher Education Reauthorization Act will provide opportunity to students in West Virginia and throughout the country. This bill also encourages public service and puts a new emphasis on science and math, causes that I have long promoted. This is an important bill and I commend my colleagues and the leadership for forging bipartisan consensus to enact this legislation that should inspire students to pursue their dreams of a higher education.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Future Fuels Act of 2008. Put simply, I think coal--especially clean coal--is a critical part of the solution to America's energy independence and to our national security. The bill I will describe this morning presents several technological options that will help put us on a path toward achieving greater energy independence, while also tackling the grave threat to human health, property, and the world's economy that is global climate change.

I know that there are some, in this chamber and around the country, who would demonize coal. But the reality is that coal is what we have-- in abundance. We just can't ignore this resource or the incredible potential that it has not just to generate electricity, but as a potential transportation fuel source. The challenges that we face today--and they are challenges which I firmly believe can be overcome with the right combination of resources and American know-how--is how to use coal to produce energy in cleaner ways than we do now, and to accelerate development of carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, technologies to see to it that we don't make our current climate problems worse.

In addition to the bill I am introducing today, in West Virginia we have been working with major companies and our coal industry to promote some exciting next generation projects that will produce a range of value-added products out of coal--electricity, chemical feedstocks, fertilizer, diesel and aviation fuels. If we can pull off what we are trying to do, it will be, in a word, transformational.

My colleagues know that from Maine to California, West Virginia to Washington State, our constituents are paying more at the gasoline pump, in the supermarket aisles, and for virtually everything else. American families are being crushed by the weight of the rising cost of living--especially our seniors, veterans, and low-income families, who often live on fixed incomes. They are looking for solutions, not lengthy and circular debates on how this energy crisis came about and who is to blame for not fixing it. They are looking for the people they sent to Washington to examine all the options, work together for the common good, and to stop playing partisan or parochial games.

As a Senator from West Virginia, I can tell you that the people of my State know a thing or two about coal. They know that from small towns to major cities, from the Capitol building to the Vegas strip, coal generates nearly 50 percent of the Nation's electricity. It lights our homes, schools, and workplaces, and while the summer sun beats down, coal-burning power plants keep us cool. West Virginians, like so many others in this country who have considered our energy options, understand that coal also has the potential to run our cars and trucks and keep our planes flying. West Virginians--like the relatively few of us who are proud to call ourselves Coal State Senators--understand that the only thing keeping us from turning this promise into a reality is a laser-focused commitment from our government and the Nation's industries to unleash good old American ingenuity.

The Future Fuels Act can be the foundation for our efforts. In a way not seen since the Manhattan Project helped us win World War II, and at least not since we fulfilled President Kennedy's promise to put a man on the Moon and bring him safely back to Earth, the Future Fuels Act would bring together the best minds in government and the private sector to figure out commercially viable solutions to carbon capture and sequestration. In achieving what is undoubtedly the greatest environmental challenge of this century, the best minds throughout the world, working together, will renew the promise of a better standard of living that coal showed the world at the dawn of the industrial age. For Americans blessed with abundant reserves of this resource, the Future Fuels Act can allow coal to be the source of most of the clean energy we must have in the coming decades.

I understand there are those who believe that coal can never be part of the solution, because its detractors have made it such a poster child of the problem. Let's be honest. No energy policy choice can be made that does not have an environmental consequence. Oil drilling obviously does--and mining coal does, as well.

But it is not just the use of fossil fuels that has consequences. Wind power probably has more than its fair share of detractors, due to perceived threats to migratory birds and bats, and what some consider an unacceptable disruption of scenic vistas. Ethanol has been blamed for rising food prices and for the minimal value of the energy it produces relative to its production costs. Nuclear energy is touted by its proponents as a carbon-free option that should have its share of the nation's electricity generation expanded. Yet we have never figured out what to do about the permanent storage of, and human health and safety concerns regarding, highly radioactive waste with a half-life measured in tens of thousands of years. It is clear to me, at least, that the fundamentally flawed Yucca Mountain plan is not the answer. Natural gas-powered plants emit somewhat less than coal-fired plants, but are still not clean. In any event, installing new gas pipelines or trying to open a liquefied natural gas terminal inevitably runs utilities into the classic problem of ``not in my backyard,'' or NIMBY. The point is we need to find energy alternatives that are accessible, can be used wisely, preserve our standard of living, and make positive strides to heal our broken world.

Anyone who has watched the nightly news lately or who has read a newsmagazine in the last several years knows that global climate change is no longer cloaked in uncertainty or shrouded in doubt. The sheer repetition of major meteorological calamities renders discussion of ``storms of the century'' mute. Meanwhile, all too frequently floods, hurricanes, and typhoons are characterized as ``500-year events.'' We've watched the floodwaters rise in the heartland of America, forest fires rage out West, and both our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines battered by more common storms. The permafrost in the Arctic Tundra is thawing and releasing methane, and the polar ice caps are melting. Growing seasons are changing, and temperate zones are shifting. The damaging effects of global climate change are not suffered only by humanity; an increasing number of plant and animal species are facing extinction.

Whether you believe that climate change is happening or not; whether you accept the science of it all, or not, is beside the point. One thing is clear--we can't afford to be wrong, and doing nothing is not an option any longer. Our national policy can not be to merely clean up after more and more terrible weather affects more and more parts of the country--we'll go steadily more bankrupt if we do. We need to start addressing the root cause of it all--and that means fundamental changes in the ways we harness the immense power of fossil fuels, like coal, and permanent solutions for the carbon produced.

To do this, my legislation will expand incentives for clean coal technologies, establish an incentive to capture a potent greenhouse gas currently being vented into the atmosphere, create a low-cost program to promote responsible conversion of coal to transportation fuels, help develop new pipeline networks connecting the coalfields to the gas pump, and devote substantial resources to enable government and private sector scientists to turn the corner on commercially viable CCS.

The United States has more than a 250-year supply of coal stored beneath the hills of Appalachia and in several places around the country. To use this abundance in a responsible and environmentally appropriate way, the Future Fuels Act will do the following:

It will expand tax incentive and clean coal energy bond programs in current law designed to defray costs incurred by investor-owned utilities and public power providers when they choose advanced clean coal technologies to replace and supplement our current fleet of electricity generating plants. We have provided money for this purpose over the last decade, but given the scope of the challenge, we have up until now provided pennies on the dollar. The Future Fuels Act will provide $10.3 billion--$8.3 billion in expanded clean coal tax incentives and an additional $2 billion for municipal and cooperative energy providers in clean coal energy bonds.

It will establish a new incentive available to companies that mine coal underground to capture and sequester methane. Methane is more than 20 times as potent a heat-trapping greenhouse gas as an equal volume of carbon dioxide. It is liberated as a natural byproduct of the excavation of coal, and is currently vented to prevent explosions and to purify the air coal miners breathe. This incentive would allow coal companies that voluntarily capture methane and prevent it from being

released into the atmosphere to offset some of the costs of that capture.

It will create a ``stand-by'' loan program for development of environmentally responsible coal conversion facilities. Coal-based fuel developers would receive no Federal funds to build or operate their facilities, but would be able to tap into a loan program with strict repayment terms when the world price of oil drops below a figure to be set in statute. As a frustrating summer of high gasoline prices and airlines teetering on the edge of collapse because of high jet fuel costs makes clear, we need a new set of solutions to meet our energy demand. The Future Fuels Act will move us toward a time when we can run our cars, trucks, planes, and trains with domestic coal-derived fuel.

It will establish a tax incentive for the construction of pipeline infrastructure to bring coal-based fuels to the marketplace. Because our current network of oil and gas pipelines serves, naturally, where oil and gas is found, it may not be adequate or geographically able to serve new sources of fuels in the coalfields of Appalachia and other regions of the country where coal conversion facilities might be built. This incentive would encourage pipeline companies to build out to new locations with untapped potential in coal reserves.

But the Future Fuels Act is not just about using coal. It is about meeting the challenge of using coal in the carbon-constrained future we know is coming. The Future Fuels Act does this by harnessing the wisdom, scientific knowledge, and creativity of both government scientists and their private sector counterparts.

First, it would put into motion the kind of massive research, development, demonstration, and technology deployment program we should have seen from the current Administration, which had promised to be a friend to coal, only to walk away from ongoing coal initiatives in our Federal laboratories. Instead of doing the work that would establish a sustainable future for coal, the Administration first denied climate change was a problem, and then cut the fossil fuel R&D. Consequently, we have lost eight years' worth of serious efforts to develop commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, options. This is utterly inexcusable, but by increasing the size and investment in government CCS R&D, my legislation attempts to make up for that lost time. Our national labs have done groundbreaking work, especially West Virginia, but they have not been given the resources they need to truly accelerate their research and make it commercially available. In contrast, this legislation would authorize $650 million over the next 5 fiscal years to develop commercial-scale carbon sequestration demonstrations in multiple geological and terrestrial formations, with the goal of storing 1 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Finally, my bill would create the Future Fuels Corporation, FFC, a publicly funded but privately operated institution with two primary goals. First, the FFC accelerate research--and more importantly, commercial deployment--of CCS technologies. Without the combination of brainpower and private sector dedication to deadlines and results we may never get CCS technologies off the drawing board and on to power plants and other industrial emitting facilities.

Second, the FFC will work to create new technologies and new production processes to enable the production of coal-based transportation fuels that are not only cleaner than petroleum-based fuels in use today, but which are made in plants that are cleaner, and which cause less environmental disruption than drilling for oil.

Like so many of the other legislative responses to the current energy and economic crisis, my legislation is not a ``silver bullet.'' It is, however, a sincere attempt to offer American solutions to what is both an American and a global problem.

We can never be truly energy ``independent,'' but we must resolve to be more energy ``resilient.'' We can do that when we tap into coal's still unbound potential. Likewise, we cannot expect the serious problem of global climate change to fix itself. The combination of our abundant coal and the innovative potential of the greatest scientists, technicians, and researchers in American business, academia, and government can make the energy resources of Saudi Arabia seem like a drop in the bucket. We need to foster policies to unleash these brilliant men and women to find and prove a range of carbon storage solutions, and then watch a waiting world beat a path to our doorstep.

Known American coal reserves can produce electricity at current rates--and be converted to transportation fuels in sufficient amounts to supplant more than the petroleum we import from the Persian Gulf and elsewhere--for two centuries or more. No American president will have to call up the Guard and Reserve to secure the coalfields, and no American parent will have trouble falling asleep because they're concerned about the safety of their son or daughter in uniform because the people who own the energy don't much like the American presence near the energy.

That is why the Future Fuels Act is so important, and why I commend it to my colleagues.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Future Fuels Act of 2008. Put simply, I think coal--especially clean coal--is a critical part of the solution to America's energy independence and to our national security. The bill I will describe this morning presents several technological options that will help put us on a path toward achieving greater energy independence, while also tackling the grave threat to human health, property, and the world's economy that is global climate change.

I know that there are some, in this chamber and around the country, who would demonize coal. But the reality is that coal is what we have-- in abundance. We just can't ignore this resource or the incredible potential that it has not just to generate electricity, but as a potential transportation fuel source. The challenges that we face today--and they are challenges which I firmly believe can be overcome with the right combination of resources and American know-how--is how to use coal to produce energy in cleaner ways than we do now, and to accelerate development of carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, technologies to see to it that we don't make our current climate problems worse.

In addition to the bill I am introducing today, in West Virginia we have been working with major companies and our coal industry to promote some exciting next generation projects that will produce a range of value-added products out of coal--electricity, chemical feedstocks, fertilizer, diesel and aviation fuels. If we can pull off what we are trying to do, it will be, in a word, transformational.

My colleagues know that from Maine to California, West Virginia to Washington State, our constituents are paying more at the gasoline pump, in the supermarket aisles, and for virtually everything else. American families are being crushed by the weight of the rising cost of living--especially our seniors, veterans, and low-income families, who often live on fixed incomes. They are looking for solutions, not lengthy and circular debates on how this energy crisis came about and who is to blame for not fixing it. They are looking for the people they sent to Washington to examine all the options, work together for the common good, and to stop playing partisan or parochial games.

As a Senator from West Virginia, I can tell you that the people of my State know a thing or two about coal. They know that from small towns to major cities, from the Capitol building to the Vegas strip, coal generates nearly 50 percent of the Nation's electricity. It lights our homes, schools, and workplaces, and while the summer sun beats down, coal-burning power plants keep us cool. West Virginians, like so many others in this country who have considered our energy options, understand that coal also has the potential to run our cars and trucks and keep our planes flying. West Virginians--like the relatively few of us who are proud to call ourselves Coal State Senators--understand that the only thing keeping us from turning this promise into a reality is a laser-focused commitment from our government and the Nation's industries to unleash good old American ingenuity.

The Future Fuels Act can be the foundation for our efforts. In a way not seen since the Manhattan Project helped us win World War II, and at least not since we fulfilled President Kennedy's promise to put a man on the Moon and bring him safely back to Earth, the Future Fuels Act would bring together the best minds in government and the private sector to figure out commercially viable solutions to carbon capture and sequestration. In achieving what is undoubtedly the greatest environmental challenge of this century, the best minds throughout the world, working together, will renew the promise of a better standard of living that coal showed the world at the dawn of the industrial age. For Americans blessed with abundant reserves of this resource, the Future Fuels Act can allow coal to be the source of most of the clean energy we must have in the coming decades.

I understand there are those who believe that coal can never be part of the solution, because its detractors have made it such a poster child of the problem. Let's be honest. No energy policy choice can be made that does not have an environmental consequence. Oil drilling obviously does--and mining coal does, as well.

But it is not just the use of fossil fuels that has consequences. Wind power probably has more than its fair share of detractors, due to perceived threats to migratory birds and bats, and what some consider an unacceptable disruption of scenic vistas. Ethanol has been blamed for rising food prices and for the minimal value of the energy it produces relative to its production costs. Nuclear energy is touted by its proponents as a carbon-free option that should have its share of the nation's electricity generation expanded. Yet we have never figured out what to do about the permanent storage of, and human health and safety concerns regarding, highly radioactive waste with a half-life measured in tens of thousands of years. It is clear to me, at least, that the fundamentally flawed Yucca Mountain plan is not the answer. Natural gas-powered plants emit somewhat less than coal-fired plants, but are still not clean. In any event, installing new gas pipelines or trying to open a liquefied natural gas terminal inevitably runs utilities into the classic problem of ``not in my backyard,'' or NIMBY. The point is we need to find energy alternatives that are accessible, can be used wisely, preserve our standard of living, and make positive strides to heal our broken world.

Anyone who has watched the nightly news lately or who has read a newsmagazine in the last several years knows that global climate change is no longer cloaked in uncertainty or shrouded in doubt. The sheer repetition of major meteorological calamities renders discussion of ``storms of the century'' mute. Meanwhile, all too frequently floods, hurricanes, and typhoons are characterized as ``500-year events.'' We've watched the floodwaters rise in the heartland of America, forest fires rage out West, and both our Atlantic and Pacific coastlines battered by more common storms. The permafrost in the Arctic Tundra is thawing and releasing methane, and the polar ice caps are melting. Growing seasons are changing, and temperate zones are shifting. The damaging effects of global climate change are not suffered only by humanity; an increasing number of plant and animal species are facing extinction.

Whether you believe that climate change is happening or not; whether you accept the science of it all, or not, is beside the point. One thing is clear--we can't afford to be wrong, and doing nothing is not an option any longer. Our national policy can not be to merely clean up after more and more terrible weather affects more and more parts of the country--we'll go steadily more bankrupt if we do. We need to start addressing the root cause of it all--and that means fundamental changes in the ways we harness the immense power of fossil fuels, like coal, and permanent solutions for the carbon produced.

To do this, my legislation will expand incentives for clean coal technologies, establish an incentive to capture a potent greenhouse gas currently being vented into the atmosphere, create a low-cost program to promote responsible conversion of coal to transportation fuels, help develop new pipeline networks connecting the coalfields to the gas pump, and devote substantial resources to enable government and private sector scientists to turn the corner on commercially viable CCS.

The United States has more than a 250-year supply of coal stored beneath the hills of Appalachia and in several places around the country. To use this abundance in a responsible and environmentally appropriate way, the Future Fuels Act will do the following:

It will expand tax incentive and clean coal energy bond programs in current law designed to defray costs incurred by investor-owned utilities and public power providers when they choose advanced clean coal technologies to replace and supplement our current fleet of electricity generating plants. We have provided money for this purpose over the last decade, but given the scope of the challenge, we have up until now provided pennies on the dollar. The Future Fuels Act will provide $10.3 billion--$8.3 billion in expanded clean coal tax incentives and an additional $2 billion for municipal and cooperative energy providers in clean coal energy bonds.

It will establish a new incentive available to companies that mine coal underground to capture and sequester methane. Methane is more than 20 times as potent a heat-trapping greenhouse gas as an equal volume of carbon dioxide. It is liberated as a natural byproduct of the excavation of coal, and is currently vented to prevent explosions and to purify the air coal miners breathe. This incentive would allow coal companies that voluntarily capture methane and prevent it from being

released into the atmosphere to offset some of the costs of that capture.

It will create a ``stand-by'' loan program for development of environmentally responsible coal conversion facilities. Coal-based fuel developers would receive no Federal funds to build or operate their facilities, but would be able to tap into a loan program with strict repayment terms when the world price of oil drops below a figure to be set in statute. As a frustrating summer of high gasoline prices and airlines teetering on the edge of collapse because of high jet fuel costs makes clear, we need a new set of solutions to meet our energy demand. The Future Fuels Act will move us toward a time when we can run our cars, trucks, planes, and trains with domestic coal-derived fuel.

It will establish a tax incentive for the construction of pipeline infrastructure to bring coal-based fuels to the marketplace. Because our current network of oil and gas pipelines serves, naturally, where oil and gas is found, it may not be adequate or geographically able to serve new sources of fuels in the coalfields of Appalachia and other regions of the country where coal conversion facilities might be built. This incentive would encourage pipeline companies to build out to new locations with untapped potential in coal reserves.

But the Future Fuels Act is not just about using coal. It is about meeting the challenge of using coal in the carbon-constrained future we know is coming. The Future Fuels Act does this by harnessing the wisdom, scientific knowledge, and creativity of both government scientists and their private sector counterparts.

First, it would put into motion the kind of massive research, development, demonstration, and technology deployment program we should have seen from the current Administration, which had promised to be a friend to coal, only to walk away from ongoing coal initiatives in our Federal laboratories. Instead of doing the work that would establish a sustainable future for coal, the Administration first denied climate change was a problem, and then cut the fossil fuel R&D. Consequently, we have lost eight years' worth of serious efforts to develop commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, options. This is utterly inexcusable, but by increasing the size and investment in government CCS R&D, my legislation attempts to make up for that lost time. Our national labs have done groundbreaking work, especially West Virginia, but they have not been given the resources they need to truly accelerate their research and make it commercially available. In contrast, this legislation would authorize $650 million over the next 5 fiscal years to develop commercial-scale carbon sequestration demonstrations in multiple geological and terrestrial formations, with the goal of storing 1 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Finally, my bill would create the Future Fuels Corporation, FFC, a publicly funded but privately operated institution with two primary goals. First, the FFC accelerate research--and more importantly, commercial deployment--of CCS technologies. Without the combination of brainpower and private sector dedication to deadlines and results we may never get CCS technologies off the drawing board and on to power plants and other industrial emitting facilities.

Second, the FFC will work to create new technologies and new production processes to enable the production of coal-based transportation fuels that are not only cleaner than petroleum-based fuels in use today, but which are made in plants that are cleaner, and which cause less environmental disruption than drilling for oil.

Like so many of the other legislative responses to the current energy and economic crisis, my legislation is not a ``silver bullet.'' It is, however, a sincere attempt to offer American solutions to what is both an American and a global problem.

We can never be truly energy ``independent,'' but we must resolve to be more energy ``resilient.'' We can do that when we tap into coal's still unbound potential. Likewise, we cannot expect the serious problem of global climate change to fix itself. The combination of our abundant coal and the innovative potential of the greatest scientists, technicians, and researchers in American business, academia, and government can make the energy resources of Saudi Arabia seem like a drop in the bucket. We need to foster policies to unleash these brilliant men and women to find and prove a range of carbon storage solutions, and then watch a waiting world beat a path to our doorstep.

Known American coal reserves can produce electricity at current rates--and be converted to transportation fuels in sufficient amounts to supplant more than the petroleum we import from the Persian Gulf and elsewhere--for two centuries or more. No American president will have to call up the Guard and Reserve to secure the coalfields, and no American parent will have trouble falling asleep because they're concerned about the safety of their son or daughter in uniform because the people who own the energy don't much like the American presence near the energy.

That is why the Future Fuels Act is so important, and why I commend it to my colleagues.

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

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

Mr. President, you and I and all of our colleagues know that the Senate could not function without the superb work of the Senate staff. These dedicated men and women work day in and day out, often logging long hours, working under pressure, and performing extremely sensitive jobs, not for high pay, but because of their dedication to their country.

All of these individuals deserve our praise and our thanks. But occasionally one of them deserves to be singled out. Today I rise to pay tribute to one such individual, Mr. Don Mitchell, professional staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Don is retiring soon after 24 years of government service, 22 of them here in the Senate. In 1984, the same year I was first elected to the Senate, Don began his career as a legislative assistant for national security in the office of his home State Senator, John Glenn. In 1989, Senator Glenn moved Don to the staff of the Intelligence Committee. His association with Senator Glenn and the committee lasted until 1999 when Don left to become Director of Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council.

After spending 2 years at the National Security Council, the Intelligence Committee was lucky enough to lure Don back to the committee staff. And I have been fortunate that he has stayed throughout my tenure on the committee.

While on the committee, Don has worked on a wide range of issues. He has handled the budgets of the FBI, and the Departments of State, Energy and Treasury and he has been responsible for counter intelligence programs. In addition to Senator Glenn he provided liaison support to Senators Richard Bryan and Dick Durbin. For the past few years he has overseen all covert action activities, the most sensitive programs within the intelligence community.

Throughout this time, Don has done his job with a professionalism that has earned the respect of his colleagues and Members on both sides of the aisle.

While Don's professional accomplishments are impressive, they are far from the sum of who Don is. Don is an accomplished author, having published works on one of his political heroes, Adlai Stevenson, and most recent, a biography of his first boss, Senator Glenn.

Don's true passion though is his family. His wife Grace, his son Logan, and his daughter Ella know well of his devotion to them. They also know of his dedication to his work here in the Senate, having supported him for so many years and having endured the many late nights and weekends he has sacrificed for the Senate.

Don is the type of staffer who does not seek glory or recognition for himself. He does not look for ways to insert himself into issues in order to be noticed. He knows what is important and he works toward that goal. He shuns the limelight, but he has made deep and lasting contributions to the process of intelligence oversight. His steady presence, his solid advice, and his devastating wit will be missed.

I wish him well in his coming endeavors and hope that our paths cross again.

I rise in solidarity with the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, as well as Senator Snowe, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Menendez, and many others, to wit, 41 other people who are cosponsores, and to introduce a resolution of disapproval, that is the name on it, of the August 17 CHIP directive.

The directive jeopardizes health care coverage for hundreds of thousands of children, which is reason enough to nullify the August 17 directive. But it also undermines the authority and the prerogatives of the legislative branch of Government.

I would caution those who would otherwise vote against this to think about the precedence for the future and the next administration. We have not been treated well. It is not necessary that we will be treated well or with proper respect in the next administration. We need to exert our privileges where they are legitimate. It is further evidence of this administration's, in my regard, this Senator's regard, blatant disregard for the rule of law.

As many of my colleagues may remember, on August 17, 2007, I referred to it as a domestic health care day of infamy, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, otherwise known as CMS, issued a ``guidance letter'' to the States, ostensibly to clarify existing policies and requirements for States seeking to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, otherwise known as CHIP, coverage to more children, which is what we are meant to be doing here.

However, the practical effect of the letter will be to drastically increase the number of uninsured children, children who should rightfully be covered by CHIP and who otherwise could benefit from the program. The directive has already taken a substantial toll on State coverage initiatives for uninsured children. Since it was issued, the directive has caused a diverse array of States, including Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma, that had planned to provide affordable coverage options for uninsured children through CHIP or Medicaid, in fact, to delay or scale back, or State fund their initiatives, if they can afford to so do.

As a result, tens of thousands of children have already missed out on coverage. By August, the directive will affect at least 22 States, including my own State of West Virginia. Hundreds of thousands of children, in red and blue States alike, will lose coverage immediately, if this directive goes into effect.

The directive goes directly against the will of the Congress. It was an act by a Cabinet officer or one of his minions, and it is not legal.

In addition to harming innocent children, the August 17 directive also undermines congressional authority. I am very sensitive about that after these last 7\1/2\ years. In 1996, Congress passed what is called the Congressional Review Act, to protect the integrity of the legislative branch from the whims of Federal agencies or midlevel bureaucrats or upper level bureaucrats. The Congressional Review Act requires Federal agencies--requires Federal agencies--to submit any rules covered by the act to Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States before that rule can take affect. Both the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office have determined that the August 17 CHIP directive constitutes a rule--a rule--as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

Therefore, CMS has to submit the August 17 rule to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect. We are exactly 1 month from implementation of this harmful policy, and CMS has repeatedly failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the Congressional Review Act.

It is an outrage. It is embarrassing. It is pathetic policy, damaging policy to innocent children who do not start wars and only need to start off in life healthy. If CMS is so convinced that the policy is justifiable, then they should take the required steps suggested by the GAO and the CRS in their review and abide by the law.

Not all my colleagues may agree with me on the substance of this issue. Some may believe that the August 17 policy CMS put forth in this guidance letter is perfectly acceptable. That is fine. That is up to them. On that we disagree.

But we should all be able to agree--in fact, we have no choice but to agree, all of us--that CMS violated the proper process required by law. They did not submit to the proper agencies or to the Congress what they intended to do surreptitiously and devastatingly.

If you respect Congress, as an institution, which I know all my colleagues do, then I urge you to support this formal resolution of disapproval. The health care coverage of millions of children depends on what we do on this.

This is not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. This is a motion of disapproval and it will cause things to happen or to be ignored and it will have consequences. But we can reverse the August 17 decision and allow children to get health insurance as the Congress intended if we simply vote for this at the proper time.

Mr. President, I note a number of my colleagues are on the floor to speak in favor of the resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the resolution be printed in the Record immediately following all these statements on the resolution.

Mr. President, yesterday, we heard some discussion of last week's decision in the district court in California. In that case, the court ruled that FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance activities and limits the executive branch's authority to assert the state secrets privilege. That opinion, however, is only minimally relevant to the debate before us today for three reasons.

First, the decision was in a case against the U.S. Government. In contrast, title II applies only to cases against telecommunications companies, not to suits brought against the Government. The case will therefore be unaffected by title II.

Furthermore, because a provider could be entitled to protection from suit under existing law even if the Government acted unconstitutionally, this decision does not resolve the question of whether telecommunications companies acted lawfully or should be entitled to immunity.

Second, the decision in the case is only one step in a lawsuit that may continue in the district court and which will likely be appealed. This decision, which is a long way from being final, does not affect the need for the Congress to act on this legislation.

Third, the court found that the civil liability provisions of FISA trump the state secrets privilege only to the extent that those civil liability provisions apply. This is not a broad exemption to the state secrets privilege. The opinion does not change the fact that the companies are and, unless we pass title II, will continue to be unable to assert their statutory defenses because of the Government's assertion of the state secrets privilege.

The one thing that the decision shows us is that the court can consider the issue of constitutionality in those suits being brought against the Government. Congress therefore does not need to require the courts to consider that issue in suits against private companies.

Mr. President, is there a time set for the beginning of the votes?

This Senator wanted to be clear about that because Senator Bond will be coming. I will speak shortly, and then he will come down to speak also.

Mr. President, we are at quite a remarkable period now, because we are actually closing the debate on something which we have been discussing in this Chamber, in committees, around the Congress, in the press, in general, for quite a long time. It has been an amazing debate, and today we close debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments of 2008.

I wish to thank all of my colleagues for engaging in this critically important debate, both on and off the Senate floor, whether for or against whatever amendments we will be voting on today. People have expressed their principles, they have been articulate, they have spoken with restraint and dignity and eloquence, and I respect that very much. I think that is the essence of senatorial behavior. We have vigorously debated the appropriate controls for electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information since the disclosure was made 2\1/2\ years ago about the President's wireless surveillance program, which is a travesty--a travesty from 2001 to 2007. An absolute travesty. And because of the contributions not only of those who have supported earlier versions of this legislation but also of those who have opposed various provisions to deal with those issues, we have moved forward to craft, in this Senator's judgment, a strong bipartisan, bicameral compromise that is supported not just by the Senate but also by the House, which was unwilling to support it before at all, but also by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, both of whom are entirely relevant to what is in this bill and what is to be said about what is in this bill.

This final product is critical to the Nation's security. I am aware of both our rights and our security. In my job as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have to look at both. I was brought up in a tradition, in a family which worried about rights, and I have fallen into a position where I am in a position to see what goes on in this world. In a post-9/11 situation, it is very different. It is like comparing fighting wars against the Soviets as opposed to against al- Qaida, the Taliban, or whatever it is. It is a very different world. You can't tell who anybody else is, you can't tell what their intentions are, you can't tell what is in a suitcase which might be lying anywhere in this building or anywhere else.

When you walk around this Capitol, you see levels of security which you have never seen before. We frequently evacuate this building and our offices, all because of what happened on 9/11, and what had been planned well before that. So it is serious. And not that it makes any difference--it makes us no more important than any other citizen in the United States--but we do know that United Airlines 93 was headed for this building and for this complex. So there is an instinct to understand that those who oppose us and who would have us change our way of life and punish us for what they see as our sins are very serious in their work, patient in their work, and willing to wait to continue their work.

The final product is, therefore, critical to the Nation's security, and it sets forth a legal framework to reflect the enormous changes in telecommunications technology over the last 30 years. The bill couples this improvement in foreign intelligence collection against foreign targets overseas with important protections for civil liberties, including the review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of the targeting and minimization procedures governing these collection activities.

In addition, the bill ensures that when Americans overseas are the target, that a FISA Court judge, rather than the Attorney General--in a very important change--decide that there is clear authority and probable cause for intelligence agencies to target such an individual.

The bill also requires the Attorney General to develop guidelines to prevent prohibited activities, such as reverse targeting. That was put before us by Senator Feingold, who is in opposition to this bill but who made that contribution to this bill, along with others, to ensure individual FISA Court orders are obtained, when required.

You can't do anything these days without a FISA Court review if you are in the Government. You can't do anything. That is only title I of the bill, not title II.

There are new oversight and reporting requirements to Congress in the agreement and a sunset date that means these issues will be addressed during the next administration. And I think that is very important, because some people said: Well, let this law be permanent and forever.

There were those of us who didn't want that to happen. We said: We are in new territory here. It is a post-9/11 world. It is very different. So we need to put down into law what we believe, but we also need to go back and review that, to make sure we have done it correctly. So in a period of 4\1/2\ years, during the administration of the next President, he will be able to review, along with us, what we have done and

decide if we need to make any changes. I like that. I think that is fair. I think that is democratic.

Certainly the most controversial aspect of this legislation has been those provisions that set standards and procedures that allow the courts to find limited immunity protection for electronic communication service providers alleged to have assisted the Government in the President's warrantless surveillance program. Under this agreement, however, these provisions are not the blanket immunity that the administration first proposed, nor are they a statement by the Congress either pro or con on the legality of the program.

We have debated these liability protection provisions in great depth over the past 2 days--over the past 2 years, really. As I have said in opposition to the amendments that were offered to strike or amend the limited liability provisions, I am convinced the bill takes the right approach. We did have efforts to have substitution rather than immunity, and they were defeated. They were defeated in the Judiciary Committee, they were defeated on the floor of the Senate, and it was thought if they would be brought up again, they would have been defeated again. So we have been through this. The Senate has worked its judgment on that approach.

I believe the requirement in the bill for the inspectors general to complete a comprehensive review of the President's program is much more likely to provide the American people a complete set of facts about the program on a timely basis, to the extent that classification permits, than would continuation of the pending litigation. In other words, we have improved it.

And to be quite honest, we passed this 13 to 2 in committee, and then with 68, 69 votes, whatever it was in the Senate, we passed the Senate bill that came out of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but the House had not. They were not happy. They had their reasons. And so we went to them, the vice chairman, Christopher Bond, and myself and our staff, and we worked with them endlessly. We worked with the White House, to some extent; with the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General's office, extensively working through individual ways of compromising to make sure that we could protect companies that provide the intercept and the collection of communications we need to get, but to do so in a way which made it clear that the Government was the issue, not them. And we have done that.

Finally, with this agreement, we settle the issue of whether past or future congressional authorizations for the use of military force that do not include a reference to surveillance may be used to justify the conduct of warrantless electronic surveillance. This was an extraordinarily important thing to do, and Senator Feinstein deserves a lot of credit for that--the exclusivity amendment. We have said you cannot conduct any of this collection outside of FISA. You have to have a warrant. You cannot go outside. You cannot use what the President likes to refer to as inherent powers to do anything he wants. You can't do that. You have to have authorization from the Congress in order to do that. That is clear--for the first time in this bill. That is huge. That restricts some of the comments we have been hearing earlier.

FISA remains the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance or interception will be conducted from this point forward unless the Congress sees some reason to make it either stronger or whatever. With enactment of this bill, there will be no question that Congress intends that only an express statutory authorization for electronic surveillance or interception may constitute an additional exclusive means for that surveillance or interception. In other words, you cannot do anything more without congressional authorization. That is oversight. That is what we ought to be doing. It is what we should have done but we didn't do. The world changed. We didn't change quickly enough. But we have changed enormously in this bill.

This is buttressed further with the clarification that criminal and civil penalties can be imposed for any electronic surveillance that is not conducted in accordance with FISA or specifically listed provisions of title 18.

In closing, I would like to address my colleagues who would have preferred a different result than the agreement before us today. I urge them not so much now--there being not much time--but I urge them in the coming days, weeks, and months to look at this legislation in its entirety; not to think about a single point here or a single point there but to look at the whole texture of it. This is what we are doing. That is why we have a sunset date, so we will again be looking at it, looking at the larger picture, seeing what the balance really is and are we keeping it properly as between safety and civil rights, individual rights. That is very important.

This is a bill which provides a framework and stability within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for a collection system that will work well for national security. That is very important to this Nation. That is very important to this body and to every single American. This bill is vastly better than the Protect America Act, obviously, enacted last August, and much preferred to any additional short-term extension of that flawed statute--which was one approach. This is a bill which contains important safeguards for civil liberties and effective mechanisms for oversight.

I do not think any of the committees that deal with these measures will ever be the same again, nor have they been in the last year and a half with respect to oversight. The vigor, the passion with which we sought, leveraged, coerced in some cases, the administration to make more people read into the program, to make more people a part of the discussion, make more people a part of the knowledge which they held so closely to themselves--I remember at one point I was one of 4 out of 535 people who were briefed on the program, and they kept saying on television: The Congress is briefed. And this was a joke, this was a farce. I will not go into it further but, believe me, it was. They did not do that, they did not want to do that. That is their nature. Now it is different. Now we are all over them. And we have a lot more to do before this Congress gets out with respect to the oversight factor of Congress, which is so important to us and to the Nation.

Support for the agreement says to the intelligence professionals who will implement the new authority that Congress takes seriously its oversight responsibilities. Some of them do not like that fact. They do not want us to. They want to be able to do what they have always done because they could do what they always wanted to do--before the world changed. Now they cannot. Yes, we have had intelligence committees for a long time, and, yes, they have done work for a long time, but there has never been a greater need for tough oversight.

Sometimes when the Director of the CIA calls me--and I don't think I am saying anything privileged here--and he wants to tell me about something good that has happened--it is a secure conversation on a secure phone--I say: Look, when I hear from you, I want to hear what you want to tell me that is good, and I also want to hear from you about something that is not working right.

That is the pattern which is developing. They are a little more timid about coming up to us. We have to negotiate more to have them come before us, but we do it because we need them and they need our oversight. They are not free to do entirely what they want to do, but we have to give them the full right to keep us safe, yet balance, as I believe we do in this bill, civil liberty protections.

I simply close by congratulating all people involved. I think for a subject which was meant to be understood by so few in this body, many people have expressed views on the floor and to many of us in private. It has been the subject of caucus discussions.

It is a major piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the three remaining amendments, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on final passage. They will serve their Nation well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, might I inquire whether that was entirely necessary--or, rather, of the Parliamentarian--is that entirely necessary? The Senator does wish to speak. We are not starting votes quite yet. There does not seem to be a total limit on that, a time set for that, and the Senator has been wanting to speak for a number of days. I would be happy if he would be able to do that.

What about leader time?

And that is correct.

All time has been yielded. I ask unanimous consent, en bloc, that the vice chairman and I ask for the yeas and the nays on all of the upcoming votes.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, which would require the district court to assess the constitutionality of the President's program--which is not what this is about--before it could dismiss cases against any telecommunications companies which participated in it.

The amendment unnecessarily puts the burden of constitutionality--a burden that lies squarely on the shoulders of the Government--on the shoulders of telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Government in good faith. This is unfair.

Because the Government requires prompted cooperation from telecommunications companies, we do not ask those companies to make detailed legal assessments prior to cooperating with the Government. Their protection from suit should not be limited based upon constitutional questions they had no obligation to assess.

The significant constitutional question of whether the President's program was constitutional or lawful is properly addressed in cases against Government officials who are not immune. These cases can and should continue, without regard to this legislation.

I ask that people oppose this amendment.

I yield to the Senator.

Thank you, Senator Bond. I completely agree with your description of the meaning of ``electronic communications service provider.''

The definition itself makes clear that the term is intended to include entities that are telecommunications carriers, providers of electronic communications service, providers of remote computing services, and any other communication service provider that has access to transmitted or stored wire or electronic communications. Significantly, the definition also includes any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee of such entities, as well as any officer, employee or agent of such entities.

Mr. President, we have been on this bill now for in effect a year.

And we have improved enormously the Senate bill that we voted out last year with a veto-proof majority. The House had not reacted to this bill well, particularly the immunity part, as well as the title I part. We went at them aggressively, Vice Chairman Bond and myself, to try to get the Senate to move toward the House position. We were successful in that.

As I have said, Speaker Pelosi, who didn't want anything to do with the bill at the beginning, actually went to the floor of the House before they voted on it to pass it out and said: This may not be a perfect bill, but it is a bill that I certainly am going to vote for, and that is why I am here asking you to join me in so doing.

I, in my lesser role, am doing the same thing.

This is a historic bill. It has the particular virtue that over the course of the next 4 years, the next President of the United States will have a chance to review the bill and see if any changes need to be made.

I strongly hope, on what I consider to be a very major piece of national security and civil liberties legislation, that my colleagues will vote to support the bill.

Mr. President, I am opposing the amendment. So I would be taking time from Senator Bond. I ask for approximately 20 minutes.

Mr. President, my colleagues have submitted two amendments seeking to accomplish somewhat the same goal before, and in a sense now down to one. Senators Dodd and Feingold have an amendment to strike title II of the FISA bill. It is very plain and simple, and they are very clear about that. The amendments have the same effect-- eliminating the title that provides a mechanism for a U.S. district court to decide whether pending suits against telecommunications companies should be dismissed.

Two other amendments with respect to title II, to be offered by Senator Specter and Senator Bingaman, will follow. While I address those amendments in separate statements, I would like to say now with respect to the amendments that I oppose each of them and I urge that the Senate pass H.R. 6304 without amendment so that the delicate compromise which serves as best it can to protect both national security and privacy and civil liberties can, in fact, become law.

Six and a half years ago, instead of consulting with Congress about changes that might be needed to FISA, the President made the very misguided decision to create a secret surveillance program that circumvented the judicial review process and authorization required by FISA and was kept from the full congressional oversight committees. That is calling it running around the end altogether. We are right to be angry about the President's actions, but our responsibility today is to look forward. That is what this bill is about, to make sure we have adequately dealt with the numerous issues that have arisen from the President's very poor decision, bad decision.

The bill in front of us today accomplishes three important goals with respect to the President's warrantless program.

First, the bill establishes a sure and realistic method of learning the truth about the President's program--I repeat, learning the truth about the President's program. It requires the relevant inspectors general--that is a term of art. What I mean by that is the inspectors general of the CIA, DOD, NSA, et cetera, people who oversee and know what is in this program altogether--to submit an unclassified report about the program to the Congress. This report will ensure that both Congress and, by the way, therefore, obviously, the public will have as complete a picture of the President's warrantless surveillance program as possible or as messy as it may be for them to ingest.

Second, the bill tightens the exclusivity of the FISA law, making it improbable for any future President to argue that acting outside of FISA is lawful. That is huge. That means the President can never again, ever use what he has used--his all-purpose powers--and say he can just walk right around the end of FISA. He has to have a statutory authority, it has to come from us, and he cannot bypass FISA as he did altogether.

Third, the bill addresses the problems the President's decision has caused for the telecommunications companies that were told their cooperation was both legal and necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. They were not told a lot, but they were certainly told that. The bill does not provide those companies with a free pass. It requires meaningful district court review of whether statutory standards for protection from liability have been met for the companies having relied on the Government's written representations of legality.

You remember there was a period when we were using the FISA Court to make these kinds of judgments, and we bent to the better wisdom of the House with respect to the district court, which is a more public court. So they have that responsibility.

All of these pieces fit together, and not just because they are part of a larger compromise on this bill. Private companies that cooperated with the Government in good faith, as the facts before the congressional intelligence committees demonstrate they did, should not be held accountable for the President's bad policy decisions. But if the court ultimately dismisses the litigation against those companies, it is important that there be a mechanism for public disclosure about the President's program, and it is precisely, therefore, in this bill that the inspectors general report, which has to be provided to us within a year, provide that public accountability.

Likewise, we can only put past actions behind us if we can be reassured that this will not happen again, and therefore the strength in the exclusivity language in the FISA bill addresses that concern. That it does.

Together, the three components of the bill provide accountability for the mistakes of the past as well as a way to move forward.

Although title II in the bill before us today differs in important ways from the title II we passed out of the Senate this past February, the two bills address the same underlying problems faced by the telecommunications companies.

Because the majority of the information in the cases is classified, there has been no substantial progress in the cases against the telecommunications companies--several of them have been going on for years. Classified information, they can't have it; state secrets, can't have it. The Government has not even allowed the telecommunications companies in the many pending lawsuits to disclose publicly whether they assisted the Government. These companies, therefore, have not been permitted to invoke the defense to which they are entitled. But sued they are. The companies cannot reveal, for example, whether they did not participate in the program. That would be a false accusation against some company, but they cannot say that they didn't participate or that they only participated pursuant to a court order--they can't talk about that--or participated in reliance on written Government representation of legality--cannot talk about that. The bill before us today allows these defenses to be presented to the district court, the public court--not the FISA Court, which is kind of a secret court, but to the district court, which is not a secret court. It is a public court.

The Attorney General is authorized to certify to the court that particular statutory requirements have been met without requiring public acknowledgment of whether particular providers assisted the Government.

The bill then requires the district court to determine whether the Attorney General's certification is supported by ``substantial evidence.'' That is a higher, tougher standard than the ``abuse of discretion'' test we had in the Senate bill. In making this assessment, the district court is specifically authorized to review the underlying documents on which the Attorney General's certification is based. The court can, therefore, ``review any court orders, statutory directives or certifications authorizing providers' cooperation.''

Importantly, the court may also review the highly classified documents provided to the companies indicating that the President had authorized the program and that it had been determined to be lawful. Explicitly allowing the court to base its decision on whether companies are entitled to liability protection on relevant underlying documents is an important improvement to the bill, and I am happy it is in it.

Because such documents would be classified, any review of those documents in the litigation prior to this bill would have been limited to a court assessment of whether the documents were privileged. The court could not have relied on what the Government's communications to the providers actually said in making its assessment about whether the cases should be dismissed. The court could not have relied on what those Government communications said--it is different.

This bill before the Senate, therefore, gives the district court both an important role in determining whether statutory requirements for liability protection have been met and the tools to make that assessment.

The FISA bill also provides a more explicit role for the parties to the litigation--this is new and better--to ensure that they will have their day in court open--sort of, and so to speak--but they will have their day in court.

But they will have their day in court. They are provided the opportunity to brief the legal and constitutional issues before the court and may submit documents to the court for review. Whatever it is they want to submit, they can submit.

A few of my colleagues have argued that including any sort of mechanism that would allow the district court to resolve these cases will prevent the public from hearing the details about the President's program. But even if the litigation were to continue indefinitely, it would never tell the full story.

Lawsuits have now been pending for, as I indicated, over 2 years. The fight during all that time, and the likely fight in the future, has been about whether the plaintiffs will have access to any classified information about the program. The plaintiffs in the litigation, they have never been and will never be provided with wide-ranging information about the President's classified program that would enable them to put together a comprehensive picture of what happened.

This capability is reserved for those who have complete access to information about the program. And that again is why I come back to the importance of the inspectors general aspect of this oversight. You can say: inspectors general, them and their reports. Well, inspectors general can take apart their agencies, and they are sort of in there to do that.

That is why we have asked the inspectors general of these relevant intelligence agencies, including the DOD, who do, in fact, have complete access to information about the program, to conduct a comprehensive review of that same program, the whole thing.

The FISA bill requires a report of the review be submitted to the Congress in a year and requires that the report, apart from any classified annex, be submitted in an unclassified form that can be made available to the public.

That is not a dodge, that is simply a fact. You cannot release classified information to the public. So this is an appropriate way to obtain answers to questions about the President's program and ensure the public's accountability.

Critics have also claimed that granting immunity will suggest to the telecommunications companies that that compliance with the law is optional or that Congress believes that the President's program was legal. An examination of the bill that is before us in the Senate would make it impossible for anyone to come to either conclusion.

The administration made very strained arguments to circumvent existing laws in carrying out the President's warrantless surveillance program: a claim, for example, that the 2001 authorization for use of military force was a statutory authorization for electronic surveillance outside FISA, even though that authorization did not mention electronic surveillance.

What role did we expect telecommunications companies to play in those assessments of legality? To answer that question, we must consider the legal regime under which these companies were operating. Numerous statutes over the years have stressed the importance of cooperation between the telephone companies and the Federal Government, particularly in times of emergency. This has a fairly long history.

FISA itself allows the Attorney General to authorize electronic surveillance for short periods of time in emergencies prior to the submission of an application for an order. The law, as it existed in 2001 and as it exists today, grants immunity to telecommunications companies, based solely on a certification from the Attorney General that no warrant or court order is required by law, that the statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required.

Given the need for speedy cooperation in times of emergency, Congress has never asked companies to question the Government's legal analysis that their cooperation is legal and necessary. Thus, although the telecommunications companies have always been and will always be expected to comply with the law, Congress has told them, prior to 2001, that they were entitled to rely on representations from the highest levels of Government as to what conduct was legal.

That is the way it worked. In the case of the President's surveillance program, representations of legality were made to providers from the very highest levels of Government. The FISA bill before the Senate, therefore, eliminates any possible loopholes in existing law, ensuring that neither the telecommunications companies nor any future Presidents have any doubt about what is required to comply with the law.

It strengthens the exclusivity language of FISA--I have mentioned that, I do again--making it absolutely clear that the Congress does not intend general statutes to be an exception to FISA's exclusivity requirements. In other words, no future President can therefore claim that an authorization for use of military force allows the Government to circumvent FISA.

Even more importantly for the telecommunications companies, the bill before us makes it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance outside of specifically listed statutes. Unlike existing criminal and civil penalties which exempt electronic surveillance that is authorized by statute, the bill puts telecommunications companies on notice that any electronic surveillance outside FISA or specifically listed criminal intercept provisions, in the future, is a criminal offense that is subject to civil penalties for claims brought by individuals who are free to do so.

This clear language provides no room for any future President or Attorney General to argue that criminal and civil penalties should not attach for any circumvention of FISA.

Now, the improvements to this bill address many of the concerns raised with the possibility that the court might dismiss the lawsuits against the telecommunications companies. The bill before us makes clear that Congress expects compliance with the laws, and it assures that public accountability is on the Government, where it belongs, and not on the companies that acted in good faith in cooperating with the Government.

It is important to say that whatever the inspectors general come up with in their analysis of this, and believe me, they will be under the gun to do it right, that they have to report that, both unclassified and classified, to the Intelligence Committees and the Judiciary Committees in both Houses. So the oversight factor again comes in.

I think it is time to pass this bill and move forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Dodd-Feingold amendment.

Of course.

First of all, I should point out to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania that there was a period when members of the Intelligence Committee, members of the Judiciary Committee, were not even able to go to the Executive Office Building to look at any of the orders that came down, President to Attorney General to National Security Advisor, then a letter to the companies. We were not allowed to do that.

The chairman and the vice chairman were allowed to do that. Nobody else was. That changed. And it changed because this Senator and a number of others put tremendous pressure, because it was such a ridiculous situation that I could not even talk to my committee members about it. And so they expanded that to include not only committee members but also some staff from both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.

So I would say to the good Senator that intelligence is difficult, and it is difficult to legislate it on the floor of the Senate. Let me phrase it this way. There is a common view held by many that members of the Intelligence Committee and then, to some extent, the Judiciary Committee, in fact, have the intelligence, they control the intelligence, it is all theirs.

I wish to debunk that right now. We control no intelligence. It is entirely controlled, meted out or not, by the executive branch. This executive branch

has been extremely cautious, stingy, I would say undemocratic, in doing this.

The good Senator from Missouri who is coming in now, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and I have fought like bears to expand the number of people who can have access to these programs. But I cannot argue that the Senator--his point is worthy of thought.

I think then one has to consider, are the people on the Judiciary Committee and the people on the Intelligence Committee representative of good faith, people of reasonable intellect, people who know their business, and people who exercise fair judgment? I have been handed a note to say something I have already said, that the public reporting accompanying the Senate Intelligence Committee bill, detailed, with a great deal of specificity, what the companies received from the Federal Government.

That still does not allow me to argue the Senator's point. It is a peculiar and difficult nature of legislating intelligence legislation on the floor of the Senate. But it is not weakened by so doing because of what I have indicated, because of what the inspectors general, granted, not in time for this, will come up with, and, secondly, what I would call the very high standard of people who serve on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the Senate and House Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee.

I respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania by saying he indicated that Judge Walker said this was not a constitutional effort between 2001 and 2007, and it was not constitutional. But when the Senator offers his own amendment this afternoon, I will make the point I make now, that even if it is determined that the program is unconstitutional--and that, for reasons I will explain after lunch when we do the amendment, will not be possible--the immunity fact is not compromised. It is not changed. You are talking about the constitutionality of the White House's action. This bill talks about title I and then title II and a couple of other titles which referred to protecting basic rights, reverse targeting, all kinds of things such as that, which, in fact, came from Senator Feingold, and it is not involved in the constitutionality. It is not involved in that. Even if the judge ruled it unconstitutional, it would make no difference whatsoever on title II.

Mr. President, I ask Senator Bond, the vice chairman of the committee, to yield me 10 or 11, potentially even 12 minutes.

I appreciate my colleague yielding me time.

Mr. President, Senator Bingaman, who I greatly respect in all ways, has offered an amendment altering the liability protections of title II. That is it. His amendment would postpone the implementation of the liability provisions of the bill until 90 days after the submission of the final report of the inspectors general required under title II.

Now, I appreciate the Senator's desire to have more information out there. But I want the Senator to contemplate, and the Senate as a whole to contemplate, what we are asking. We are talking about a year for the inspectors general to complete their reports.

Does it really work that way? Is it really a flat year? Are we going to send out Federal marshals to have them all do their reports on the exact day? Probably it will stretch a little bit. Maybe it will not; maybe it will.

But you cannot assume it will not. Then you have to add on 90 days. Then you can get to the question of the immunity. I am really baffled by that because what it, in effect, says is, we are almost certainly going to be going through a period of something, which I have not heard discussed today during this entire debate, and that is the actual collection of intelligence that involves highly classified material of a foreboding nature for a long period of time until the Senator from New Mexico and/or the Senate can be convinced that it is worthwhile to give immunity or to understand this program.

Now, I want to make an even more basic point: By inserting this amendment, requesting this amendment be passed, I hope the good Senator does understand that he is undoing a very carefully calibrated compromise between the Senate-passed bill and the House-passed bill that is on title II, taking months and months of negotiations to get to the point where Speaker Pelosi, for example, who was violently against the bill, and title II in particular, and Steney Hoyer, who was very much against title II, the immunity portion of the bill, where they could say, on the floor of the House: We think sufficient progress has been made in the negotiations that we will vote for this bill, which the House did by about 70 percent.

Now, that is going from the House not even considering title II. I mean, they considered and rejected it. It was a sea change.

It was a sea change, and one has to have been there to see how the change took place, the good faith bargaining on the part of Vice Chairman Bond, myself, our mutual staffs, working with the DNI and others, long hours and long days with which we have arrived at something which, if we pass this today, will go to the President to be signed. If we accept this amendment or, for that matter, accept the Specter amendment that follows, it will have to go back to the House, which will not take it up, which will not consider it, which will undo everything, and there will be no bill.

Is that important? Yes, it is. Why is it important? Because the chance of not being able to collect on extremely foreboding matters around this world will come to a halt, either because the PATRIOT Act terms have expired or because the companies will withdraw in disgust. In any event, the bill would be vetoed, as the vice chairman said.

So it would be the end of the bill. Therefore, I oppose this amendment.

As I will say about each of these amendments--well, I just did--it undoes everything that has been done for the purpose of making a perfecting amendment to satisfy a particular need of a particular Senator. I also must oppose this amendment because there is no reason for delaying the liability protection provisions. There is not a sufficient reason. It is true the Select Committee struggled to get access to details about the President's surveillance program for many months, but in the end we succeeded. We went from maybe eight, more likely four, sometimes six, to all four committees in the House and the Senate, Judiciary and Intelligence. We heard the necessary testimony. We went to the EOP. We read all the documents, and our chiefs of staff were allowed to do the same thing. We read the legal reasoning used to justify within the executive branch and the role of the private sector. We did all of that, not only our committee but also the House Intelligence Committee, and both Judiciary Committees spent considerable time looking at this issue. I am satisfied we have a basis for taking action now.

On national security grounds, we have to, in my judgment. We haven't talked about that today. We have talked about refined points of constitutional niceties and all the rest of it. I don't denigrate that, but there is something called the protection of the Nation. I take that very seriously. I take that very, very seriously. So a form of liability protection has passed the Senate and the House of Representatives a total of three times, once in the Senate and twice in the House. We should not now reverse these actions by passing the provisions of suspension.

Let me be clear. I strongly support the requirement in this bill for a comprehensive review of the President's surveillance program by the inspectors general. They will be very tough and very thorough and embarrass a lot of people. A report on their general review is one of the best ways to inform the American people about the facts. Litigation is an imperfect mechanism to bring facts to the public, rather a terrible mechanism, because of something called the State secrets privilege which is involved, which means the people can't know anything, that a lot of people dealing with the court can't know anything, that the companies can't know anything. It is a closedown. People have to understand that. It is not an open court. You are not getting a traffic ticket. It is a highly complex, nuanced matter which is rigidly guarded by rules. You could argue the rules, but there they are. Unfortunately, if this amendment passes, the fact that litigation is still pending may have the effect of limiting the amount of information that will be released to the public in the report of the inspectors general, the opposite of what the distinguished Senator wants. Certain facts that might be releasable if the litigation were resolved might be held back, if the Government anticipated a continuing need to assert the State secrets privilege in litigation, which it would.

It is also important to note that this amendment, if it were to pass, the liability protection provisions that the Senator is trying to get at would not go away. In other words, if his amendment passed and we took this long delay, nothing would affect the progress of the liability legislation and that possibility. So it is an amendment which doesn't accomplish anything. The provisions would still go into effect after 90 days, unless new legislation is passed. Let's hope that doesn't happen. The new Congress, thus, might be launched into a contentious debate next summer, instead of working with the new President on a new agenda. That is the point of the Cardin amendment, that the date was changed to December 2012, so that the next President, whoever it might be--it is very close--will have a chance to review and perhaps act upon what we have done here in the next term, which is good. I urge defeat of the amendment.

I have one more thing to say, with the indulgence of my colleague. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania and I were engaged in earlier debate over the access Senators have had, both with myself and with the vice chairman, to the Government letter sent to the telecommunications companies requesting their cooperation during the period of 9/11 to January of 2007. The Senator from Pennsylvania lamented the fact that these documents were kept to only the members of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees and not shared with the full Senate.

I share the view of the Senator that these documents should be viewed by all Senators, and I have advocated this very position to senior officials of the Bush administration for many months. But recognizing the administration's unwillingness to extend this access, the Senate Intelligence Committee did the next best thing. We were able to get declassified the relevant facts upon which the committee and, ultimately, the full Senate reached the judgment that a narrowly drawn immunity bill remedy might be appropriate.

For the record, our committee report, 110-209, accompanying S. 2248, the FISA amendments----

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

And dated October 26, 2007, includes a lengthy declassified explanation of the committee's review and conclusions as well as a description of the representations made by the Government in the letters sent to the companies during the period of time covered by the bill. So for the past 8 months, this public report has been available not only to all Senators--here it is, I have labeled it, pages 8 through 12, right here--but to the general public as well.

I ask unanimous consent that that portion be printed in the Record.

I hope very much that the Senator's amendment will be defeated. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, with the goodwill of the vice chairman, he has granted me a couple of moments to enter a couple documents in the Record. We have had several good days of debate or good hours of debate on the FISA bill going back to before the recess. I guess that would be several months. In the course of a discussion of a bill as lengthy and complex as this, several arguments have been made that warrant response, but there isn't always time to give the response. In the interest of establishing an accurate legislative history to accompany the bill, as manager of the bill, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement providing such clarifications and corrections.

I also point out, there was an op-ed piece in support of the FISA bill in today's New York Times which I call to the attention of my colleagues. It was written by Mr. Morton Halperin and entitled ``Listening to Compromise.'' Mr. Halperin, in addition to being executive director of the Open Society Policy Center, has a lengthy career of public service in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Mr. Halperin's op-ed in support of the bill as it appeared in today's New York Times.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

I yield as much time as the Senator requires.

Madam President, Senator Specter has offered an amendment altering the liability protections of title II. His amendment would require the district court to assess the constitutionality of the President's warrantless wiretapping program before it could dismiss cases against telecommunications companies that met statutory requirements for liability protection.

Although I appreciate the Senator's desire to ask the court to address the constitutionality of the President's program once and for all, he has picked the wrong mechanism to ask the court to answer his question.

First, Senator Specter's amendment would completely undermine, as I said before, the delicate compromise in front of us today. People say: Well, we are freshly back in town, newly minted, widely open. I am sorry, this was a bill which just got through on a thread, and it will probably get close to 70 votes, a compromise already accepted by the House with 70 percent of their votes, and I think that balances the protection of liberties and also does something I have stated I think is rather important; that is, it allows the collection of intelligence to continue in order to protect the United States of America.

Senator Specter's amendment also would require the court to consider a difficult constitutional question that otherwise would not be at issue in the cases.

Title II does not cover cases against Government actors. This exclusion was intentional. Cases against the Government for any unlawful or unconstitutional actions Government actors may have undertaken should be allowed to proceed. Arguments over the constitutionality of the President's actions can and should be litigated in those proceedings.

The amendment, however, injects this complicated constitutional question about the interplay of the fourth amendment and separation of powers into cases requesting civil damages from private companies. The amendment does not require that there be a relationship between the companies and this constitutional question. It does not ask whether the companies were aware of the scope of the President's program, nor does it ask whether the companies' actions were done in good faith or even whether they were legal. Indeed, if the court finds that the President's program violated the Constitution, the cases against the company will not be dismissed even if that company had no involvement in the unconstitutional components of the President's program.

Madam President, this is simply unfair. A company should not be subjected to liability solely because the Government acted unconstitutionally. A company should not be subjected to liability solely because the Government acted unconstitutionally. Any accountability and liability should be based on actions of the company, which is what title II is about.

Imposing this barrier to liability protection is also inconsistent with our expectation about the role companies are expected to play when they receive Government requests for information. Our existing statutory approach is based on the idea that the Government requires prompt cooperation from the telecommunications companies. Although we expect those companies to seek documentation from the highest levels of Government, they are not expected to assess the constitutionality of particular requests on which they lack, to say the least, complete information.

The ongoing litigation is complicated by classified information issues that make it virtually impossible for the cases to move forward. But if the cases could proceed without regard to the classified information at issue, the court would not consider the question of whether the President's program was constitutional. Instead, it would ask whether the companies were entitled to immunity based on existing law.

In addition, a case against any particular company is necessarily limited to the facts relevant to that company. The court would, therefore, not be provided a comprehensive look at the President's program in any of those cases.

We should not ask the district court to assess whether the President's program is constitutional when the answer to that question is unnecessary to resolve the underlying litigation between the plaintiffs and the carriers, and the court does not have sufficient facts to address that far-reaching question of constitutionality. We are talking about apples and oranges, but it is apples here that we are concerned with.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

May I respond to the Senator's observation?

I would say to my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania that Judge Walker's case is not, under any circumstance, going to be stopped by whatever happens here. It will not happen, and it will, therefore, continue. The bill only addresses cases against carriers, is the point I was trying to make. Judge Walker--his case is a case against the Government. This bill is not against the Government. It is against what happens to the carriers, or in this particular case whether they get liability. The Government is not the point. The carriers are the point. The case continues, and we have not intervened in a malicious or malevolent way.

That is quite an assumption to make, I say to the Senator.

I will just reply very briefly with three points, and when you are finished, I would like to yield to--or hopefully the vice chairman will yield to the senior Senator from Virginia.

The one point is that this is not a bill we are addressing here about the Government. We are doing it about carriers, and particularly in title II.

Secondly, I am interested in what the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee feels might be the result if we went the Judge Walker route regardless of its inapplicability, in my view, to this situation when it went through the appeal process.

I am not a lawyer. Right now I wish I were, but I am not. Usually, I am glad I am not. But it seems to me that you would be looking at a period of appeals going right on up to the Supreme Court that might last 3 or 4 years. I am not experienced in how long these things take. But this is a matter that might take that kind of time and that causes me to raise again the question I have raised several times with the vice chairman this afternoon: The only thing that we appear to be discussing in the Senate is rights and liberties. I think I have yet to hear almost any word about the security of the Nation and what the purpose of the Intelligence Committee is, what the purpose of intelligence is, what the purpose of collection is, how the collection is done, who does it, how important is it to how we gauge our situation in the world, where we need to deploy, where we need to be watching.

This is extraordinarily serious stuff but not a word does it get in the Senate, which is two-thirds made up of lawyers--and I honor every one of them. But we are picking at ``would the Constitution allow'' this or that. I am looking at something which to me is very clear. This is all about carriers, this particular bill. My name isn't Judge Walker. I haven't issued the opinion. If my name were Judge Walker, and it was an opinion, it would be about constitutionality. We are not addressing that in this bill.

The Senator earlier said: Look, we are here. Why not duke it out and get all the substitutes and arrangements and compromises back on the table again. I know that does work in some fashion. But I think the vice chairman and I and our staffs could say that what was achieved over the last month or so could probably never be achieved again, which is to get the House to agree. John Conyers is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who was gracious and polite but unfriendly to this bill. There is the question of the Blue Dogs. You can say always these are questions--on farm bills, on steel bills, on automobile bills, on whatever bills.

This is a particular type of emergency based upon the fact that we are still, under my definition, under attack. Not that we have not been attacked, but we have been able to interdict, because of intelligence, some of those attacks--or all of those attacks. This is a very different matter than running an ordinary piece of legislation through the Senate.

If 20 or whatever Judiciary plus Intelligence is in the Senate--35, whatever that is. No, because there are some cross-memberships. Let's say 20. Understand, the others have not been read in. I have said they could have found out the information that has been available for a full year. Any Senator has the ability to go and read intelligence, if they wish to do that. It sort of implies that the Senate, as a matter of habit, comes to full agreement and full understanding that 80 out of 100, as opposed to 20 or 25 out of a 100, fully understand what is at stake in the amendments to a bill and then to the final passage of a bill.

I think the Senator knows that is not the way it works. I think the Senator, although he says we should not delegate, knows we delegate all the time.

I will. That takes various forms. Sometimes it will be that I am very much on the edge of how I am going to vote on something, and I go to a particular Senator--it might be the Senator from Pennsylvania--and say: I have this feeling and I have that feeling, I am right on the cusp of which way I should vote.

I will.

I wasn't talking about special expertise--I was talking about: We have not talked about the threat.

Yes.

My point.

If the Senator from Rhode Island would give me 30 seconds, I would be grateful.

The fact of the matter, I say to the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, is that there are 37 Members of the Senate who have been briefed on this matter--not 20 but 37. We decided to do a little bit of homework: Fifteen on the Senate Intelligence Committee, 19 on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that is 34--minus 4 crossover members; 2 leadership on each side, Senator Roberts and the Appropriations Committee chairman and, I suspect, vice chairman, plus Senator Levin and Senator McCain, who are ex officio.

That is not bad.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

Mr. President, I am going to talk a little about the FISA amendment and the protection of civil liberties of Americans. Some people who are concerned about this bill don't recognize that there have been enormous changes made that specifically speak to civil liberties, and so I would like to talk about that. I wish to take the time to explain how the negotiators of the FISA bill have taken great care in protecting the constitutional right of privacy of American

citizens in crafting this agreement, which was a heavily discussed and worked over matter.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 includes strong protections of civil liberties of Americans while still allowing the Government to collect the foreign intelligence it needs to protect the country, literally. Maintaining this balance between civil liberties for Americans and protecting our Nation against foreign attack was obviously my utmost priority, as well as Senator Bond's, during the lengthy negotiation process that produced what I think is historic legislation in modernizing FISA for the first time in 30 years.

The FISA bill protects Americans in a lot of ways by ensuring FISA Court involvement in any aspect of the new procedure for targeting foreigners outside the United States that could involve U.S. persons. It does so in four significant ways:

First, the bill requires the FISA Court to approve procedures used to determine whether the foreign target of the surveillance is outside of the United States. The court's assessment of the adequacy of these procedures will ensure that the new authorities cannot be used for domestic surveillance.

Second, the bill requires the court to approve the procedures used to address any incidental acquisition, retention, or dissemination of U.S. person information. These procedures protect the privacy of any Americans who might be in contact with a foreign target.

Third, by explicitly asking the court to assess whether the procedures comply with the fourth amendment, the bill requires the court to determine whether the privacy interests of U.S. persons are, in fact, adequately protected.

Finally, the bill requires the court to approve targeting and minimization before collection begins, in most instances. The court would be required to review and approve the procedures at least annually. This is called prior approval, and it was something that was not welcomed by some, but through the negotiation process, the prior approval process was incorporated in the bill, and it means that the court has to approve targeting and minimization before collection. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General would only be able to proceed prior to a court order if emergency circumstances exist but for a period of time no greater than 7 days before being required to seek the approval of the court and no more than 30 days while the court is considering the request. Sometimes, but very rarely, emergencies do take place.

The FISA bill also provides unprecedented new privacy protections for Americans abroad. This may be the most important part. For the first time, Americans traveling or working abroad are entitled to the same protection from surveillance and search that they would have if they were in the United States. There are 4 million Americans at any given moment who are outside of the United States, which is equal to the total population of our Nation when it was founded. The requirement is that the Government obtain a court order prior to targeting them for any foreign intelligence collection. So they get the same type of protection as does anybody in the United States. That is a first. Before, the Attorney General could pretty much just say: We want to target these people overseas, and there was no court involved, there was no approval process involved legally. Now that cannot happen. So they are protected, indeed, the same as anybody in the United States.

The bill requires the court to make an individual determination of probable cause before a U.S. person overseas may be targeted for any electronic surveillance or other foreign intelligence collection. Each court order is valid for no longer than 90 days. This is an important new protection that has never before been in place.

Apart from the court review I have detailed, the FISA bill also protects the privacy interests of Americans through other provisions.

The bill prohibits the new procedure for targeting foreigners outside the United States from being used to target anyone inside the United States or from being used to acquire entirely domestic communication. The way it is now--and it is called reverse targeting--within the United States, you take out of the air some communication of somebody overseas who may be contacting somebody in the United States, and that potentially puts the U.S. person at risk. That is reverse targeting. So there is a prohibition now which explicitly includes reverse targeting, where the purpose of targeting somebody outside the United States is to target somebody in the United States. I know it is complicated, but it is important.

Because of the importance of the prohibitions in the bill, the bill requires the Attorney General to adopt guidelines that ensure that the Government obtains individual court orders when required and does not engage in any prohibited conduct, such as reverse targeting, which, in effect, disappears from the lexicon of telecommunication collection. The bill also requires the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to certify to the FISA Court, under oath, that the acquisition complies with the prohibitions in the bill and that the procedures and guidelines are consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment.

To ensure there are no unintended consequences relating to when a warrant must be obtained under FISA or how information obtained using FISA can be used, the bill does not change the definition of ``electronic surveillance'' in FISA. It is left exactly as it is. People say: Well, why is that? Everything has changed. Well, there can be legislative authorizations to make changes, but only if those legislative authorizations are made can there be changes in electronic surveillance. So the definition remains the same--a good, solid base.

The bill requires extensive reporting to Congress about the implementation of the new provisions, compliance with the prohibitions in the bill--that is important; we have not had that--and the impact of the new provisions on U.S. persons.

The bill sunsets on December 31, 2012, a date which ensures that the reauthorization of the FISA bill will be addressed, in fact, by the next administration.

In addition to protecting the civil liberties of Americans in the new procedures, the bill seeks to prevent any future circumvention of FISA and to ensure that Congress has a complete set of facts about the President's surveillance program.

Well, one might question: How does that happen? In title III of the FISA bill that is before us, we direct the inspectors general of relevant agencies--and that is a whole bunch of intelligence agencies-- to complete a comprehensive review of the President's warrantless surveillance program. Then, within a year, the inspectors general must submit an unclassified report to Congress, with a classified annex, if necessary. This IG review provides an important vehicle for ensuring that a comprehensive set of facts about the President's program is available to Congress and, to the extent the classification permits, to the American public itself.

A comprehensive review of the President's program is particularly important given the possibility the courts will dismiss ongoing litigation due to title II. It also ensures that accountability for the program will be directed at the Government, where it belongs.

To ensure that the Government never again relies on an inapplicable statute to argue that warrantless wiretapping is permissible, the bill strengthens the requirements that FISA and specific chapters of title XVIII are the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and criminal law interceptions may be conducted. The act provides that in addition to the specifically listed statutes, only an express statutory authorization passed by the Congress for surveillance or interception may constitute an additional exclusive means for that surveillance or for that interception. It is a very strong protection against abuse.

Finally, the bill clarifies that criminal and civil penalties can be imposed for any electronic surveillance that is not conducted in accordance with FISA or the specifically listed criminal intercept laws.

In summary, the FISA bill has a multitude of statutory provisions that provide the judicial and congressional oversight that is essential to protecting the civil liberties of all Americans, both here and abroad. They were

not protected abroad. They are now. The House did not pass this bill because they believed there was an insufficiency of civil liberty protections--and they may have been right. So we hammered these out in long meetings in which the White House, all the intelligence agencies, and the leadership--Republican and Democratic--of the House and the Senate were there.

It is a much stronger bill. People will argue that people like me talk about a balance between being able to collect--which is the only way you are going to know if you are going to be attacked--or civil liberties. So people tend to go all the way this way or all the way that way, not recognizing or not being willing to accept that there can be a balance. We have created that balance in our bill. I am proud of that. It is one of the many reasons I am for the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Children, Strengthening Families: Reauthorizing CAPTA'' on Thursday, June 26, 2008. The hearing will commence at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nuclear Terrorism: Providing Medical Care and Meeting Basic Needs in the Aftermath--the Federal Response.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``In the Red: Addressing the Nation's Financial Challenges''.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, the Senate today--hopefully, tomorrow--returns to debating the matter of modernizing FISA and, more specifically, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. After many months of careful and often very difficult negotiations, we bring to the Senate an agreement that many believed could actually never be achieved, that is bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting the Nation's security and civil liberties, supported by the House, by the Senate, as well as both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

The bill before us reflects the fact that FISA, as it was created in 1978, has increasingly become outdated and hindered our Nation's ability to collect intelligence on foreign targets in a timely manner. It is the direct result of changing technologies, advances in technology, in telecommunications, and the need to evolve and meet today's threat facing our Nation; namely, global terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The fact is, as telecommunications technology has changed, intelligence agencies have been presented with collection opportunities inside the United States against targets overseas. Yet, because of the way FISA was written in 1978, they could not take full advantage of these new opportunities.

Finding a solution to this problem has not been easy. It was made more complicated by the President's decision, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, disaster, to go completely outside of the FISA rather than work with Congress to fix the situation. That decision was complicated even further by the fact that the President put telecommunication companies in a precarious position by not giving them the legal security of the FISA Court, even when they were told their efforts were legal and necessary to prevent another terrorist attack.

Early last year, at the start of our tenure as the new chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond and I agreed that our top priority was going to be to modernize FISA. It had to be our top priority for the year. Even then, I don't think we understood how complex and difficult this endeavor would be or even just how important it would be to our intelligence efforts and to the war against terrorism. It is a monumental bill, and it redoes, for the first time in 30 years, proper handling of collection, which is why I am so pleased to stand before you today and say that we have succeeded.

The laborious process of consultation with Members of both bodies and both parties and legal and intelligence officials in the executive branch has worked. We have produced a strong, smart policy that will meet the needs of our intelligence community and protect America's cherished civil liberties.

For procedural reasons, the bill now before the Senate is a new bill which passed the House on Friday by a vote of 293 to 129. You can run that out to a 70-percent vote. While formally a new bill, it is the product of compromise between the FISA bills developed, debated, and amended in both Houses in the course of the past year.

In the absence of a formal conference, there is no conference report that describes this final bill. To help fill that void, I have prepared, as manager of the bill, a section-by-section analysis which builds on the analysis in our earlier Senate report and includes the changes that have followed. I hope it will be of assistance to the Senate in consideration of this final legislation as well as to the public and all those who will have responsibility to implement the bill.

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the summary of the bill's legislative history and a description of its four titles.

Before laying out where this bill improves upon the Senate-passed bill--and it does--let me first restate how proud I am of our efforts in February that laid the foundation for the final action we will soon take. Our Senate bill established the framework for a judicial review of the targeting and minimization procedures which are at the heart of the present compromise. It also established clear authority and procedures for individual judicial orders where there is probable cause for targeting Americans overseas. This may long be regarded as the single most important innovation of the act we will soon pass.

Additionally, during debate on our Senate bill, we identified other needed improvements that have been addressed in this compromise, including strengthening exclusivity, something Senator Feinstein was a great advocate of, and also a shorter sunset, something Senator Cardin wanted to see happen; that is, when the bill sunsets, and it will end before the end of the next administration.

The bottom line is, we started with a good product in February and, through hard work and compromise with all parties in both Houses, we have made it even stronger. And we have. We have. We are all slightly aghast at what we were able to do. So let me mention a few of the key features in this new compromise.

First, the agreement makes changes in the provisions related to targeting foreigners overseas to increase protections for Americans. It requires the

FISA Court to approve targeting and minimization procedures before collections begin in virtually all instances. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can move forward without a court order only in what will be extremely rare instances, if emergency circumstances exist. And there is a way that is done which is time minimized, a total of 37 days, but it doesn't happen.

It preserves the definition of ``electronic surveillance.'' That is important. It doesn't sound very interesting, but it is important. It preserves that definition found in title I of FISA to ensure that there are no unintended consequences--that sounds like gobbledygook, but it isn't--relating to when a warrant must be obtained under FISA or how information obtained using FISA can be used. In other words, we leave the definition of ``telecommunications'' exactly as it is. We do not change it. If there is to be a change, then there must be legislative action to expand or make that change.

But unintended consequences is when something you do in one bill affects something that happened in another bill, and you just do not know it at the time you are doing it. You have to be very careful about that. So that is why we did that.

Second, the agreement contains additional measures compared to the Senate bill to improve oversight and accountability--the two greatest needs we have in the Congress and for the administration.

It shortens the sunset of the legislation to December 31, 2012, to ensure the FISA modernization law we are going to pass is reviewed in the next administration.

It requires a comprehensive review by multiple inspectors general of the President's warrantless surveillance program to ensure Congress has a complete set of facts about the program. We will have them. We will be informed. The public will be informed about that.

Third, the agreement assures that no past or future congressional authorization for the use of military force may be used to justify the conduct of warrantless surveillance electronically, unless Congress explicitly provides that can happen. That means the President cannot ever do what he did again. No other President can ever do that. FISA rules, and only the Congress can make the change.

With enactment of this agreement, there will be no question that Congress intends that only an express statutory authorization for electronic surveillance or interception may constitute an additional exclusive means for that surveillance or interception. It is logical, and it is necessary.

This is reinforced by the clarification that criminal and civil penalties can be imposed for any electronic surveillance that is not conducted in accordance with FISA or specifically listed provisions of title XVIII. We are prepared to do criminal, civil fines. It is in the bill. It will happen if somebody tries to do something.

Finally, with respect to the liability protection provisions of title II, the new language is improved in a number of ways. The agreement makes clear that the district court has the authority to review the documents provided to the companies to determine whether the Attorney General has met the statutory requirements for the certification under the statute.

In addition, the plaintiffs are given their fair day in court in our bill, as the parties to the litigation are explicitly provided the opportunity to brief the legal and constitutional issues before the court, to the court. And the district court, in deciding the question, must go beyond whether the Attorney General abused his discretion in preparing his certification to seek the dismissal of a lawsuit. Under the agreement, the district court must decide whether the Attorney General's certification is supported by ``substantial evidence.'' It is a good bar.

These are important additions and clarifications, and I hope many of my colleagues will recognize how far we have come. Remember, this is a bill that the House would not even vote on a couple of months ago. They would not even vote on it. So we just went over to them, to Steny Hoyer, who deserves all praise for being an unbelievable moderator, bringer-together of opinions and people and a lot of people who are reluctant over there about doing anything, and gradually, through compromise, through extensive consultation, worked it out so they could agree on the bill. Indeed, Speaker Pelosi went to the floor of the House and spoke as to why she was going to vote for the bill--which she did.

Now, before I conclude, I must say a few words about all the people-- and spare me on this, I say to the Presiding Officer--who worked together to make this happen.

House majority leader Steny Hoyer is--I have down here in my text ``a near saint.'' I have decided that is in extremis. I think he is extraordinary--extraordinary. He deserves tremendous credit for his ability to bring people together with strongly divergent views and not give up until a compromise is achieved. He has everything on his plate, but he always seemed to have time for--he kept saying he was not really schooled in this, but he knew everything that was going on.

Vice Chairman Bond and House Minority Whip Blunt also deserve our thanks and our praise for their hard work and unending commitment. The other leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees--Silvestre Reyes, Peter Hoekstra, John Conyers, Lamar Smith, and on our side Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter--not all of whom have or will support the final bill--also deserve thanks for their valuable contributions for making the legislation a much better product.

My own leader, Harry Reid, deserves special credit for insisting that we persevere on protecting national security and civil liberties, even though at times he believed he himself could not support our ultimate compromise. I do not know what that result will be, but he has been terrific in pushing us.

In addition, we would not have reached this critical juncture without the unlimited support of the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and the dedicated staff of the DNI, DOJ, and NSA counsel, in particular Ben Powell, Brett Gerry, John Demers, Vito Potenza, and Chris Thuma. I did not think I would be saying those words, but I am saying them, and I do believe them deeply. All of those individuals worked with us for months on this issue, putting in long hours, even at times when there was not light at the end of the tunnel.

As we know all too well, the legislative efforts of the House and the Senate would come to a screeching halt if we were forced to operate without the seamless efforts of our staffs.

I would like to thank my exceptionally talented staff: Andy Johnson, Mike Davidson, Alissa Starzak, Chris Healey, and Melvin Dubee--all of whom brought an enormous amount of expertise, creativity, and perseverance to the table.

I want to single out Mike Davidson. Mike Davidson is a very smart lawyer. He has this way of when everything is collapsing all about him--it is kind of a let's come and reason together. Let's be practical. He is such a good person and so smart and so respected for what he knows that people follow his lead. It was in many ways because of him that a lot of our problems got solved. He would not quit on them, and he would keep saying: Now, let's deal with this practically. And he uses his hands just in that manner. It worked because we have a bill.

I would also like to thank Mariah Sixkiller, Brian Diffel, Joe Onek, Mike Sheehy, Jeremy Bash, Wyndee Parker, Eric Greenwald, Chris Donesa, Lou DeBaca, Perry Apelbaum, Ted Kalo, and Caroline Lynch in the House of Representatives; and in the Senate, Louis Tucker, Jack Livingston, Kathleen Rice, Mary DeRosa, Zulima Espinel, Matt Solomon, Nick Rossi, Ron Weich, Serena Hoy, and Marcel Lettre for their efforts.

I may have left somebody out. But I think the Presiding Officer thinks I have probably done enough. It is heartfelt, and if you have been through the process you really feel what people put into it and what they give up.

Madam President, this is a very proud day for the Senate, for national security and civil liberties, and for the Congress in general. I would venture to say this may be the most important bill we will pass this year. We have proven that compromise is not a lost virtue and that good, sound policy is not only possible, it is achievable.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as a Senator from West Virginia, I wish to pay tribute to our State on the commemoration of our admittance into the Union on this day in 1863--and to honor the nearly 2 million people who are proud to call it home.

When people think of West Virginia their thoughts turn to our mountains, our rolling green hills, and rivers. It is a place of immense natural beauty and scenic wonders. Still others may think of our most abundant natural resource, coal, or even our steel. Every fall, many college sports fans turn their thoughts to our incredible football teams.

West Virginia, without question, is all of these things. But what truly sets us apart from other places is our people. West Virginians are the hardest working, nicest people you all ever have the chance to meet. They are the reason that so many people choose to come back again and again to our State. They are real people who possess an abundant spirit of hope, optimism, and authenticity. More than anything else, they are the heart and soul of our great State.

So it seems only fitting on this West Virginia Day that we pause for a few moments and think about the lasting contributions that our coal miners, steel workers, teachers, public servants, and next door neighbors have made not just on our State, but on our Nation.

West Virginia is rooted in rich culture. Our Appalachian heritage is immortalized in song and prose. It is a place where the pioneering spirit is still alive and well. Our communities are not just bound together by ZIP Codes but in sharing responsibility to care for and look out for each other. We are still a place where neighbor helping neighbor is a way of life, and our children are raised to honor their family and to love our country.

West Virginia is place where values such as compassion, self- reliance, loyalty, love, unselfishness, and faith are both timely and timeless.

This is the West Virginia that embraced me and later my family. These are the people who helped to give me a true sense of purpose and shape me deep into my core.

This Senator is incredibly proud of our coal miners that do the hardwork of mining the coal that provides the Nation with its electricity and of our steel workers who forged the tracks for our Nation's railroads, the girders for our skyscrapers, and the bridges that span the country; I am proud of those West Virginians who are now building planes, trucks, and doing cutting-edge research into disease prevention and biometrics; of those West Virginians who have dedicated themselves to be our communities' guardians as first-responders, or in the National Guard; and of those in our State who have entered into public service--especially our teachers--and of those rural health care professionals who provide essential and life-saving services to some of our most vulnerable.

And of course, our entire State is tremendously proud of those West Virginians who have earned the honored title of veteran.

Emblazoned on our State flag is our motto, ``Mountaineers Are Always Free.'' It is in that spirit that West Virginians have always answered the call of duty in our country's time of need.

Earlier this week, the Senate honored Frank Buckles, the last surviving solider from World War I, who now lives in Charles Town. As a teenager, he went to war to defeat the Kaiser, and he was imprisoned by the Japanese for 3\1/2\. He is truly a living legend, a touchstone to our past, and we are so proud to have him in WV.

West Virginia's sons and daughters have fought on the Korean peninsula, in the jungles of Vietnam, the mountains of Afghanistan, and the desert of Iraq--and in conflicts in between.

We always have a special place in our heart for our Gold Star Mothers--and for those who gave their last full measure of devotion and now rest in fields that were once made infamous by war.

I could go on and say many more flattering things about our beloved State, our people, and our future, but as West Virginians we know that we are truly blessed. Perhaps that is why humility is one of our greatest virtues, because we know that no matter what challenges we face, as a State we will stand together, harness our ``can-do'' spirit, and overcome them. That is what we do. We are fighters, in every sense of the word.