Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I thank all the Members of the Senate. We just had two historic votes. The men and women in the Armed Forces, particularly those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, will be greatly heartened to hear that the Senate has given the strongest possible advice and consent, each Member coming to the floor and casting their vote. I think it is a landmark situation and one which is respected and appreciated across our uniformed services and the many civilians who serve with them.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from Missouri on the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to speak for maybe 4 minutes. My distinguished colleague from Connecticut, who is too humble to say so, perhaps, deserves credit for what is going on this morning, together with Senator Cornyn. We are about to wind up in less than 15 minutes. I would think that at 11:15 we would be ready to go on the bill, and I wish to join the Senator from Missouri on this bill.

No.

So I would put it in the form of a unanimous consent request that we be allowed to continue at this point.

Mr. President, I am very heart warmed that this concept is giving us the opportunity to talk about these magnificent documents. I was fortunate at one time to be designated by the President and actually confirmed by the Senate in a position for the Nation's bicentennial to lead discussions all across America in all 50 States-- and indeed I traveled to 22 foreign countries--working on the concept of America's bicentennial and of the magnificence of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. I remember so well when talking to audiences the rapt attention that was given at that period in our history about the importance of these documents. Not one, not two--I don't know how many people would say to me that they felt the hand of divine providence came down and rested upon the shoulders of the Founding Fathers to put together such a magnificent framework of government.

That framework of government today stands as the longest and oldest surviving form of a democratic republic on Earth. It is something to think about. All the other forms of government--monarchies and so forth--have either been changed or have gone into the dust bin of history but not ours. It is because of the genius of these individuals that enables us to carry forward.

I remember I was challenged one time that Switzerland's Government was continuous. I reminded them that Napoleon crossed the Alps, I think it was in--and I will check it and correct it for the record--in about 1827 and annexed Switzerland to France. That persisted for some 18 months, and then Napoleon decided it was too cold over there, didn't want it, and cut it loose and let it go. I will polish that history later on.

I believe we should focus on the magnificence of this document, its endurance, and that we are proudly the trustees of this framework of government, to make it work as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. We recognize that with the passage of time, there are things that have overtaken some of the original--not their basic concepts, but just the electronic world in which we live now, the instantaneous information world and all of those things have contributed. Nevertheless, we are the oldest surviving democratic republic on Earth today because of the magnificent work of the Founding Fathers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership and the floor managers, I have been asked to propound a unanimous-consent request that the following Senators be recognized, assuming they are here on the floor in time to be recognized: I will speak now for about 15 minutes, to be followed by Senator Carper for 10 minutes. I see my distinguished friend, the Senator from Mississippi; if he could indicate how much time he would like.

He is to be joined by Senator Wicker.

All right.

All right. And Senator Stabenow, I do not see her, but let's put her down for 10, and Senator Cornyn.

With that in mind--I do not see any other Senators seeking recognition--I ask it in the form of a unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I rise, along with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee on which I am privileged to serve. I commend my chairman and ranking member for the extraordinary capability with which they have handled this controversial issue of

the FISA legislation and the bipartisanship they have shown. Our committee voted 13 to 2 on this measure which is now before the Senate. Currently, we have the Bingaman and Specter amendments. I join my chairman and ranking member in opposing these two amendments. They seek in one way or another to remove or render useless one of the most important sections of the FISA Amendments Act which is liability protection for the telecommunication carriers that assisted our Government with the President's terrorist surveillance program or TSP. Without the title II liability protection, the other sections of the FISA Amendments Act would become irrelevant because the carriers would not cooperate in the authorized programs.

This would be unfortunate, because the FISA Amendments Act is a critical piece of legislation for America's present and future security that achieves an important balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring that our dedicated intelligence professionals have the capabilities they need to protect the Nation. The bill ensures that the intelligence capabilities provided by the Protect America Act, enacted in August 2007, remain sealed in statute.

Reforming FISA has not been an easy process. I would like to thank Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond for the work they have done to garner bipartisan support for the FISA Amendments Act. It would be unfortunate if that work were undone by one of these amendments.

If passed, the Specter amendment would prohibit the dismissal of the lawsuits against the telecommunications carriers if the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program were found to be unconstitutional by the courts. With all due respect to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I believe that whether the President acted within his constitutional authorities should be treated separately from the issue of whether the carriers acted in good faith.

The extensive evidence made available to the Intelligence Committee shows that carriers who participated in this program relied upon our Government's assurances that their actions were legal and in the best interest of the security of America.

Mr. President, I would like to call the Senate's attention to the report which accompanied the version of the FISA Amendments Act passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13-2. Based on the committee's extensive examination of the President's TSP, the report noted that the executive branch provided written directives to the carriers to obtain their assistance with the program. After its review of all of the relevant correspondence, the committee concluded that the letters ``stated that the activities had been authorized by the President [and] had been determined to be lawful'' The committee report added the following:

On the basis of the representations in the communications to

providers, the Committee concluded that the providers, in the

unique historical circumstances of the aftermath of September

11, 2001, had a good faith basis for responding to the

requests for assistance they received. Section 202 makes no

assessment about the legality of the President's program. It

simply recognizes that, in the specific historical

circumstances here, if the private sector relied on written

representations that high-level Government officials had

assessed the program to be legal, they acted in good faith

and should be entitled to protection from civil suit.

The Senate Intelligence Committee believed, by a vote of 13-2, that the companies acted in good faith and that they deserve to be protected. I agree and I believe that the TSP was legal, essential, and contributed to preventing further terrorist attacks against our homeland.

But, even if one were to disagree that the President acted within his article II powers, I cannot see the wisdom in seeking to punish the carriers and their shareholders for something the Government called on the carriers to do with the assurance that the action was legal.

The Specter amendment would put the companies, and their millions of shareholders, in legal limbo, waiting while the Government litigates unrelated constitutional claims. Historically, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to adjudicate constitutional disputes between the political branches of our Government, suggesting that a constitutional question could take years to resolve, if it can be resolved. Lawsuits against the companies would likely continue in the interim which would: Have negative ramifications on our intelligence sources and methods; likely harm the business reputations of these companies; and cause the companies to reconsider their participation--or worse--cause them to terminate their cooperation in the future.

I believe it would be unfair to use private companies as a substitute to adjudicate constitutional claims properly directed against the Government. My colleagues should keep in mind that individuals who believe that the Government violated their civil liberties can pursue legal action against the Government, and the FISA Amendments Act does nothing to limit that legal recourse. As noted by my colleague from West Virginia, the case that was before Judge Walker--which addresses a constitutional challenge against the government--can proceed.

Bottom line, companies who participate in this program do so voluntarily to help America preserve its freedom and the safety-- individually and collectively--of its citizens. I have long supported the idea of a ``volunteer force'' for our military and I believe a ``volunteer force'' of citizens and businesses who do their part to protect our great Nation from harm is equally important. I fear that if we are forced to draft companies into compliance when our Nation calls them to duty, ultimately our security will suffer. 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 oppose the Specter amendment and any other amendment that would change the FISA Amendments Act.

I yield the floor.

I wish to conclude by saying that as I view this situation, I liken the private sector that has responded to the request of the Federal Government, which has been given assurances by the Federal Government, to the all-volunteer military force we have today. It is imperative that within the private sector there be elements, primarily these corporations and companies which have come forward to provide the technical assistance and also the facilities by which to implement the FISA program. They have done it by and large voluntarily. The program could not succeed without their participation. Therefore, they ask no more than what is justly owed to them, and that is protection from the lawsuits. I hope we can turn back these two amendments and proceed to final passage and that the Senate will go on record as supporting the essential nature of the FISA program.

Energy Crisis

Mr. President, I rise to turn to the question that confronts America today; namely, the energy crisis. I use the word ``crisis'' advisedly, because today no less than a third of Americans are absolutely struggling night and day to find the funds necessary to meet ever increasing food prices and ever increasing energy prices. It is for that reason I have taken a step. I wish to repeat that. I have simply taken a step to write the Secretary of Energy and to write the Comptroller General, the head of the GAO, to determine what are the facts relating to the 1973-1974 energy crisis, how America addressed that crisis, and the actions taken by the President and the Congress in 1973-1974. Again, Congress acted unanimously to back the President in imposing a national speed limit, that speed limit for the purpose of lessening the demand for gasoline and hopefully to have consequent savings at the gas pump.

That is a chapter in American history. I remember it quite well. I was privileged at that time to be Secretary of the Navy. Indeed, the Department of Defense, although at war in Vietnam, came forward and participated to try and help America work its way through that energy crisis. The national speed limit was the centerpiece of that program.

I ask unanimous consent now to print in the Record the letters I sent to the Secretary of Energy and the Comptroller General at the conclusion of my remarks.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Again, I am not taking a position that at this time we should invoke a new initiative in the Congress to pass legislation calling for a national speed limit because I simply do not have the facts. I am on a fact-finding mission. But if those facts come forward, as I believe they will, and show that this will help alleviate and lessen the demand at the pump and the cost to the American citizen, then I am quite likely to try--more than that, I am quite probably going to try--and garner support on both sides of the aisle to push forward with this legislation. I say so because I come back again to about a third of America at this point in time is frantically trying to make ends meet. We have to come up with a solution. We have to lead in the Congress, and hopefully the President will join. We have that duty.

Therefore, these two letters going to, certainly, the GAO, an impartial arbiter of the facts and finder of the facts, will provide this Chamber with the information necessary to make an informed judgment as to whether to go forth with legislation. I deem that the Secretary of Energy will reflect, quite understandably, the policy of an administration toward such a measure to bring about alleviation of the pressures at the gas pump today and on families.

Again, this step is in the category of conservation of energy. My colleagues--and I have participated with them--are looking at, in my opinion, three areas of addressing this problem: short-term, which is conservation, that is the only way to bring about some immediate measure of relief; secondly, intermediate steps, which I outlined in my speech here; and lastly, the long term. Much has been said about long- term steps. I take pride and push aside any sense of humility because for several years I have stood on this floor and urged offshore drilling, even put forth a measure here in this body which was defeated which called for the right of my State, Virginia, and such other States that might wish to join, through the Governor and the State legislature's participation, agreeing to drilling offshore of Virginia for gas. I am not suggesting I brought about a change of thinking in the administration, but the President now supports that concept. Indeed, a number of my colleagues now support that concept. I opine that I believe in due course the Congress will provide the President with legislation to take those important steps. But that offshore drilling will not lessen the price today at the pump.

It will not help a case which was the final straw to decide that I would embark on this course, when I read an article about the meals on wheels program where the shut-ins at home, who for economic reasons and physical reasons and other reasons can't go out and get their meals. They rely upon a system of volunteers to bring the meals to their homes. But that program is beginning to founder because the volunteers simply cannot afford the additional cost of gasoline. I don't know about my colleagues, but this causes me severe heart palpitations and concern. The reporter said to me, when he interviewed me on this an hour or so ago, a national reporter: All right, Senator, are you willing to drive at a slower rate? What sort of car are you driving?

I told him what type of car I drive. I said: There are occasions when I drive over 55 miles an hour, 60 miles an hour, sometimes 65. But I am willing to give up whatever advantage to me to drive at those speeds with the fervent hope that that modest sacrifice on my part will help those people across this land tonight and tomorrow and in the indefinite future dealing with this financial crisis.

I point out also that in 1973-1974, these were automobiles, how well I remember, without growth of the quick production lines that started after World War II. America was flourishing. Then all of a sudden, the Arabs put an oil embargo on this country and took away our ability to get fuel. The President reacted quickly. The Congress reacted quickly. We put in that limit. In due course, the pressure on the pump declined and gas fell to about $2 a gallon. In 1995, 20 years after the enactment of this legislation by the Congress and the President, the 55 miles was lifted. Mind you, it wasn't one President; it was a series of Presidents who endorsed this program of conservation in terms of the reduction of speed. I don't know. At one time I used to be a pretty good mechanic on automobiles, but they have now gotten a degree of complexity that is beyond my grasp. I rely on my son, who has devoted much of his life to auto racing.

He is a wonderful mechanic and an engineer on cars. He said the carburetion system--he argued with me about this when I spent the past weekend with him--shook his fist at me: I don't want this 55-mile-per- hour limit. And that is good advice. But he said the carburetion systems in cars today are better than they were in 1973 and 1974, and I judge that to be the case.

So I asked in my letters: Analyze the technical capabilities of the cars today, and could we anticipate bringing about a savings at the gas pump by virtue of a national speed limit? So we have to get the facts and put them together.

But I ask my colleagues, as they proceed to work on this issue--and I am all for the renewables, but that is long term. Offshore drilling: long term. We have to focus now on what measures we can take to help people now, if not long term.

I know colleagues are getting the same calls and the same letters I am receiving from those people who, frankly, feel very oppressed by this rapid development. Although it has increased basically a dollar a gallon in the last year, so much of it has come on in the last 120 days, unanticipated in speed and causing great hardship here at home.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, July 3, 2008.

Hon. Samuel W. Bodman,

Secretary of Energy,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Bodman: I write today with respect to the

high cost of gasoline. Today, the average cost of a gallon of

regular gasoline is more than $4.10. This is an increase of

well over a dollar a gallon from a year ago.

As you know, each and every day, Americans struggle to cope

with this rapid, record increase in fuel costs. Across the

United States, individual Americans are taking their own

initiatives to find ways to reduce gas consumption through

driving less, altering daily routines, and even changing or

cancelling family vacation plans.

To date, as far as I can determine, the federal government

has taken few, if any, initiatives to join in this national

effort to help address this ever increasing crisis.

I believe it is essential that we continue to modernize our

energy infrastructure and develop a reliable, commonsense

American energy strategy--one that includes new supplies from

domestic exploration and extraction, encourages conservation,

and promotes the use and advancement of clean, renewable

energies.

I am among a group of many senators today who are working

in a bipartisan fashion to find a solution. For the past

several years, I have supported permitting the Commonwealth

of Virginia to explore and extract energy offshore if its

Governor and General Assembly so desire. This concept has

just recently gained the support of the administration and a

growing number of colleagues in Congress.

However, the truth is that new technologies and new sources

of energy will not provide meaningful relief for years to

come as new technologies are developed and as new sources of

energy are discovered and extracted. We must be straight with

the American public and not raise hopes that these efforts

will provide immediate solutions and possible relief.

There are ways to give some immediate relief. In my view:

new conservation efforts are the quickest way to see an

immediate reduction in the price of gas at the pump. The

American public is already doing its part through individual

means of cutting back.

On a federal level, on May 22, 2008, Senator Bingaman and I

introduced, and the Senate unanimously passed by voice vote,

a sense-of-the-Senate resolution (S. Res. 577) that urged the

President to initiate, among all federal departments and

agencies of the executive branch, a reduction of their daily

consumption of gasoline--if only by a small percentage.

To my knowledge, the administration has not responded to

the Senate's action. In the absence of pending administration

action, Congress should join with the public and make the

concepts in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution a mandatory

law.

Turning to another concept, I call to your attention action

taken by the Congress and the executive branch during a

similar petroleum shortage that occurred in 1973 and 1974. In

January 1974, the President signed into

law ``The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act'' (public

Law 93-239), which passed both the House and Senate

unanimously. This law was enacted in an effort to conserve

fuel.

Specifically, the law put forth inducements for states to

reduce speed limits to 55 miles per hour (mph) on all major

highways. Failure to do so would jeopardize the ability of

states to secure federal highway funds. The law was

originally intended to be temporary, ceasing to be in effect

if the President declared that there was no longer a fuel

shortage or on or after June 30, 1975, whichever occurred

first.

According to a Congressional Research Service report, the

law resulted in reduced consumption of 167,000 barrels of

petroleum a day, a roughly 2 percent reduction in the

nation's highway fuel consumption. In addition, the National

Academy of Sciences found that the law saved up to 4,000

lives per year from highway accidents. Given the significant

increase in the number of vehicles on America's highway

system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of

fuel that could be conserved today is far greater.

Given the fuel savings of the act, and the resulting

significant decrease in highway fatalities attributable to

the national speed limit, Congress made the national speed

limit permanent in December 1974. In 1995, the law was

repealed.

The purpose of this letter is to ask you to study this era

of conservation, as I have, to determine whether the

administration, with the support of Congress; should take

similar action today.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy Web site,

engineering data shows that fuel efficiency decreases rapidly

above 60 mph. Specifically, for every 5 mph an individual

drives over 60 mph, that individual essentially is paying an

extra 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs.

As Congress continues to look for ways to ease this

national problem, I put to you the following questions. I

will share your responses with my colleagues.

(1) Given the significant technological improvements since

1974, at what speed is the typical vehicle traveling on

America's highways today most fuel efficient?

(2) If a national speed limit was enacted similar to the

1974 law, but the speed limit under that law was consistent

with most fuel efficient speed for the typical vehicle

traveling on America's highways, what would be a reasonable

projection for total fuel savings? And, what would be the

savings for the average citizen who owns and operates a

vehicle?

(3) If a new national speed limit was enacted consistent

with the two questions listed above, how many fewer barrels

of petroleum a day would Americans consume? Is it reasonable

to believe that there would be a reduction in price at the

pump? And, if so, what are the ranges you could project for

cost reductions?

(4) If the federal government took the initiative to reduce

its oil consumption, consistent the concepts of the sense-of-

the-Senate resolution (S. Res. 577) how many fewer barrels of

petroleum a day would be saved by the federal government?

Given that Congress, upon its return next week, will be

vigorously considering all options, your response to this

request could be of great help to my colleagues and me.

Again, years ago, the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation

Act worked. The administration's advice, after examining this

era and these concepts, would be helpful.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

John Warner.

Mr. President, I felt I was acting at the personal request of

Chairman Rockefeller and the ranking member when I did this. I inquired on the floor as to the desires of other Senators. I regret, my dear friend, I would not have done this in any way to deter your ability to do what you feel you have to do on this bill.

So at this point in time, certainly the floor is open to additional unanimous consent. But I do bring to your attention the Senators who are currently in the Chamber are here as a consequence of the UC that I proposed at the request of the two managers.

Mr. President, again, Senators on the floor can certainly speak for themselves, but I point out I think the Chair advised the managers as to the time remaining on both sides of the bill.

Am I not correct, I ask the Presiding Officer? Could you inform the Senate as to the times remaining under the UC to which my good friend from Pennsylvania refers?

Mr. President, I leave it to the Chair to address that. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania should be recognized for the purpose of his 10 minutes, but I am not sure we are in a position to foreclose other Senators who have been waiting here patiently to address the Senate on other matters.

It seems to me the Senator from Pennsylvania should revise the request to enable him to have his 10 minutes and Senator Carper his 10 minutes and then allow the Chamber to proceed with other matters. It seems to me that is a fair resolution to this problem.

Again, I apologize if I was acting--as I was so asked to do--contrary to the Senator's wishes.

Mr. President, I will not object. I wish to thank my colleague for what I think is a very fair resolution to this situation.

Mr. President, I wonder if I could add a word to my two distinguished colleagues. I have had the good fortune--and it is good fortune--to have visited every State in the United States and the territories in my nearly 82 years of wonderful life that the good Lord has given me. I would think every American would deem, every American who has a feeling for the outside and the magnificent beauty of nature, that their education would not be complete unless they visit Alaska and see with their own eyes and breathe the air, see the water, all the magnificent beauty. I have enjoyed a number of trips to Alaska, largely sponsored by my dear friend Senator Stevens, through the years. We have been there together many times, many times in connection with the U.S. military, which finds a wonderful home in Alaska. Alaskans have taken such good care of them.

But you have a great strength. Those of us in the Senate are proud to serve with two fine Senators from the great State of Alaska.

Mr. President, I ask at this point in time if I could address the FISA bill. Is that the pending business or may I ask to speak on that business now?

So it is appropriate at this time to deliver remarks with regard to that bill?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this is one of the most important subjects I have had the privilege of addressing in my 30-some years in the Senate. I and many others will rise in connection with this bill in support of the FISA Amendments Act. It is a critical piece of legislation for America's present and future security. It achieves an important balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring that our dedicated intelligence professionals have the capabilities they need to protect this Nation.

Currently, Admiral McConnell is Director of our intelligence system. I have had the privilege of knowing him for over 30 years, working with him. We are fortunate that he and General Hayden and many others are carrying the torch for our Nation's intelligence. They have worked very hard on this piece of legislation, as has my dear colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. I am on the Intelligence Committee. He has done a splendid job in negotiating the conference--hopefully, what will be a settlement. He was supported by our chairman, Senator Rockefeller. It has been a team, with the two of them achieving the juncture we are at now in the consideration of this bill.

The bill ensures that the intelligence capabilities provided by the Protect America Act, enacted in August of 2007, remain sealed in statute. I cannot overemphasize how important that is to ensuring our Nation's security. I wish to underscore, once again, the importance of legal protection for the telecommunications carriers that have voluntarily--underline voluntarily--come

forth for the private sector and have assisted our Government with the terrorist surveillance program, commonly referred to as TSP, which was originated and authorized by the President under appropriate sections, in my judgment, of the Constitution, particularly article II.

I wish to emphasize that I was privileged to be Secretary of the Navy in the period of the 1970s, when the All-Volunteer Force was conceived. That force of young men and women, each of whom raised their hands and said, I volunteer to serve in uniform, is not unlike the issue today with elements of corporate America, the private sector, who have come forward to volunteer to assist this Government in performing the intelligence responsibilities undertaken which guarantee the freedoms and safety we enjoy every day here at home. The extensive evidence made available to the Senate Intelligence Committee shows that carriers that participated in this program relied upon our Government's assurances that their actions were legal, authorized by the President, and in the best interests of the security of our Nation.

In brief, our Government provided the carriers with essential assurances, and the carriers responded to our Government's request for help. These carriers must be protected from costly and damaging lawsuits. Such lawsuits could end the current level of participation in the vital intelligence programs by these carriers and will likely deter other companies and private citizens who might like to step forward and volunteer in helping us protect ourselves by virtue of the essential intelligence we must monitor and collect every day. After all, these carriers are corporations in most instances, if not all. They are beholden, the executives of these corporations, to the stockholders. That is the system of free enterprise we have in the United States. Consequently, they, on behalf of their stockholders--and the stockholders could be the pension funds, could be a stock held by any number of people and entities in our system of Government--are coming forth simply asking for codification of assurances having been given by the Government so they can go back to their stockholders and explain that: We are doing this to protect America. We now have, by virtue of the actions of the Congress, signed and sealed by the President, the law that will protect your interests in this country from lawsuits which have no foundation in law.

I would like to share a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which all Members of our Chamber some months ago received from the esteemed chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senators Rockefeller and Bond.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

The letter discussed the Senate Intelligence Committee's extensive and bipartisan review of the TSP, which included dozens of briefings, hearings, and interviews, as well as extensive document reviews. As a result of this more than 10-month comprehensive examination, the committee concluded--and I quote what was written and published to our colleagues by the committee--

Irrespective of one's opinion of the President's reliance

on Article II authority to justify the TSP, those companies

that assisted with the TSP did so in good faith and based

upon the written--

I repeat: ``written representations''--

from the highest levels of government that the program was

lawful. The Committee's bill reported out on a strong,

bipartisan vote of 13-2--

I wish to repeat that. That is a strong vote. I have served on the Intelligence Committee. This is my third tour of duty, you might say, given that we have, under our leadership, stipulated periods to serve. That is a big, strong vote. At one time, I was ranking member, as is Mr. Bond, of that committee, and that is about as strong a vote as you can get among the diversity of the wonderful people who have, throughout my years in the Senate, served on that committee.

[That vote] reflects our determination that companies that

cooperated with the government in good faith should be

protected from time-consuming and expensive litigation. It is

a matter of fundamental fairness.

End quote by the committee.

Another item which played a key role in my thinking about the issue was a thoughtful article published in a newspaper by private citizens with past distinguished careers in public service relating to intelligence. The first is Benjamin Civiletti, U.S. Attorney General under President Jimmy Carter; followed by Dick Thornburgh, U.S. Attorney General under President George Herbert Walker Bush; and Judge William Webster, a very distinguished gentleman I have known personally for many years, former Director of the CIA and former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Now, there are three diverse public servants, with different political backgrounds, but they came together for the common purpose of trying to strengthen America's intelligence system. The article, entitled ``Surveillance Sanity,'' appeared in the October 31, 2007, edition of the Wall Street Journal. I have spoken on the floor previously about this article and their contribution, but because of its direct relevance to the issue we are now deliberating on and hopefully will vote on today, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Let me share with you some of their thoughts. Regarding the Intelligence Committee's carefully crafted and limited liability provision, which is very similar to the provision in the bill currently before us, these three distinguished public servants--now private citizens--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 level risk.

Unfortunately, our committee has already heard testimony that without such protections, some companies believe they can no longer continue their cooperation and assistance to our American Government, particularly the intelligence sections.

Messrs. Civiletti, Thornburgh, and Webster also 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 or 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.

That is very strong language, very clear language. I urge my colleagues, once again, to look at their article.

As the Senate considers this bill, it should reject any amendments which would put the carriers and their millions of shareholders in legal limbo, waiting while the Government litigates unrelated constitutional claims. Lawsuits against the companies would likely continue in the interim which would: have negative ramifications on our intelligence sources and methods; likely harm the business reputations of these companies; and cause the companies to reconsider their participation--or worse--cause them to terminate their cooperation in the future.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, by a vote of 13 to 2, stated its belief that the carriers acted in good faith and that they deserve to be protected.

Clearly the issue of whether the President acted within his constitutional authority in authorizing the TSP can and should be addressed in a separate context from this bill.

Even the exclusive means provision in this bill favored by my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate acknowledges the President's constitutional authority in stating that certifications to companies for assistance shall identify the statutory provision on which the certification is based, ``if a certification . . . is based on statutory authority.'' This clearly indicates that the certification could be based on the President's constitutional authority.

But, even if one did not agree that the President acted within his Article II powers, why would anyone want to punish the carriers for something the Government called on them to do and assured them was legal?

Individuals who believe that the Government violated the civil liberties can pursue legal action against the Government, and the bill before us does nothing to limit that legal recourse.

As stated so eloquently by Messrs. Civiletti, Thornburg, and Webster, I quote the following:

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. . . . 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.

I strongly believe that the President did act within his Article II executive branch authority in authorizing this program. Even the exclusive means provision in this bill favored by my Democratic Colleagues in the House and Senate acknowledges the President's constitutional authority in stating that certifications to companies for assistance shall identify the statutory provision on which the certification is based ``if a certification . . . is based on statutory authority.'' This clearly indicates the certification could be based on the President's constitutional authority.

But even if one did not agree that the President acted--acted--within the confines of the U.S. Constitution--particularly article II outlines the executive branch's power under the President--why would anyone want to punish the carriers for something the Government called on them to do and assured them was legal? Individuals who believe the Government violated their civil liberties can pursue legal action against the Government, and the bill before us does nothing--I repeat: does nothing--to prohibit a citizen to bring that legal recourse against their Government, the U.S. Government.

As stated so eloquently in the Messrs. Civiletti, Thornburgh, and Webster document, I further quote:

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. . . . 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.

I agree with the conclusions of these three eminent private citizens.

I would like to also call your attention to an important letter sent last week--June 19, 2008--to Senate and House leadership from the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of National Intelligence--that is GEN Michael Mukasey and ADM Michael McConnell-- two distinguished public servants now serving America.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

These gentlemen said:

[P]roviding this liability protection is critical to the

Nation's security.

They confirmed that the intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without--I repeat, without--the assistance from these carriers, companies, and other segments of the private sector. They noted:

It is critical that any long-term FISA modernization

legislation contain an effective liability protection

provision.

It should be clear from this letter that the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General of the United States could not support the bill without explicit retroactive legal protection for the carriers and other segments of the private sector.

It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, as passed by the House, and to vote against any amendments that intend to strip out or alter the critical civil liability provision or any other section of the bill that is essential to our intelligence community.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Select Committee on Intelligence,

Washington, DC, February 1, 2008.

Dear Colleagues: The FISA Amendments Act, S. 2248, provides

limited and narrowly-drawn retroactive civil liability

protection to those telecommunication companies that

allegedly assisted the government with the President's

Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). An amendment has been

offered to this Act to strike these liability protections in

favor of ``substitution,'' a legal mechanism for replacing

the companies in the ongoing TSP litigation with the

government.

The Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a comprehensive

and bipartisan review of the President's TSP, including the

issue of carrier liability. The Committee reviewed numerous

documents, including the Department of Justice legal opinions

and the letters from the government to the companies. The

Committee held a number of briefings and hearings involving

government and company officials. The Committee also visited

the National Security Agency to see firsthand how the TSP

worked.

As a result of this extensive review, the Committee

concluded that, irrespective of one's opinion of the

President's reliance on Article II authority to justify the

TSP, those companies that assisted with the TSP did so in

good faith and based upon the written representations from

the highest levels of government that the program was lawful.

The Committee's bill, reported out on a strong, bipartisan

vote of 13-2, reflects our determination that companies that

cooperated with the government in good faith should be

protected from time-consuming and expensive litigation. It is

a matter of fundamental fairness. The Committee rejected the

broad immunity proposal sought by the Administration. Our

limited immunity provision only covers assistance provided

from September 11th to when the TSP was put under court

authorization in January of last year. It does not provide

protection from criminal prosecution or extend protections to

government officials. Any litigation against government

officials will continue.

In concluding that civil liability protection for those

companies was appropriate, the Committee recognized that

allowing the current litigation to continue could: (1)

compromise our intelligence sources and methods through

ongoing discovery and other litigation proceedings; (2)

result in significant loss of business reputation or

financial loss for those companies that participated in good

faith; (3) jeopardize the personal safety of overseas

employees of these companies if it becomes known that the

companies assisted the government in fighting terrorism; (4)

put taxpayers' dollars at risk for dubious legal claims; and

(5) lead to reluctance by these and other companies to

cooperate with legitimate requests for assistance in the

future.

The substitution amendment sponsored by Senators Specter

and Whitehouse does not alleviate any of these concerns. Even

if the companies are removed directly from the litigation,

discovery would still be allowed to proceed against them. In

short, the conduct of the companies would continue to be

litigated, raising significant concerns that their identities

or details about their assistance will be disclosed. Given

the essential role that our private partners play in

intelligence collection, we believe that this is simply too

great a risk to our national security.

We believe, therefore, that the ongoing litigation against

the telecommunication companies should be brought to an

immediate close and that the Intelligence Committee's

bipartisan determination of good faith should stand. We urge

you to support the Intelligence Committee's bill and oppose

any effort to modify or strike its civil liability provision.

Sincerely,

John D. Rockefeller IV,

Chairman.

Christopher S. Bond,

Vice Chairman.

Exhibit 2

[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.

Exhibit 3

June 19, 2008.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: This letter presents the views of the

Administration on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

of 1978 (``FISA'') Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304). The

bill would modernize FISA to reflect changes in

communications technology since the Act was first passed 30

years ago. The amendments would provide the Intelligence

Community with the tools it needs to collect the foreign

intelligence necessary to secure our Nation while protecting

the civil liberties of Americans. The bill would also provide

the necessary legal protections for those companies sued

because they are believed to have helped the Government

prevent terrorist attacks in the aftermath of September 11.

Because this bill accomplishes these two goals essential to

any effort to modernize FISA, we strongly support passage of

this bill and will recommend that the President sign it.

Last August, Congress took an important step toward

modernizing FISA by enacting the Protect America Act of 2007.

That Act allowed us temporarily to close intelligence gaps by

enabling our intelligence professionals to collect, without

having to first obtain a court order, foreign intelligence

information from targets overseas. The Act has enabled us to

gather significant intelligence critical to protecting our

Nation. It has also been implemented in a responsible way,

subject to extensive executive, congressional, and judicial

oversight in order to protect the country in a manner

consistent with safeguarding Americans' civil liberties.

Since passage of the Act, the Administration has worked

closely with Congress to address the need for longterm FISA

modernization. This joint effort has involved compromises on

both sides, but we believe that it has resulted in a strong

bill that will place the Nation's foreign intelligence effort

in this area on a firm, long-term foundation. Below, we have

set forth our views on certain important provisions of H.R.

6304.

Title I--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Title I of H.R. 6304 contains key authorities that would

ensure that our intelligence agencies have the tools they

need to collect vital foreign intelligence information and

would provide significant safeguards for the civil liberties

of Americans.

Court Approval. With respect to authorizations for foreign

intelligence surveillance directed at foreign targets outside

the United States, the bill provides that the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) would review

certifications made by the Attorney General and the Director

of National Intelligence relating to these acquisitions, the

reasonableness of the procedures used by the Intelligence

Community to ensure the targets are overseas, and the

minimization procedures used to protect the privacy

of Americans. The scope of the FISC's review is carefully

and rightly crafted to focus on aspects of the acquisition

that may affect the privacy rights of Americans so as not

to confer quasi-constitutional rights on foreign

terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets outside

the United States.

We have been clear that any satisfactory bill could not

require individual court orders to target non-United States

persons outside the United States, nor could a bill establish

a court-approval mechanism that would cause the Intelligence

Community to lose valuable foreign intelligence while

awaiting such approval. H.R. 6304 would do neither and would

retain for the Intelligence Community the speed and agility

that it needs to protect the Nation. The bill would establish

a schedule for court approval of certifications and

procedures relating to renewals of existing acquisition

authority. A critical feature of the H.R. 6304 would allow

existing acquisitions, which were the subject of court review

under the Protect America Act or will be the subject of such

review under the H.R. 6304, to continue pending court review.

With respect to new acquisitions, absent exigent

circumstances, Court review of new procedures and

certifications would take place before the Government begins

the acquisition. The exigent circumstances exception is

critical to allowing the Intelligence Community to respond

swiftly to changing circumstances when the Attorney General

and the Director of National Intelligence determine that

intelligence may be lost or not timely acquired. Such exigent

circumstances could arise in certain situations where an

unexpected gap has opened in our intelligence collection

efforts. Taken together, these provisions would enable the

Intelligence Community to keep closed the intelligence gaps

that existed before the passage of the Protect America Act

and ensure that it will have the opportunity to collect

critical foreign intelligence information in the future.

Exclusive means. H.R. 6304 contains an exclusive means

provision that goes beyond the exclusive means provision that

was passed as part of FISA. As we have previously stated, we

believe that the provision will complicate the ability of

Congress to pass, in an emergency situation, a law to

authorize immediate collection of communications in the

aftermath of an attack or in response to a grave threat to

the national security. Unlike other versions of this

provision, however, the one in this bill would not restrict

the authority of the Government to conduct necessary

surveillance for intelligence and law enforcement purposes in

a way that would harm national security.

Oversight and Protections for the Civil Liberties of

Americans. H.R. 6304 contains numerous provisions that

protect the civil liberties of Americans and allow for

extensive executive, congressional, and judicial oversight of

the use of the authorities. The bill would require the

Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to

conduct semiannual assessments of compliance with targeting

procedures and minimization procedures and to submit those

assessments to the FISC and to Congress. The FISC and

Congress would also receive annual reviews relating to those

acquisitions prepared by the heads of agencies that use the

authorities

contained in the bill. Congress would receive reviews from

the Inspectors General of these agencies and of the

Department of Justice regarding compliance with the

provisions of the bill. In addition, the bill would require

the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report at

least semiannually concerning the implementation of the

authorities provided by the bill and would expand the

categories of FISA-related court documents that the

Government must provide to the congressional intelligence

and judiciary committees.

Title I also includes provisions that would protect the

civil liberties of Americans. For instance, the bill would

require for the first time that a court order be obtained to

conduct foreign intelligence surveillance outside the United

States of an American abroad. Historically, Executive Branch

procedures guided the conduct of surveillance of a U.S.

person overseas, such as when a U.S. person acts as an agent

of a foreign power, e.g., spying on behalf of a foreign

government. Given the complexity of extending judicial review

to activities outside the United States, these provisions

were carefully crafted with Congress to ensure that such

review can be accomplished while preserving the necessary

flexibility for intelligence operations. Other provisions of

the bill address concerns that some voiced about the Protect

America Act, such as clarifying that the Government cannot

``reverse target'' without a court order and requiring that

the Attorney General establish guidelines to prevent this

from occurring. We believe that, taken together, these

provisions will allow for ample oversight of the use of these

new authorities and ensure that the privacy and civil

liberties of Americans are well protected.

II. Title II--Protections for Electronic Communications Service

Providers

Title II of the bill contains, among other provisions,

vital protections for electronic communications service

providers who assist the Intelligence Community's efforts to

protect the Nation from terrorism and other foreign

intelligence threats. Title II would provide liability

protection related to future assistance while ensuring the

protection of sources and methods. Importantly, the bill

would also provide the necessary legal protection for those

companies who are sued only because they are believed to have

helped the Government with communications intelligence

activities in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The framework contained in the bill for obtaining

retroactive liability protection is narrowly tailored. An

action must be dismissed if the Attorney General certifies to

the district court in which the action is pending that

either: (i) the electronic communications service provider

did not provide the assistance; or (ii) the assistance was

provided in the wake of the September 11 attack and was the

subject of a written request or series of requests from a

senior Government official indicating that the activity was

authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. The

district court would be required to review this certification

before dismissing the action, and the provision allows for

the participation of the parties to the lawsuit in a manner

consistent with the protection of classified information. The

liability protection provision does not extend to the

Government or to Government officials and it does not

immunize any criminal conduct.

Providing this liability protection is critical to the

Nation's security. As the Senate Select Committee on

Intelligence recognized, ``the intelligence community cannot

obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance from

these companies.'' That committee also recognized that

companies in the future may be less willing to assist

the Government if they face the threat of private lawsuits

each time they are believed to have provided assistance.

Finally, allowing litigation over these matters risks the

disclosure of highly classified information regarding

intelligence sources and methods. As we have stated on

many occasions, it is critical that any long-term FISA

modernization legislation contain an effective liability

protection provision. H.R. 6304 contains just such a

provision and for this reason, as well as those expressed

with respect to Title I above, we strongly support its

passage.

III. Title III--Review of Previous Actions

Title III would require the Inspectors General of the

Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National

Intelligence, and of certain elements of the Intelligence

Community to review certain communications surveillance

activities, including the Terrorist Surveillance Program

described by the President. Although improvements have been

made over prior versions of this provision, we believe, as we

have written before, that it is unnecessary in light of the

Inspector General reviews previously completed, those already

underway, and the congressional intelligence and judiciary

committee oversight already conducted. Nevertheless, we do

not believe that, as currently drafted, the provision would

create unacceptable operational concerns. The bill contains

important provisions to make clear that such reviews should

not duplicate reviews already conducted by Inspectors

General.

IV. Title IV--other Provisions

Title IV contains important provisions that will ensure

that the transition between the current authorities and the

authorities provided in this bill will not have a detrimental

effect on intelligence operations.

Title IV also states that the authorities in the bill

sunset at the end 2012. We have long favored permanent

modernization of FISA. The Intelligence Community operates

more effectively when the rules governing our intelligence

professionals' ability to track our enemies are firmly

established. Stability of law also allows the Intelligence

Community to invest resources appropriately. Congress has

extensively debated and considered the need to modernize FISA

since 2006, a process that has involved numerous hearings,

briefings, and floor debates. The process has been valuable

and necessary, but it has also involved the discussion in

open settings of extraordinary information dealing with

sensitive intelligence operations. Every time we repeat this

process it risks exposing our intelligence sources and

methods to our adversaries. Although we would prefer that

H.R. 6304 contain no sunset, a sunset in 2012 is

significantly longer than others that were proposed and it is

long enough to avoid impairing the effectiveness of

intelligence operations.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this

crucial bill. We reiterate our sincere appreciation to the

Congress for working with us on H.R. 6304, a long-term FISA

modernization bill that will strengthen the Nation's

intelligence capabilities while respecting and protecting the

constitutional rights of Americans. We strongly support its

prompt passage.

Sincerely,

Michael B. Mukasey,

Attorney General.

J.M. McConnell,

Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. President, on May 31, 2008, the Nation lost a great patriot, an avid student and supporter of the military, and a true friend of the enlisted soldier--Northwestern University professor emeritus of sociology, Charles Constantine Moskos.

But he wasn't ``professor'' or ``doctor'' Moskos. He was always known as ``Charlie.'' He was ``Charlie'' to admirals and generals; he was ``Charlie'' to his students; and he was ``Charlie'' to the enlisted soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines he loved so much. He was ``Charlie'' to many Members of Congress who worked with and admired him.

After graduating with honors from Princeton University in 1956, Charlie was drafted into the Army. He quickly became enamored with the amazing cross-section of Americans who served in the Armed Forces and decided the military institution would be his lifelong, academic focus. After he received his doctorate from UCLA in 1963, Charlie taught for 2 years at the University of Michigan before moving on to Northwestern University. At Northwestern, Charlie began a storied 40-year career as a professor of sociology and traveled to war zones, military bases across the globe, the Pentagon, and the Congress. Over those four decades he became known as one of the world's foremost military sociologists and a key adviser to policymakers.

Charlie's field was political sociology, and he studied the Caribbean and the Greek-American community, but his biggest contribution was in addressing the civil-military bond, the integration of the military and our society. He wrote extensively about the culture in the military, the success story of racial integration in the services, particularly the Army. He also focused his writings on the changing nature of the military as we moved from Vietnam to the end of the Cold War and into today's conflicts against terrorists around the globe. As one of the preeminent military sociologists of his time, he was a founding member of the prestigious Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, an international association of academics and military scholars.

Charlie's research took him to combat units in Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Kosovo, and Iraq. For over three decades, he also served as an independent adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Always concerned that the All-Volunteer Force could separate the military from its larger society as it draws from more narrow segments of the population, Charlie is also credited with inspiring President Clinton to create the AmeriCorps Program.

Among other awards, Charlie received the Distinguished Service Medal, the highest honor the Army awards to civilians. He is survived by his beloved wife of 41 years, Ilca Hoan Moskos, of Santa Monica, CA; two sons, Andrew Moskos of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Peter Moskos of Astoria, NY; and two grandchildren.

Mr. President, I do not tend to object. May I have 4 minutes following Senator Webb?

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate my colleague, Senator Webb. He and I have known each other for a very long time. When I was Secretary of the Navy, he was a young captain, just back from Vietnam, serving on my staff.

When he came to the Senate, he indicated his top priority was to get a revision of the existing framework of laws governing the GI bill because he felt very strongly, based on his long and heroic service to this country in uniform that we owed this generation everything that previous generations had received by virtue of educational benefits.

I said several times on this floor, acknowledging with the greatest humility and thankfulness in my heart for two periods of military service I had of no great significance, but, nevertheless, enabled me to have a GI bill from a short service at the end of World War II and for service during the Korean war.

One GI bill got me a bachelor's degree, the second a law degree. I felt, just as Senator Webb, this generation deserves no less than that. But his fortitude, his determination, his perseverance has led to this legislation. I wished to acknowledge that and the support we received in this body and the support we received from the various organizations, veterans organizations all across America.

I will cite some historic memorabilia on this subject. In May of 2001, I was the only Republican on the Armed Services Committee to join a number of other Democrats on the committee in cosponsoring the bill by Max Cleland of Georgia. Those of us who knew Max Cleland remembered that he came to the floor of the Senate, despite his serious wounds he had received and disability from that conflict, as the hardest fighting Senator for veterans and military people.

I was proud to join him. But nothing happened to that bill. It lost its way. So then, in 2002, as chairman of the committee, I went back and picked up on what this legislation had laid as the

foundation. In the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Act, subtitle E, section 654, is the historical precedent for transferability.

So I wish to thank the members of the Armed Services Committee who have worked this issue for many years. When it came time to have Senator Webb's bill go in, we talked about transferability, but we recognized it was already law.

In the course of the deliberations on his bill, it seemed to me important that we update the 2002 law, which we did. I put in an amendment, amendment No. 4800, on May 20, 2008, which brought transferability in the old statute up to date.

Subsequently, we have not had any official cooperation of support from the Department of Defense, but unofficially there was some advice that came to us. We incorporated that advice, and that advice now reshaped my amendment on May 20. That, hopefully, will become the law of the land when that bill comes from the House to the Senate floor. I certainly urge all colleagues to join in that.

But again, I say to Senator Webb, I salute him for his work on this legislation, his long and hard service to the country. This will stand as a hallmark for his initiative. I was pleased to join him along the way. I think all of us in this Chamber thank him for the leadership he has given.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I can add a word. When the Armed Services Committee passed, in 2002, the legislation initiating transferability, it was against the wishes of the Department of Defense. But, nevertheless, our committee, as it has many times, stood its ground and put it into law.

It was not utilized by the Department of Defense, except in one or two cases by the Department of the Army. The other military departments did not use it. So the concept of transferability has been around for a long time. It is not brand new as indicated by some interpretation of this press release from the White House today.

It has been around a long time, and it received no support from the Bush administration in 2002, when it went on the lawbooks. It was not utilized by the departments. So, today, they announced, from the White House, it is rather interesting, the sentence reads:

The President is pleased that Congress answered his call to

ensure that military families soon will be able to transfer

their unused education benefits to their spouse or children.

That has been the law of the land, in one form or another. That has been the effort of this Congress. That has been the effort of this Armed Services Committee, of which I am proud to be a member for many years, 6 or 7 total.

I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join those today who are addressing the issue of the energy problems that are facing our country today.

I commend the President of the United States today with regard to the offshore drilling decision that he has made, and prior thereto the indication by Senator McCain as to his initiatives that he will take, in due course, I hope.

But we have to focus on not only the long picture, I will address that momentarily, but what we can do now, what we can do today and tomorrow to help alleviate the many hardships that this price structure--which none of us really envisioned--this price structure is inflicting on the American families today.

I was very proud to submit a resolution to this Senate on May 22, 2008, joined by a number of colleagues and cosponsors. I would like to once again read this short resolution in which the Senate spoke with regard to this issue about steps that could be taken now to help lessen the demand every day for the need of gasoline.

On May 22 the Senate said as follows:

S. Res. 577

Whereas each day, as Americans contend with rising gasoline

prices, personal stories reflect the ways in which--

(1) family budgets are suffering; and

(2) the cost of gasoline is impacting the way Americans

cope with that serious problem in family and work

environments;

Whereas, as a consequence of economic pressures, Americans

are finding ways to reduce consumption of gasoline, such as--

(1) driving less frequently;

(2) altering daily routines; and

(3) even changing family vacation plans;

Whereas those conservation efforts bring hardships but save

funds that can be redirected to meet essential family needs;

Whereas, just as individuals are reducing energy

consumption, the Federal Government, including Congress,

should take steps to conserve energy;

Whereas a Government-wide initiative to conserve energy

would send a signal to Americans that the Federal

Government--

(1) recognizes the burdens imposed by unprecedented energy

costs; and

(2) will participate in activities to reduce energy

consumption; and

Whereas an overall reduction of gasoline consumption by the

Federal Government by even a few percentage points would send

a strong signal that, as a nation, the United States is

joining to conserve energy: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

President should require all Federal departments and agencies

to take initiatives to reduce daily consumption of gasoline

and other fuels by the departments and agencies.

That is the end of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter that I wrote to the President a few days earlier, on May 16, addressing this very issue.

That is a short step. But I do wish to refer to the future.

As noted earlier, the President has made his announcement this morning. But I would like to welcome him to this decisionmaking now to go to offshore drilling. With due respect to the Presiding Officer, we have different views expressed here a few moments ago. I want to go back over the history of this Senator, working with many others, on this issue of drilling offshore.

First, during the debate on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6, I attempted to offer an amendment that sought to allow States to opt out of the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling. I was joined by Senators Alexander and Voinovich in that effort. Unfortunately, due to opposition to my proposal and the threat that my amendment would or could doom the whole bill, I withdrew the amendment, out of recognition of the hard work done by the managers.

But at that time, I warned my colleagues, and I said, standing at this very seat: I regret to predict this, but I see nothing but danger signs with regard to worldwide energy consumption and the predicament facing the United States of America.

That was over 2\1/2\ years ago that I so stated my concerns and also indicated that I wanted to support the move toward offshore drilling. So I regret that prediction of some years ago is now coming true.

Later, in 2005, I came to the floor for a second time in an attempt to push forward legislation that would allow States to opt out of the Federal moratorium. This legislation, known as the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005, S. 1810, was introduced 6 weeks after the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina.

I remind my colleagues that at the time, it was shockingly clear how vulnerable and how fragile our Nation's energy infrastructure, especially our oil and gas infrastructure, was to such a terrible disaster. Every American felt the effects of this terrible hurricane at the gas pump.

Again, however, no action was taken on my bill. But I did not give up. Less than 6 months later I came to the floor again, this time with my colleagues, Senators Allen, Talent, and Santorum, all three no longer Members of our Senate, and also Senator Mark Pryor, who very much is a Member of our Senate today, to address this issue.

We introduced the Reliable and Affordable Natural Gas Energy Reform Act of 2006, S. 2290. The bill sought to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to allow coastal States to share in qualified OCS revenues should they choose, as States, to allow the exploration for natural gas only.

S. 2290 would have allowed a State to lift the moratorium and share in OCS revenues should their Governor successfully petition to allow drilling for natural gas off their coasts.

Again, no action was taken on this bill.

Finally, I came to the Senate floor last June, a year ago this month, when gas prices were almost $1 lower than they are today, to offer, once again, an amendment on this subject. Specifically, my amendment would have allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to explore for natural gas off its shores, a step already approved by the Governor of Virginia and our State legislature. If a natural gas reserve was found, the Governor, with the support of the State legislature, could have petitioned the Secretary of Interior to allow for the extraction of natural gas off the shores of Virginia. Furthermore, my amendment gave a voice in the process to the Secretary of Defense and to Virginia's neighboring States. I even set up a fund that would have provided money for environmental damage mitigation. Again, due to the opposition from some of my fellow Senators, my amendment was unsuccessful, failing 43- 44, and today we continue to suffer from soaring energy prices. But I will never give up; never, never, never will I give up.

It is my firm belief that America must take a balanced approach toward its energy policy. That is why, for the Memorial Day recess, I joined the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in submitting and adopting the sense-of-the-Senate resolution I just read.

And that is why today I send to the desk and file a bill in keeping with

those who want to do offshore drilling. It is virtually identical to ones I have been submitting for nearly 3 years.

Mr. President, I am very privileged to be joined in this effort to have offshore drilling off the State of Virginia by my distinguished colleague, Senator Webb, who wishes to be a cosponsor.

I thank my colleague. We have, in a very short time together, although we have known each other many years, formed a strong working partnership, not only on behalf of Virginia but on behalf of this great Nation in many ways. I thank him for joining me today. I know he looks to the future. I also look to the future but only 6 more months or a little less in the Senate. I will pass the baton to him. But each day that passes, he grows in strength of voice and stature in the Senate. I wish him well.

Mr. President, I join those today who are addressing the issue of the energy problems that are facing our country today.

I commend the President of the United States today with regard to the offshore drilling decision that he has made, and prior thereto the indication by Senator McCain as to his initiatives that he will take, in due course, I hope.

But we have to focus on not only the long picture, I will address that momentarily, but what we can do now, what we can do today and tomorrow to help alleviate the many hardships that this price structure--which none of us really envisioned--this price structure is inflicting on the American families today.

I was very proud to submit a resolution to this Senate on May 22, 2008, joined by a number of colleagues and cosponsors. I would like to once again read this short resolution in which the Senate spoke with regard to this issue about steps that could be taken now to help lessen the demand every day for the need of gasoline.

On May 22 the Senate said as follows:

S. Res. 577

Whereas each day, as Americans contend with rising gasoline

prices, personal stories reflect the ways in which--

(1) family budgets are suffering; and

(2) the cost of gasoline is impacting the way Americans

cope with that serious problem in family and work

environments;

Whereas, as a consequence of economic pressures, Americans

are finding ways to reduce consumption of gasoline, such as--

(1) driving less frequently;

(2) altering daily routines; and

(3) even changing family vacation plans;

Whereas those conservation efforts bring hardships but save

funds that can be redirected to meet essential family needs;

Whereas, just as individuals are reducing energy

consumption, the Federal Government, including Congress,

should take steps to conserve energy;

Whereas a Government-wide initiative to conserve energy

would send a signal to Americans that the Federal

Government--

(1) recognizes the burdens imposed by unprecedented energy

costs; and

(2) will participate in activities to reduce energy

consumption; and

Whereas an overall reduction of gasoline consumption by the

Federal Government by even a few percentage points would send

a strong signal that, as a nation, the United States is

joining to conserve energy: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

President should require all Federal departments and agencies

to take initiatives to reduce daily consumption of gasoline

and other fuels by the departments and agencies.

That is the end of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a letter that I wrote to the President a few days earlier, on May 16, addressing this very issue.

That is a short step. But I do wish to refer to the future.

As noted earlier, the President has made his announcement this morning. But I would like to welcome him to this decisionmaking now to go to offshore drilling. With due respect to the Presiding Officer, we have different views expressed here a few moments ago. I want to go back over the history of this Senator, working with many others, on this issue of drilling offshore.

First, during the debate on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6, I attempted to offer an amendment that sought to allow States to opt out of the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling. I was joined by Senators Alexander and Voinovich in that effort. Unfortunately, due to opposition to my proposal and the threat that my amendment would or could doom the whole bill, I withdrew the amendment, out of recognition of the hard work done by the managers.

But at that time, I warned my colleagues, and I said, standing at this very seat: I regret to predict this, but I see nothing but danger signs with regard to worldwide energy consumption and the predicament facing the United States of America.

That was over 2\1/2\ years ago that I so stated my concerns and also indicated that I wanted to support the move toward offshore drilling. So I regret that prediction of some years ago is now coming true.

Later, in 2005, I came to the floor for a second time in an attempt to push forward legislation that would allow States to opt out of the Federal moratorium. This legislation, known as the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005, S. 1810, was introduced 6 weeks after the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina.

I remind my colleagues that at the time, it was shockingly clear how vulnerable and how fragile our Nation's energy infrastructure, especially our oil and gas infrastructure, was to such a terrible disaster. Every American felt the effects of this terrible hurricane at the gas pump.

Again, however, no action was taken on my bill. But I did not give up. Less than 6 months later I came to the floor again, this time with my colleagues, Senators Allen, Talent, and Santorum, all three no longer Members of our Senate, and also Senator Mark Pryor, who very much is a Member of our Senate today, to address this issue.

We introduced the Reliable and Affordable Natural Gas Energy Reform Act of 2006, S. 2290. The bill sought to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to allow coastal States to share in qualified OCS revenues should they choose, as States, to allow the exploration for natural gas only.

S. 2290 would have allowed a State to lift the moratorium and share in OCS revenues should their Governor successfully petition to allow drilling for natural gas off their coasts.

Again, no action was taken on this bill.

Finally, I came to the Senate floor last June, a year ago this month, when gas prices were almost $1 lower than they are today, to offer, once again, an amendment on this subject. Specifically, my amendment would have allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to explore for natural gas off its shores, a step already approved by the Governor of Virginia and our State legislature. If a natural gas reserve was found, the Governor, with the support of the State legislature, could have petitioned the Secretary of Interior to allow for the extraction of natural gas off the shores of Virginia. Furthermore, my amendment gave a voice in the process to the Secretary of Defense and to Virginia's neighboring States. I even set up a fund that would have provided money for environmental damage mitigation. Again, due to the opposition from some of my fellow Senators, my amendment was unsuccessful, failing 43- 44, and today we continue to suffer from soaring energy prices. But I will never give up; never, never, never will I give up.

It is my firm belief that America must take a balanced approach toward its energy policy. That is why, for the Memorial Day recess, I joined the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in submitting and adopting the sense-of-the-Senate resolution I just read.

And that is why today I send to the desk and file a bill in keeping with

those who want to do offshore drilling. It is virtually identical to ones I have been submitting for nearly 3 years.

Mr. President, I am very privileged to be joined in this effort to have offshore drilling off the State of Virginia by my distinguished colleague, Senator Webb, who wishes to be a cosponsor.

I thank my colleague. We have, in a very short time together, although we have known each other many years, formed a strong working partnership, not only on behalf of Virginia but on behalf of this great Nation in many ways. I thank him for joining me today. I know he looks to the future. I also look to the future but only 6 more months or a little less in the Senate. I will pass the baton to him. But each day that passes, he grows in strength of voice and stature in the Senate. I wish him well.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of an outstanding Virginian, the Honorable Mark S. Davis, who has been nominated by the President to serve as an article III judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. I am pleased to note that Judge Davis also enjoys the strong support of my colleague, Senator Webb.

Judge Davis has been nominated to fill the seat that was vacated by Judge T. S. Ellis, III, who has served as an active judge in the Eastern District of Virginia for more than 19 years.

I have had the privilege of knowing Mark Davis for more than two decades. He worked as an intern in my office while attending the University of Virginia, and then later, in 1984, he began his professional career as a staff assistant in my office before he went to law school. After earning his J. D. from the Washington & Lee University School of Law in 1988, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable John MacKenzie on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Subsequent to his clerkship, he entered private legal practice, as a litigation attorney on cases before both Federal and State courts in several areas, including tort, maritime, and municipal and employment law. In 2003, the Virginia General Assembly unanimously confirmed him to serve as a judge on the Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia in Portsmouth, VA; today, he serves as chief judge of this five-judge circuit.

In my view, Judge Davis is eminently qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In addition to having the support of his home state Senators, he also received the highest recommendation of the Virginia State bar and the American Bar Association.

I thank the Judiciary Committee for favorably reporting this exemplary nominee to the full Senate, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm him.

Mr. President, I was very privileged to submit the name of Mr. Davis to the President of the United States, and I am greatly appreciative to the Senate to now come to the question of his confirmation. But I think it would be interesting if I were to point out to all those following it that this individual was a former member of my staff.

I think it shows the incentive of those many staff persons all throughout our system who contribute so much to the work of our individual Senators that they too can, through their service, lay the foundation to someday achieve this recognition by the Senate in which they worked.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wish to put in the Record a statement by Senator Coleman. He would have voted aye if he had been here today. I ask to have his statement printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in morning business.

And that we will go on the bill, I understand, around noon?

Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the three Senators--Senators Warner, Lieberman, and Boxer--could have 1 hour between 2 and 3.

I thank the Chair.