Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to express my great pleasure with the Senate confirmation of Kristine Svinicki to serve as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As you may know, Ms. Svinicki is both a longtime resident of my State, and a staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which I have had the privilege to serve on for over 28 years.

During her time with the Senate Armed Services Committee, Ms. Svinicki served with distinction, immersing herself in nuclear energy matters. Her tireless efforts proved invaluable in our committee's work, and her service has been appreciated by not only me but by the other members of the Armed Services Committee--on both sides of the aisle.

It is not well known in some quarters, but the Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction over approximately two-thirds of the Department of Energy--including the very sizable nuclear weapons production sites and laboratory complex, as well as the extensive environmental program to clean up the legacy of nuclear contamination created during the Cold War. These are the programs which I hired Kristine to staff.

With her extensive background and experience in nuclear matters both at the Department of Energy, where she worked prior to joining the Armed Services Committee, and subsequently in her work here in the Senate, Ms. Svinicki is uniquely poised to take on this next challenge.

It is my sincere belief that Kristine Svinicki will be a favorable addition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and I am pleased the full Senate agrees. I appreciate the overwhelming support given to her by this body, and I know she will do all in her power to honor the trust placed in her by the President, the Senate, and the American people.

Mr. President, on October 6, 2007, the people of Virginia's First Congressional District lost one of its most respected and admired leaders, a dedicated Member of Congress and loyal friend, Representative Jo Ann Davis.

Today, I am proud to have Senator Jim Webb join me in introducing a bill to honor our dear colleague. This legislation would designate the United States Post Office at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester, Virginia, as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office.'' Representative Robert Wittman has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Born in North Carolina, Jo Ann Davis attended Hampton Roads Business College in Virginia and later obtained her real estate license and real estate broker's license over the next several years. In 1990, she started her own company, Jo Ann Davis Realty, and followed this successful endeavor with a run for public office in 1997. Serving as a Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly for 4 years, Jo Ann Davis became the first Republican woman to serve Virginia in the U.S. Congress after winning her election in 2000.

Representative Davis was a relentless champion for the needs of the First District. It was my privilege to work with her on many matters, ranging from national defense to the environment, and in that regard, she worked hard to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Also, I commend her diligent leadership in the removal of the James River Reserve Fleet from Newport News. From her support for the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge to her concern with the preservation of Dragon Run or providing funding for oyster restoration, she always put the quality of Virginia's environment above politics.

With sincere passion and concern, Representative Davis worked to improve our Nation's armed services and the lives of the men and women who bravely answer the call to duty. She provided strong representation for the communities in and surrounding the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren and the Marine Corps base at Quantico, ensuring that these facilities continue to make important contributions to protecting the nation and to the economic foundations of their respective areas. Her initiative to increase the life insurance benefit paid to survivors of military members and her advocacy on behalf of the rights and benefits of Federal employees will continue to be appreciated in the years ahead.

I have always admired Representative Davis for her strong convictions and the tenacity that she brought to bear in acting on them. She fought a courageous struggle against cancer, and I will miss her insights and her friendship in our Virginia Congressional Delegation.

I am pleased to offer this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who has given so much to the Commonwealth and her country.

I close with a personal note that we both shared interests in equestrian activities. There is an old English saying that ``the outside of the horse is good for the inside of the man.'' As an avid, accomplished rider, she often quipped with me that the saying applies equally to a woman. She loved the noble horse.

I join with my colleagues from the Commonwealth and from the entire U.S. Congress in expressing my deepest sympathies to her husband, her two sons, and her extended family. They remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. President, on October 6, 2007, the people of Virginia's First Congressional District lost one of its most respected and admired leaders, a dedicated Member of Congress and loyal friend, Representative Jo Ann Davis.

Today, I am proud to have Senator Jim Webb join me in introducing a bill to honor our dear colleague. This legislation would designate the United States Post Office at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester, Virginia, as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office.'' Representative Robert Wittman has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Born in North Carolina, Jo Ann Davis attended Hampton Roads Business College in Virginia and later obtained her real estate license and real estate broker's license over the next several years. In 1990, she started her own company, Jo Ann Davis Realty, and followed this successful endeavor with a run for public office in 1997. Serving as a Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly for 4 years, Jo Ann Davis became the first Republican woman to serve Virginia in the U.S. Congress after winning her election in 2000.

Representative Davis was a relentless champion for the needs of the First District. It was my privilege to work with her on many matters, ranging from national defense to the environment, and in that regard, she worked hard to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Also, I commend her diligent leadership in the removal of the James River Reserve Fleet from Newport News. From her support for the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge to her concern with the preservation of Dragon Run or providing funding for oyster restoration, she always put the quality of Virginia's environment above politics.

With sincere passion and concern, Representative Davis worked to improve our Nation's armed services and the lives of the men and women who bravely answer the call to duty. She provided strong representation for the communities in and surrounding the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren and the Marine Corps base at Quantico, ensuring that these facilities continue to make important contributions to protecting the nation and to the economic foundations of their respective areas. Her initiative to increase the life insurance benefit paid to survivors of military members and her advocacy on behalf of the rights and benefits of Federal employees will continue to be appreciated in the years ahead.

I have always admired Representative Davis for her strong convictions and the tenacity that she brought to bear in acting on them. She fought a courageous struggle against cancer, and I will miss her insights and her friendship in our Virginia Congressional Delegation.

I am pleased to offer this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who has given so much to the Commonwealth and her country.

I close with a personal note that we both shared interests in equestrian activities. There is an old English saying that ``the outside of the horse is good for the inside of the man.'' As an avid, accomplished rider, she often quipped with me that the saying applies equally to a woman. She loved the noble horse.

I join with my colleagues from the Commonwealth and from the entire U.S. Congress in expressing my deepest sympathies to her husband, her two sons, and her extended family. They remain in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. President, I am hopeful to join in the debate. I see my colleague from New Jersey. Does he have a pressing matter? I can wait until he completes his remarks, if that will help him.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I have looked forward to this moment. This is a special day for me in many respects. But, first and foremost, what a privilege it is to stand on this floor with three magnificent combat veterans--my colleague and dear friend of 35 years, Jim Webb; Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and my good friend from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel--all of these three gentlemen are combat veterans. Two were awarded the Purple Heart. My military career was far more modest.

I would also like to thank the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, particularly its chairman and ranking member Senator Akaka and Senator Burr for their leadership on behalf of our veterans. I look forward to working with them on this initiative.

And finally I just want to say thank you to all who have been working on this bill, particularly to Jim Webb, who led the effort, drawing on his experience as a young marine officer in Vietnam; as Assistant Secretary of Defense, explicitly assigned to the affairs of the Reserve and Guard units; and then in a position that we both shared as Secretary of the Navy. All of that experience he draws on to bring forth this bill and to lead this effort. Your career in the Senate, I think, will be marked by many successes, but this will be one of the foundations of that success. I say to my colleague that you will always look back upon this accomplishment with a humble sense of pride knowing that you ``led the charge.''

I am very optimistic that we will prevail with this legislation. There may be challenges, but we will prevail. We will prevail because it is the right thing to do.

I also want to say thank you to my country that gave me an education, for my modest periods of service in World War II in the Navy and service in the Marines during the Korean war. It was not as valorous as the careers of the sponsors and cosponsors joining in this debate.

Mr. President, I am grateful to have been the recipient of two GI bills and I wouldn't be standing here today--it is as simple as that, had it not been for the GI bill. Three months after I was discharged from the Navy, my father died. He was a very wonderful, successful medical doctor. He had served in World War I in the trenches in France as a medical doctor, caring for the wounded. I mention that only because I am not sure I would have had the means within our family structure to go on and receive higher education without the GI bill.

The original GI Bill of Rights was enacted in 1944, and in successive Congresses they made changes to it. But the key to the bill that the two of us from World War II--Senator Lautenberg and myself--is that our group of veterans could go to any college or university of his choice, subject to academic or admission requirements. I want to repeat that. There wasn't a college or university in the United States to which they could not attend, for the GI bill covered the full tuition costs of all institutions of higher education. Today's GI bill, largely through the efforts of Sonny Montgomery, a dear friend whom we all value, simply does not have the financial provisions to enable young men and women of this generation to go to any campus they desire. There are low caps on the

amount of tuition the current GI bill will cover. And so we have carefully structured in this bill the opportunity for institutions of higher learning to step up and share in this program.

I would like to briefly outline the sharing provision. Under this legislation, the full basic educational benefit will allow GIs who have honorably served to have the full cost of tuition covered at any public college or university in their home State of residence. Veterans will also be given a monthly stipend tied to the Department of Defense's geographic rate for housing, and a small stipend for books. For veterans who choose to attend a private college or university--or an out-of-State public college or university--admittedly, this basic benefit might not cover the full costs of tuition. Thus, this bill will provide an educational enhancement for veterans who complete at least 36 months of honorable active duty service. The Federal Government will match--dollar for dollar--any additional financial contributions private and public colleges and universities voluntarily contribute toward their respective tuition costs. We believe that many institutions of higher learning will participate in this concept, thus vastly increasing the educational choices for veterans, commensurate with the choices that World War II veterans received.

Mr. President, we talk a lot about academic freedom. It is one of the most cherished things we have in this country. It is a part of the fundamental system of higher education. With that academic freedom, from campuses all across this country, have come great ideas, great inspiration, and solutions which have helped this Nation structure itself as the strongest and most powerful in the world today. But that academic freedom comes at a price. And much of that price is borne by the young men and women today of the all-volunteer force who go forward, raise their right hand, and assume all the risks associated with military service and preserving our freedom.

Educators should stop to think about that. It is important that institutions of higher learning, when possible, have as a part of a student body, young men and women who have proudly worn the uniform of this generation. And this bill puts forward a financial structure for the sharing of tuition costs. I was privileged to go to two schools in my State: Washington and Lee University and the University of Virginia. One a private institution, the other a public institution. But most of the private institutions today, fortunately because of their extraordinary standing and achievements, have tuition rates which cannot be met by a GI completing honorable service and relying on the current GI bill tuition caps.

This bill enables a voluntary, I repeat voluntary, cost sharing between the U.S. Government and the academic institution. I think we owe no less to the preservation of academic freedom at these schools, that freedom being guarded by the young men and women who seek admission, and who have honorably served this Nation. Therefore, if a GI has the requisite academic credentials for admission--we are not asking that any special exception or deviation should be done by these schools.

These valiant men and women deserve nothing less than our full measure of support and unending gratitude for their service and sacrifice. A GI bill for the 21st century, to provide educational benefits for uniformed personnel who are sacrificing so much to preserve our freedom, is the least we can do.

So in closing, Mr. President, I say thank you. I have so much, individually, to be thankful for. Simply stated, I would not be a U.S. Senator today had it not been for the GI bill of World War II and Korea. I want the same opportunity for the current and future generations of ``fighters for our freedom.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I am delighted the Senator from Arizona brought this up because I have participated in a number of debates with our distinguished colleague from Missouri. What we always have to remind our colleagues of, as well as the American public, is that these companies have volunteered. They are not in this for a profit motive. There is some compensation for expenses. They are not unlike the men and women of the Armed Forces, all of whom today are in uniform because they raised their right arm and volunteered. We cannot ask these companies to subject themselves to the uncertainty and the threats associated with legal processes. We are going to lose a very important component of what I call the American spirit: voluntarism. Whether it is in the corporate world, whether it is in the Armed Forces or any other number of activities, we are a Nation known for people who step forward and volunteer.

This is a clear example of how these companies cannot continue under the situation that persists today, because the directors of those companies, their corporate boards, have an obligation to their stockholders. It is a stretch to say to the stockholders, who are part of the voluntarism they are doing to serve the cause of freedom in the United States, that they should be subjected to a lot of court suits.

So I appreciate the Senator bringing this up. It is important. We have to remind our colleagues about it. I am proud of what this Chamber did. They voted it through, very clearly.

Madam President, I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, the service they are doing by virtue of this voluntarism directly contributes to the safety and the welfare of the men and women in the Armed Forces who are engaged in harm's way beyond our shores.

At this point, we have about run out of time, and I wish to say a few words about the pending matter.

Fine. That is under the control of the distinguished Senator from Missouri, and I will ask for such time as I may need at this point.

I have always considered myself, here in the Senate, to be most fortunate for the various assignments I have had through this being my 30th year. There have been periods when I have served on the Intelligence Committee. I was once the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. Then, fortunately, I was selected to go back on the Intelligence Committee several years ago. It has been a part of my overall service to the Senate, and indeed to the Nation, to be on that committee.

I was at first introduced to the world of intelligence in 1969 when I was fortunate enough to go to the U.S. Department of Defense at the Pentagon and serve the Navy, first as Under Secretary and then Secretary. So I have actively been involved in the work of the intelligence community for some many years.

I am greatly concerned that we have before us today a piece of legislation which, even though a member of the committee and even though I worked with my colleagues to frame this legislation, I will have to vote against because of the actions that took place in the conference committee where an out-of-scope provision was put in--for the best of intentions, I am sure, but it wasn't carefully thought through, in my judgment, because this provision would say that henceforth, the CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation would have to conduct their interrogation procedures in accordance with the Army Field Manual.

I was privileged again to be one of a group of a small number of Senators who, in the year 2005, worked on the Detainee Act and then subsequently, in 2006, worked on other legislation to try to delineate carefully the responsibilities of various agencies and departments of our Government as it related to the all-important collection of our intelligence and a part of that collection procedure being the interrogation

of detainees. Now, we decided, after a lot of careful deliberation of the 2005 act, that we would restrict that to the men and women in the Armed Forces.

There was a very good reason for that. In the course of our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, detainees came into the possession of our field forces, operating in combat conditions most of the times when these detainees were caught, and relatively, so to speak, while the military people are magnificently trained throughout their careers to deal with these situations of combat and the like, very few of them have had the opportunity to get into the profession of interrogation. In order to give them the protection they needed in performing interrogation at what we call the field and tactical level, it was important to draw up this act and to prescribe very clearly for the men and women in uniform--I repeat that: only for the men and women in uniform--very clearly the procedures they must follow to accord the values of our framework of laws, the fact that this is not a nation that stands for torture, and to also give them protection in the event that somehow they were challenged in a court of law, be it a military court or other courts, as to their performance by virtue of their interrogating activities of certain detainees. So there were many reasons to put it all down and say that this is the Army Field Manual, prescribe the authorized techniques, and therefore allow the men and women of the Armed Forces to continue their operations militarily, tactically, and to follow that field manual in such instances where it is necessary to interrogate detainees.

But in the course of that debate--and understandably and I think quite properly--attention was given to whether we should have this type of procedure applicable to all the Government agencies and departments of our Federal Government. The decision was made, and the answer was no--not quickly, no; it was a deliberate no reached after a lot of careful consideration--that this Detainee Act should be for the purpose of our military people, and we purposely did not include the CIA and the FBI. As time evolved into 2006, when we had that legislation, once again we reiterated we would not include either the CIA or the DIA and then in any way at that time legislate their program, other than to say that the conduct of the CIA program and the FBI program has to be in total compliance with all the laws of our land, which in no way sanctioned abusive treatment, torture or those sorts of things. It is not a part of it.

Furthermore, that both the procedures by the CIA and the FBI had to be in compliance with the treaties, the treaty obligations we have, particularly article 3, common article 3, which has been debated so carefully on the floor of the Senate.

So, in effect, what we have before us momentarily in this vote is overruling the decisions that were made by this body in the context of drawing up those two statutes, one in 2005 and one in 2006. So I, for that reason, feel very strongly that I cannot support this. I think it has been indicated that the President doesn't support it and that if this were to arrive at his desk, in all probability, we would have a veto, and that would be regrettable because a lot of work has been put into this bill. There are portions of it that the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, talked about which hopefully can be corrected. But we need an Intelligence bill. We have marvelous staff in the Senate and others who work on this problem of legislation year after year, and we are long overdue to have an Intelligence bill. It is unfortunate that in the last throes of the legislative process, in a conference, this provision, which we clearly know to be out of scope, was put into the bill, and it is for that reason that I will have to oppose the bill.

There is another reason I would have to oppose it, and that is that the Army Field Manual, again, was for the military, but it is a manual. Certainly, under the current way it is framed and put together in the law, a manual can be changed. So while there are some 19 techniques that are detailed as approved for the use of our troops in the field and elsewhere, who is to say they couldn't add some more and that at that point Congress is not involved. So I am not sure people thought through the technical aspects of this thing, and to me, it is a very unwise decision.

But I wish to reiterate to our colleagues that by virtue of taking the stance I take--and I presume a goodly number of individuals will join in this, unfortunately, and vote against this bill--this is not to say, in any way, that we are sanctioning that the Agency, the CIA, employ techniques which are in any way constituted as abusive treatment of human beings or torture or degrading.

All of that is carefully spelled out in the framework of the laws of 2005 and 2006, and it cannot be done by the agency, nor the FBI--nor are they doing it. The Intelligence Committee has had a series of hearings. We have had the DNI, the Director of the CIA, the head of the FBI, and all of them have been carefully questioned and are on record saying that these procedures, which would be tantamount and antithetical to our laws of 2005 and 2006 are not employed now, and they will not be in the future.

It is for that reason that I will have to oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to do likewise because we will be taking away from the agencies the ability to perform a very limited number of interrogations, a very limited number--but they do them in an entirely different framework of circumstances, environment, than does the Army or other military members of our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps under the Army Field Manual.

The techniques applied by the CIA are in compliance with the laws, but they are not all written up so that a detainee knows full well that if they are apprehended, they will be subjected to the interrogation procedures of the agencies; he would know all about it if it is written up as it is in the Army Field Manual. That would take away a good deal of the psychological impact of highly skilled interrogating procedures. We are about to throw those away, abandon them.

This is a very dangerous and complex world. I sometimes think, in the course of this political campaign, as I listen to my good friends-- three of them Members of this Chamber--vying for the Presidency of the United States, the awesome framework of complex situations that is going to face the next President of the United States. I must say, I have a few years behind me, and I have seen a good bit of history in this country, but never before has the next President, whoever it may be--never before have they faced such an awesome, complex situation in the world that is so fraught with hatred and terrorism and threats to the basic freedoms of our Nation and many other nations.

It is going to be a real challenge for that next President to shoulder the responsibilities of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. And this set of procedures that we presently have in place, which complies with the law of our land, which complies with international treaties, must be left intact to enable the Intelligence Committee to conduct their interrogations and do so to produce facts which could very well save this Nation and facts that are, every day, helping to save the men and women of the Armed Forces in uniform wherever they are in the world--primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan--as they pursue their courageous responsibilities on behalf of us here at home.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

As a Senator from Virginia, I am proud to have the CIA principal office in my State. I have been working with them for 30- some-odd years. I have gotten to know many of them through the years. They are not people who would set out to violate the laws of our Nation. They are just like you and me. They have families and the same values we share in the Senate and in our neighborhoods. They do go abroad and assume an awful lot of personal risk on a number of missions. But in terms of following the laws of our Nation, and the international laws, I think they stand head and shoulders, and they are to be commended.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the importance of the National Defense University, NDU, and its contribution to our national security. Since 1976, the NDU has been the premier center for Joint Professional Military Education. Under the direction and leadership of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, NDU provides an educational and research environment to prepare future leaders of the armed services, the Department of State, other civilian agencies, and allied countries for high-level policy, command, and staff responsibilities. In addition, a limited number of students from private industry attend the university. Members of both Houses of Congress have benefitted from interactions with students and experts on the NDU campus. Students are selected for their leadership potential and many NDU alumni have gone on to senior leadership positions in their service, agency, or country.

NDU is a center for joint, multinational, and interagency education. It is comprised of the National War College, NWC; Industrial College of the Armed Forces, ICAF; Joint Forces Staff College, JFSC; Information Resources Management College, IRMC; School for National Security Executive Education, SNSEE; Institute for National Strategic Studies, INSS; Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, CSWMD; Center for Technology and National Security Policy, CTNSP; Institute for National Security Ethics and Leadership; and five special programs: Capstone/Pinnacle/Keystone, Joint Reserve Affairs Center, JRAC; International Student Management Office, ISMO; Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program, SDCFP; and the NATO Staff Officer Orientation Course, NSOOC.

With facilities located in Washington, DC, and Norfolk, VA, more than 1,000 people attend university courses and programs on any given day. NDU is an accredited graduate-level university awarding approximately 600 masters degrees each year. Through agreements with a number of universities, IRMC students can earn 15 graduate credits for work completed at NDU.

At NDU, students are taught how to think--not what to think. The curriculum combines information technology, classroom experience, and experiential learning. Through lecture programs, students gain important insights from top military, government, industry, and international leaders to include the President of the United States, Cabinet-level officials, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commanders from major military commands, Members of Congress, civilian leaders, and foreign ministers of defense. Speakers talk frankly with students under the University's nonattribution policy allowing a free exchange of ideas.

Annually, NDU's outreach efforts include more than 500 conferences, symposia, and workshops; 20,000 visitors; 120 faculty and staff publications; and 350 conference presentations by university faculty and staff to both national and international audiences.

The award-winning NDU Press produces numerous publications, which address national security issues. The NDU Library with a collection of more than 500,000 bound items, audiovisual materials, classified documents, and on-line services is an extensive source for information about national security policy, military strategy, defense resource management, and industry studies.

The National Defense University is a significant and valuable institution for the development of leaders for America's national security needs.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on its 50th anniversary. Today, DARPA celebrates 50 years of innovation and dedication to America's security.

After the Soviet launch of Sputnik, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was determined to ensure this nation was never again surprised by the technological accomplishments of an adversary. On this day in 1958, a central research and development organization, known then as the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, and unlike any organization in the world, was created within the Department of Defense.

From the very beginning, its mission has been to ensure that the United States Armed Forces have access to the most advanced war fighting capabilities by developing ideas that many would consider too risky to implement. DARPA's mission is about making smart investments on high-payoff opportunities, and it has been very successful.

Over the past 50 years, DARPA has delivered to our country innovative technological achievements that have given American Forces never- before-seen capabilities. I also note that this achievement has not come without tremendous sacrifice by thousands of DARPA employees and their families as they worked long days to solve challenging scientific matters.

DARPA's notable achievements include early ballistic missile defense, stealth aircraft technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, and autonomous navigation. The benefits of DARPA's efforts have evolved in many ways, from the rocket engines that powered the first manned space flight to the smallest microelectronics in our cell phones today. DARPA also helped develop the Internet, and built the small receivers that made the global positioning system data easily accessible--both have changed the ways our forces operate, and have also changed the lives of all Americans for the better. Entire industries have developed from early DARPA-funded research in core technologies such as material sciences, microelectronics, photonics, and information technology.

I congratulate DARPA for its service to our Nation. The Agency's commitment and contributions over the past 50 years have made DARPA the crown jewel in our nation's national security and we look forward to the achievements they will continue to make for future generations.

As DARPA begins its work for the next 50 years, it is important that we do everything possible to help DARPA continue its tradition of excellence, and thus keep our Nation strong.

(At the request of Mr. REID, the following statement was ordered to be printe din the Record.)

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of the committee. I am privileged to serve on that committee with the senior Senator from the great State of Missouri.

I would like to first make a few opening comments, if I might.

Mr. President, first, I commend how well the distinguished Senator from Missouri has represented to this Chamber and its Members and, indeed, to all those in our Nation who are following this debate, how well he has represented a proper and balanced perspective and how a solution to the important questions that have been raised by all of us can be resolved.

In my own case, I have thought long and hard about this situation, and I would like to reflect on a bit of history. I was privileged to serve in the Department of Defense from the years 1969 to 1974 during the war in Vietnam. At the latter part of my service there, we originated the concept of the all-volunteer force. There was great skepticism as to whether this concept would work, and it was a high risk to abolish the draft and to enter into this concept of all volunteer, to be the only persons to be given the privilege of wearing the uniform of the United States of America in the branches of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines.

Fortunately, it was adopted by the President, eventually written into law by the Congress. That concept has worked. It is working at this very moment with brave young men and women all over the world. They are there because each of them raised their right hand and took the oath of office voluntarily.

I see a direct analogy to this question that is before this Chamber and, indeed, the Nation, the question of whether corporations, which although they did not raise their hand and volunteer, they have nonetheless volunteered comparably to the men and women in the Armed Forces.

The work product of their volunteering is every day saving and protecting the lives of our service personnel and, indeed, many others worldwide from the actions of terrorists and others who are trying to rip freedom away from our Nation and other nations.

So as we reach our decision on this issue, let's stop to think about the United States of America, while not written into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or otherwise, has throughout its history adopted a concept of voluntarism by its citizens, by its companies to step forward and take on serious problems that confront our Nation.

I see a direct analogy, I say to my distinguished colleague, and I stand steadfast with our committee which voted 13 to 2 to provide this framework which we hope will eventually become the law of the land, to give reasonable

protections to these companies that are part of the overall volunteer force, be they in uniform or corporations, working to protect our Nation.

Having said that, I say to my distinguished colleague, I think it is very important that we proceed to prepare a complete record for the scrutiny of all on these issues. I wish to suggest a question to my distinguished colleague.

All of us have heard a number of comments that more time is needed to study this issue, the issue of carrier liability, carriers being those companies that stepped up to work on behalf of the cause of freedom and preservation of our safety here at home. Hasn't the Intelligence Committee conducted a thorough and bipartisan review of the President's surveillance program? And hasn't the committee determined the providers acted in good faith?

For purposes of the record, I do not claim the credit. I was but one of many who worked on the concept of that great program. I found in this town, and as I know the Senator does likewise, the less credit you try and take, the more effective one can be in other tasks.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He said the committee ``concluded.'' It concluded by the manifestation of a vote of 13 to 2, so that an overwhelming majority of the committee, bipartisan, made this decision.

I think that is an important reference point.

Further, I say to my colleague, the committee's liability provision in the matters pending before this Senate today extends only to civil-- I underline civil--liability protection for those providers that allegedly assisted with the TSP program. Isn't this already a compromise from what the Director of the National Intelligence had initially requested of the Congress?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that because the DNI, Director McConnell, a former admiral--I knew him in the Navy going way back when I was there. As a matter of fact, as a point of reference, when I was Secretary, he was one of the junior officers who briefed me every morning at 7:30 on intelligence. But he has done an extraordinary job in presenting in a very fair and objective way the need for the revisions to this legislation which are reflected in the pending bill before the Senate as submitted by the committee.

I think the Senator has carefully delineated those portions which we resolved, as a committee, were essential and did not accept in full measure all his recommendations; am I not correct in that?

Again, Mr. President, I have to tell you, I was learning at a very young age and taking on responsibility in that critical period of history. I learned as much from him, if not more, than he did from me.

I have another question for my colleague. What consequences or risks are there if our private volunteer--I underline volunteer--participants by way of corporations are not given civil liability protection from the pending and ongoing lawsuits and perhaps others?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I think it is very important that we portray the risks that are associated with these endeavors taking place in the court system now. Again, I draw the attention of all colleagues to the thorough work done by this committee on which I am privileged to serve and the bipartisan manner in which we resolved these issues.

A question to my colleague: We heard some Members advocate substitution--in other words, a substituted solution--rather than a civil liability protection. Perhaps the Senator can address exactly what that substitution is and how, in his judgment, this would not be a means by which to resolve this very serious problem.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I would also add that there will be further chapters in the history of this country, and I cannot try to look that far into the future as to what those chapters may be when we, as a successor government to the one we now have in terms of our President, will be faced with another challenge and look to volunteers--volunteers--to solve this problem. This is going to be a landmark precedent for future Presidents as we address problems which could be assisted by the participation of the corporate world here in our United States.

A further question of my colleague. We have also heard some Members say the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should decide whether the providers acted in good faith. Wouldn't this duplicate the bipartisan work of the Intelligence Committee?

Madam President, no objection.

I would just ask if it would be possible--and I see my distinguished colleague on the floor seeking recognition--may I have but a few minutes to conclude my remarks here with my good friend and the ranking member of the committee?

Madam President, last year, when the important legislation passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the floor, I spoke about several elements in this bill. Specifically, I spoke about how the Intelligence Committee bill ensures that the intelligence gap that was closed by the Protect America Act in August remains sealed. I spoke about the important balance the Intelligence Committee bill strikes between protecting civil liberties and ensuring that our hard-working and dedicated intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect this Nation--a point I cannot too strongly emphasize. I also highlighted one of the most important provisions of the bill: retroactive liability protection for carriers alleged to have assisted the Government with the terrorist surveillance program. I said in December that, based on the documents and testimony provided to our committee, I strongly believed the carriers that have participated in the program relied--I repeat, relied--upon our Government--that is, the executive branch of the Government of the United States--that their actions were legal and in the best interests of the security of America. Further, I stated that, in my opinion, these companies deserve and must be protected from costly and damaging litigation in our court system.

During the Senate's Christmas recess, I had additional time to further study this issue, as I have day after day, and gather additional information. That time to reflect and study and to deepen my knowledge on this issue has only reinforced my view that the carrier liability protections in the Intelligence Committee's bill are not only necessary but vital for the protection of our future national security.

One item in particular has played a key role in my thinking about this issue. It was a thoughtful opinion piece written by three gentlemen I know very well, former public servants, and I wish to say a few words about that, and then I will conclude my remarks.

Three individuals stepped forward to give their perspectives on this critical issue. The first was Benjamin Civiletti, U.S. Attorney General under President Jimmy Carter; the second was Dick Thornburgh, U.S. Attorney General under President George Herbert Walker Bush; and thirdly, Judge William Webster, known very well by almost all of us here in the Chamber, former Director of the CIA and former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The article these fine public servants authored, titled ``Surveillance Sanity,'' appeared in the October 31, 2007, edition of the Wall Street Journal.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of that article following my remarks.

I wish to share some of the thoughts in that article with my colleagues.

First, regarding the Intelligence Committee's carefully crafted and limited liability protections, the three public servants said:

We agree with the committee. Dragging phone companies

through protracted litigation would not only be unfair, but

it would deter other companies and private citizens from

responding in terrorist emergencies whenever there may be

uncertainty or legal risk.

Our committee has heard testimony that without such protections, some companies believe they can no longer cooperate and assist our Government because they would risk hundreds of millions of dollars of their shareholders' money in protracted lawsuits. They have a fiduciary responsibility, those companies, to their shareholders. That is intrinsic in all of our corporate structures.

Second, the boards of directors of these companies have a fundamental obligation to those shareholders. On this issue, the three public servants wrote:

The government alone cannot protect us from the threats we

face today. We must have the help of all of our citizens.

There will be times when the lives of thousands of Americans

will depend on whether corporations such as airlines and

banks are willing to lend assistance. If we do not treat them

fairly when they respond to assurances from the highest

levels of the government that their help is legal and

essential for saving lives, then we will be radically

reducing our society's capacity to defend itself.

Moreover, I believe that companies which assisted the Government will not be treated fairly by the provision being offered by my Judiciary Committee colleagues to substitute the Government in currently pending lawsuits.

I strongly believe the substitution proposal is not an acceptable alternative to the Intelligence Committee's bill.

Additionally, if lawsuits are allowed to proceed, companies will still be forced to participate and provide evidence. The continuing damage in terms of business reputation and stock valuation even if the Government ultimately prevails, will surely be extremely harmful to the companies.

Further, the Government being substituted as the defendant in a trial opens up evidentiary problems regarding sources and methods which, if exposed, would hinder the ability of the intelligence community to intercept terrorist communications and those of our other enemies.

Finally, the last point I would like to raise relates to the right of individuals to file suit. Let me be clear--individuals who believe that the Government violated their civil liberties can pursue legal action against the Government--the Intelligence Committee's bill does nothing to limit that legal recourse.

This issue is underscored by the final quote I would like to share with you by Messrs. Civiletti, Thornburg, and Webster:

Whether the government has acted properly is a different

question from whether a private person has acted properly in

responding to the government's call for help. From

its earliest days, the common law recognized that when a

public official calls on a citizen to help protect the

community in an emergency, the person has a duty to help and

should be immune from being hauled into court unless it was

clear beyond doubt that the public official was acting

illegally. Because a private person cannot have all the

information necessary to assess the propriety of the

government's actions, he must be able to rely on officials

assurances about need and legality. Immunity is designed to

avoid the burden of protracted litigation, because the

prospect of such litigation itself is enough to deter

citizens from providing critically needed assistance.

Madam President--I agree with these distinguished gentlemen.

Bottom line, companies who participate in this program do so voluntarily to help America preserve its freedom and security. And that security will ensure for the very safety--both individually and collectively--of its citizens.

In closing, I would like to state that I have long supported the idea of ``an all-volunteer force'' for our military and I believe ``an all- volunteer force'' of citizens and businesses who do their part to protect our great Nation from harm is equally important.

Without this retroactive liability provision, I believe companies will no longer voluntarily participate. This will result in a degradation of America's ability to protect its citizens.

It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to support the Rockefeller-Bond substitute amendment to grant the men and women of the intelligence community the tools they need to protect our country.

Exhibit 1

[From The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 31, 2007]

Surveillance Sanity

(By Benjamin Civiletti, Dick Thornburgh and William Webster)

Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,

President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to

target al Qaeda communications into and out of the country.

Mr. Bush concluded that this was essential for protecting the

country, that using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

would not permit the necessary speed and agility, and that he

had the constitutional power to authorize such surveillance

without court orders to defend the country.

Since the program became public in 2006, Congress has been

asserting appropriate oversight. Few of those who learned the

details of the program have criticized its necessity.

Instead, critics argued that if the president found FISA

inadequate, he should have gone to Congress and gotten the

changes necessary to allow the program to proceed under court

orders. That process is now underway. The administration has

brought the program under FISA, and the Senate Intelligence

Committee recently reported out a bill with a strong

bipartisan majority of 13-2, that would make the changes to

FISA needed for the program to continue. This bill is now

being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Public disclosure of the NSA program also brought a flood

of class-action lawsuits seeking to impose massive liability

on phone companies for allegedly answering the government's

call for help. The Intelligence Committee has reviewed the

program and has concluded that the companies deserve targeted

protection from these suits. The protection would extend only

to activities undertaken after 9/11 until the beginning of

2007, authorized by the president to defend the country from

further terrorist attack, and pursuant to written assurances

from the government that the activities were both authorized

by the president and legal.

We agree with the committee. Dragging phone companies

through protracted litigation would not only be unfair, but

it would deter other companies and private citizens from

responding in terrorist emergencies whenever there may be

uncertainty or legal risk.

The government alone cannot protect us from the threats we

face today. We must have the help of all our citizens. There

will be times when the lives of thousands of Americans will

depend on whether corporations such as airlines or banks are

willing to lend assistance. If we do not treat companies

fairly when they respond to assurances from the highest

levels of the government that their help is legal and

essential for saving lives, then we will be radically

reducing our society's capacity to defend itself.

This concern is particularly acute for our nation's

telecommunications companies. America's front line of defense

against terrorist attack is communications intelligence. When

Americans put their loved ones on planes, send their children

to school, or ride through tunnels and over bridges, they are

counting on the ``early warning'' system of communications

intelligence for their safety. Communications technology has

become so complex that our country needs the voluntary

cooperation of the companies. Without it, our intelligence

efforts will be gravely damaged.

Whether the government has acted properly is a different

question from whether a private person has acted properly in

responding to the government's call for help. From its

earliest days, the common law recognized that when a public

official calls on a citizen to help protect the community in

an emergency, the person has a duty to help and should be

immune from being hauled into court unless it was clear

beyond doubt that the public official was acting illegally.

Because a private person cannot have all the information

necessary to assess the propriety of the government's

actions, he must be able to rely on official assurances about

need and legality. Immunity is designed to avoid the burden

of protracted litigation, because the prospect of such

litigation itself is enough to deter citizens from providing

critically needed assistance.

As the Intelligence Committee found, the companies clearly

acted in ``good faith.'' The situation is one in which

immunity has traditionally been applied, and thus protection

from this litigation is justified.

First, the circumstances clearly showed that there was a

bona fide threat to ``national security.'' We had suffered

the most devastating attacks in our history, and Congress had

declared the attacks ``continue to pose an unusual and

extraordinary threat'' to the country. It would have been

entirely reasonable for the companies to credit government

representations that the nation faced grave and immediate

threat and that their help was needed to protect American

lives.

Second, the bill's protections only apply if assistance was

given in response to the president's personal authorization,

communicated in writing along with assurances of legality.

That is more than is required by FISA, which contains a safe-

harbor authorizing assistance based solely on a certification

by the attorney general, his designee, or a host of more

junior law enforcement officials that no warrant is required.

Third, the ultimate legal issue--whether the president was

acting within his constitutional powers--is not the kind of

question a private party can definitively determine. The

companies were not in a position to say that the government

was definitely wrong.

Prior to FISA's 1978 enactment, numerous federal courts

took it for granted that the president has constitutional

power to conduct warrantless surveillance to protect the

nation's security. In 2002, the FISA Court of Review, while

not dealing directly with the NSA program, stated that FISA

could not limit the president's constitutional powers. Given

this, it cannot be said that the companies acted in bad faith

in relying on the government's assurances of legality.

For hundreds of years our legal system has operated under

the premise that, in a public emergency, we want private

citizens to respond to the government's call for help unless

the citizen knows for sure that the government is acting

illegally. If Congress does not act now, it would be

basically saying that private citizens should only help when

they are absolutely certain that all the government's actions

are legal. Given the threats we face in today's world, this

would be a perilous policy.

Madam President, I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, there are others seeking to be recognized and I shall be brief. But I think of my good friend in many ways, not the least of which, we are two Senators who stood in the well in kilts with our knobby knees showing and voted--to the astonishment of all our colleagues.

You have helped me through the years in many ways, particularly on the Defense bill. You have served on the committee. When that bill was dogged, disparaged, cast aside, you always were there to bring it back, sometimes six or seven times in the course of the spring, until we were able to pass it, always, always being guided by your heart and your concern for the men and women who wear the uniforms and their families.

But I wish to speak of you in a very personal way. We had our differences in elections. Like Bob Bennett, I was on the Alan Simpson team. I remember sitting in your office discussing that and voting for Simpson. You won, but you never held it against me or Bob or others. That is the way you managed this institution.

But I think back on my own career, insignificant as it is, and I reflect on the fact that I have been privileged to serve with 271 Senators in the 29 years that I have been privileged to serve. My dear friend Thad Cochran and I have that record together as we came to the Senate in the fall of 1968.

What I didn't know about the Senate--and surprisingly, I had the opportunity as Secretary of the Navy to come here for 5 years and testify many times and to come and respond to the calls of Members who, for whatever reason, wanted to talk to the Secretary about their particular problems--I never realized how all-consuming this body would be in terms of it becomes your family, they are your friends, and those bonds continuously grow year after year. When one Member is celebrating exhilaration, accomplishments,

be they on the floor of the Senate or be they in private life or whatever the case may be--winning an election, as Thad and I have done five consecutive times--you share those moments. But you also share the moments when a Member is faced with despair.

They often say the fall may be painful, but the road back is doubly challenging. I have watched you in those situations, and the strength that you and your lovely wife exhibited has been instilled in me. I pray to God that I never face some of the challenges that faced you: the devastation brought to your State, your graceful stepdown from the leadership, and your comeback, your magnificent and courageous restoration of your career in full--I say to you, Senator--in full. You made a tough decision, as I have done, not to return to this body and to our dear friends, but you did it on solid ground, and all of us join in our hopes that in your next challenge in life, you will make a contribution to this country you love, to the State you love, and to the Senate you love. Thank you for your friendship.

Mr. President, if I could get the attention of the distinguished chairman, might it be advisable that we rotate sides? I will be happy to follow a colleague on your side for purposes of this debate.

Fine. The Senator from Ohio is in support of the amendment of the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized following the Senator from Ohio for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, it had originally been established that I would speak now, but I am going to yield the time I have to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I think I can almost speak for our side with certainty. I have a few comments, followed by perhaps a minute and a half by the Republican leader, and then that way we can yield back time. I will proceed to give my comments.

I say to my good friend from Michigan that I picked one word out of his very impressive opening comments. I agree with his opening comments about the tragic situation by which the leadership in Iraq, their legislative body, has failed to act.

But one word you said impressed me, and that is ``military progress is being made.'' That is an exact quote you used. You felt if we didn't speak by adopting your amendment, there would be silence. I say to my good friend, the amendment by the distinguished Republican leader and the Senator from Connecticut, the McConnell-Lieberman amendment, will send a very strong message. Were we to adopt your amendment, it would be in conflict with that message. That is my concern. Therefore, I must say, I strongly support the McConnell-Lieberman amendment. I hope that will be voted on very shortly. I do believe, in all sincerity, your amendment would send a conflicting message. That message could be exceedingly troublesome. People don't understand the phraseology ``sense of the Senate.'' Al-Qaida would simply clip that off and then announce that we are going to leave in December, irrespective of the facts on the ground. Furthermore, we have not been in this fight alone. We put together a coalition of forces, a coalition of nations, primarily Great Britain and others, Poland. So far as I know, there has been no consultation with respect to your amendment to announce a goal by December of next year with those other fighting forces that, while they are smaller in number, are no less important as a symbol of the united effort of many nations to achieve, first, sovereignty in Iraq, which has been a wonderful goal that has been achieved, and now to enable that country to take its place rightfully in that region and be a strong voice for freedom and to fight al-Qaida.

I say to my friend, I will have to oppose his amendment because it would send a totally conflicting message with the underlying amendment, which is a very significant appropriation of funds to continue, as you say, in your very words, the ``progress'' of the military so far.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe we are about ready to vote on this side. We are going to have our leader speak for a minute, and then we can proceed. I simply, once again, say to my distinguished colleague from Michigan, while we are waiting for the Republican leader, with due respect, this will send a very conflicting message. If the Senate acts upon this appropriations tonight favorably, as I anticipate it will, coupled with your message, it could be misconstrued. Therefore, I strongly urge that the Senate accept the McConnell-Lieberman amendment but reject the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, the time is such, I understand from the Senator, that I may deliver a few remarks to the Senate; is that correct?

Madam President, I rise today because of the timely and critical importance of the issue before us. It is absolutely vital that we reform FISA, and we must do so quickly because the Protect America Act passed in August to close a dangerous intelligence gap is set to expire shortly. We must keep this gap closed, and we must do it in a way that protects civil liberties, protects telecommunications companies from unnecessary and costly lawsuits, and ensures that our hard-working and dedicated intelligence professionals have the tools they need to protect the Nation.

I have been privileged these 29 years I have been in the Senate to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia in which largely the intelligence community and the professionals therein have their base of operations. I have had the privilege of knowing these people. Stop to think: They have children in the schools in which our children are in, they attend the churches, they live in the communities. It has been my privilege to get to know many of them throughout the course of my career in the Senate and some 5 years plus previous that I had in the Department of Defense where I worked with these professionals. They are among America's finest individuals. They are dedicated. They take risks, great risks, so often when they are abroad. Indeed, we have

lost them at home right at the gateway to the entrance of the Central Intelligence Agency.

I was somewhat discouraged recently to hear broad accusations against the intelligence community, a lack of confidence that certain individuals in the Congress profess publicly to have. I assure them, based on my rather lengthy career and the good fortune to have worked with these professionals for so many years, I rank them among America's finest and most dedicated. It has been my privilege to take this floor many times in the past quarter century to speak on their behalf and to advocate causes which I think were in the best interests of the United States and which could, in many ways, affect their careers.

So I do so again today because reforming FISA has not been an easy process. I thank Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond for the work they have done to garner bipartisan support for the Senate Intelligence Committee bill, the FISA Amendments Act.

The committee members and staff have worked together for many months to produce this responsible bipartisan legislation that strikes the right balance between civil liberties and foreign surveillance. All of the parties involved had to make compromises, but the 13-to-2--I repeat, 13-to-2--vote in the committee on which I am privileged to serve in favor of this bill shows that the bill will protect America's private civil liberties without unnecessarily hindering the ability of our intelligence professionals to intercept terrorist communications.

In addition to bipartisan congressional support, the FISA Amendments Act has, after consultation, the support of Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. I have known this fine public servant for many years. When I was privileged to serve as Secretary of the Navy, he was on the staff of the Navy at that time. As a junior officer, he would often brief me in my capacity as Secretary early in the morning. I have enjoyed our friendship through the years and had the privilege to introduce him to the Senate for purposes of confirmation on several occasions.

History has ranked and will continue to rank Admiral McConnell among the foremost of those who stepped forward in my time for public service.

As I say, I have deep admiration and respect for Admiral McConnell's continued public service to the Nation and for the work of thousands of dedicated intelligence community professionals that he leads. His efforts to work with the Congress to formulate this bipartisan and complicated set of solutions to this serious national security issue are to be commended.

The committee was uniquely positioned to weigh and assess the many highly classified aspects of our foreign intelligence surveillance operations and to discuss and debate those sensitive issues before we drafted this legislation. The result is a bill that has the support of those valued public servants trusted to follow the law and a bill that will protect national security and will protect America's privacy.

The bill allows the intelligence community, through a joint certification by the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of National Intelligence, to target the communications of foreign overseas targets without the necessity of the FISA Court approval. This provides the speed and the agility the intelligence community needs--I emphasize ``the speed and the agility''--and keeps the foreign intelligence targets outside the purview of the FISA Court, which was the original intention of Congress when it drafted the FISA bill in 1978.

The FISA amendments also ensure the protection of America's civil liberties by providing that acquisition may only be conducted in accordance with targeting and minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General of the United States and reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Targeting must be consistent with the fourth amendment, and reverse targeting is specifically prohibited. There is also enhanced oversight by Congress, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and inspectors general.

One of the most important provisions in this bill is the retroactive carrier liability protection for those telecommunications carriers alleged to have assisted the Government with the terrorist surveillance program, known as TSP. While I believe that TSP was legal, essential, and contributed to preventing further terrorist attacks against our homeland, others may disagree.

There is no doubt, however, that the carriers that have participated in the program relied upon our Government's assurances that their actions were legal and in the best interests of the security of the United States of America.

These companies deserve and must be protected from costly and damaging lawsuits. The boards of directors have a fundamental obligation, as they do in all public corporations, to shareholders of these publicly owned institutions. Those who ask why the companies need such protection if they did not do anything illegal do not grasp the point that the Government's invocation of state secrets precludes companies from providing a court of law with any factual evidence confirming or denying their involvement in the program. That is to prevent sources and method. Sources and methods are the very heart of America's intelligence operations, as they are the world over. Some companies facing lawsuits, even if they never participated in the program, can likewise not defend themselves.

Some Senators have suggested Government substitution or indemnification of these companies, as the ones who did work in the program, as an alternate to the retroactive liability language in the bill. These are not suitable alternatives, in my judgment, for the companies or the intelligence community.

It is a recognized fact that lawsuits are most often extremely costly to a company in terms of damage to the business reputation and stock valuation could fluctuate. Even if a company ultimately prevails, they will suffer not only money damages possibly, costs possibly, in all probability even though there may be Government reimbursement, but damage which is incalculable in amount to their reputation and standing in their community. Again, if the Government pays the legal bill, that will not erase other injurious consequences that come about as a result of court proceedings. I myself engaged in the practice of law before I entered public service many years ago, and not much has changed. Further, the Government being substituted as the defendant in a trial opens evidentiary problems regarding, again, sources and methods, which is the vital ingredient of all our intelligence collecting processes. Individuals who believe the Government violated their civil liberties can pursue legal action against the Government--the United States Government--and the FISA Amendments Act does nothing to limit the legal recourse.

The bottom line, companies that participate in this program do so to help America protect its freedom and the safety, individually and collectively, of our citizens. Without this retroactive liability provision, I believe companies will no longer, and understandably, voluntarily participate in this program. The consequence of the loss of those companies stepping up--solely in the security interests of the United States, solely in the interests of protecting our citizens--to offer their services will result in irreparable damage to our collection of vital intelligence. It is as simple as that.

It is for these reasons I urge my colleagues to support the Intelligence-Committee-passed FISA Amendments Act and grant the men and women of the intelligence community the tools they need to protect the country and, indeed, the respect and admiration they deserve.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

If the chairman would yield for a minute, I would invite my colleagues on this side of the aisle on the Armed Services Committee to indicate to me if they desire to speak. You have heard the Republican leader urge that we move along as quickly as possible. But I will try to accommodate all those who wish to speak within the 30 minutes allocated on this side.

Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues, both in the House and Senate, for their tremendous bipartisan work on the fiscal year 2008 national defense authorization bill.

The Congress has passed the national defense authorization bill every year since 1959, and I have had the great privilege to have had a hand in this annual piece of legislation each of my 29 years in the Senate.

This bill accomplishes the following: supports our troops deployed in harm's way; bolsters the readiness of our Armed Forces; reforms the acquisition practices of the Department of Defense; addresses the problems in military medical care uncovered at Walter Reed and elsewhere; provides needed equipment to protect our deployed forces; and strengthens the quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and their families.

To care for those who serve in uniform, their families, and retired veterans, this legislation authorizes $696.4 billion which includes the base budget for fiscal year 2008--$507 billion--and the President's emergency supplemental requests for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism--$189 billion--made in February, July, and October.

It authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed service personnel.

It continues the authorization to pay over 25 separate bonuses and special pay critical to successful recruiting and retention.

It authorizes fiscal year 2008 end strengths for the Army and Marine Corps of 525,400 and 189,000 respectively, which is an increase of 13,000 for the Army and 9,000 for the Marine Corps.

It includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which will improve health care and benefits for recovering veterans, recovering servicemembers and their families, and begin the process of reform of the Department of Defense, DOD, and Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, disability evaluation systems.

It requires DOD and Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on improvements to care, management, and transition of recovering servicemembers in an outpatient status.

It authorizes payment of combat-related special compensation to servicemembers medically retired for a combat-related disability. Payment is equal to the amount of retired pay forfeited because of the prohibition on concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation.

It reduces below age 60 the age at which a member of a Reserve component may draw retirement pay by 3 months for every aggregate 90 days' service on active duty under certain mobilization authorities.

It guarantees combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30 days of their request.

It includes several provisions to continue to provide best quality health care to servicemembers and their families and provisions that would enhance the ability of the services to attract health care personnel.

It guarantees combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30 days of their request.

To ensure that servicemembers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are properly equipped, this legislation adds over $17 billion for mine resistant ambush protected--MRAP--vehicles that improve protection for our troops exposed to the improvised explosive device, IED, threat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It funds over $4 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Office, JIEDDO.

It authorizes funds to procure ammunition, modernize ammunition plants, and protect and enhance military training ranges.

To meet current and future threats to our country's national security, this bill requires the DOD to develop a competitive engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter and authorized $480 million for this purpose.

It authorizes more than $13 billion for Navy shipbuilding.

It provides mulltiyear procurement authority for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 Virginia-class submarines, and adding $588 million in advance procurement funding to support buying an additional submarine in 2010.

It adds $51 million to the budget request to provide increased space situational awareness capabilities to address concerns raised as a result of the recent Chinese kinetic antisatellite weapons test.

It authorizes $220.4 billion to meet the operation and maintenance requirements of the services to support combat operations and improve the readiness of deploying and nondeploying forces.

To ensure for the effective oversight of Department of Defense contracts, contractors, and acquisition workforce, this legislation requires private security contractors operating on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan to comply with DOD regulations and rules on the use of force, as well as orders and directives from combatant commanders regarding force protection, security, health, safety, and interaction with local nationals.

It establishes a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan to study and investigate Federal agency contracting for reconstruction, logistics support, and security functions in those countries, and make recommendations as to how contracting processes could be improved in the future.

It strengthens oversight of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan by establishing a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, modeled after the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

It includes the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007, which would improve the management and oversight of DOD acquisition programs.

It strengthens statutory protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts by providing, for the first time, a private right of action in Federal court for contractor employees who are subject to reprisal for their efforts to protect the taxpayers' interests.

To recognize the responsibilities and enhance the role of the National Guard, this legislation includes the National Guard Empowerment Act which authorizes promotion of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the rank of four-star general and recognizes the responsibilities and enhanced role of the National Guard.

Finally, to ensure the effective security and remediation of Department of Energy sites, this act supports enhanced security at Department of Energy, DOE, nuclear sites and the development of new technology to promote environmental cleanup of DOE sites.

Madam President, this important bill will maintain our readiness and support the military's transformation to meet the 21st century's threats. I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation.

Madam President, I direct persons to the committee report, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. On page 334 there appears a provision, section 1079, entitled: ``Communications with the Committees On Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.'' I will read a part of it to familiarize people:

The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the

director of a national intelligence center, or the head of

any element of the intelligence community shall, not later

than 45 days after receiving a written request from the Chair

or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services

of the Senate or the Committee on Armed Services of the House

of Representatives--

The Senate and the House provide certain information.

I worked with this provision at the time it was framed in our committee, and I want to say for the record that it was never intended, nor do I personally find any wording in this amendment, which would include the daily brief provided to the President of the United States. That is the exclusive property under executive privilege of the President.

Madam President, I wish to add on that list on the Wounded Warrior Senator Webb, who took a very active role in that.

Our respective leaders have asked us to keep this debate limited as best we can. I know of only one speaker on my side who is seeking 5 minutes. I think our distinguished chairman covered the matter very carefully as he always does.

It has been a privilege for me to participate in the preparation of this conference report and to work on the other committee matters throughout the year. As the chairman said, Senator McCain is on a mission, a mission I happen to support strongly. I am happy to work with Senator Levin instead of Senator McCain. His chief of staff, seated next to me, Mike Kostiw, and I were in constant contact with him, and in every way Senator McCain had hands on in the affairs of the committee this year as ranking member in the preparation of this report.

Senator McCain and I have known each other ever since I was Secretary of the Navy. He was then in the prison camps. Shortly thereafter, when he joyously returned home to a nation that welcomed him with open heart, we have been friends ever since. It was quite logical for him to ask me to work in his stead. This is the 29th year Senator Levin and I have occupied these two chairs. Particularly the last 17 years, either I have been chairman or he has been chairman or ranking member of the committee. Our partnership is rather extraordinary. I anticipate he will maintain and continue that strong effort to make this committee what it is, nonpartisan in its function, in large measure, with Senator McCain after my departure a year hence.

Again, I salute my good friend for his leadership as chairman this year. He is always open to me and other members of the Republican side of the committee to entertain their views very fairly and objectively, thoroughly. And together with our superb professional staff, we have managed to put together a very commendable bill for the Senate and now this conference report for the whole of the Congress.

Having said that, I join in his recognition of Ike Skelton and Duncan Hunter, the two partners we have worked with for many years on the House side. This was his first year as chairman for Congressman Skelton. We worked in the final stages of the preparation of this bill, the four of us, on many key issues to resolve differences between the House and Senate. Ike Skelton is an extraordinary leader. He has been on that committee many years and has been about as long as we have in the Congress. We are fortunate to have his services, as we do the services of Senator Levin.

I yield the floor. The chairman may wish to recognize a speaker on his side. Then I will recognize a speaker on our side.

Madam President, I thank my good friend. I wish to add our respective wives who have spent long hours waiting for us as we have traveled so many times in these almost 30 years to places all over the world together and left them at home, and many nights late here. They have been a good team to support both of us.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, in a slightly different form, a list of the staff-- professional staff and several personal staff--on my side who have helped in the preparation of the Senate bill and the preparation of the conference report. While there is some redundancy, I think the Record should reflect my specific appreciation to these many people who make it possible for the chairman and ranking member to prepare these bills and then the reports. So I have infinite respect and gratitude for each of them.

Now, Madam President, on this side, we have the Senator from Oklahoma. I say to the Senator from Michigan, I understand, Mr. Chairman, the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, wishes to say a few words in support of the bill at the end.

Perhaps, Madam President, we should have the Chair inform us as to the remainder of the time for each side.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Madam President, I think it is important for the colloquy that the Senator and I are now having that the copy of the amendment that was once in the bill and deleted be put in the Record at this point. Does the Senator have it with him? If we could do that, that would be helpful.

Madam President, I wish to assure my colleague from Oklahoma that this is a matter I personally have discussed with Senator McCain many times. He would hope that the committee in the coming year would address, once again, the amendment and the ramifications therefrom.

I think that is the intention, is it not, Mr. Chairman?

I think the committee will once again revisit this subject with the Senator from Oklahoma.

I thank the Senator and I join the chairman.

I was going to grant from our time allocation 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. He has been a strong, hard-working member of our committee these many years, and I was happy to accommodate him with time.

On my side, the distinguished Senator from Georgia has indicated he would not seek to speak. There is one remaining Senator, I understand, the other Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. When he appears, I will recognize him for the purpose of making a few remarks.

Mr. President, I spoke to our friend from West Virginia. He said he will not speak now. He also wants to expedite this bill. On our side, it could be that Senator Inhofe may appear for a minute or two.

Mr. President, I ask now that the remainder of my time be given to the Senator from Oklahoma.

On our side, the distinguished Republican leader is the sole remaining speaker. I understand he will be coming to the floor shortly.

Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague in paying tribute to our distinguished leader, Senator Byrd. I remember the years when we served under him as majority leader. He always let the Armed Services Committee get whatever time it needed on the floor to handle our bills. And then, of course, through all these many years, I pleaded with him to reunite West Virginia and Virginia, bring them back as one mighty State again. I indicated I would yield my position to the Senator and retire into oblivion and let him become the distinguished Senator. He has not accepted my request.

That is true.

I also thank the Republican leader for the support he has given me and Senator McCain in leading the work of our committee, together with our members. I thank each and every one of those members, some of whom are on the floor now prepared to vote.

Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada for his thoughtful remarks. While we may have differences on the course, direction, and policies, I don't know of any Senator who comes to the floor and can speak with greater sense of compassion on behalf of the men and women who wear the uniform and their families and those who have borne the brunt of this conflict, not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan and other places.

I also ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Webb, be granted 2 minutes. He worked with Senator Murray on the Wounded Warrior Act. I knew him very well when he returned from Vietnam. He served on my staff as a young Marine captain. Had it not been for what he suffered in that war, he might still be in the Marine Corps today.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the families who lost loved ones and to those who suffered injuries as consequence of the horrific shootings that claimed 32 innocent lives on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Tech. Having traveled to Virginia Tech the day after the shootings, I joined with the families and campus community in mourning. It is a memory that I carry with me to this day. We all greatly admire the ability of those who lost loved ones, and those who themselves were injured, to come together to support each other.

In the aftermath of that tragic day, over 20,000 individuals and groups across the country demonstrated their overwhelming support for the victims and their families with generous financial donations that totaled approximately $8.5 million. The Virginia Tech administration established the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund within the Virginia Tech Foundation to accept these charitable contributions. Indeed, all of America can take pride in this outpouring of sympathy and support.

On October 30, 2007, the University officially distributed these funds to the 79 families and individuals in accordance with the protocols established by the Fund. While no amount of money can truly compensate for the loss of life or limb, these payments provide both the families of the deceased and the injured survivors with some financial resources to help, in some modest way.

Unfortunately, Federal law was not clear as to whether these payments are subject to federal taxation. Congress recognized this uncertainty and this week expeditiously passed clarifying legislation that I sponsored in the Senate along with Senator Webb ensuring that these payments are exempt from federal taxation. The House measure was introduced by Representatives Boucher and Goodlatte. Having overwhelmingly passed both Houses of Congress, the bill will now be sent to the President with every expectation to be signed into law.

Passage of this legislation could not have occurred without the support of several key groups. This October, family members and victims came to Capitol Hill to discuss the tragic day of April 16 and ways we could help prevent such events from taking place in the future. Later, I learned of the plans to distribute payments from the Fund to these families and victims. The administration of Virginia Tech along with some family members shared with my office in a very solemn and respectful manner the tax uncertainty associated with the Hokie Fund payments. These same concerns were echoed by accountants in the community who had volunteered their time to assist these families and victims.

Having learned of this unfortunate tax predicament, my colleagues and I in Congress responded accordingly with swift introduction and consideration of legislation to ensure that we provide assistance to the families and victims in overcoming this horrific tragedy. Members and their staffs worked extremely hard to obtain speedy passage of this legislation, and I rise today to thank everyone who made enactment of this legislation possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to name the new Richmond courthouse for two distinguished Virginia jurists, Judge Spottswood W. Robinson III and Judge Robert Merhige, Jr.

Since the selection of the College of William and Mary as the site for the Nation's first law school, Virginia's contribution to the field of law is arguably without equal. Virginia practitioners such as George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Monroe and Henry Clay have all profoundly shaped and molded our country's legal traditions.

Continuing in that rich tradition, Judge Spottswood W. Robinson, III, and Judge Robert Merhige, Jr. were lawyers who throughout their careers adhered to the principles of ``equal justice under law.''

Spottswood William Robinson, III was born in Richmond, Virginia on July 26, 1916. He attended Virginia Union University and then Howard University School of Law, graduating first in his class in 1939 and serving as member of the faculty until 1947.

Judge Robinson was one of the core attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1948 to 1960, achieving national prominence in the legal community with his representation of the Virginia plaintiffs in the 1954 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education that declared ``separate but equal'' schools unconstitutional.

In 1964, Judge Robinson became the first African-American to be appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Robinson the first African-American to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African-American to serve as Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit.

Judge Merhige was born in New York in 1919 and attended High Point College in North Carolina. Later, he earned his law degree from T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond, from which he graduated at the top of his class in 1942.

From 1942 to 1945, Judge Merhige served in the United States Air Force and then practiced law in Richmond from 1945 until 1967. While practicing in Richmond, Judge Merhige established himself as a formidable trial lawyer representing a wide variety of clients. In August of 1967, Judge Merhige was appointed U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division by President Lyndon B. Johnson, where he served for over 30 years.

While on the Federal bench, Judge Merhige presided over some of the most important and complicated litigation in U.S. history. In 1970, he ordered the University of Virginia to admit women, and 2 years later he ordered the desegregation of dozens of Virginia school districts. As evidence of Judge Merhige's groundbreaking decisions, he was given 24- hour protection by Federal marshals, due to repeated threats of violence against him and his family. His courage in the face of the significant opposition of the times is a testimony to his dedication to the rule of law.

I have been down to Richmond to see the new courthouse, and I can tell you it is a magnificent structure, and as such, I carefully took this responsibility in naming the U.S. Federal courthouse in Richmond. No name is more fitting for this important structure than naming it after two legal giants--both jurists--the Robinson-Merhige Federal Courthouse.

I thank the Senate for the consideration of this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues seeking its passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to name the new Richmond courthouse for two distinguished Virginia jurists, Judge Spottswood W. Robinson III and Judge Robert Merhige, Jr.

Since the selection of the College of William and Mary as the site for the Nation's first law school, Virginia's contribution to the field of law is arguably without equal. Virginia practitioners such as George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Monroe and Henry Clay have all profoundly shaped and molded our country's legal traditions.

Continuing in that rich tradition, Judge Spottswood W. Robinson, III, and Judge Robert Merhige, Jr. were lawyers who throughout their careers adhered to the principles of ``equal justice under law.''

Spottswood William Robinson, III was born in Richmond, Virginia on July 26, 1916. He attended Virginia Union University and then Howard University School of Law, graduating first in his class in 1939 and serving as member of the faculty until 1947.

Judge Robinson was one of the core attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1948 to 1960, achieving national prominence in the legal community with his representation of the Virginia plaintiffs in the 1954 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education that declared ``separate but equal'' schools unconstitutional.

In 1964, Judge Robinson became the first African-American to be appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 1966, President Johnson appointed Judge Robinson the first African-American to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African-American to serve as Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit.

Judge Merhige was born in New York in 1919 and attended High Point College in North Carolina. Later, he earned his law degree from T.C. Williams School of Law at the University of Richmond, from which he graduated at the top of his class in 1942.

From 1942 to 1945, Judge Merhige served in the United States Air Force and then practiced law in Richmond from 1945 until 1967. While practicing in Richmond, Judge Merhige established himself as a formidable trial lawyer representing a wide variety of clients. In August of 1967, Judge Merhige was appointed U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division by President Lyndon B. Johnson, where he served for over 30 years.

While on the Federal bench, Judge Merhige presided over some of the most important and complicated litigation in U.S. history. In 1970, he ordered the University of Virginia to admit women, and 2 years later he ordered the desegregation of dozens of Virginia school districts. As evidence of Judge Merhige's groundbreaking decisions, he was given 24- hour protection by Federal marshals, due to repeated threats of violence against him and his family. His courage in the face of the significant opposition of the times is a testimony to his dedication to the rule of law.

I have been down to Richmond to see the new courthouse, and I can tell you it is a magnificent structure, and as such, I carefully took this responsibility in naming the U.S. Federal courthouse in Richmond. No name is more fitting for this important structure than naming it after two legal giants--both jurists--the Robinson-Merhige Federal Courthouse.

I thank the Senate for the consideration of this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues seeking its passage.