Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drug Trafficking Interdiction Assistance Act of 2008. The operation of unregistered, un-flagged, semi- and fully-submersible vessels to traffic narcotics and other contraband through international waters poses a serious threat to the safety of our communities and the security of our Nation.

Self-propelled semi-submersible water-craft, or SPSSs, can operate with a significant portion of their hull below the surface of the water, making detection very difficult. Recently we've seen an increase in the production and use of SPSSs originating in Colombia and embarking north in the Pacific Ocean with up to 12 tons of cocaine packed on board. SPSSs are typically less than 100 feet long, carry 4-5 crew, travel at speeds of up to 8 knots, and have a maximum range of 3,500 miles.

These submarines are often equipped with valves that allow the operators to quickly flood and sink the SPSS in the event of interception by law enforcement, sending the vessel and any drugs or other contraband on board to an unrecoverable depth. As the last part of the scuttling process, the operators eject from the SPSS, and law enforcement has no choice but to rescue them from the ocean in accordance with our obligations under international law. They avoid prosecution because no drugs are recovered. For the operators of these SPSSs, they are able to avoid prosecution--for now.

This bill turns the tables on the traffickers. It builds off of the good work by my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Smith, Cantwell, and Snowe, who have a bill that criminalizes the operation of an unregistered, stateless semi-submersible or submersible vessel. The legislation that I have drafted would clarify that the defendant's intent in operating the SPSS was to evade detection, add a robust affirmative defense to protect legitimate researchers and explorers who may happen to use a semi-submersible vessel, include a tough criminal penalty provision to prosecute SPSS operators, and direct the United States Sentencing Commission to account for mitigating and aggravating factors in the Sentencing Guidelines.

As Chair of the Caucus International Narcotics Control and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I have worked to not only curb drug demand and increase treatment options, but also to drug traffickers and disrupt supply. This bill is an important step in curbing this emerging threat and shutting down this new mode of trafficking.

Between 2001 and 2007, there were 23 identified SPSS drug smuggling events. At the time, these vessels were largely seen by drug traffickers as risky and impractical. But after increasingly successful interdiction of go-fast boats and other means, drug traffickers began seeing SPSSs as a viable option. Between October 1, 2007 and February 1, 2008, alone, there were a reported 27 SPSS events that successfully delivered an estimated 111 tons of cocaine. At between $500,000 and $2 million per SPSS, they cost only a fraction of the profits these traffickers reap.

These vessels have the capacity to deliver more than just illegal drugs--an SPSSs could easily accommodate other contraband, like terrorist operatives and weapons of mass destruction in its cargo- holds. Their operation poses a significant danger to the United States and this legislation criminalizes their use while allowing for the continuation of legitimate research and exploring activities.

I want to recognize my friend Senator Lautenberg for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him to enact a tough and fair law that disrupts drug trafficking and other illegal smuggling activities. I also thank Senators Grassley and Feinstein for their support, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, let me say to both Senator Thune and to my colleague from North Dakota that I think the work they are doing here is first rate.

As a matter of fact, Senator Kyl, who is coming to speak on this amendment as well, and I have agreed to, through the Judiciary Committee and through the regular order of business, work on one aspect of the three pieces of this amendment: water, health, and law enforcement.

I think we are going to be joined by our colleague as well on further increasing the assistance to the Indian nation. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is fairly astounding how poorly, over the 35 years I have been here, we have treated the Indian nations.

An awful lot of people, at least in my neck of the woods, think because they read about some of these Indian nations that have gambling on their reservations and are making tens of millions of dollars that somehow all is well, that we do not have to pay much attention to the moral obligation we have and the treaty obligations--I will not get into all of that but the treaty obligations we have been making and breaking since the 1800s.

So I am reluctant--I was reluctant--to talk about beginning to chip away at this bill which Senator Lugar and I and many others have worked so hard on. But I conferred with my Democratic colleagues on the House side who have jurisdiction over this matter. And I wanted to make it clear to Senator Thune, because I do not want to make a commitment I cannot keep, that if and when we get to the point where--I do not speak for Senator Lugar, but I am prepared, on the Democratic side, to accept the amendment at the appropriate time. And I wanted to make it clear that I was kidding yesterday, and I will say in the Record, I want it noted that I am joking, but this is not a Russell Long ``acceptance of a voice vote.''

It used to be, in the old days when I got here, Russell Long would accept anything on a voice vote on a finance bill. And the joke was, before he got to the other side of the House, they were dropped. That is why most people asked for rollcall votes, to make it harder for the conference to drop amendments.

It is my commitment to my colleague that I have been told by the House that although they prefer nothing change in the bill, they are prepared to accept this amendment and that there is no intention of dropping this amendment.

I wanted to make sure we are playing on a level playing field because I want to say publicly what I was privately asked. So I hope when Senator Kyl in his leadership capacity I do not think he is able to be here for another few minutes, but when he does come and speak, that we may be able to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a unanimous- consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. President, I will speak briefly, and then we are ready to vote on this amendment.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Indiana, and I would add two points.

I am a fan of sunsetting legislation. There used to be a fellow who worked here with us named Lawton Chiles. He got here in 1970 and started sunsetting ideas, and I am a supporter. But here is the deal, what makes this different.

One of the problems in getting many of these African governments in particular to sign on to being recipients and participants in the PEPFAR legislation to save the lives of their own constituents has been the uncertainty of whether, if they start the program, it will, in fact, last. What they don't want to do, since they know they can't carry it themselves, they don't want to find themselves out there where they have made a promise, and it turns out that we decide, at some near-term date, to say no, we are out. That is not what the Senator is saying. He is not saying we are going to get out. He is saying we are going to review. I argue that, as the Senator from Indiana has, we are reviewing. There is built-in review here.

Let me mention one point. The Ministers of Health from 12 African countries wrote the Congress to express their concern, not about this amendment per se but about the impact of uncertainty around the reauthorization of PEPFAR and what impact it would have on their programs in their countries. They said this uncertainty will cost lives because providing these antiviral treatments for people living with HIV/AIDS or caring for orphans and vulnerable children is a long-term commitment, and if the partners can't be confident we are going to continue the program, they are going to be much less willing to enroll new patients and take on a financial responsibility they can't bear. I understand the intent. But it is particularly dangerous to apply it here.

By the way, we don't know whether it applies to PEPFAR specifically, to the tuberculosis program, to the HIV program. Does it apply to all the myriad pieces of this legislation that are holistically designed to prevent and treat the spread of these diseases and the prolonging of life?

The last point, we essentially have a sunset provision. It is only authorized for 5 years. At the end of 5 years, it is over. We have hortatory language saying it is our hope and expectation, if it works as well as we anticipate and works as well as it has in the past, it will be continued for another 5 years. But we can only authorize it for that 5 years.

For those reasons and others which I will not bore my colleagues with now, some of which, if not all of which, my friend from Indiana has already mentioned, I will at the appropriate time ask for the yeas and nays and suggest to our colleagues that we defeat the amendment.

Mr. President, we all want to see effective oversight of taxpayer dollars, but this amendment would exacerbate the very problems it is attempting to solve.

It would create an expensive new bureaucracy that would duplicate functions already being performed by numerous inspectors general, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and other outside organizations commissioned by Congress to carry out reviews of this program.

The Congress just spent the last year reviewing the HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria programs.

The bill before the Senate is based on extensive field examination of the programs, on a GAO review and on an Institute of Medicine study.

We are considering a reauthorization based on the widespread view in Congress that these programs are working. We have a near consensus that they are some of the best foreign policy programs that we have. Why do we need another review at this stage to repeat what has just been done?

Furthermore, the Senate bill already mandates regular scrutiny by the inspectors general, by GAO, and the IOM.

Not only would this Sunset Commission be redundant, it could be harmful.

Under this amendment, AIDS, TB, and malaria programs would be abolished within 2 years after the commission's review--even if that review is

positive--unless Congress acts to reauthorize them.

Aside from the fact that we don't want to be fighting to get these programs to the floor every 2 years, think about what message this would send to the world.

As I have said, last year, the ministers of health from 12 African countries wrote to the Congress to express their concern about the impact uncertainty around reauthorization of PEPFAR would have on HIV/ AIDS programs in their countries.

They said that uncertainty could cost lives because providing antiretroviral treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS or caring for orphans and vulnerable children are long-term commitments, and if partners cannot be confident that the program is going to continue, they are going to be much less willing to enroll new patients for treatment.

This provision would only magnify that problem, calling into question the U.S. commitment to this program.

Finally, the amendment does not define what a program is. Is it PEPFAR itself? Is it our treatment programs? Is it a single grant to a faith-based organization working in Kenya?

PEPFAR is widely respected as a high-performing program that embraces what works and discards what doesn't.

Mr. President, I have been instructed by the floor staff that they are running traps to make sure people are prepared for a vote. I hope we can do that because if we don't vote by 12:15, we probably will not get back on voting until after 4 because of some luncheons; that is, the caucus lunch, the leadership lunch. There is a Republican meeting as well.

In the meantime, if I could take a moment while that is being checked to suggest how maybe we will proceed, if we can, between now and 12:15, hopefully we will be able to get this vote in. Also, I spoke with Senator Kyl on the Dorgan-Thune, et al., amendment, which we are prepared to accept. He says he only needs to speak for a minute or two. My hope was that we could wrap up both those things. Maybe Senator Kyl is available, and we could move to the voice vote on that. In the meantime, if we don't vote by 12:15, there will be no votes until around 4 p.m.

One of the things I have learned, in a major bill such as this, if you lose momentum, it just takes longer. I would like to keep some momentum going.

I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum. Let's hang here for a few minutes to see if we can clear a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Texas.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

A voice vote.

Mr. President, I now, after discussions with my colleague, ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 p.m. the Senate vote in relation to Cornyn amendment No. 5083 and that the time until that vote be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. President, Senator Vitter has been kind enough to come to the floor. He is trying to help move this process. He has an amendment relating to an inspector general. We have not had a chance to talk to him, but Senator Lugar and I have a second-degree amendment to that amendment that I think it may be worthwhile for the three of us to talk about.

Senator Vitter has indicated he would like--and I have no objection, assuming the second degree is in order--that the pending business, when we return, when the leadership meetings are over, be the Vitter amendment. I forget the number, quite frankly, but the Vitter amendment relating to inspectors general.

Am I correct, I ask the Senator?

I have no objection to that, as long as there is a second- degree amendment in order to the Vitter amendment when that occurs.

But I yield to my colleague, Senator Lugar.

Yes.

There is not a recess, correct.

So maybe rather than asking unanimous consent, it might be worthwhile to state the intention of the managers that after the vote on the Cornyn amendment, what we will do is move to the Vitter amendment; that he is here on the floor and will seek recognition to move his amendment. In the meantime, we will let him know what the second-degree amendment we are going to be offering to his amendment will be. As a practical matter, it will be the order of business at the time because he will have been recognized to move to his amendment.

In the meantime, unless my friend from Texas would like to speak further on his amendment, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the vote is now set for 12:15 on the Cornyn amendment; am I correct?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. President, for the benefit of our colleagues, we are making pretty good progress here. We only have a few amendments to go. To try to get a sense for our schedules and time, I will start by saying I don't see any reason why we will not finish this bill early tonight, No. 1. No. 2, I am told by the leaders that there will be no votes between now and 4.

We are prepared to take up, debate, discuss, and accept some amendments. I wish to ask my colleagues who have amendments--Senator Vitter is working with us right now. We may be able to work something out on his amendment. Senator DeMint has an amendment that we have debated. We are ready to vote on it, but he indicated he may have other people wishing to speak to it. We are ready to vote, after 4 o'clock, on that. I wish to set a time for that. Senator Craig has two amendments. One we are prepared to accept, and the other we are prepared to vote on. I believe he is ready to vote when we can set the time. Senator Kyl has an amendment that I believe we are ready to vote on. The only question is whether there will be a point of order on that amendment because it relates to the budget. That is being discussed now. Senator Sessions has an amendment which we are desperately trying to figure out how to proceed on and work out. We may be able to accommodate that and end up with a voice vote on that amendment.

I want my colleagues to know that in the next ensuing minutes and hours we are going to try to work out specific times. As my grandfather used to say, ``With the grace of God and the good will of the neighbors,'' by 4 o'clock, we will be able to set a series of votes. I don't see why we cannot finish this by 5 o'clock. That is the intention, but intentions here are not always met with reality. That is the intention.

I see my colleague, the ranking member of the committee, standing up. I don't know if he wants to make any comment.

While we are working on the Vitter amendment--we made an offer and there has been a counteroffer--I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I send to the desk an amendment by Senator Gregg and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Very briefly, this amendment relates to cost sharing and transition strategies. It has been cleared on both sides. I suggest we move by voice vote. I ask unanimous consent we proceed to a vote.

Mr. President, unless my friend from Indiana thinks we should proceed, I think we should spend the next few minutes in a quorum call while we try to work out, if we can, the Vitter amendment. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I do support the initiative of the Senator from Alabama. I think what he has said about the consequences and effects of what he is doing are absolutely correct. At the appropriate time, with the permission of the Senator from Indiana, and in the context of a unanimous consent agreement here, we would be prepared to accept the amendment. But we are not quite there yet.

While I have the floor, if I could say for the benefit of my colleagues and their staffs who are listening as to the status of where we are, the Senator from Indiana and I think we are very close to the wrapping up of an entire unanimous consent agreement which would allow us to have no more than four votes, including final passage--at least that is the expectation--and that we would be able to do that sometime within the next 2 hours, and we would be out of here relatively early.

On that point, I thank all the Senators who have had amendments for their cooperation in moving this along, I think a great deal more rapidly than anybody anticipated, at least more rapidly than I anticipated we would be able to do.

To conclude where I began, I say to the Senator from Alabama, I think his initiative is first rate. Everything he says about the consequences of what he is talking about is absolutely accurate, as best I know the situation.

In the context of a wrap-up unanimous consent agreement, we will be able to handle all of this. So that is the intention, I say to the Senator.

I am told in the meantime if and when the Senator from Alabama yields the floor, the Senator from Florida is looking to proceed as in morning business for some relatively short period of time.

Amendment No. 5086

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and on behalf of Senator Vitter, I send to the desk an amendment to the Vitter amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I wish to correct what I said. I said I send to the desk an amendment to the Vitter amendment. I send the Vitter amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that we move to its immediate consideration.

Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I believe we are down to three amendments. As my grandfather would say, God willing and the creek not rising, we will get a UC that can wrap this up pretty quickly.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I am going to propound, very shortly, two unanimous consent requests relative to the legislation. I wanted to make sure Senator Lugar has copies of them.

The first one relates to the Sessions amendment. Then the second relates to wrapping up the entirety of the bill, all remaining amendments. With the Senator's permission, I will proceed.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Sessions to substitute an amendment on promoting blood safety for the amendment he currently has listed under the agreement with respect to S. 2731, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment; that the Sessions amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Sessions amendment on the list be deleted, and that no point of order be in order to the bill based on section 305.

Madam President, that means the Sessions amendment is now agreed to; is that correct?

Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I urge passage of the amendment by voice vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order to S. 2731; that the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the pending amendments in the order listed below; that prior to each vote there be 4 minutes equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in the sequence, each succeeding vote be limited to 10 minutes each; that upon disposition of all of the amendments, and prior to voting on final passage of H.R. 5501, the House companion, there be 40 minutes of debate, with the time equally divided and controlled between the chair and ranking member; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 5501, as amended, with any other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

The amendments in question are the Gregg amendment, No. 5081; the Kyl amendment, No. 5082; and the DeMint amendment, No. 5077.

Madam President, I believe we are looking for a unanimous consent to begin the first amendment in the series of votes at 5 o'clock.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the votes that was set out in the unanimous consent agreement begin at 5 o'clock, the first vote beginning at 5 o'clock.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I want the Senator to have the last word, so I would ask that he have another 15 seconds to respond to what I am going to say.

Let's get this straight. This is an authorization. This is not an appropriation. I understand the Senator's concern. But we may need to, in terms of rationally ramping up the expenditures of this money without wasting the $48 billion, be spending $11 or $12 billion in the fifth year.

His concern is that becomes the baseline for the next 5 years. We are not authorizing for the next 5 years. We are authorizing for this 5 years. All we are doing is authorizing.

So I would strongly urge us to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, currently we are spending $6.3 billion a year. This amendment is based in part on the Congressional Budget Office report that assumes PEPFAR, tuberculosis, and malaria spending for fiscal 2009 will only be $1.5 billion. That false assumption stems from the fact that the Congressional Budget Office is evaluating this authorization act as if it were starting from zero. That is how they get the $35 billion. It is not starting from zero. It is starting from $6.3 billion. Slashing funding will require slashing targets set in this bill, including prevention of 12 million HIV infections; care for 12 million people, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children; treatment of millions of people with AIDS, according to a formula that climbs as appropriations rise over time; and a major expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis and malaria together which claim 6.3 million lives a year.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute.

For the benefit of our colleagues, there is 40 minutes of debate equally divided, but it is not the intention of the majority to use that 40 minutes. For planning purposes, I do not think we will use more than 8 minutes.

I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Ohio, Senator Brown.

Madam President, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I wish to make clear in the Record that I have never had any trouble working with Tom Coburn. He is correct. We did work on this. He is one smart fellow. He knew a great deal about the substance of this legislation but also the financing of it. I wish to thank him and his staff for his cooperation and thank him for his compliment to our staffs on the committee. I share his view about them, but also it has always been a pleasure to work with him.

I yield 5 minutes of our time to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.

Madam President, I yield myself a couple of minutes. After final passage, I will go through the thank-yous that are robustly warranted to the staff and individuals and Senators who are still here serving, and some who are not serving here, who have laid the groundwork for us to get to this point.

In a small village in Otse, Botswana, there is a rural health clinic run by a retired nurse in her seventies. Their patient log is a simple, handwritten ledger. It lists in chronological order the patients who have come in to her for treatment. The ledger has several columns, including one where, if the patient died, there is a mark made in red ink.

On a visit to this clinic last summer by minority and majority staff, this nurse, I am told by our staff, held up this ledger that showed an array of red marks in the early part of this decade. Then, a few years ago, something drastic happened. The nurse explained, with great excitement, to our staffs:

Look, no red marks. The red marks have stopped.

There is one reason for that dramatic turn of events in this small village in Africa, and that is PEPFAR, which I think would more appropriately be named the ``President of the United States fund.'' But it is nonetheless called PEPFAR, which is confusing to people.

The bottom line is what the President of the United States of America, all the Senators, and others who have

not been mentioned today are about to do, began to change the life of that village.

In 2003, President Bush and this Congress launched the largest public health program in the history of the world. It is saving lives-- millions of them. The funerals that were a daily occurrence have been reduced in number, and millions of people around the world have been given hope.

We have to sustain and build on this progress, and that is what we are doing today. That is what we are about to vote on. This bill we are about to vote on will set the course for the next 5 years and, hopefully, beyond. I am confident that, with the hard work of our House counterparts, this bill we are going to pass today will, in fact, be moved very quickly and be sent to the President's desk for signature.

We set forth very ambitious targets for care, treatment, and prevention. We must do all three. We cannot treat our way out of this disease, but we have succeeded at treatment in a way that nobody ever envisaged when John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and others started talking about this a long time ago. Five years ago, when we stood on the floor, I don't think anybody thought that the treatment side of this ledger would be as successful as it has been. I expect and hope that we are going to continue to see this kind of progress.

There are a lot of people to thank. I will do that after we pass the bill. For the moment, I wish to thank the President of the United States, President George Bush. His decision to launch this initiative was bold, and it was unexpected. I believe historians will regard it as his single finest hour. That is not a backhanded compliment. It would be a fine hour under the tenure of any President of the United States of America.

I wish to thank--quite frankly, I don't do it often enough around here--the American people for their generosity. Let me say it again-- the generosity of the American people. Senator Kyl makes the point that we have serious needs here at home. Yes, the American people are overwhelmingly supporting what we are doing today, knowing the cost and knowing there will be tradeoffs. I also appreciate the hard work of thousands of men and women in our Government and of the governments of our foreign partners, and their partners in the private sector, who are working on the ground around the world and have made this possible.

I yield back the remainder of the time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have refrained from thanking the people who need to be thanked on the incredible work that was done to get us to the point of such overwhelming passage on this legislation. I tell my colleagues that there are no more votes, so I want to make clear we are not holding anybody up here, but I want to take about 5 minutes to talk about the work done by our staffs and some of our predecessors in this body to produce the result we have today.

And I might add, way ahead of time Senator Lugar's staff and my staff have been coordinating this every step of the way with the House. So hopefully--God willing and the creek not rising--we are going to be able to produce something for the President's desk within a matter of days so that we are not going to have to go to conference.

There are a lot of people to thank, but let me start saying that this was a long time in coming.

The first bit of thanks, and I want to reiterate it again, goes to President Bush. I have been extremely critical of President Bush's foreign policy. I have been extremely critical of what I believe the damage his foreign policy has done to our image and/or standing in the world. But I must say the President of the United States has led us to this incredible moment, where this is the single largest effort on the part of any country in the history of the world to go out and literally save and extend the lives of tens of millions of people. This is a gigantic accomplishment. So first the credit should go to President Bush. Because, in fact, without his making it clear and at the very end of this process, making it clear--I am told to some of his Republican colleagues--how important this was, not merely to him but to the United States, this would have never happened. That is an unusual position for me to be in, but

credit should go where it is due, and credit is due to President Bush and his administration and the many people who have worked both in the White House and in the various Departments in order to get to this moment.

I also want to thank an extraordinary combination of people. It is presumptuous of me to say this, but the chemistry between the minority and majority staffs on the Foreign Relations Committee is extraordinary. I have had the great privilege of working with my colleague Senator Lugar for a long time. We have been working together for over 30 years. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a harsh word, a raised voice, a single solitary slight that ever has gone across the aisle between the Senator and me. There is no one in this body whose judgment on foreign policy I respect as much as this Senator. There is no one in the Congress, and quite frankly there is no one else in the country, whose judgment on matters relating to our national security and foreign policy I respect more, and I thank him. I thank him for his friendship and I also thank him in this specific case for his leadership and that of his staff.

I wish to express my personal appreciation to Shannon Smith. Shannon Smith was new to my staff. She came up on the Hill at a time where she was able to be the catalyst, along with a few other people I will name, to produce the result we have today. I can say to Shannon I am absolutely confident--absolutely confident--that if you do nothing else in your professional life than what you put together with Senator Lugar's staff today, you will have had a significant life, because very few people ever get put in a position where they arrive at a moment in history where they literally can change the path of people's lives in other parts of the world.

I know that sounds like hyperbole, but it is literally true. Few people get that opportunity. So you should relish it. You deserve it.

I also thank Brian McKeon of my staff, who has been with me since he was a kid out of Notre Dame. I guess it is now 20-some years, with a brief interlude where he went off to law school and clerked for the Federal Court and then came back as our legal counsel. I don't know anybody who knows his way around this body better than Brian does, and I don't know anybody who doesn't respect him. He is an incredible asset to have on this committee. And I should also credit Sherman Patrick, Steve Feldstein and Julie Baker on the staff of the Committee.

I would be remiss if I didn't say that it is hard on the Foreign Relations Committee--it is kind of like when Senator Lugar and I first got here. There was a unified staff. I mean literally when I came here, Senator Fulbright was the chairman and there was a unified staff. The chairman hired everybody, but he didn't hire anybody without the consultation and agreement of the minority. We have essentially arrived at the same place without having to go through that process.

There is Shellie Bressler, who has traveled the world with Shannon, went to those places. I am not being solicitous, Shellie, when I say you should understand that you made history. You helped make history.

People wonder whether we underpay the staff here. I say to the American people all the time, and the people of Delaware, and I mean it sincerely, the single best buy they get in everything they purchase is the incredible talent of the staff who work in this Congress and in the Federal Government. These people could go out and be making three and four times what they are now, but they are incredibly bright and dedicated, and Shellie, I am telling you, you will be able to tell your children and grandchildren and your great-grandchildren that you made something consequential happen.

I can say the same about Paul Foldi, who works for Senator Lugar. But I want to remind Senator Lugar, he used to work for me. He is a Delaware guy. Paul was actually foolish enough to help me when I tried the folly of attempting to get the nomination for President. I don't want to ruin his reputation. He has gone right since then. He is now working for a solid Republican. But Paul has been incredible. And Dan Diller has been as well.

I have managed many bills in my career, and have had some few successes, so I apologize, because I usually don't take this much time to talk about the staff, but this has been a staff-driven success and they deserve the attention and the recognition.

I also thank, in the Office of Legislative Counsel, Matt McGhie and Kevin Davis, whom I have not spoken to, but the staff has spoken to constantly and who worked tirelessly to prepare many drafts of this bill and numerous amendments that have been developed over the past several months.

In the other body, I also thank Peter Yeo and David Abramowitz and Pearl Alice-Marsh on the staff of Chairman Berman, as well as Chairman Berman. We are indebted to the House committee for striking the initial compromise that got us to this point, and we built on the House bill. We have consulted them regularly--I would guess many times a day, when I say regularly, in the last few weeks--in the hope that they will be able to approve the Senate-passed bill, which is my expectation.

Finally, in the administration, several people have devoted many hours, and maybe a lot more than that, moving this bill forward. In the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, great credit goes to Ambassador Mark Dybul, a very talented public servant, who testified before our committee, and who has spent a lot of time with our staffs and helped design and implement the PEPFAR program and made several contributions to the compromises developed over the past few months to get us to the 80-plus vote. I am embarrassed to say I don't remember the actual count, but I think it was over 80 people who voted for this.

I thank, and his staff particularly, Myron Meche, and Tom Walsh, who contributed a great deal to this moment. Also, at the White House, Deb Fiddelke and David Boyer of the Office of Legislative Affairs have been critical in this process.

Most of all, I want to thank in absentia the two people after whom this bill is named. Tom Lantos was a friend of all of us, but he was a particular friend of mine. Tom Lantos was a very successful businessman, an economics professor teaching at San Francisco State University, advising a number of banks, as well as two major unions on their financial investments. I met him when I was a young Senator, and I asked him on a lark whether he would come and be my foreign policy and economic adviser, and he came and worked for me. He came and worked for me--although, knowing Tom, he never worked for anybody.

But Tom Lantos, with his great Hungarian charm--everyone says Ireland has a Blarney Stone. I am absolutely confident the Blarney Stone is only a chip of the stone that is somewhere buried in Lake Balaton, in Hungary.

Tom became a close friend. Annette and his entire family are close personal friends still. Tom's daughter came to work with me as well, an 18-year-old graduate of Yale Law School, who graduated from Yale with honors at age 18.

He was an incredible man who, after a terrible tragedy in Guyana, where the San Francisco Congressman was shot dead, went home, ran for that seat with my encouragement, and ultimately became the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

And Henry Hyde, with whom I had many disagreements philosophically but was always a gentleman, became a great friend of both Senator Lugar and myself. This is the Lantos-Hyde legislation. It is named after them.

I know some of my colleagues will sort of wonder whether I am going overboard, but I also want to thank, in absentia--and I will thank him through Dot Helms--Jesse Helms. Jesse Helms had a conversion on the way to Damascus on AIDS. Jesse Helms started as a very hard edged guy, mirroring the attitudes of some of the most fundamentalist folks out there talking about AIDS, that it was a scourge because of a lot of things that I will not go into. This is a man who not only became convinced of the necessity of this legislation, he became a disciple of pushing this legislation.

Here in the Senate, and I will end with this, I don't know how we can talk about the success here without recognizing on the Republican side Senator Brownback, a very conservative Member of the Senate who worked very hard.

I do not think this would have happened without Dick Durbin being on the floor of the Senate almost every day for the past 5 or 6 years, pounding away, talking--I do not mean literally, but it seemed like almost every day for the last 5 years--about the moral responsibility we had as a nation to deal with this problem because we could--because we could--because we had the capacity.

Senator Lugar has already mentioned--again, I apologize going on for so long, but these people deserve credit--John Kerry. This has been a passion of John Kerry's for the last 10 years. John Kerry, when this was not at all popular, was not at all sort of the flavor of the day, John Kerry was banging away at the need for us to attend to this problem. I think he is owed a debt of gratitude for his persistence and consistency.

Also, the former majority leader, Dr. Frist, a doctor who came from Tennessee, and he got deeply involved in this process and his credibility as a great transplant surgeon sort of transcended the politics of this issue. He deserves great credit.

One of the guys who maybe was--every once in a while there is sort of a spark that ignites the kindling and gets it all going. I always kid him, but Richard Holbrooke--and I say affectionately, who drives me crazy sometimes--but Richard Holbrooke and Senator Feingold were on a trip to Africa. Senator Feingold, who has been passionate about this issue, was chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee--or he may have been ranking member at that time. In fairness, I cannot remember which it was. Senator Holbrooke going through a torturous confirmation process with the help of Senator Lugar and myself--was finally confirmed and did a great job there.

He picked up the phone in classic Holbrooke fashion and called Senator Feingold and said: We are going to Africa. They went to, I think--I would stand corrected by Senator Feingold, but I believe it was 12 countries in 14 days. They didn't go for this purpose, but in the process they visited clinics and the rest and they saw the depth, breadth, and consequence of this problem. Richard Holbrooke, according to Russ Feingold, called Kofi Annan on the plane and said: Kofi, we need a Security Council meeting on AIDS.

And Kofi Annan said: I am told we don't have health care Security Council meetings.

They had it, and that was also a major moment. So I thank Senator Feingold as well.

I could go on. There are others I am sure I left out, but in my years in the Senate, they were some of the people who delivered us this moment.

Last, and I will not say any more because I am going to yield to Senator Wyden to ask a unanimous consent--but, again, nothing works in this place unless it is bipartisan. No one has the credibility that is more recognized to produce those kinds of bipartisan results than my colleague, Senator Lugar, who deserves incredible credit for this bill.

I am told by staff Senator Wyden wishes to ask unanimous consent about an issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, with every new scientific report, the threat of global climate change becomes clearer. With every new economic report, the energy needs of developing countries continue to grow as millions of their citizens move out of poverty.

From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we here in the United States, along with the other industrial nations, grew our economies using cheap energy, building up the stock of greenhouse gases now in our atmosphere. But, today, even as we try to maintain economic growth with lower emissions, developing nations threaten to overwhelm any gains we can make in the fight against climate change.

No matter what we in the U.S. do about our own energy use, the developing world's demand for energy--in its cheapest form, from fossil fuels--will continue to rise. That would be a disaster. According to the International Energy Agency, by 2030 energy demand worldwide will increase by 55 percent, and nearly 80 percent of this rise will be in developing countries.

To address the threat of climate change, we must steer those countries onto a path of cleaner energy and cleaner development. It is in our national interest to reduce the environmental, economic, and national security threat of a changed global climate. But this is not just about avoiding threats. This can be an opportunity for the U.S. to capture the markets of the future, the next generation of clean power technologies.

That is why I am joining today with Senators Lugar, Menendez, and Hagel to introduce legislation to create an International Clean Technology Deployment Fund. This fund will be available to promote the international deployment of U.S. technology as a new component to our overall international economic development assistance. By supporting the market for that technology, it can help to stimulate research, investment, and job creation in industries with the potential for long- term growth. This can be a win for the planet and a win for our economy.

From its beginning in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has called for mechanisms whereby the developed, industrialized nations can provide the means for developing nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As recently as the last major meeting of the parties to that convention at Bali last December, that principle was reiterated as part of the Bali Action Plan.

In a similar vein, when President Bush submitted his budget earlier this year, he called for funding to support U.S. participation in a Clean Technology Fund, to be housed at the World Bank. That is one approach for which the resources our legislation authorizes could be used. Our allies, including Great Britain, and Japan, are among other donors interested in the establishment of that fund, whose goals are similar to those of the legislation we are introducing today.

The purpose of our legislation is, and I quote, ``to promote and leverage private financing for the development and international deployment of technologies that will contribute to sustainable economic growth and the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.''

An important goal of our legislation is to add the consideration of climate change more consistently and systematically to our foreign assistance strategy. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the future will be coming from the developing countries of the world. The choice is simple--we can ignore the climate impact of our assistance programs, or we can move those programs into a comprehensive strategy of clean economic development.

In this legislation, we establish an International Clean Technology Deployment Fund, to support the export of U.S. clean energy technology and expertise to developing nations. The Fund will be administered by a Board composed of relevant executive branch officials. They are authorized to distribute money in a number of ways, provided certain triggers are met. These ways include through multilateral trust funds, bilateral initiatives, existing U.S. programs such as USAID and technical assistance programs.

Funds can only go to eligible countries. A country, to be eligible, first must be a developing country. More importantly, it must take on its own climate change commitments, either through an international agreement to which the U.S. is a party, or by taking on what the Board certifies are sufficient binding national commitments. Additionally, every distribution of funding will require prior congressional notification.

Our bipartisan coalition, in consultation with many interested groups, worked to achieve a structure that will ensure that we have a range of options to help developing countries grow on a cleaner path, but still achieve real reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bali Action Plan, which the U.S. agreed to last December, sets the goal of reaching a new global agreement by December 2009, when parties will meet in Copenhagen. This is an ambitious schedule, made more complicated by our election schedule here at home.

With the time so short, it is our hope that this bill will begin to address some part of the Bali Action Plan, which includes support for developing countries in addressing technology deployment, adaptation, and deforestation. Our legislation addresses just one part of that framework, but it is an important one.

It can put the developing countries on a path of clean, sustainable economic growth, protect us and our children from the economic and security threats of global climate change, and help us create the industries and jobs of the future.

Mr. President, with every new scientific report, the threat of global climate change becomes clearer. With every new economic report, the energy needs of developing countries continue to grow as millions of their citizens move out of poverty.

From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we here in the United States, along with the other industrial nations, grew our economies using cheap energy, building up the stock of greenhouse gases now in our atmosphere. But, today, even as we try to maintain economic growth with lower emissions, developing nations threaten to overwhelm any gains we can make in the fight against climate change.

No matter what we in the U.S. do about our own energy use, the developing world's demand for energy--in its cheapest form, from fossil fuels--will continue to rise. That would be a disaster. According to the International Energy Agency, by 2030 energy demand worldwide will increase by 55 percent, and nearly 80 percent of this rise will be in developing countries.

To address the threat of climate change, we must steer those countries onto a path of cleaner energy and cleaner development. It is in our national interest to reduce the environmental, economic, and national security threat of a changed global climate. But this is not just about avoiding threats. This can be an opportunity for the U.S. to capture the markets of the future, the next generation of clean power technologies.

That is why I am joining today with Senators Lugar, Menendez, and Hagel to introduce legislation to create an International Clean Technology Deployment Fund. This fund will be available to promote the international deployment of U.S. technology as a new component to our overall international economic development assistance. By supporting the market for that technology, it can help to stimulate research, investment, and job creation in industries with the potential for long- term growth. This can be a win for the planet and a win for our economy.

From its beginning in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has called for mechanisms whereby the developed, industrialized nations can provide the means for developing nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. As recently as the last major meeting of the parties to that convention at Bali last December, that principle was reiterated as part of the Bali Action Plan.

In a similar vein, when President Bush submitted his budget earlier this year, he called for funding to support U.S. participation in a Clean Technology Fund, to be housed at the World Bank. That is one approach for which the resources our legislation authorizes could be used. Our allies, including Great Britain, and Japan, are among other donors interested in the establishment of that fund, whose goals are similar to those of the legislation we are introducing today.

The purpose of our legislation is, and I quote, ``to promote and leverage private financing for the development and international deployment of technologies that will contribute to sustainable economic growth and the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.''

An important goal of our legislation is to add the consideration of climate change more consistently and systematically to our foreign assistance strategy. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the future will be coming from the developing countries of the world. The choice is simple--we can ignore the climate impact of our assistance programs, or we can move those programs into a comprehensive strategy of clean economic development.

In this legislation, we establish an International Clean Technology Deployment Fund, to support the export of U.S. clean energy technology and expertise to developing nations. The Fund will be administered by a Board composed of relevant executive branch officials. They are authorized to distribute money in a number of ways, provided certain triggers are met. These ways include through multilateral trust funds, bilateral initiatives, existing U.S. programs such as USAID and technical assistance programs.

Funds can only go to eligible countries. A country, to be eligible, first must be a developing country. More importantly, it must take on its own climate change commitments, either through an international agreement to which the U.S. is a party, or by taking on what the Board certifies are sufficient binding national commitments. Additionally, every distribution of funding will require prior congressional notification.

Our bipartisan coalition, in consultation with many interested groups, worked to achieve a structure that will ensure that we have a range of options to help developing countries grow on a cleaner path, but still achieve real reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bali Action Plan, which the U.S. agreed to last December, sets the goal of reaching a new global agreement by December 2009, when parties will meet in Copenhagen. This is an ambitious schedule, made more complicated by our election schedule here at home.

With the time so short, it is our hope that this bill will begin to address some part of the Bali Action Plan, which includes support for developing countries in addressing technology deployment, adaptation, and deforestation. Our legislation addresses just one part of that framework, but it is an important one.

It can put the developing countries on a path of clean, sustainable economic growth, protect us and our children from the economic and security threats of global climate change, and help us create the industries and jobs of the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution marking August 2008 as National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month. The intentional misuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs remains a serious problem in this country. This resolution builds on the progress we have made in raising teens' and parents' awareness of the issue, and it seeks to expand our educational efforts even further.

While recent studies indicate that overall use of illegal drugs has remained relatively stable and use among teens has declined since 2002, the misuse of so-called ``legal'' medications is a serious and growing problem. The figures speak for themselves: 1 in 5 teens has misused a prescription drug, and more people age 12 or older have recently started abusing prescription pain relievers than started smoking marijuana.

Abuse of over-the-counter cough and cold medicines is also alarming. While over-the-counter and prescription medicines are extremely safe and effective when used properly, the abuse and recreational use of these medicines can be lethal. A study by the Partnership for a Drug- Free America indicates that 1 in 10 young people aged 12 through 17, or 2.4 million kids, have intentionally abused cough medicine to get high off its active ingredient, Dextromethorphan, or DXM. In March, I chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Crime and Drugs Subcommittee whereat Misty Fetko told the tragic story of her son Carl's overdose death from a combination of painkillers and over-the-counter cough and cold medicine. These tragedies continue and we have got to work to stop this abuse.

Educating teens and parents about the dangers of medicine abuse is an important component of solving this multifaceted problem. Too many teens think that prescription and over-the-counter medicines are safe anytime, in any dose, and even without a prescription or doctor supervision. They are gravely mistaken. Prescription drug abuse, without a valid prescription and close monitoring by a physician, can lead to dependency, overdose, and even death. Misuse of over-the- counter medicines can similarly cause harmful results.

Another reason driving this abuse is the fact that these drugs are cheap and easy to obtain. A bottle of cough syrup costs a few dollars at the local drug store and prescription drugs can often be found in unguarded medicine cabinets at home. A February 2007 report released by the office of National Drug Control Policy revealed that a shocking 47 percent of youth got their prescription drugs for free from a relative or friend. Parents are becoming their kids' drug dealers and don't even know it.

But we can turn these numbers around through robust education, awareness, and enforcement efforts--and that's just what National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month tries to accomplish by promoting the message that over-the-counter and prescription medicines must be taken only as labeled or prescribed, and that when used recreationally or in large doses they can have serious and life-threatening consequences. The resolution will help remind parents that access to drugs that are abused doesn't just happen in alleys and on the streets, but can often occur right in their medicine cabinets at home.

A number of groups have proactively worked to curb this abuse and I hope this resolution pushes their efforts even further. For example, the Consumer Health Care Products Association and the Community Anti- Drug Coalition of America have teamed up to

create educational toolkits, such as ``A Dose of Prevention: Stopping Cough Medicine Abuse Before It Starts,'' which include guides to educate parents, teachers, law enforcement officials, doctors and healthcare professionals, and retailers about the potential harms of over-the-counter drug abuse. In addition, the Partnership for Drug-Free America and its community alliance and affiliate partners are undertaking a nationwide prevention campaign that uses research-based educational advertisements, public relations, news media and the Internet to inform parents about the prevalence of intentional abuse of medicines among teens. These campaigns empower parents to effectively communicate the facts of this dangerous trend to their children and to take necessary steps to safely store prescription and over-the-counter medicines in their homes.

I have long advocated robust prevention efforts as a key component to getting a handle on any substance abuse problem. As is the case with other substance abuse issues, prevention is just as important here and educating parents and teens about the realities of medicine abuse is critical. I hope this resolution encourages communities, companies, prevention organizations, parents and others to raise awareness about these dangers, talk to our kids, and keep advancing our efforts to prevent all types of substance abuse in this country.

Mr. president, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Childhood Obesity: The Declining Health of America's Next Generation--Part I'' on Wednesday, July 16, 2008. The hearing will commence at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Are We Building Domestic Defenses That Will Make the Nation Safer From Nuclear Terrorism?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``How the Administration's Failed Detainee Policies Have Hurt the Fight Against Terrorism: Putting the Fight Against Terrorism on Sound Legal Foundations'' on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 from 10:30 am-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Licensing and Relicensing Processes for Nuclear Plants.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A Domestic Crisis with Global Implications: Reviewing the Human Capital Crisis at the State Department.''

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First of all, I agree with everything the Senator just said. But if, in fact, if I am not mistaken, all of the reserves that are estimated to exist off of your shore and ours--in Delaware they want to drill as well--if all the reserves in the entire continental United States, the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean--if they all exist, and they all meet the expectation of the best, most probable high return, we still only represent 3 percent of the total world oil reserves.

My problem is my Republican colleagues who tout themselves as being big businessmen who understand how the business world works in the market economy, it always amazes me how they fail to remember how cartels work. The cartel called OPEC controls the vast majority of the oil resources. Not one of these wells would come on before 10 years-- not one. That is according to our Department of Energy. Not one for 10 years.

When they come on, what makes anybody think that the outfit that controls 60 or 70 percent of the world's oil reserves isn't going to just pump 3 percent less? Does anybody think that OPEC, knowing that we had 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, is going to continue to pump at the rate they are pumping? I promise you they will reduce the amount of oil they pump just like they always did to 3, 4, 5, 7 percent less, guaranteeing that whatever the price was will be sustained.

What I do not understand is, I do not understand our friends, including the President, who was a businessman of sorts--I don't mean that; I am not being a wise guy--who was in the business world prior to this, doesn't understand how cartels work. Is there anywhere in the President's offshore drilling where he has gotten a commitment from OPEC that they will continue to pump at the rate they are pumping now? Are you aware of any such?

If the Senator will continue to yield for a moment, the thing I want everybody to understand is, as a guy named Yergin, who chairs the Cambridge Research Group, who advises not all but most of the major world oil companies, explained to me once, he said: You know, oil is like filling your swimming pool. If you put a hose in your swimming pool and you keep filling it and filling it, it takes a long time to raise an inch or two. It has virtually no impact on the total size cubic feet of your swimming pool or the amount of water in it. The second thing is, all the oil that goes into that swimming pool all goes into one big pool. It is all the same price.

If you notice, people pumping oil in Texas are not charging less than people pumping oil in Saudi Arabia. If you notice, people pumping oil in California are not charging less than people pumping oil in Venezuela. If you notice, when the OPEC price goes up ``American'' oilfields benefit.

I am not suggesting the American oilfields are in collusion with OPEC, but guess what. Americans think, if we pump our own oil, we will be independent. It ``ain't'' our own oil.

The oil on the Senator's side of the country would not. One reason I voted against the Alaska pipeline is instead of going through Canada to the United States, it would go to Japan, figuratively speaking.

I hope we start talking about basic facts. If everything we think we have under the ground that we control as the United States--on the Continental Shelf, off the Pacific Ocean, in ANWR-- everything out there, we have 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. It doesn't give you much of a bargaining chip. It would be one thing if you say: You know, every bit of the oil we pump that we control goes to the United States, and we are only going to charge $2 a barrel. Wouldn't that be great? Or $10 or $20 or $30 or $50. But I kind of notice, those guys down in Texas charge us exactly the same price as those guys wearing robes in Saudi Arabia charge us. Isn't that kind of funny? And if you only control 3 percent of the oil reserves and pump it all, all the folks we don't like so much who control 60 or 70 percent of the reserves, they just pump 3 percent less, and the price is the same. We cannot drill our way out of this.

I thank my friend from Washington for pointing this out.

I yield the floor.

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

Yes, we yield back the time in morning business.

Mr. President, I see my friend from South Carolina is here. I ask unanimous consent there be no second-degree amendments in order to the DeMint amendment, No. 5077.

Mr. President, I am shortly going to move to table the DeMint amendment, No. 5078, relating to abortion. Senator DeMint and I had a very brief conversation prior to this.

I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes equally divided for the Senator to make his position known.

I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

The underlying amendment, first-degree amendment, which I am moving to table would limit U.S. assistance to certain countries. Right now PEPFAR is working in 120 countries, and to limit it to 15 I think is very counterproductive.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a----

That was a question? Oh. I am sorry.

Although the question was not asked of me, before the Senator leaves the floor, I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, if I could point out one of the problems--this may well have been mentioned, and I apologize if it has--but essentially what the Senator is suggesting is going to require us not only to set up a new agency, but an agency that does not have any experience overseas and an inspector general who will basically start from scratch.

These are two binders full of the reports, which I hold in my hands, that have been done thus far by the present system of the three different agencies: State, Health and Human Services, and AID. They have considerable experience in going into the field overseas, knowing their way around. Part of this has to do with knowing your way around.

I used to have a friend who was a great basketball player. He wasn't the brightest candle on the table intellectually, but he had a great expression. He said: You gotta know how to know. These guys know how to know. They know where to look. They have been doing some versions of this overseas for the last 30 years in the case of State and AID.

I am not going to dare suggest this material be printed in the Record, but I have here two large binders full of reports of the IGs, the coordinated efforts here, mostly done through State and AID, of overseeing these programs. The last point I will make: It is overwhelmingly in their interest to see that this money is spent well because it affects so many other aspects of their ability to provide the kinds of services the 150 account provides out of the whole effort we have for development and diplomacy.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for being kind enough to hang around and listen. To use President

Reagan's expression, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it''--it ain't broke. It costs more money to fix it, in my view. I believe the agencies in place, coordinating their efforts, have vastly more experience in knowing where to look and determining whether the money is being spent as intended.

Mr. President, the Global AIDS program is operated in this way: a special coordinator, Dr. Mark Dybul, sits in the Department of State, and provides policy development and guidance to the agencies in the field implementing the program.

The main agencies implementing the program in the field are the Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.

Ambassadors in the field, in every country where PEPFAR operates, provide overall supervision.

So there are three main agencies involved--the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

There are others, such as Peace Corps and the Defense Department, but these are the big three.

All three agencies--State, AID and HHS--already have an inspector general. These were created by Congress a long time ago.

In the last several years, the volume of audit and inspection reports prepared by these entities on the PEPFAR program and the President's Malaria Initiative fills these two large binders, which run hundreds and hundreds of pages in length.

The AID inspector general alone has conducted 25 audits and made nearly 100 recommendations.

The State Department inspector general has reviewed PEPFAR activities at 10 overseas posts during embassy inspections.

In the last 3 years, there have been five GAO reports, and another one is underway.

The Global AIDS coordinator, Dr. Dybul, has formally requested that the PEPFAR agency inspectors general get together on a collective financial audit.

In other words, there is already a lot of work that is being done. But in order to ensure that it continues and indeed increases, the bill before the Senate has a provision on this very point--a provision that the Senator's amendment would strike.

It requires the three inspectors general from these agencies to come up with a coordinated annual plan to review the programs under this act. And then it provides $15 million that is specifically allocated to this work, out of the $50 billion in this bill.

So we have already addressed the Senator's concern in a way that builds on an existing structure, which will save taxpayer dollars and will ensure a coordinated effort.

The Senator's amendment, by contrast, requires us to build a whole new outfit from scratch.

It calls for $10 million in annual funding, or $50 million over the life of the bill--almost as much as Dr. Dybul's own office spends to manage the entire program.

As everyone knows, these programs are implemented overseas, not only in the 15 ``focus countries,'' but dozens of other countries.

The inspector general for the Agency for International Development has several overseas offices--including two of them in sub-Saharan Africa, in South Africa and Senegal--that do the bulk of the audit work.

The State Department inspector general sends teams out to inspect every embassy every 5 years or so. During these inspections, they review aspects of the PEPFAR program.

How will this new office be able duplicate this existing infrastructure? Where will these overseas offices be located? What are the startup costs for all this?

Do we really need a special IG for every $6 billion program we create in the Government? Why do we bother to fund the permanent IGs?

Where will staff be recruited for this new IG? The community of IGs in the Government is already struggling to find competent auditors and investigators. The new IG will almost certainly end up poaching staff from existing IGs, thereby weakening those offices. Is that a result we want?

I think it makes no sense to start over, when we have existing outfits that can do the job. I oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator's amendment is in order. We have signed onto it. I ask unanimous consent that no second- degree amendments be in order to the Senator's amendment.

Madam President, I respect the Senator from Kentucky and understand his position. I am pleased to see his strong support for the intention of the PEPFAR legislation. But as appealing as the Senator's amendment is, it belies a very important underlying point. Originally, this was authorized for $15 billion. At the time of the authorization, it was clear to everyone that was not nearly sufficient to deal with what is a worldwide dilemma, a worldwide problem. There is also recognition that it is not like you can isolate AIDS to a single country. The notion that we became clearly aware of, as knowledge of this disease became more apparent to the world at large, is that this has no borders. It has no geographic bounds. It has no ideological component. We hear statements that sound very appealing, such as: Why should we help a country like China deal with AIDS? We have the technology and the medical capability and PEPFAR and the world organizations know how to deal with it in ways that individual countries, including developed and developing countries such as China, don't.

What happens in China affects what happens in the rest of the world. The idea of us not being part of the world effort to stem the spread of AIDS in China--or Russia, for that matter--impacts on the well-being of all humanity and, specifically, American citizens along the line. That is a generic point I wished to make.

Let me be more specific. This would slash funding from the $50 billion mark we have proposed to a $15 billion mark, which would be cutting current assistance substantially. It also assumes that the United States or the U.S. Global AIDS coordinator or our other partners have not learned anything in the past 5 years. In fact, we have learned a great deal. The Lantos-Hyde Reauthorization Act, which we are voting on now, and amendments to it, seeks to build on the current progress we have made.

The Senator outlined the real progress, but we ought not to freeze in place or, worse yet, set backward the progress we have made.

This bill draws heavily on several reports that have been commissioned by the Congress. The GAO, which is Congress's watchdog, and the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, both recommended substantial changes in current law in order to improve our programs. This bill acts on a number of those recommendations. First and foremost, it needs to be pointed out that the earmarks established in 2003--it would come back, as I understand it, in the proposal by my colleague from Kentucky--were actually impeding our progress in fighting AIDS, in some ways.

These earmarks set specific percentages for spending on HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care and, further, they set percentages on certain kinds of prevention activities.

In 2003, these earmarks may have served their stated purpose. For example, they emphasized the importance of treatment at a time when treatment was almost unheard of in parts of the world. They also underscored the ideas that abstinence and being faithful were key components of HIV prevention programs. Those principles were important and they are now well established.

But the Institute of Medicine also found that such rigid earmarks have ``adversely affected implementation of the U.S. Global AIDS Initiative'' and ``have been counterproductive.''

The GAO also found the 2003 earmarks effectively pitted some of these earmarks against other very highly valued prevention efforts that should be under way to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child. As a result, fewer funds were available to expand programs to prevent transmission of the disease from HIV-infected mothers to their children. Every day, for example, over 1,000 children are infected by

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

Madam President, I have a unanimous consent I am about to propound that has been cleared on the Republican side. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bunning amendment, No. 5073; further, that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Madam President, I will use a minute or so of this time. I believe the Bunning amendment is well intended, but I think the irony is the Bunning amendment fails to understand what it was that was intended at the first effort to bring forward PEPFAR and get this underway.

As I said, we had a number of nations that needed help badly denying the need for help because they viewed it reflected so negatively on them as a people and as a nation. So we did a lot of things the first time around that now, in the clear light of day, and much broader need, and the fact that PEPFAR and the world Global Fund is being embraced by the rest of the world, that actually acts as an impediment if we went back to Senator Bunning's proposal.

So at the appropriate time, 5 o'clock, I am going to suggest again that my colleagues support a ``no'' vote. We will have an up-or-down vote on this amendment and vote no on the Bunning amendment, which would quite frankly eviscerate, literally eviscerate the President's initiative.

I will conclude by saying, I am often critical of the President and his foreign policy and his aid programs, et cetera. But the President of the United States, George W. Bush, deserves great credit. If the President did nothing else in his administration, this is justification enough for his legacy to be looked back on favorably because of the phenomenal and dramatic impact this initiative has had and will have in the rest of the world.

I yield the floor.

The Rev. Dr. Harris is capable of being a Senator. She has the capability and competence to do any number of jobs I can think of.

I compliment my colleague for inviting the Rev. Dr. Harris to open the Senate this morning. As you could tell by Senator Carper's reference to Reverend Harris, Senator Carper is a man of deep faith, as I know the Chair is and as I am. We share different faiths, but we share a common set of values, as almost all the confessional faiths do, not just the Christian faith which we share. I am a Roman Catholic, my friend is a Presbyterian, and Dr. Harris is a Methodist.

The thing about Dr. Harris--and I will not take a lot of the Senate's time--the thing about Dr. Harris that has impressed me from the many years--my Lord, I think it may be more than a couple decades. I have known her a long time. She was an incredibly well-respected figure in my State before she went to the ministry--before. Since then, she has carried on that same path of excellence that she did prior to the ministry. But if I can take a page from my colleague's book in referencing Dr. Harris's opening prayer, she talked about wisdom, which she knows we need in abundance. But she also talked about--she used the word that, if I had to describe her, would be the word I would use. She talked about tolerance. The thing that most impresses me about the Rev. Dr. Harris is her literal--not figurative, not rhetorical--commitment to the notion of tolerance.

She has such an expansive view of human nature. She has such a welcoming--not only faith but personality.

I think if I had a wish, if the Lord came down and sat at my desk and said: Joe, you get one wish. What is the one attribute you would like to pervade this Chamber? Maybe even more than wisdom, it would be tolerance.

Tolerance is not engaging in relativity. Tolerance does not mean we don't have strong beliefs and strong opinions and strong positions on faith. Tolerance is what not only our Christian religion teaches us but Judaism and Islam and Hinduism. It is about tolerance. It seems to me that is the single most lacking element in American society today.

I think if you get to know her--you are not going to get to know her, I realize that is a bit of an exaggeration--I hope you get a chance to engage Rev. Dr. Harris today. She exudes the notion of tolerance which equates with her notion of equality. It gets to what--I will conclude-- my friend Tom said, the two great commandments: love thy God and love thy neighbor. This is all about loving thy neighbor. We are the single most heterogenous democracy in the history of mankind. It is unable to function--I look at the pages wondering: What is this old guy saying? This country is unable to function without the lubricant of tolerance. And Dr. Harris embodies that.

I am honored to be here this morning with her. I, again, compliment my colleague on not only his comments but inviting Dr. Harris to be here and introducing her to all of you and to those who are watching C- SPAN this morning, watching her.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to the equal protection of the law. Nowhere is the guarantee of equal protection more important than in our criminal justice system. In a criminal justice system that imprisons a record 2.3 million, even the perception of bias on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other protected class is unacceptable and should be guarded against at all costs.

Unfortunately, studies, reports, and case law from the last several years have documented racial disparities during many of the stages of the criminal justice system--law enforcement contact with a suspect, arrest, charging, plea bargaining, jury selection, and sentencing. Nowhere are the effects of these racial disparities more evident than in our prisons. By some estimates, nearly three-quarters of prisoners in the United States are either African-American or Hispanic. One of every three African-American men born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime. These numbers, and studies and reports that show similar disparities during other stages of the criminal justice process, engender a crisis of public trust in the integrity of our criminal justice system and raise the possibility that we are failing to make good on the constitutional promise of equal protection.

Both the reality and the perception of inappropriate disparate treatment of minorities in the justice system erode respect for the law and undermine public safety.

Communities become increasingly reluctant to report crimes to and cooperate with police and prosecutors. They become reluctant to participate in juries and, when they do participate, to vote for conviction where the defendant is a minority. To fulfill the promise of the Constitution, and to effectively fight crime and deliver impartial justice, it is essential to identify and address unjustified disparities in the criminal justice system.

The Justice Integrity Act establishes a pilot program within the Justice Department to identify and eliminate unjustified disparities in the administration of justice. Ten U.S. Attorneys designated by the Attorney General will each appoint and chair an advisory group, composed of Federal and State prosecutors and defenders, private defense counsel, Federal and State judges, correctional officers, victims' rights representatives, Civil Rights organizations, business representatives and faith-based organizations engaged in criminal justice work.

The advisory group will systematically gather and examine data regarding the criminal process in its district and seek to determine the causes of any racial or ethnic disparity. The advisory group will produce a report on its findings and recommend a plan to reduce any unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities and thereby increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. The U.S. Attorney will consider the advisory group's recommendations and adopt a plan and

submit a report to the Attorney General. At the end of the pilot program, the Attorney General will produce a comprehensive report to Congress on the results of the pilot program in all ten districts and recommend best-practices.

The Justice Integrity Act has been endorsed by the National Criminal Justice Association, The Sentencing Project, the American Bar Association, and a number of former United States Attorneys. I am proud to introduce this important bill with the support of my colleagues and friends--Senators Arlen Specter, John Kerry, and Ben Cardin. We urge other members to join us.

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

Mr. President, the Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to the equal protection of the law. Nowhere is the guarantee of equal protection more important than in our criminal justice system. In a criminal justice system that imprisons a record 2.3 million, even the perception of bias on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other protected class is unacceptable and should be guarded against at all costs.

Unfortunately, studies, reports, and case law from the last several years have documented racial disparities during many of the stages of the criminal justice system--law enforcement contact with a suspect, arrest, charging, plea bargaining, jury selection, and sentencing. Nowhere are the effects of these racial disparities more evident than in our prisons. By some estimates, nearly three-quarters of prisoners in the United States are either African-American or Hispanic. One of every three African-American men born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime. These numbers, and studies and reports that show similar disparities during other stages of the criminal justice process, engender a crisis of public trust in the integrity of our criminal justice system and raise the possibility that we are failing to make good on the constitutional promise of equal protection.

Both the reality and the perception of inappropriate disparate treatment of minorities in the justice system erode respect for the law and undermine public safety.

Communities become increasingly reluctant to report crimes to and cooperate with police and prosecutors. They become reluctant to participate in juries and, when they do participate, to vote for conviction where the defendant is a minority. To fulfill the promise of the Constitution, and to effectively fight crime and deliver impartial justice, it is essential to identify and address unjustified disparities in the criminal justice system.

The Justice Integrity Act establishes a pilot program within the Justice Department to identify and eliminate unjustified disparities in the administration of justice. Ten U.S. Attorneys designated by the Attorney General will each appoint and chair an advisory group, composed of Federal and State prosecutors and defenders, private defense counsel, Federal and State judges, correctional officers, victims' rights representatives, Civil Rights organizations, business representatives and faith-based organizations engaged in criminal justice work.

The advisory group will systematically gather and examine data regarding the criminal process in its district and seek to determine the causes of any racial or ethnic disparity. The advisory group will produce a report on its findings and recommend a plan to reduce any unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities and thereby increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. The U.S. Attorney will consider the advisory group's recommendations and adopt a plan and

submit a report to the Attorney General. At the end of the pilot program, the Attorney General will produce a comprehensive report to Congress on the results of the pilot program in all ten districts and recommend best-practices.

The Justice Integrity Act has been endorsed by the National Criminal Justice Association, The Sentencing Project, the American Bar Association, and a number of former United States Attorneys. I am proud to introduce this important bill with the support of my colleagues and friends--Senators Arlen Specter, John Kerry, and Ben Cardin. We urge other members to join us.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. As one of the cosponsors of FISA in 1978, I am fully aware of the importance of giving the administration the surveillance tools it needs to keep us safe. This is a very difficult vote and I do not question the judgment of those who have chosen to support the bill. But because I am concerned that this bill authorizes surveillance that is broader than necessary to

protect national security at the expense of civil liberties and because it gives blanket retroactive immunity to the telephone companies, I have decided not to support it.

One of the defining challenges of our age is to combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law and individual rights. These two obligations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they reinforce one another. Unfortunately, the President's national security policies have operated at the expense of our civil liberties. The examples are legion, but the issue that prompted the legislation before us today is one of the most notorious-- his secret program of eavesdropping on Americans without congressional authorization or a judge's approval.

After insisting for a year that the President was not bound by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's clear prohibition on warrantless surveillance of Americans, the administration subjected its surveillance program to FISA Court review in January of 2007.

Then, last August, citing operational difficulties and heightened threats that required changes to FISA, Congress passed the Protect America Act--over my objection and that of many of my colleagues. I am submitting with this statement the objections I made at that time.

The Protect America Act, which sunset last February, amended FISA to allow warrantless surveillance, even when that surveillance intercepted the communications of innocent American citizens inside the United States.

The administration identified two problems it faces in conducting electronic surveillance under FISA. First, the administration wanted clarification that it did not need to obtain a FISA warrant in order to conduct surveillance of calls between two parties when both of those parties are overseas. Because of the way global communications are now transmitted, many communications between people all of whom are overseas are nonetheless routed through switching stations inside the United States. In other words, when someone in Islamabad, Pakistan calls someone in London, that call is likely to be routed through communications switching stations right here in the United States. Congress did not intend FISA to apply to such calls, and I support a legislative fix to clarify that point.

The second problem the administration identified is more difficult. Even assuming that the Government does not need a FISA warrant to tap into switching stations here in the United States in order to intercept calls between two people who are abroad--between Pakistan and England, for example--if the target in Pakistan calls someone inside the United States, FISA requires the government to get a warrant, even though the government is ``targeting'' the caller in Pakistan.

The administration wants the flexibility to begin electronic surveillance of a ``target'' abroad without having to get a FISA warrant to account for the possibility that the ``foreign target'' might contact someone in the United States. I agree with the administration's assessment of the problem, but this bill would go far beyond what is necessary to meet these new technological challenges.

This bill's approach would significantly expand the scope of surveillance permitted under FISA by exempting entirely from the warrant requirement any calls to or from the United States, as long as the Government is ``targeting'' someone reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

The Government could acquire these communications regardless of whether either party is suspected of any wrongdoing and regardless of how many calls to innocent American citizens inside the United States were intercepted in the process.

Although the bill gives the FISA Court a greater role than earlier bills did, it still fails to provide for a meaningful judicial check on the President's power. The FISA Court's role would be limited to reviewing the Government's targeting procedures and its minimization procedures--the procedures it uses to limit the retention and dissemination of information it has required. But it would be required to approve them as long as they met the general requirements of the statute, which is written broadly.

In addition, unlike the Judiciary Committee version of the bill I supported earlier this year, this bill neither limits the Government's use of information collected under procedures the FISA Court later deems inadequate, nor does it expressly give the FISA Court authority to enforce compliance with orders it issues.

I am concerned that because of the way this bill is drafted, it could be interpreted to preclude the FISA Court from ordering the Government to destroy all communications of innocent Americans that it incidentally collects during its surveillance. If I were certain that the FISA Court had the power to order the destruction of the communications of innocent Americans, it might tip the balance in favor of my supporting the bill, even though I oppose blanket retroactive immunity.

As for immunity, although I can understand why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11 the telephone companies would have cooperated with the Government, I believe it is inappropriate for Congress to grant blanket retroactive immunity without knowing what it is granting immunity for.

Furthermore, cases against the carriers are already making their way through the courts and I have every confidence in the court's ability to interpret and apply the law. Retroactive immunity would undermine the judiciary's role as an independent branch of government.

When the Senate passed FISA, after extensive hearings, thirty years ago by a strong bipartisan vote of 95 to 1, I stated that it ``was a reaffirmation of the principle that it is possible to protect national security and at the same time the Bill of Rights.'' I still believe that is possible, but not if we enact this bill.

Mr. President, I am in support of Senator Rockefeller's proposal to address shortcomings in our intelligence collection authorities. I have studied Senator Rockefeller's bill closely and believe that it is an appropriate, temporary fix that adequately protects both our national security and Americans' privacy and civil liberties. It includes important safeguards against executive abuse--safeguards that are essential for an administration that has demonstrated so frequently that it simply cannot be trusted.

The Rockefeller bill is narrowly tailored to address the two problems the administration has said it faces in conducting electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as that law is currently written.

First, the administration wants clarification that it does not need to obtain a FISA warrant in order to conduct surveillance of calls between two parties when both of those parties are overseas. Because of the way global communications are now transmitted, many communications that take place entirely overseas are nonetheless routed through switching stations inside the United States. In other words, when someone in Islamabad, Pakistan, calls someone in London, England, that call may well be routed through communications switching stations right here in the United States. FISA was never intended to apply to such calls, and I support a legislative fix to clarify that point.

The second problem the administration has identified is more difficult. Although neither FISA nor the Constitution requires the President to get a warrant if the target of surveillance is in Pakistan calling London, or anywhere else outside the United States, if the target in Pakistan calls someone in the United States, FISA requires the Government to get a warrant, even though the Government is ``targeting'' the caller in Pakistan.

Senator Rockefeller's bill would give the Government great flexibility to conduct surveillance of targets abroad, with prior approval of the FISA Court, while protecting the privacy of innocent Americans in the United States.

Under this bill, the FISA Court would be required to issue a warrant upon a minimal showing that the targets of surveillance are overseas and not in the United States. The bill provides protection for innocent Americans in the United States--if the foreign target's communications began to involve a significant number of calls

into the United States, the Government would be required to end surveillance pending receipt of a new FISA Court order that the target overseas was a suspected terrorist.

Senator Rockefeller's approach also ensures robust oversight. Congress would get the actual FISA Court orders, and, every 60 days, Congress would receive the list of targets who turned out to be in the United States and the number of persons inside the United States whose communications were intercepted. This is more information than Congress receives today, and it would enable us to verify the administration's claim that they are targeting suspected terrorists without unnecessarily violating the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

Senator Rockefeller's bill sunsets in 6 months, at which point Congress can, if necessary, craft a permanent, sensible, and Constitutional fix to FISA that ensures the American people are protected from terrorism and from encroachments on their civil liberties and individual freedoms. The President has asked that we go further, that we give him more unchecked power and discretion to eavesdrop on Americans' conversations without a warrant and without congressional oversight. His request raises many concerns, and Congress should deny it.

The President's proposal would significantly expand the scope of surveillance permitted under FISA by exempting entirely any calls to or from the United States, as long as the Government is directing its surveillance at someone reasonably believed to be located abroad. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence would make this determination on their own, and they would merely certify, after- the-fact, to the FISA Court that they had reason to believe the target is outside the United States, regardless of how many calls to innocent American citizens inside the United States were intercepted in the process. This would be a breathtaking and unconstitutional expansion of the President's powers and it is wholly unnecessary to address the problems the administration has identified.

Furthermore, the administration would not even limit this unchecked surveillance to persons suspected of involvement in international terrorism--it would cover the collection of any foreign intelligence information, which can include the collection of trade secrets and other information unrelated to the threat posed by al-Qaida.

I have said before that one of the defining challenges of our age is to effectively combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law, individual rights, and civil liberties. Unfortunately, the President has attempted to protect America by unnecessarily betraying our fundamental notions of constitutional governance and individual rights and liberties.

I will support giving the administration the tools it needs to track down terrorists, but I will not give the President unchecked authority to eavesdrop on whomever he wants in exchange for the vague and hollow assurance that he will protect the civil liberties of the American people. This administration has squandered the trust of Congress and the American people.

The administration's approach is constitutionally infirm and it is unnecessary to address the specific problems it has identified. The Rockefeller bill is a carefully calibrated approach that protects the American people from both terrorism and violations of their civil liberties.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.