Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank my good friend the majority leader for allowing me to go ahead. My remarks will be briefer than his.

All across the country, Americans are feeling the sting of record high gas prices at the pump. The cost of food is rising along with the price of gas. Truckers and stay-at-home parents and commuters and vacationers are frustrated at paying more for gas than any of them ever imagined.

The situation is urgent. It demands our full attention, and it demands a serious legislative response.

And though a barrel of crude oil costs roughly three times what it did when Democrats took over Congress a year and a half ago, so far, the Democrat leadership has been timid about solutions. They have treated high gas prices as a distraction. But the time for timidity has passed. Americans are demanding that Congress do something to lower the high price of gas, and they won't be fooled by gimmicks or half- measures.

The majority leader has moved to a bill that only addresses the issue of speculation. But no serious person thinks passing this legislation alone will fix the problem. I don't know of any reputable economists who think

that simply addressing the futures market will significantly affect the price of gas.

Warren Buffett, the most famous rich Democrat in America, dismisses the idea.

T. Boone Pickens--who will be meeting with the Democrats tomorrow-- dismisses the idea.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, dismisses the idea.

Serious economists on all sides dismiss the idea.

The 27-nation International Energy Agency dismisses the idea.

Strengthening regulation of the futures market is a worthwhile piece of any legislative effort, but let's be clear from the outset: it is just a piece--and a small piece at that.

We need to think about the scope of this problem and act boldly. Problems this big require a bigger solution than a single idea by a single Member of Congress, not timid attempts to address only part of the problem.

As the senior Senator from Tennessee has said, can you imagine if President Kennedy had acted timidly when launching the space mission? What do you think the reaction would have been if he had declared we will go only a fraction of the way to the Moon?

Good ideas from both sides should be considered. And Americans, we know, are demanding nothing less.

They are demanding, above all, that we treat high gas prices for what they are: the single most important domestic issue facing Americans today. And they will know we are doing so when they see us dealing head on with supply and demand. Increased global demand for oil is not going down anytime soon. This means gas prices will not go down unless supply goes up.

And with gas prices now well above $4 a gallon, the time has come for those who oppose a balanced approach to retreat from their long-held opposition to targeted and responsible oil exploration at home. They need to unlock the Outer Continental Shelf and lift their ban on the development of the vast oil shale deposits in western States.

America is the third-largest oil producer in the world. We possess within our own borders triple the amount of oil potential of Saudi Arabia with oil shale alone. It is time for the opponents of a balanced approach to unlock these vast domestic resources that will allow us to finally start the process of increasing domestic supply even as we work together toward a future free from dependence on Middle East oil.

Our friends have been reluctant until now to unlock these vast domestic reserves because of an aversion to fossil fuels and a sluggish attitude toward legislating in the middle of a Presidential election year. But Americans are more concerned right now about paying for gasoline and groceries than they are about the political calendar. And, over the past couple of weeks, a number of our friends on the other side have indicated they want a balanced solution too.

So far, a dozen Democrats have expressed some level of openness to new domestic exploration. We are approaching a bipartisan consensus on the need to increase domestic supply. But their leadership isn't there. Their Presidential nominee opposes every effort to increase supply. The Speaker of the House is walking in lock-step with Al Gore.

It is time for Republicans and Democrats to come together on high gas prices. It is time to put aside old and outdated prejudices about offshore exploration, which is being done safely by countless other countries around the world and here at home too. It is time to use the resources we have and stop timidly nibbling around the edges. It is time to deliver for the American people. It is time to do what we were sent here to do.

A serious solution is already at hand. The Gas Price Reduction Act, with 44 coponsors, features a speculation piece that addresses the concerns of the bill the Democratic leadership would have us vote on tomorrow. But it is bolder than just that. It also contains the elements of a serious energy bill. It faces supply and demand head on by lifting the ban on Western oil shale development and opening up exploration far from the shores of the states that want it. And it promotes energy efficient vehicles like plug-in electric cars and trucks.

The Gas Price Reduction Act was written with one bipartisan principle in mind: find more, use less. If we adopt it, the American people will see that Congress is taking their concerns seriously.

Anything short of this bill will not be welcomed by the American people and will prove to be a waste of energy. If we pass the speculator piece alone, Americans will continue to demand a serious solution that gets at supply and demand. But we can avoid such a disappointment now by getting behind a proposal that directly addresses the price of gas at the pump.

This is a big problem, and the problem is bigger than just speculation; good ideas from all sides should be considered. It is what the American people demand.

Madam President, I rise to speak about a hero of the Kentucky National Guard who gave his life in defense of freedom for our country. PFC Sammie E. Phillips was tragically killed on September 10, 2007, when his vehicle overturned during patrol in Iraq. Hailing from Elizabethtown, KY, he was 19 years old.

For his bravery in uniform, Private First Class Phillips earned several awards, medals and decorations, including the Good Conduct Medal, the Kentucky Distinguished Service Medal and the Bronze Star.

Sammie's wife, Ashley Phillips, says of her husband, ``I want everyone to know how proud Sammie was and how he truly was a hero, just like he always wanted to be.''

In his too short life Sammie made a big impression on many people. He had a way of brightening any room when he walked in, and he made lots of friends.

``The thing I remember about Sammie the most was his smile,'' says Laura McGray, a former high-school teacher of his. ``His eyes stood out. In some people their whole souls shine through their eyes. That was Sammie.''

Sammie grew up in Elizabethtown and attended North Hardin High School in nearby Radcliff. Like a lot of young men his age, he enjoyed watching scary movies, and he liked Cadillac cars.

He was a big Tennessee Titans fan. He liked listening to rap music, and had big speakers in his car so he could do just that. Most of all, he enjoyed spending time with family and friends, especially Ashley, who he met during his junior year at North Hardin.

``He was very dedicated to his friends and relationships and would give a person the shirt off his back,'' says Ashley.

Sammie graduated from high school in 2006, and enlisted in the Kentucky National Guard. When he received his orders to deploy to Iraq, he asked Ashley to marry him. That was on a Wednesday. That Saturday, Sammie and Ashley were wed.

The happy couple had 10 days together before Sammie reported for training. In August of 2007, he shipped out to Iraq.

In uniform, Sammie continued to impress people just as he had in high school. He was assigned to Battery B, 2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery, based out of Carlisle, KY. He qualified as an expert gunner and became the gunner in his tank.

CAPT Robert S. Mattingly, the commander of Sammie's unit, calls Sammie ``an excellent soldier who had unlimited potential. I rode with Sammie while training in Mississippi. He was one of our best gunners, the absolute cream of the crop. He was always ready to go, which is one of the best traits a soldier could possess.''

Captain Mattingly adds:

I never met a person that didn't like Sammie Phillips.

Donald C. Storm, the former Adjutant General of the Kentucky National Guard, says Sammie was ``a tremendous young soldier that just had tremendous potential.''

Sammie aspired to one day be an architect, a goal he told Ashley about when they first met. He had hoped to go to school to study architecture once he returned from Iraq. He saw himself as a builder, and he built big dreams for himself and for a future with Ashley.

Sammie's unit returned home from Iraq in May of 2008. Sadly, PFC

Sammie Phillips did not return with them. At Sammie's funeral at the Stithton Baptist Church in Radcliff, 3,000 people turned out to pay their respects to the boy with the big smile. Sammie's mother, Rachel Crutcher, wrote a letter to her son that said:

I know you're in heaven saying, ``Momma, don't cry.''

Rachel says:

He was someone special, and I knew . . . that he'd be an

inspiration to everyone he came in contact with.

Madam President, our prayers are for the Phillips family for their terrible loss. We are thinking of Sammie's wife, Ashley Phillips; his mother, Rachel Crutcher; his stepfather, Donny Crutcher; his father, Ronald Phillips; his sister, Cassandra Phillips; his brother, Logan Crutcher; his grandfather, Ted Stiles; and many more beloved family members and friends.

Madam President, Ashley tells us that her Sammie was proud of his service. He told his mom that if he were to die while wearing his country's uniform, ``everyone was going to know who he was.''

Well, this U.S. Senate knows, and we certainly will not forget PFC Sammie E. Phillips's service and sacrifice. We honor the life of this dedicated man, soldier, and patriot, and stand in awe of devotion like his that continues to keep our Nation safe and free.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me just say to my good friend from Rhode Island, I am sorry we have gotten a little bit behind. My remarks are not very long, and I will be happy to proceed on leader time.

Ten minutes or less.

Madam President, my remarks are on another issue, but I was here for the colloquy between my good friend from Virginia and my equally good friend from New Mexico. We all know they are both retiring from the Senate later this year, but it is serendipitous that this issue has arisen at this particular time, when the American people are demanding the kind of action that the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Virginia have been promoting for years. So I think it is a good thing that while they are still here in their service to our country, we will be debating this issue vigorously next week, and all of us hope for success.

Madam President, on another issue, this is the 1-year anniversary of the nomination of Judge Robert Conrad to be a member of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. When this Congress began, the majority leader and I agreed that partisanship in the judicial nominations process was unhealthy, and we said this Congress would be different. The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post acknowledged the President did his part to get the process off to a good start back in the beginning of this Congress. They, and many others, complimented his good faith in not resubmitting circuit court nominees whom some of our Democratic colleagues did not like.

The majority leader himself said how much he appreciated the President's good faith. He said:

I personally want the record to reflect that I appreciate

the President not sending back four names that were really

controversial.

The majority leader also said he and his colleagues had an obligation to reciprocate and treat circuit court nominees fairly. He said:

I think we have to reciprocate in a way that is

appropriate, and we are going to try to do that by looking at

these nominees as quickly as we can.

So the question is, have the Democrats treated these nominees fairly? Have they, in fact, reciprocated?

Let's look at the facts. This President is in his final 2 years of office, and the Senate Democrats, of course, hope to recapture the White House. So, obviously, there is a partisan incentive not to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees. This is, of course, human nature, but this situation is not new. President Bush is not the first President to be in his final 2 years in office when the opposite political party controls the Senate, and he will not be the last.

Even with lameduck Presidents, there is a historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees. The majority leader and I agreed that this Senate should meet that standard. The average number of circuit court confirmations in this situation is 17. President Clinton had 15. This Senate has confirmed only 10 circuit court nominees. What happened?

Unfortunately, old habits are hard to break and, in my opinion, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee found it hard not to play politics. It started with the renomination of Judge Leslie Southwick.

Judge Southwick was a distinguished State court judge and an Iraq war veteran. Moreover, he was someone the committee Democrats had already approved unanimously to the district court. So at the beginning of this Congress when the President tried yet again to fill a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit that had existed for his entire Presidency, he did not resubmit a nominee the Democrats opposed. Instead, he quite reasonably nominated someone whom committee Democrats had already approved: Leslie Southwick.

How did the Judiciary Committee Democrats respond? With one exception, they did a total about-face and actually tried to filibuster Judge Southwick's nomination.

Unfortunately, Judge Southwick isn't the only consensus nominee who became ``controversial.'' Judge Robert Conrad is the chief judge of a Federal district court in North Carolina. The Senate has already approved him to important positions not once but twice; first, as the chief Federal law enforcement officer in North Carolina, and then to a lifetime position on the Federal trial bench. In addition, the ABA gave Judge Conrad its highest rating, unanimously ``well qualified.'' Former Attorney General Janet Reno called him ``an excellent prosecutor'' and said she was ``impressed with his judgment . . . and his knowledge of the law.''

Again, to resolve a dispute--this time over a Fourth Circuit seat-- President Bush did not resubmit a nominee whom Senate Democrats opposed. As with Judge Southwick, he nominated someone they had already approved, Judge Robert Conrad.

Guess what has happened. Well, nothing has happened. As of today, Judge Conrad has been sitting in the committee for 365 days, 1 full year, without a hearing, even though he meets all the chairman's criteria. He has the highest possible ABA rating, he has strong home State support, and he would fill a judicial emergency.

What is the result of all of this? While Judge Conrad waits in committee, the circuit court to which he is nominated is over 25 percent vacant. Over one-fourth of its seats are empty. Its chief judge states that to keep up with its work, the court must rely heavily on district court judges. In short, it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. ``It goes without saying,'' she says, ``that having to use visiting judges puts a strain on our circuit. In particular, it forces the circuit's district judges to perform double duty.''

The situation on the Fourth Circuit is so bad that the ABA has made the crisis on the Fourth Circuit its lead story in the most recent edition of its professional journal. It is on the cover page.

Now, my friend, the majority leader, comes to the floor this morning and essentially says judges aren't important, and no one cares about them. Given the crisis in the Fourth Circuit--a crisis that is so bad the ABA is highlighting it--I can't imagine he would suggest such a thing. I am sure the millions of citizens of the Fourth Circuit don't think that having their appellate court over 25 percent vacant doesn't matter. I am sure they care very much about that. But evidently that is what the majority leader believes, and apparently he is not the only one in his conference who feels that way, given the lack of action in the Judiciary Committee.

The committee refuses to move Judge Robert Conrad's nomination or any other pending Fourth Circuit nominee. We are told Democrats do not support Rod Rosenstein's nomination to the Fourth Circuit--which is supported by the Washington Post--because he is doing too good a job as U.S. attorney. That is an interesting rationale for not moving someone.

We have another Fourth Circuit nominee, Judge Glen Conrad from Virginia. He is a Federal district court judge whom the Senate confirmed to the trial bench without any controversy. He has the support of both his home State Senators, one Democrat and one Republican. After he was nominated, the chairman said he would move him as long as there was time to do so. Specifically, he stated:

I have already said that once the paperwork on President

Bush's nomination of Judge Glen Conrad to the Fourth Circuit

is completed, if there is sufficient time, I hope to move his

nomination.

Well, the chairman's conditions have been met with respect to Judge Glen Conrad's nomination. His paperwork has been ready for a month, and it is only July 17. The last time I looked, there were 12 months in a year. This is July 17. Clearly, we have time to confirm him, but yet we have no action on his nomination.

Now, our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called Thurmond rule under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a Presidential election year. I am concerned that this seeming obsession with this supposed rule--which, by the way, doesn't exist; Senator Specter has researched that thoroughly and there is no such rule. Anyway, I am concerned that this seeming obsession with this rule that doesn't exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are urgently needed to fill vacancies.

No party is without blame in the confirmation process, but what is going on now--or, more accurately, what is not going on--is yet another step backward in politicizing the confirmation process--something we had all hoped we would get beyond.

It is the American people, especially those in the five States that make up the Fourth Circuit, who are suffering the consequences, and I am sorry the majority leader doesn't think that matters.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I could just take a moment, I haven't given up hope, I would say to my good friend from Virginia, that Judge Conrad will be reported out of committee and confirmed. But there are no remaining obstacles. All of the paperwork is done and has been finished for

over a month. I hope my good friend from Virginia, and his colleague who supports the nominee who is of the other party, will continue to press the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the majority leader to move forward with a nominee who appears to me by all accounts to be about as noncontroversial as can be come up with. So I thank my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. President, our Democratic friends yesterday came up with a new slogan for gas prices. It was: ``Act more, talk less.'' They talked about to it the press, they talked about it in the Chamber, they even used a colorful floor chart to make a point.

Frankly, I could not agree more with their new slogan. I hope they take it seriously too. It is time to get about passing serious, balanced legislation that will actually make a difference.

Americans are hurting as a result of high gas prices, and they are looking to us for action. This is an issue that affects every single American. So it is of great importance to every Member of this body.

The vast majority of Americans are asking us to get at the root of the problem, instead of timidly dancing around the edges as some have tried to do. It is clear that the American people strongly support increased responsible domestic production. It is also clear, at this point, that a solid bipartisan majority in the Senate is ready and willing to move forward on limited environmentally sensitive exploration here at home, so we can reduce our dependance on Middle East imports.

Republicans welcome the new-found slogan from our friends on the other side of the aisle, but we hope it is more than a slogan. We should act more and talk less. In the days ahead, the American people will be able to judge who wants to boldly act and who wants to just talk. So it is important for us not to fail the American people at this critical point. I wish to congratulate the majority leader for turning to this subject. I think it is clearly and unambiguously the most important issue in the country. We look forward to having a real Senate-style debate over different approaches to this matter and, hopefully, coming together at the end of the time with a proposal that both sides can feel proud of, that the markets will respond favorably to, and that people will generally feel made a difference on the No. 1 issue confronting the American people.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as we stand here, Americans are suffering from the most dramatic oil shock in memory. A single barrel of crude oil costs almost three times today what it did a year and a half ago. This is a crisis that demands our full attention. Yet, until now, Democrats on Capitol Hill have responded as if high gas prices were a mere distraction. Their proposals have been the legislative equivalent of a fly swatter, when the American people are clamoring for the heavy artillery.

Part of the reason for this timid approach by our friends on the other side, as anyone can see, is the upcoming election. They have made no secret of the fact that they do not want to consider real legislation until Inauguration Day, when they hope their candidate will take the White House.

We need to realize Americans are more concerned, at the moment, about paying for groceries and filling their tanks with gas than they are about the political calendar. Americans are not thinking about next January, they are thinking about today. They expect their elected representatives in Washington to take serious steps now to lower the price of gas.

The proposal the Democratic leader outlined on gas prices last week falls laughably short. It has all the marks of a political exercise nervously cobbled

together in the face of constituent pressure and none of the elements of a serious plan that would actually lower the price of gas or reduce our dependance on the Middle East. The Democrats will have to do better than this if Americans want to see their gas prices go down.

Here is their plan. First, they propose curbing speculation. Democrats want us to forget that no reputable economist thinks speculators alone are the reason for the spike in gas prices or that a recent report by the 27-nation International Energy Agency chided politicians who blame speculators alone as searching for a scapegoat instead of looking for real answers.

Naming speculators alone is not a serious proposal for lowering the price of gas. We do need more cops on the beat at the CFTC, but if Democrats think the answer to $4-plus-a-gallon gasoline is curbing speculation alone, then they are obviously asking the wrong question.

Second, their plans call on the President to release 10 percent of the oil contained in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is encouraging to see our friends on the other side acknowledging that increasing supply has an effect on price. But at best, this is a polite nod in the direction of supply; it is nibbling around the edges. Again, it is very timid.

Even if we were to tap 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as they suggest, that would only allow for the release of 70 million barrels at a time, when Americans are using more than 20 million barrels of oil a day.

Let me say that again. Even if we were to tap 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as is suggested by our friends on the other side of the aisle, that would only allow the release of 70 million barrels, and we use 20 million barrels a day now. In other words, this is a 3-day solution. It should go without saying that a 3- day supply of oil is not a serious proposal for lowering the price of gas.

Next, the Democratic plans for high gas prices call for increasing production on 68 million acres already leased to oil companies. This is the so-called ``use it or lose it'' provision that says scolding energy companies for not producing fast enough will magically cause gas prices to go down.

Let me remind my friends that this is why we call it ``exploration.'' Those who do it should be encouraged, not threatened. The fact is, the Secretary of the Interior already has this authority to revoke a lease if it is not being used according to the original terms of that lease.

Democrats do not mention this at their press conferences, nor do they mention that many of these leases are simply unproductive, nor do they mention that the Federal Government has declared 85 percent of offshore land and 62 percent of known offshore oil reserves completely off limits to new exploration. Nor do the Democrats mention that, because of them, 100 percent of Western oil shale is off limits, despite the fact that experts estimate the Western States that have oil shale deposits are literally floating on a sea of oil roughly three times the size of Saudi Arabian oil reserves. In other words, ``use it or lose it'' is already the law of our land. ``Use it or lose it'' is not a serious proposal for lowering the price of gas.

Finally, the Democratic plan says we should stop exporting oil that is produced domestically. Well, that is an interesting idea. Last year, America exported only 10 million barrels of crude oil overseas--that is half of what we use in a day--including sales to Puerto Rico. Today alone, America will use more than 20 million barrels of oil. This is a half-day solution to a yearlong problem. It is, in other words, a joke.

The crisis is real. Americans are suffering from high gas prices. They deserve better from their elected leaders in Washington than half- day or 3-day solutions and bad jokes. They deserve a year-round solution.

Americans deserve a solution that says if prices are going to go down, supply needs to go up. They deserve a plan that lifts the ban on offshore exploration and oil shale development, even as we continue to promote conservation.

Americans know this crisis is not only a demand problem; it is a supply and demand problem. Until more of our friends on the other side acknowledge this, record-high prices will persist.

Now, some of our friends are beginning to acknowledge the undeniable. As of today, ten Democrats have expressed at least some level of willingness to explore offshore. They are acknowledging a groundswell of public opinion, even among self-described liberals, in favor of more domestic supply.

Republicans have a proposal that was designed specifically to attract their support and the support of any other Member of the Senate who actually is interested in achieving a result. It promotes energy- efficient vehicles such as plug-in electric cars and trucks. It addresses supply and demand by lifting the ban on Western oil shale development and opening exploration far from the shore of States that want it.

Ours is a serious proposal that directly addresses the price of gas at the pump. It is not a gimmick. It is not a half-day Band-Aid on a year-round problem. It is a solution. It is what the American people are demanding of us.

High gas prices are a serious problem and demand to be taken seriously. It is time our friends on the other side put partisan differences and timid, peripheral half-measures aside and get serious about this urgent situation. The American people expect and deserve it.

Mr. President, let me just say to the majority leader, this is a good way to go forward. This consent agreement was rather painfully achieved last week, and I am glad to hear his representation that we will vote on the 10 amendments. I think all of our Members are more than happy to have short time agreements, process the amendments, and move on.

Mr. President, the Senate came back into session 4 days ago and we have yet to address the No. 1 issue in the country; that is, high gas prices. There were 44 Senate Republicans who introduced legislation over 2 weeks ago which would have an immediate impact on the price at the pump.

The Gas Price Reduction Act can be summed up in four simple words: Find more, use less. The Gas Price Reduction Act focuses on simple solutions which already have support from many of our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Many of our colleagues, Democratic colleagues, have now acknowledged the merits of allowing States to open the Outer Continental Shelf for deep sea oil and gas exploration. Our bill was limited to only those States that want to do that. It gives a State option for the opportunity to go onto the Outer Continental Shelf for deep sea oil and gas exploration. We all agree we can do more in encouraging the development of alternative energy sources, which is why the Gas Price Reduction Act contains incentives to develop plug-in electric cars and trucks and new battery technology.

In addition, we included measures to strengthen the U.S. futures markets by increasing funding and staff for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and examining foreign markets. These ideas also have support from many on the other side of the aisle.

By focusing on the areas where we agree, instead of the ones where we differ, we can achieve results for the American people. I ask my good friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in finding energy policies we can agree on. Believe me, the American people are demanding it. We can pass meaningful legislation which would develop more American energy while encouraging conservation, and we need to do that very soon.

Mr. President, we also have an opportunity today to confirm the nominations of two of our Nation's leading generals. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have both, rightly, talked about the challenges facing the Nation as we transition from one Presidential administration to the next during a time of war. The next President will be fortunate to have General Petraeus and General Odierno responsible respectively for central command area of operations in Iraq.

It is the nature of world events that the next President will be confronted with some international emergency that could not have been anticipated. What we know is that our strategic interests in the Middle East and Persian Gulf are longstanding and are being challenged. We know that the threat of an Iran regime bent on securing a nuclear weapon will not end when a new President is sworn in next year.

We know that despite the real progress made as a result of the surge of forces into Iraq, that the transition of forces, responsibilities, and missions must be managed with a steady hand.

Both of these fine officers are well prepared for their next responsibilities. As a nation we are lucky to be able to call upon such men at this critical point in American history.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the one point that I would like to make before we vote later this morning on the various amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--a law that is aimed at helping us stop terrorists before they can hurt us--is the most important point of all. It also happens to be a fairly straightforward one: adopting any one of these three amendments would kill the underlying bill.

It would risk putting us right back where we were last July, with the August recess approaching, and the authorizations for monitoring foreign terrorist targets set to expire. In that case, if a member of al-Qaida were to call, our ability to monitor his communications would be seriously handicapped, and it may even be impossible for us to do so, at least on a real-time basis.

So the question before the Senate is really quite simple: we either pass this delicately balanced bipartisan bill which gives our intelligence officials the tools they need to find foreign terrorists overseas--which is itself a compromise on the bill the Senate already passed this year by a vote of 68-29, and which will garner a Presidential signature--or we scrap it altogether and end up right back where we were a year ago.

That is our choice. Fix the problem now--finally--or allow the problem that intelligence officials alerted us to more than a year ago continue indefinitely, regardless of the threat.

Just yesterday the White House reiterated its intention to veto any FISA bill that is amended to strip or weaken liability protection for the telecommunication companies that may have helped the Government in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

This means that the adoption of any one of these amendments will take down the entire bill, unraveling more than a year of delicate bipartisan negotiations.

We're not doing these companies any special favors. The U.S. Government wouldn't even have a foreign surveillance program without them. The intelligence community relies on their cooperation to do its job. And any law that makes it less likely that these companies cooperate with us in the future is a law that makes it harder to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

That is not just my view or the view of Senator Bond on the Republican side. Let me remind my colleagues of what the chairman of the Intelligence Committee told us, quite bluntly, about our responsibilities in this area on the floor of the Senate last February. This is what Senator Rockefeller said:

What people have to understand around here, he said, is

that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be

receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be

degraded. It is already going to be degraded as

telecommunications companies lose interest. Everybody tosses

that around and says: Well, what do you mean? I say: Well,

what are they making out of this? What is the big payoff for

the telephone companies? Do they get paid a lot of money? No.

They get paid nothing. What do they get for this? They get

$40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it.

But they don't have to do it, because they do have

shareholders to respond to, to answer to.

There is going to be a degrading of intelligence in some

very crucial areas, because we will go right back to where we

were last August, and that will be a further jolt to the

telecommunications companies, because they will understand

that you cannot count on the Congress, you cannot count on us

to make policy which will give [them] stability.

Those are the words of the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee. And I would only add to them that it is our job to make policy in this area. The Senate--and especially its Intelligence Committee--has been examining this issue for over a year. The committee of jurisdiction conducted extensive oversight and concluded that the telecommunications companies acted in good faith in answering the administration's call to help protect the country from terrorist attack.

The Intelligence Committee then passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill, 13-2, that protected these companies from potentially crippling lawsuits, which would terminate the program. The full Senate made the same policy judgment, defeating the Feingold-Dodd amendment to strike immunity 67-31, as well as the Specter-Whitehouse substitution amendment 68-30, on its way to passing the bill by a lopsided vote of 68-29.

Further modifications were made to the bill in negotiations with the House, including to the liability provisions. The House leadership-- which had been holding up enactment of a FISA modernization law because of the liability question--then voted for this compromise bill, and the compromise cleared the House with almost 300 votes.

Now, after all this legislative time and effort and contemplation, the Bingaman amendment would have us say, ``Just kidding.'' This amendment would punt our oversight and legislative responsibilities over to inspectors general in the executive branch so they can look at the same program that the Intelligence Committee and the Congress have been considering for over a year.

It is ironic that those who are concerned about preserving congressional prerogatives and congressional responsibilities, especially in relation to the executive branch, would have us rely on the judgment of employees of the executive branch before we can make policy, especially after all the work that Congress has done on this subject. We should not kick the can down the road for another 15 months and in the process abdicate our role in this area.

An acceptable bipartisan solution to our intelligence problem has already been reached. That solution has been endorsed by majorities in both houses of Congress. If that solution is compromised by adopting any of these amendments, this bill would not become law, current targeting orders would expire, and the Senate would fail today to do its basic duty of protecting Americans to the fullest extent possible from terrorist attack.

Americans have a right to expect Congress to give our intelligence officials what they need to do their jobs. And the only way we fulfill that trust is by voting against each of these amendments to the FISA modernization bill.

Mr. President, before turning to another subject, I wish to particularly commend the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, who has done an incredibly effective job at trying to traverse the various currents that have surrounded this extraordinarily difficult piece of legislation.

First he established a very good working relationship with Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He was an integral part of negotiating and, as I say, kind of dealing with the currents that were going on through the last year.

I just wish to say through the Chair to him how much America owes the Senator from Missouri for his extraordinary work on this subject. America will be safer in the future as a result of the work of the Senator from Missouri. We here in the Senate are deeply grateful for his extraordinary job, and the people of Missouri have every right to be very proud of him.

Mr. President, on one other item, yesterday we said goodbye to our former colleague, Senator Jesse Helms. A significant number of our colleagues were in attendance at the funeral in Raleigh. Since his passing was expected, we certainly did not suffer from shock. It was anticipated that our friend and colleague would soon pass away, so in many respects it was a celebration of the life of a unique and great American.

I was honored by Mrs. Helms to be asked to do one of the eulogies at the funeral yesterday. I ask that my remarks be printed in the Record for any of our colleagues who might want to see what I had to say on behalf of our friend and colleague yesterday as we bid him farewell.

I ask unanimous consent to have those remarks printed in the Record.

Madam President, how much time remains on this side?

All right. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida have 4 minutes of my time that is remaining.

Madam President, the issue before us is the physician payment update, and on that point we don't disagree at all. Everyone agrees we should prevent the cut and preserve seniors' access to care under the Medicare Program.

Republicans have been flexible on finding a solution. When it was clear that the Senate wouldn't move to the last partisan bill that was proposed, I asked my friends on the other side to work with us on a bipartisan compromise with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. Both have a long history on finding workable compromises on very tough issues. If that wasn't possible, we proposed an 18-month extension of current law. Then we proposed a 1-month extension. There is no good reason patients and physicians should suffer while Congress works out its disagreements. The majority objected to all of these proposals out of hand. They weren't interested. They even rejected the opportunity to have a single amendment on the bill--no amendments.

So now, rather than resolving the problem in a way that is acceptable to everyone and in a form the President will sign, we are no closer to a solution for seniors and their doctors than we were 2 weeks ago. Rather than passing a short-term safety net bill while we get a good, bipartisan bill to protect 2 million seniors from losing their private Medicare Advantage plans, the majority chose an all-or-nothing approach.

It seems to me that if we can't resolve policy issues today, we should at least agree to a short-term extension of existing law, which my good friend from Florida just offered, including a bipartisan proposal to delay competitive bidding that is identical to a provision in the House bill that the other side has already voted for.

So let's sum it up. The Democrats don't want a bipartisan compromise. They don't want a long-term extension of current law. They don't want a short-term extension of current law. Yet they are not to blame for this Medicare cut going into effect? We know how to prevent this cut from going into effect, but we can't stop it. We can't protect the doctors, and we can't protect access of choice for seniors if the Democrats won't let us.

How much time remains on this side?

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

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

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