Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I pay tribute to a dear friend and a great Wisconsinite who passed away earlier this week. Harvey Stower was an extraordinary man; he was a deeply principled legislator, a dedicated mayor, and a beloved friend to those of us lucky enough to know him.

I was honored to serve with Harvey in the Wisconsin Legislature, where he worked tirelessly for the progressive values he held dear. His commitment to representing family farmers and protecting the environment were an inspiration to countless Wisconsinites.

He then served as the mayor of Amery, where he and his wife Marilyn, who sadly passed away in 2008, were pillars of the community. Harvey was such a wonderful mayor because he understood the strength of our small towns, and cherished the sense of community they create.

Harvey was also an ordained United Methodist minister, and an active member of his community in countless ways, both through his work as mayor and through many community organizations.

He also remained active on issues on a statewide level, through his service on the Wisconsin Land & Water Conservation Board and the boards of the Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives, the Western Wisconsin Intergovernmental Collaborative, Wisconsin Church and Society--the United Methodist Church, and Inter-County Cooperative Publishing Association.

Harvey's passing is an immeasurable loss for his family, for the people of Amery, and for our State. He was truly one of the nicest people I have come across in many years in public life. I respected Harvey so much, and I will always think of him as someone who represented the very best of Wisconsin. I join people across our State in remembering him today and honoring the many contributions he made to his State and his community.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are about to begin the 2010 fiscal year having enacted just one appropriations bill. I am even more disappointed that we passed a continuing resolution, airdropped into the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, that provides money to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I am pleased that the President has committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, this redeployment schedule is too long and may undermine our ability to combat al-Qaida while straining our Armed Forces unnecessarily. In addition, while the President is right to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, I remain concerned that his strategy for those countries does not adequately address, and may even exacerbate, the threats to our national security we face in Pakistan.

We need to keep the Federal Government operating and make sure our brave troops get all the equipment and supplies they need, but we should not be providing funds to continue those wars without, at a minimum, engaging in a serious debate about their effects on our national security.

Mr. President, the exercise of governmental authority by White House advisers, sometimes called ``czars,'' is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration by the Senate. Our ability to conduct meaningful oversight of those who hold the levers of power and to evaluate whether they have the qualifications and character to carry out their duties may be undermined by the centralization of power in the White House. That is why I wrote to the President recently and plan to chair a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee on this topic in the very near future. We need to know

more about the role of these advisers and what powers they have. There is a core issue here that concerns me. At this point, however, it is premature to pass legislation on this topic before fully understanding the constitutional and policy ramifications. I am also uncomfortable with singling out a single policy adviser, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, particularly since I am not aware of any evidence that she is acting inappropriately. Therefore, I will vote against the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts, or JUSTICE, Act of 2009. I have had the privilege of working closely on this bill with Senator Durbin, as I have on so many of these issues over the years, and I welcome the support of Senators Tester, Tom Udall, Bingaman, Sanders, Akaka and Wyden. I am also pleased that the bill has the support of organizations and activists across the political spectrum, from former Republican Congressman Bob Barr to the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Library Association.

At the end of this year, three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will sunset unless Congress acts to reauthorize them. In my view, Congress should take this opportunity to revisit not just those three provisions, but rather a broad range of surveillance laws enacted in recent years to assess what additional safeguards are needed.

The JUSTICE Act does just that: It takes a comprehensive approach to fixing the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, once and for all. It permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. Because we can and must do both. These are not mutually exclusive goals.

Indeed, the Department of Justice just this week acknowledged as much in a letter setting forth its views on Patriot Act reauthorization. The Department said: ``We also are aware that Members of Congress may propose modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans. As President Obama said in his speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, `We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.' Therefore, the Administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided

that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.''

I welcome the administration's openness to potential reforms of the Patriot Act and look forward to working together as the reauthorization process moves forward this fall.

But I remain concerned that critical information about the implementation of the Patriot Act has not been made public--information that I believe would have a significant impact on the debate. During the debate on the Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Acts in 2007 and 2008, critical legal and factual information remained unknown to the public and to most members of Congress--information that was certainly relevant to the debate and might even have made a difference in votes. And during the last Patriot Act reauthorization debate in 2005, a great deal of implementation information remained classified. This time around, we must find a way to have an open and honest debate about the nature of these government powers, while protecting national security secrets.

As a first step, the Justice Department's letter made public for the first time that the so-called ``lone wolf'' authority--one of the three expiring provisions--has never been used. That was a good start, since this is a key fact as we consider whether to extend that power. But there also is information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know. I do not underestimate the importance of protecting our national security secrets. But before we decide whether and in what form to extend these authorities, Congress and the American people deserve to know at least basic information about how they have been used. So I hope that the administration will consider seriously making public some additional basic information, particularly with respect to the use of Section 215 orders.

There can be no question that statutory changes to our surveillance laws are necessary. Since the Patriot Act was first passed in 2001, we have learned important lessons, and perhaps the most important of all is that Congress cannot grant the government overly broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they won't be misused. Congress has the responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities--limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies, but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans.

This lesson was most clear in the context of National Security Letters. In reports issued in 2007 and 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General carefully documented rampant misuse and abuse of the National Security Letter, NSL, authority by the FBI. The Inspector General found--as he put it--``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' After those Inspector General reports, there can no longer be any doubt that granting overbroad authority leads to abuses. The FBI's apparently lax attitude and in some cases grave misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities is attributable in no small part to the USA PATRIOT Act. That flawed legislation greatly expanded the NSL authorities, essentially granting the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong-doing, without judicial approval. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow, and failed to adequately remedy those shortcomings when it considered the NSL statutes as part of the Patriot Act reauthorization process in 2005.

The JUSTICE Act, like the bipartisan National Security Letter Reform Act that I introduced in the 110th Congress, would finally provide the statutory safeguards needed to protect against abuse of NSLs. And it would remedy First Amendment violations in the NSL statutes that were identified last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a decision where Justice Sotomayor participated on the panel.

Specifically, the JUSTICE Act restricts the types of records that can be obtained without a court order to those that are the least sensitive and private, and it ensures that the FBI can only use NSLs to obtain information about individuals with some nexus to a suspected terrorist or spy. It makes sure that the FBI can no longer obtain the sensitive records of individuals three or four times removed from a suspect, most of whom would be entirely innocent. It follows the road map laid out by the Second Circuit to make sure the gag orders that accompany NSLs do not violate the First Amendment.

It prevents the use of so-called ``exigent letters,'' which the IG found the FBI was using in violation of the NSL statutes. It requires additional congressional reporting on NSLs, and it requires the FBI to establish a compliance program and tracking database for NSLs. And it requires the Attorney General to issue minimization procedures for information obtained through NSLs, so that information obtained about Americans is subject to enhanced protections and the FBI does not retain information obtained in error.

The JUSTICE Act also fixes Section 215, one of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act and one of the three that is subject to the 2009 sunset. This provision permits the government to obtain court orders for Americans' business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; it is often referred to as the ``library'' provision, although it covers all types of business records.

On Section 215, the legislation establishes a standard of individualized suspicion for obtaining a FISA business records order, requiring that the government be able to demonstrate the records have some nexus to terrorism or espionage, and it creates procedural protections to prevent abuses. The bill also ensures robust, meaningful and constitutionally sound judicial review of both National Security Letters and Section 215 business records orders, and the gag orders that accompany them.

The bill also ensures that Americans can feel safe in their homes by placing reasonable checks on the so-called ``sneak and peek'' search warrant provision of the Patriot Act. It would eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these searches to be used in virtually any criminal case, and it would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification that the search occurred. It also would create a statutory exclusionary rule, in recognition of the strong Fourth Amendment interests at stake with regard to this extraordinary exception to the usual requirement that law enforcement knock and announce themselves before executing a search warrant.

The JUSTICE Act also includes a number of reasonable safeguards to protect Americans' private communications. It permits the FBI to use roving wiretaps under FISA, but provides safeguards to protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance. It ensures that the FBI does not obtain sensitive information about Americans' Internet usage without satisfying an appropriate standard, and subjects those authorities, called ``pen registers and trap and trace devices'', to new procedural checks. It provides new safeguards for the Patriot Act provision on computer trespass, which allows computer owners who are subject to hacking to give the government permission to monitor individuals on their systems without a warrant.

The bill also addresses the FISA Amendments Act, FAA, which granted the government new, over-expansive surveillance authorities and provided immunity to any companies that cooperated with the blatantly illegal warrantless wiretapping program that went on for more than five years--and that the prior administration repeatedly misled Congress about. That legislation became law last year over my strong objection, but it is not too late for Congress to fix it.

I offered several amendments to the FISA Amendments Act on the Senate floor--amendments that would have helped to make sure that the privacy of Americans' communications are properly protected. And now those amendments are part of the JUSTICE Act.

First, the bill would ensure that the FISA Amendments Act cannot be used to authorize the government to collect the content of all communications between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Under the FAA, millions upon millions of communications between

innocent Americans and their friends, families, or business associates overseas could legally be collected, with absolutely no suspicion of any wrongdoing. The JUSTICE Act would ensure such bulk collection will never occur.

Second, the JUSTICE Act would include a meaningful prohibition on the practice of reverse targeting--namely, wiretapping a person overseas when what the government is really interested in is listening to an American here at home with whom the foreigner is communicating. It would do so by requiring the government to obtain a court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance is to acquire the communications of an American in the U.S.

Third, the bill would create potential consequences if the government initiates surveillance under the FAA using procedures that have not been approved by the FISA Court, and the FISA Court later finds that those procedures were unlawful. Say, for example, the FISA Court determines that the procedures were not even reasonably designed to wiretap foreigners outside the U.S., rather than Americans here at home. Under the bill, the FISA Court would have the discretion to place limits on how the illegally obtained information on Americans can be retained and used.

Fourth, this bill includes a provision that will help protect the privacy of Americans whose international communications will be collected in vast new quantities. On the Senate floor last year, I joined with Senator Webb and Senator Tester to offer an amendment to provide real protections for the privacy of Americans, while also giving the government the flexibility it needs to wiretap terrorists overseas. And that amendment is in this bill.

And finally with respect to the FAA, the bill would repeal the grant of immunity to any companies that participated in the illegal NSA wiretapping program. Senator Dodd was a leader on this during debate on the FAA and deserves a great deal of credit for drawing attention to this issue. Granting immunity seriously undercut our statutory scheme, which relies on both the government and the private sector to follow the law in implementing surveillance techniques. That is exactly why the surveillance laws have long provided liability protection for companies that cooperate with a government request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, companies are supposed to refuse the government's request, and they are subject to liability if they instead decide to cooperate.

This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications from illegitimate snooping. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program the retroactive immunity that was in the FAA undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuses that occurred. Repealing that provision helps bolster the statutory framework that has for so long helped to protect the privacy of Americans' communications.

The JUSTICE Act also provides additional congressional and judicial oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It ensures that the FBI provides some limited public reporting regarding its secret intelligence surveillance authority under FISA. It would give courts more authority to oversee the process for determining whether and how criminal defendants against whom FISA-derived evidence is being used should get access to the underlying applications and orders so they can mount a challenge.

The last title of the bill simply ensures that the law labels as terrorists only those people who truly wish to do this country harm-- not domestic protesters who engage in civil disobedience or people who provide humanitarian assistance.

These concerns are not new. ``Sneak and peek'' searches, the need for reasonable limits on the FBI's use of roving wiretaps, access to business records, and the overly expansive computer trespass authority were all issues I first raised in the fall of 2001 as some of the reasons why I believed the PATRIOT Act was flawed and threatened fundamental constitutional rights and protections. Eight years later, it is time to finally get this right. Again and again, the previous administration requested and the Congress provided vast new surveillance authorities with minimal checks and balances. Many of these new tools were appropriate, and passage of this bill would leave in place surveillance authorities that are dramatically broader than what existed prior to 9/11. But what has been missing--what this bill finally provides--is the assurances that these new authorities are tailored to our national security needs and subject to proper oversight. Every single one of the changes in this bill is reasonable, measured and justifiable. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts, or JUSTICE, Act of 2009. I have had the privilege of working closely on this bill with Senator Durbin, as I have on so many of these issues over the years, and I welcome the support of Senators Tester, Tom Udall, Bingaman, Sanders, Akaka and Wyden. I am also pleased that the bill has the support of organizations and activists across the political spectrum, from former Republican Congressman Bob Barr to the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Library Association.

At the end of this year, three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will sunset unless Congress acts to reauthorize them. In my view, Congress should take this opportunity to revisit not just those three provisions, but rather a broad range of surveillance laws enacted in recent years to assess what additional safeguards are needed.

The JUSTICE Act does just that: It takes a comprehensive approach to fixing the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act, once and for all. It permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. Because we can and must do both. These are not mutually exclusive goals.

Indeed, the Department of Justice just this week acknowledged as much in a letter setting forth its views on Patriot Act reauthorization. The Department said: ``We also are aware that Members of Congress may propose modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans. As President Obama said in his speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, `We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.' Therefore, the Administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided

that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.''

I welcome the administration's openness to potential reforms of the Patriot Act and look forward to working together as the reauthorization process moves forward this fall.

But I remain concerned that critical information about the implementation of the Patriot Act has not been made public--information that I believe would have a significant impact on the debate. During the debate on the Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Acts in 2007 and 2008, critical legal and factual information remained unknown to the public and to most members of Congress--information that was certainly relevant to the debate and might even have made a difference in votes. And during the last Patriot Act reauthorization debate in 2005, a great deal of implementation information remained classified. This time around, we must find a way to have an open and honest debate about the nature of these government powers, while protecting national security secrets.

As a first step, the Justice Department's letter made public for the first time that the so-called ``lone wolf'' authority--one of the three expiring provisions--has never been used. That was a good start, since this is a key fact as we consider whether to extend that power. But there also is information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know. I do not underestimate the importance of protecting our national security secrets. But before we decide whether and in what form to extend these authorities, Congress and the American people deserve to know at least basic information about how they have been used. So I hope that the administration will consider seriously making public some additional basic information, particularly with respect to the use of Section 215 orders.

There can be no question that statutory changes to our surveillance laws are necessary. Since the Patriot Act was first passed in 2001, we have learned important lessons, and perhaps the most important of all is that Congress cannot grant the government overly broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they won't be misused. Congress has the responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities--limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies, but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans.

This lesson was most clear in the context of National Security Letters. In reports issued in 2007 and 2008, the Department of Justice Inspector General carefully documented rampant misuse and abuse of the National Security Letter, NSL, authority by the FBI. The Inspector General found--as he put it--``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' After those Inspector General reports, there can no longer be any doubt that granting overbroad authority leads to abuses. The FBI's apparently lax attitude and in some cases grave misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities is attributable in no small part to the USA PATRIOT Act. That flawed legislation greatly expanded the NSL authorities, essentially granting the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong-doing, without judicial approval. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow, and failed to adequately remedy those shortcomings when it considered the NSL statutes as part of the Patriot Act reauthorization process in 2005.

The JUSTICE Act, like the bipartisan National Security Letter Reform Act that I introduced in the 110th Congress, would finally provide the statutory safeguards needed to protect against abuse of NSLs. And it would remedy First Amendment violations in the NSL statutes that were identified last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a decision where Justice Sotomayor participated on the panel.

Specifically, the JUSTICE Act restricts the types of records that can be obtained without a court order to those that are the least sensitive and private, and it ensures that the FBI can only use NSLs to obtain information about individuals with some nexus to a suspected terrorist or spy. It makes sure that the FBI can no longer obtain the sensitive records of individuals three or four times removed from a suspect, most of whom would be entirely innocent. It follows the road map laid out by the Second Circuit to make sure the gag orders that accompany NSLs do not violate the First Amendment.

It prevents the use of so-called ``exigent letters,'' which the IG found the FBI was using in violation of the NSL statutes. It requires additional congressional reporting on NSLs, and it requires the FBI to establish a compliance program and tracking database for NSLs. And it requires the Attorney General to issue minimization procedures for information obtained through NSLs, so that information obtained about Americans is subject to enhanced protections and the FBI does not retain information obtained in error.

The JUSTICE Act also fixes Section 215, one of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act and one of the three that is subject to the 2009 sunset. This provision permits the government to obtain court orders for Americans' business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; it is often referred to as the ``library'' provision, although it covers all types of business records.

On Section 215, the legislation establishes a standard of individualized suspicion for obtaining a FISA business records order, requiring that the government be able to demonstrate the records have some nexus to terrorism or espionage, and it creates procedural protections to prevent abuses. The bill also ensures robust, meaningful and constitutionally sound judicial review of both National Security Letters and Section 215 business records orders, and the gag orders that accompany them.

The bill also ensures that Americans can feel safe in their homes by placing reasonable checks on the so-called ``sneak and peek'' search warrant provision of the Patriot Act. It would eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these searches to be used in virtually any criminal case, and it would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification that the search occurred. It also would create a statutory exclusionary rule, in recognition of the strong Fourth Amendment interests at stake with regard to this extraordinary exception to the usual requirement that law enforcement knock and announce themselves before executing a search warrant.

The JUSTICE Act also includes a number of reasonable safeguards to protect Americans' private communications. It permits the FBI to use roving wiretaps under FISA, but provides safeguards to protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance. It ensures that the FBI does not obtain sensitive information about Americans' Internet usage without satisfying an appropriate standard, and subjects those authorities, called ``pen registers and trap and trace devices'', to new procedural checks. It provides new safeguards for the Patriot Act provision on computer trespass, which allows computer owners who are subject to hacking to give the government permission to monitor individuals on their systems without a warrant.

The bill also addresses the FISA Amendments Act, FAA, which granted the government new, over-expansive surveillance authorities and provided immunity to any companies that cooperated with the blatantly illegal warrantless wiretapping program that went on for more than five years--and that the prior administration repeatedly misled Congress about. That legislation became law last year over my strong objection, but it is not too late for Congress to fix it.

I offered several amendments to the FISA Amendments Act on the Senate floor--amendments that would have helped to make sure that the privacy of Americans' communications are properly protected. And now those amendments are part of the JUSTICE Act.

First, the bill would ensure that the FISA Amendments Act cannot be used to authorize the government to collect the content of all communications between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Under the FAA, millions upon millions of communications between

innocent Americans and their friends, families, or business associates overseas could legally be collected, with absolutely no suspicion of any wrongdoing. The JUSTICE Act would ensure such bulk collection will never occur.

Second, the JUSTICE Act would include a meaningful prohibition on the practice of reverse targeting--namely, wiretapping a person overseas when what the government is really interested in is listening to an American here at home with whom the foreigner is communicating. It would do so by requiring the government to obtain a court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance is to acquire the communications of an American in the U.S.

Third, the bill would create potential consequences if the government initiates surveillance under the FAA using procedures that have not been approved by the FISA Court, and the FISA Court later finds that those procedures were unlawful. Say, for example, the FISA Court determines that the procedures were not even reasonably designed to wiretap foreigners outside the U.S., rather than Americans here at home. Under the bill, the FISA Court would have the discretion to place limits on how the illegally obtained information on Americans can be retained and used.

Fourth, this bill includes a provision that will help protect the privacy of Americans whose international communications will be collected in vast new quantities. On the Senate floor last year, I joined with Senator Webb and Senator Tester to offer an amendment to provide real protections for the privacy of Americans, while also giving the government the flexibility it needs to wiretap terrorists overseas. And that amendment is in this bill.

And finally with respect to the FAA, the bill would repeal the grant of immunity to any companies that participated in the illegal NSA wiretapping program. Senator Dodd was a leader on this during debate on the FAA and deserves a great deal of credit for drawing attention to this issue. Granting immunity seriously undercut our statutory scheme, which relies on both the government and the private sector to follow the law in implementing surveillance techniques. That is exactly why the surveillance laws have long provided liability protection for companies that cooperate with a government request for assistance, as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly documented, companies are supposed to refuse the government's request, and they are subject to liability if they instead decide to cooperate.

This framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies that comply with legitimate government requests while also protecting the privacy of Americans' communications from illegitimate snooping. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal program the retroactive immunity that was in the FAA undermines the law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to prevent exactly the type of abuses that occurred. Repealing that provision helps bolster the statutory framework that has for so long helped to protect the privacy of Americans' communications.

The JUSTICE Act also provides additional congressional and judicial oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It ensures that the FBI provides some limited public reporting regarding its secret intelligence surveillance authority under FISA. It would give courts more authority to oversee the process for determining whether and how criminal defendants against whom FISA-derived evidence is being used should get access to the underlying applications and orders so they can mount a challenge.

The last title of the bill simply ensures that the law labels as terrorists only those people who truly wish to do this country harm-- not domestic protesters who engage in civil disobedience or people who provide humanitarian assistance.

These concerns are not new. ``Sneak and peek'' searches, the need for reasonable limits on the FBI's use of roving wiretaps, access to business records, and the overly expansive computer trespass authority were all issues I first raised in the fall of 2001 as some of the reasons why I believed the PATRIOT Act was flawed and threatened fundamental constitutional rights and protections. Eight years later, it is time to finally get this right. Again and again, the previous administration requested and the Congress provided vast new surveillance authorities with minimal checks and balances. Many of these new tools were appropriate, and passage of this bill would leave in place surveillance authorities that are dramatically broader than what existed prior to 9/11. But what has been missing--what this bill finally provides--is the assurances that these new authorities are tailored to our national security needs and subject to proper oversight. Every single one of the changes in this bill is reasonable, measured and justifiable. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I was deeply saddened to learn of the death of Ken Bacon on August 15. While Ken had distinguished careers in both journalism and public service, it is his tenure as the head of Refugees International that I would like to highlight. In that capacity, Ken became one of the world's leading advocates for refugees and displaced persons. By adapting and challenging his own organization, he changed the global discussion on refugees and their rights, most recently with his focus on those displaced by climate change.

Whether focused on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, or Iraq, Ken called upon the international community to take seriously the plight of those caught in the midst of conflict--innocent people losing their homes, separated from their families, and sometimes forced to forfeit their dignity to save their lives. As recently as June, Ken testified before a committee of the House of Representatives regarding the millions of Pakistanis displaced by fighting in the North West Frontier Province. He spoke powerfully:

This is not merely a question of funding, though the

humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts will need

robust financial commitments. The United States also

needs to be seen as rising above military objectives and

showing genuine concern for the fate of civilians.

Under his watch, the alarm was sounded early and repeatedly on the situation in Darfur, and he challenged the global community to act to provide protection, aid and even resettlement in some cases for Iraqis displaced by war. Drawing on his experience in a refugee camp in the Balkans in 1999, Ken humanized masses of people, stressing that while displaced families need immediate relief, ``in time [they] will require renewed confidence and support to return home in safety and dignity.''

Ken will be missed by all those who had the opportunity to know him as well as by the millions who have been, and will continue to be, impacted by his work. We pay tribute to him by continuing his work to ensure that the basic rights of displaced peoples are protected, that their basic needs are met, and that they have the support to ultimately return home in safety and dignity.

Mr. President, I commend Secretary Clinton on her visit to Africa last month. Over 11 days, Secretary Clinton traveled to several of the most influential countries on the continent and directly addressed some of the most sensitive and critical issues facing them and their neighbors. It was one of the most, if not the most, ambitious trips by a Secretary of State to sub-Saharan Africa in U.S. history. This trip, combined with President Obama's visit earlier

this year to Ghana, sends a strong signal that the administration is committed to making Africa not only a priority, but also an integral part of overall U.S. foreign policy. The challenge going forward is to sustain a high level of engagement with each of the countries that Secretary Clinton visited and back up that engagement with resources that can make a tangible difference.

On her first stop in Kenya, I am glad that Secretary Clinton took a strong stand against extrajudicial killings, corruption, and the continued failure to prosecute those most responsible for violence after the December 2007 election. As Secretary Clinton said, these conditions are holding Kenya back from realizing its potential. Worse yet, if these conditions persist, we could see a renewal of violence, especially in the run-up to Kenya's next elections set for 2012. Together with other international partners, we need to keep pressing Kenya's leaders to deliver on the reforms they have pledged, beginning with reform of the police and judiciary. At the same time, we should prepare targeted assistance that can be provided as soon as initial steps are taken toward those reforms. The United States and Kenya have longstanding and historic ties, and we need to help Kenyans get through this difficult period.

While in Nairobi, I am also pleased that Secretary Clinton focused on the dangerous situation in neighboring Somalia and met with President Sheik Sharif of Somalia's beleaguered Transitional Federal Government, the TFG. I have long urged the Obama administration to engage with Sharif at a high level and I am glad that the administration is finally doing this, as well as taking seriously the threat posed by al Shebaab, an extremist group with ties to alQaida. However, going forward, we cannot repeat the mistake of focusing too narrowly on short-term gains in Somalia without a long-term strategy. As we help the TFG combat insurgents, we simultaneously need to help it to advance political reconciliation and deliver critically needed basic services. The TFG's ultimate success rests on whether it can establish a viable government that is perceived as legitimate and inclusive, representative of and responsive to the Somali people.

Secretary Clinton traveled next to South Africa. Over recent years, our relationship with South Africa has cooled considerably, undermining our ability to coordinate and work together on issues of mutual interest. Yet I believe there is an opportunity now to reverse that trend with our new administration and South Africa's new administration under President Jacob Zuma. I am pleased that Secretary Clinton seized upon that opportunity with her visit, committing to deepening and broadening our bilateral relationship in a range of areas from HIV prevention to nuclear nonproliferation to climate change. Moreover, she talked with South Africa about how we can better coordinate our efforts to address regional challenges, beginning with the situation in Zimbabwe. We need to institutionalize such coordination, while continuing to encourage South Africa to be a leader in human rights and peacebuilding on the continent.

Secretary Clinton's next stop was Angola, a country that is quickly becoming an economic powerhouse and regional leader. As Angola continues to rebuild from decades of civil war, there is a new openness to engaging with the United States, especially as the government seeks to diversify their economy. I am pleased that Secretary Clinton seized upon this potential by visiting Angola and committed to a ``comprehensive strategic partnership.'' She agreed to expand our engagement not only in the areas of trade and agriculture, but also in health, education and governance. Governance is particularly important because while Angola has taken some positive steps to increase transparency and efficiency, there is still a long way to go. To that end, I am especially glad that Secretary Clinton spoke to the Angolan National Assembly about its role in demanding accountability and transparency, and standing against corruption and abuses of power. We need to continue to engage on these issues and encourage Angola's democratization process.

Secretary Clinton next traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo, with a visit to the eastern city of Goma. I applaud her for choosing to focus on the crisis in the eastern Congo, which has gone neglected for too long despite its unrivaled human toll and the unspeakable levels of sexual violence. Secretary Clinton committed to new efforts to help prevent and respond to the high levels of gender and sexual violence, while also recognizing the need to address the root causes of Congo's crisis, including the exploitation of natural resources by armed groups. Taking action to address those underlying causes is difficult, but essential. Senators Brownback, Durbin and I have introduced legislation that would commit the United States to do more on conflict minerals, and I look forward to working with the administration in this regard. I also look forward to working with the administration to help bring an end to the increasing violence by the Lord's Resistance Army in northeastern Congo.

Following Congo, Secretary Clinton's next stop was Nigeria--a critically important country in sub-Saharan Africa and a strategic partner and major source of oil imports to the United States. I continue to be very concerned about the direction in which Nigeria is heading, especially with regards to corruption and the rule of law. I am glad that Secretary Clinton touched on these issues, and we must continue to press for meaningful reforms to enhance government transparency, accountability and the independence of the election commission. In addition, I am pleased that Secretary Clinton discussed the unresolved crisis in the Niger Delta and pledged to review how we might better assist the government's efforts to promote stability there. I look forward to working with her as well in that regard. However, to be successful, the Nigerian government must expand its current amnesty offer to a broader peace process that includes measures to address the marginalization and underdevelopment of the region.

Secretary Clinton traveled then to Liberia, a country with which we have historic ties. Secretary Clinton was right to highlight the progress that Liberia has made since its civil war, while also speaking frankly about the challenges that the country continues to face. I am glad that she chose to speak at the Liberian National Police Academy and pledged new funds for police training. While great strides have been made in reforming Liberia's military, there is still great need to improve the capacity and professionalism of its police force. In addition, Secretary Clinton focused on corruption and spoke directly about this in a speech to the National Legislature. We need to continue to work with all parts of the Liberian government to guard against corruption and other abuses, both in their democratic process and in its management of the country's rich natural resources, especially timber.

Finally, Secretary Clinton visited Cape Verde, a country that has made great progress in terms of both economic growth and democratization. Cape Verde provided a perfect backdrop to reiterate the two major themes of her trip: first, that America believes in Africa's promise, and second, that Africa's future is ultimately in the hands of Africans. Secretary Clinton delivered these messages powerfully and I believe they can be the foundation for a new era of U.S. engagement and partnerships with Africa. The challenge going forward is to give substance to these words and the commitments that were made throughout Secretary Clinton's trip. I look forward to working with her and the administration to do this. It will not by easy and it will require sustained engagement, greater diplomatic capacity, and new targeted resources. But if we get this right, I strongly believe the benefits for Americans and Africans can be immense in terms of our security and prosperity.

Mr. President, today I rise to bid farewell to Ted Kennedy, a man who spent so many hours on this floor. It was here that he engaged in the cause that shaped his life, and now shapes our memories his commitment to everyday people in their pursuit of the American dream.

It is hard for me, as it is for all my colleagues, to imagine this place without Ted Kennedy. To serve here with him was a great honor. At the age of 14, I was already wearing a Ted Kennedy for President button. Then when I arrived here, this man, this lion of the Senate, was so friendly and funny and generous. He helped to teach me the ropes in the Senate, and I felt so fortunate to know him as a person, not just to admire him from afar.

He and his family are one of the reasons I stand here today. His work in the Senate, his brother John's call for a new generation to serve their country, and his brother Bobby's call for social justice all these inspired me to run for office to in some way serve my country as Senator Kennedy and his family had. One of the greatest honors of my life was winning the Profiles in Courage Award with Senator McCain, and being recognized by members of the Kennedy family for our work on campaign finance reform.

Having Senator Kennedy there that day was part of what made that such an honor. There was no one else like him; he was truly one of a kind. Who else could be such a fierce advocate, and at the same time such a skilled negotiator? Who else could engage in such heated debate, but still count so many of us, on both sides of the aisle, as devoted friends? No one but Ted Kennedy could do that.

His qualities were legendary he was the hardest worker, he was the quickest debater, and he was the guy who lit up a room with his warmth and wit. It was all there in one extraordinary man, who became one of the greatest United States Senators in our Nation's history. Even putting aside Ted's legendary personal qualities, his legislative record speaks volumes about how effective he was. It is a record for the ages, with hundreds of his legislative efforts becoming law.

His achievements in civil rights, education, health care, and workers' rights speak to the absolute commitment he had to the people he saw who struggled to live the American dream; the dedicated people who are the lifeblood of this country, but who struggle--especially in times like these--when they lose their job, or their health insurance or their home. In Ted Kennedy, those Americans found their champion, and we thank him for everything he achieved on their behalf.

I admired so many things Ted Kennedy did, but most of all I was inspired by his work on civil rights. His commitment, through his 47 years in the Senate, to the cause of equality for every American, was perhaps his greatest achievement of all. In his very first speech on the Senate floor, just 4 months after his brother John's assassination, he called for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He played a key role in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was the chief sponsor of the Voting Rights Amendments Act of 1982, and just a few years ago was a key cosponsor of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. He was one of the chief cosponsors of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the chief sponsor of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, and a key proponent of theCivil Rights Act of 1991. And the list goes on, Mr. President. There simply is no doubt that he was the most important legislative architect of the expansion of civil rights in the last half century. I am committed to helping to continue that work here in the Senate in his memory.

Ted was also someone who suffered many personal tragedies, but he bore those burdens with a quiet dignity that came from his tremendous inner strength. You couldn't know him without being awed by that strength, and sensing it whenever he entered the room, or when he took up an issue. When he spoke, his words echoed not just in this Chamber, but across the country and around the world. This was a man who could change the momentum on a bill or an issue just through his own personal will. He was a powerful person determined to help the powerless in our society, and we loved him for it.

I think ``beloved'' is the best word to describe how we felt about him here in the Senate, and how so many Americans felt about him around the country. We are grateful that he lived to achieve so much, and to inspire so many.

And now we wish, as he did when he laid his brother Robert Kennedy to rest, that ``what he wished for others will someday come to pass for all the world.'' And now we pledge, as he did at the Democratic Convention in 1980, that ``the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die. `` And now, as we grieve his loss, we say goodbye to our friend, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. We thank him for his lifetime of service to our country, and for his profound commitment to the cause of justice here in the United States and throughout the world.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my partner in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, to introduce the Federal Election Administration Act of 2009. Americans naturally expect that elections in this country will be honest, fair, and above all, lawful. That is the purpose of the Federal Election Commission, yet the FEC's willingness to enforce the law has gone from bad to worse. Now more than ever, the health of our democracy depends on whether Congress will take decisive action to fix this unpardonably broken agency.

Senator McCain and I originally introduced this bill in 2003, after giving the FEC a fair chance to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. Despite our very best efforts and those of our House sponsors, Representatives Shays and Meehan, the FEC opened new loopholes rather than trying to faithfully discern the intent of the law. It acted as an unelected legislature, substituting its policy judgments for those of Congress.

This is not my personal judgment. This is the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has struck down over twenty of the FEC's implementing regulations as arbitrary and capricious or directly contrary to the will of Congress. In its most recent opinion in 2008, the court was merciless in its criticism of the FEC. It said some of the FEC's arguments were ``absurd'', or ``fl[y] in the face of common sense''; or ``disregard[] everything Congress, the Supreme Court, and this court have said about campaign finance regulation''; or ``ignore[] both history and human nature.'' It said that one regulation ``provides a clear roadmap'' for using soft money in connection with federal elections, ``directly frustrating BCRA's purpose.'' It said that the rule ``would lead to the exact perception and possibility of corruption Congress sought to stamp out in BCRA.'' This is not language that the American people should ever hear from a court about a law enforcement agency.

The situation has only gotten worse. Earlier this year, the FEC blew a hole through the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, issuing a regulation that allows lobbyists to hide the bundling of campaign contributions that the law was designed to make public. The FEC disregarded clear and deliberate statements of congressional intent, not only from me but from then-Senator Barack Obama.

Those laws that the FEC cannot regulate out of existence, it smothers with inaction. During the first six months of 2008, the FEC was effectively closed for business because President Bush insisted on standing behind a nominee, Hans Von Spakovsky, whom the Senate would not confirm. We were in the middle of a presidential election year, with no enforcement of federal election law. That deadlock was broken when Mr. Von Spakovsky's nomination was finally withdrawn and four new Commissioners and one holdover Commissioner were confirmed in July 2008.

But the cure turned out to be worse than the disease. In the words of The Washington Post: ``What's worse than a federal agency that lacks the quorum of commissioners necessary to act on a matter? Answer: An agency that has a quorum in place but is paralyzed from acting anyway because it is deadlocked along party lines.''

The whole point of having six commissioners, three Democrats and three Republicans, was to protect against partisan enforcement of the election laws. But over the past year we've seen election laws enforced against neither party. In well over a dozen cases, whether the likely lawbreaker was linked to George Soros or Mitt Romney, a 3-to-3 deadlock has prevented the FEC professional staff from doing their job. Even admitted offenders have been let off the hook: On at least two occasions, the FEC declined to collect fines that election law violators had already agreed to pay. That's like a district attorney tearing up a criminal's plea bargain.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but enough is enough. The current structure of the FEC cannot meet the challenges of enforcing our election laws in the 21st century. In this bill, we replace the FEC with a new agency, the Federal Election Administration. The FEA will be helmed by three members instead of six, so that there is always a tiebreaker and we stop seeing perpetual deadlock. The Chair will have a ten-year term to encourage independence. The other two members will have staggered six-year terms. Our hope is that this new agency will not be the captive of the political parties, but instead, led by a strong and independent Chair, will be the trustworthy law enforcement agency that the American people want to see.

To that end, we have followed the model of more effective regulatory agencies such as the EPA, the NLRB, and the SEC. The FEA will have a corps of Administrative Law Judges to adjudicate complaints that the Administration's professional staff will bring. The new agency will have the power to determine violations of our election laws and to assess penalties subject, of course, to judicial review.

Americans want our democratically enacted laws to be enforced, as a matter of public good and public trust. If the EPA doesn't enforce pollution laws, our drinking water gets poisoned. If the SEC doesn't enforce the securities laws, our economy gets poisoned. If the FEC does not enforce election laws, our democracy gets poisoned.

The new Federal Election Administration will ensure that our democracy remains healthy, strong, and fair. I want to thank my friend Senator McCain for all of his work on campaign finance and other reform issues for well over a decade, and I look forward to working closely with him again to pass this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my partner in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, to introduce the Federal Election Administration Act of 2009. Americans naturally expect that elections in this country will be honest, fair, and above all, lawful. That is the purpose of the Federal Election Commission, yet the FEC's willingness to enforce the law has gone from bad to worse. Now more than ever, the health of our democracy depends on whether Congress will take decisive action to fix this unpardonably broken agency.

Senator McCain and I originally introduced this bill in 2003, after giving the FEC a fair chance to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. Despite our very best efforts and those of our House sponsors, Representatives Shays and Meehan, the FEC opened new loopholes rather than trying to faithfully discern the intent of the law. It acted as an unelected legislature, substituting its policy judgments for those of Congress.

This is not my personal judgment. This is the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has struck down over twenty of the FEC's implementing regulations as arbitrary and capricious or directly contrary to the will of Congress. In its most recent opinion in 2008, the court was merciless in its criticism of the FEC. It said some of the FEC's arguments were ``absurd'', or ``fl[y] in the face of common sense''; or ``disregard[] everything Congress, the Supreme Court, and this court have said about campaign finance regulation''; or ``ignore[] both history and human nature.'' It said that one regulation ``provides a clear roadmap'' for using soft money in connection with federal elections, ``directly frustrating BCRA's purpose.'' It said that the rule ``would lead to the exact perception and possibility of corruption Congress sought to stamp out in BCRA.'' This is not language that the American people should ever hear from a court about a law enforcement agency.

The situation has only gotten worse. Earlier this year, the FEC blew a hole through the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, issuing a regulation that allows lobbyists to hide the bundling of campaign contributions that the law was designed to make public. The FEC disregarded clear and deliberate statements of congressional intent, not only from me but from then-Senator Barack Obama.

Those laws that the FEC cannot regulate out of existence, it smothers with inaction. During the first six months of 2008, the FEC was effectively closed for business because President Bush insisted on standing behind a nominee, Hans Von Spakovsky, whom the Senate would not confirm. We were in the middle of a presidential election year, with no enforcement of federal election law. That deadlock was broken when Mr. Von Spakovsky's nomination was finally withdrawn and four new Commissioners and one holdover Commissioner were confirmed in July 2008.

But the cure turned out to be worse than the disease. In the words of The Washington Post: ``What's worse than a federal agency that lacks the quorum of commissioners necessary to act on a matter? Answer: An agency that has a quorum in place but is paralyzed from acting anyway because it is deadlocked along party lines.''

The whole point of having six commissioners, three Democrats and three Republicans, was to protect against partisan enforcement of the election laws. But over the past year we've seen election laws enforced against neither party. In well over a dozen cases, whether the likely lawbreaker was linked to George Soros or Mitt Romney, a 3-to-3 deadlock has prevented the FEC professional staff from doing their job. Even admitted offenders have been let off the hook: On at least two occasions, the FEC declined to collect fines that election law violators had already agreed to pay. That's like a district attorney tearing up a criminal's plea bargain.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but enough is enough. The current structure of the FEC cannot meet the challenges of enforcing our election laws in the 21st century. In this bill, we replace the FEC with a new agency, the Federal Election Administration. The FEA will be helmed by three members instead of six, so that there is always a tiebreaker and we stop seeing perpetual deadlock. The Chair will have a ten-year term to encourage independence. The other two members will have staggered six-year terms. Our hope is that this new agency will not be the captive of the political parties, but instead, led by a strong and independent Chair, will be the trustworthy law enforcement agency that the American people want to see.

To that end, we have followed the model of more effective regulatory agencies such as the EPA, the NLRB, and the SEC. The FEA will have a corps of Administrative Law Judges to adjudicate complaints that the Administration's professional staff will bring. The new agency will have the power to determine violations of our election laws and to assess penalties subject, of course, to judicial review.

Americans want our democratically enacted laws to be enforced, as a matter of public good and public trust. If the EPA doesn't enforce pollution laws, our drinking water gets poisoned. If the SEC doesn't enforce the securities laws, our economy gets poisoned. If the FEC does not enforce election laws, our democracy gets poisoned.

The new Federal Election Administration will ensure that our democracy remains healthy, strong, and fair. I want to thank my friend Senator McCain for all of his work on campaign finance and other reform issues for well over a decade, and I look forward to working closely with him again to pass this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to support this bill, which will provide additional funding to the popular Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save or CARS program. While not perfect, CARS has encouraged Americans to trade in their older and less fuel-efficient vehicles while boosting new car sales and helping to revive local economies in Wisconsin and around the country, something that is sorely needed in these difficult economic times.

CARS began almost 2 weeks ago and in that time, interest in CARS has far exceeded most initial expectations for the program. Despite some problems with implementation of the program, it should be temporarily extended to help ensure that Americans who still want to participate in the program can do so, and that deals which have already been made in reliance on the program can go through. At the same time, I hope the Department of Transportation will listen to the concerns from car dealers and consumers and make improvements to help ensure CARS operates more smoothly in the coming weeks.

I am pleased that the Department of Transportation has fixed one problem it created in implementing CARS. When Congress created the CARS program earlier this year, it fully intended to ensure that consumers across the country who are in compliance with the statute's requirements, including provisions related to car insurance, be allowed to participate in the CARS program. The Transportation Department issued a final rule almost 2 weeks ago that set the guidelines for the CARS program. This rule included a requirement that individuals who wanted to trade in their vehicles had to demonstrate proof of car insurance for at least one year prior to the trade-in, a provision that conflicted with statutory language stating that a trade-in vehicle be ``continuously insured consistent with the applicable State law.'' Currently, Wisconsin and New Hampshire do not require individuals to purchase car insurance and it was estimated that Transportation's rule would have affected up to 15 percent of Wisconsin drivers who legally did not have car insurance, but were in full compliance with Wisconsin State laws.

I wrote to the Department of Transportation and spoke with Secretary LaHood to urge the Department to correct its misinterpretation of the CARS statutory language. I am pleased to have been joined in the effort by members of the Wisconsin and New Hampshire delegations as well as some of the lead authors of the Cash for Clunkers program including Senator Stabenow and Representative Dingell. The Department listened to our concerns and, last week, it announced that it had reexamined the statutory language of CARS and concluded that the initial rule it had issued unfairly penalized Wisconsin drivers who were in compliance with Wisconsin law. The Transportation Department further announced that trade-in vehicles in Wisconsin would be exempt from the 1-year insurance requirement thereby ensuring that Wisconsinites who meet the law's other eligibility requirements can participate in the CARS program. While all Wisconsin drivers will be required to have car insurance beginning in June 2010, this action by the Transportation Department is a sensible fix for Wisconsinites who are in compliance with state law and who seek to participate in this temporary program.

Even with a number of Wisconsinites erroneously excluded from the program initially and some technical difficulties, as of August 5, several thousand Wisconsinites had participated in the program and dealers are expected to receive reimbursements for over $24 million that they have credited to Wisconsinites buying new cars under this program. On a per capita basis, this level of requested vouchers places Wisconsin fifth amongst all the States. Demand for the program remains strong in Wisconsin and across the country and will soon completely outstrip the supply of vouchers currently available, which is why we need to act to provide additional funding.

Mr. President, the Obama administration has rightly focused much of its attention not on Iraq but on the region of the world that most threatens our national security--the Pakistan- Afghanistan region. This was long overdue. The lost time has greatly damaged our national security and left us with fewer options in South Asia. I continue to be concerned, however, that the escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan could further destabilize Pakistan, where the leadership of al-Qaida and Afghan Taliban operate and where Pakistani Taliban elements are seeking to extend their reach. I expressed these concerns, among other places, at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the administration's envoy to the region. Ambassador Holbrooke conceded that the concern was real and that, while the administration was aware of the risk, they could not rule out these unintended consequences. Testifying before the same committee a week later, Admiral Mullen made similar comments.

The war in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the al-Qaida safe haven in the FATA and the Afghan Taliban safe haven in Balochistan, as well as to the current conflict in the Northwest Frontier Province and to the rest of Pakistan. It is not the same war throughout the region and it would be a mistake to perceive a monolithic enemy. But we need to consider the consequences of our actions and those of our partners throughout the region.

Last year, I made a trip to Peshawar in the Northwest Frontier Province. There I met the province's leadership, as well as the extraordinary Americans working in our consulate there. During and after my trip, I expressed concern about the impact of deals made between the government and the Pakistani Taliban. Tragically, however, the situation in the NWFP got worse. Increasing violence in Peshawar included the killing of USAID employees and an attack on our top diplomat there. And the Pakistani Taliban's reach into Swat became broader and more radical, further threatening our national security and that of Pakistan. These advances must be permanently rolled back, just as safe havens in the FATA cannot be allowed to stand.

But it is not enough for us to throw our support behind the Pakistani military incursions. This is a critical moment in which it matters how Pakistan seeks to reassert its control. The displacement of over 2 million civilians, delays in assistance to and the return of the displaced, and a failure to ensure coordinated and accountable civilian-led security to the people all pose serious risks. Internal conflicts fuel terrorist recruitment and can create new safe havens. So while we have a clear interest in the success of one side--the Pakistani Government--we also have a clear interest in how this conflict is waged and how it is resolved.

At the same time, we must focus more attention beyond the safe havens and instability in South Asia, particularly on Yemen and Somalia. The threat from al-Qaida affiliates in those countries, as well as from al Shebaab, is increasing. Weak states, chronic instability, vast ungoverned areas, and unresolved local tensions have created almost ideal safe havens in which terrorists can recruit and operate. They have also attracted foreign fighters including, in the case of Somalia, Americans. Al-Qaida's long tentacles reach into these countries, and our efforts to track individual operatives are critical, just as they are in Pakistan. But, while we should aggressively pursue al-Qaida leaders, we will not achieve our long-term strategic goals if we think about counterterrorism primarily as a manhunt or if we assume there is a finite number of terrorists in the world. Conditions in places such as Yemen and Somalia create and attract new ones. That is why press stories suggesting that operatives from Pakistan are relocating, while troubling, ignore the larger strategic picture. Because of conditions on the ground, al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen and Somalia are perfectly capable of expanding their reach and capabilities on their own. And the best way to stop them is to address head-on the reasons--frequently unique to the countries in which they are operating--for their success.

The threats to our national security in Yemen are serious and are getting worse. News last month about the murder of as many as nine hostages in Yemen, which Yemeni officials have linked to groups affiliated with al-Qaida, is a reminder of the increasing violence there. As in Peshawar, our diplomats have been in the crosshairs, with the attack last September on our Embassy in Sana'a. And, as our State Department has warned, al-Qaida in Yemen's recruitment remains strong, and its tactics indicate high levels of training, coordination, and sophistication. Any serious effort against al-Qaida in Yemen will require the engagement of the government, whose capabilities and commitment are extremely weak. Yemen is a fragile state whose government has limited control outside the capital. It is also distracted from the counterterrorism effort by two other sources of domestic instability--the al-Houthi rebellion in the north and tensions with a southern region with which Sana'a was united less than 20 years ago. In other words, counterterrorism is hampered by weak governance and by internal conflicts that would not appear on the surface to threaten our interests. Our only choice, then, is to develop a comprehensive policy toward Yemen that places counterterrorism within a broader framework that promotes internal stability, economic development, transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.

And we must do this while considering the obstacles to repatriating the approximately 100 Yemeni detainees currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. I have spoken out about security gaps in Yemen, particularly with regard to the escape from detention of a terrorist operative responsible for the attack on the USS Cole. I support the closing of Guantanamo, but with so many of its detainees hailing from Yemen, we need to take an honest look at the weaknesses in Sana'a's justice and security systems and consider whether there is anything we can do about them.

Instability in Yemen is, of course, directly linked to conflict in the Horn of Africa. Earlier this year, the pirate attack on a U.S. vessel briefly raised awareness of maritime insecurity fostered by a lack of effective governance and insufficient naval capacity on both sides of the Gulf of Aden. This problem continues, even when it is not on the front pages, and is both a symptom and a driver of overall instability in the region. Meanwhile, refugees from the conflict in Somalia are fleeing to Yemen. According to a recent U.N. report, thirty 30,000 have crossed the Gulf of Aden this year with thousands more preparing to do so. The human cost to this exodus, as well as the potentially destabilizing affects, demand our attention. Finally, Yemen is linked to the Horn of Africa through arms trafficking that violates the U.N. embargo on Somalia and fuels the conflict there.

The threat in northern Somalia is, or should be, more apparent now than ever. Last October, terrorists attacked in Somaliland and Puntland. These are regions--and regional governments--for which we have little in the way of policy. I am not arguing that we recognize their independence, but it is in our national interest to engage them-- diplomatically and economically--and to promote stability there. I have spoken frequently, and for years, about the need for a comprehensive policy for the Horn of Africa. Serious attention to the unique conditions in Somaliland and Puntland must be part of that policy.

Meanwhile, the raging conflict in central and southern Somalia is worse than ever, as a beleaguered transitional government fights a strengthened al Shebaab and allied militias. Foreign fighters have come to Somalia to fight alongside al Shebaab, including Americans, one of whom was implicated in the October terrorist attacks. Al-Qaida in East Africa thrives on the instability and has even expanded its support network south, into parts of Kenya. Yet for far too long, our policy toward Somalia has been fragmented or nonexistent. Our counterterrorism approach has been primarily tactical and has failed to confront the reasons why Somalia is not just a safe haven for al-Qaida in East Africa but a recruiting ground for increasing numbers of fighters-- Somali and foreign--who are drawn to a conflict that is fueled by local and regional forces. That is why a comprehensive policy must include a serious, high-level commitment

to a sustainable and inclusive peace and why all elements of the U.S. Government need to work together toward common goals.

As in Yemen, the key to a successful strategy is the recognition that destabilizing factors in the region are linked to threats to the United States. Thus, separatism in the Ogaden or Somali region of Ethiopia, the ongoing Ethiopian-Eritrean border disputes, and the ways in which these tensions motivate the policies of these countries toward Somalia must factor into our broader regional strategy. This is complex, to be sure. But we simply have no other choice--we must recognize the complexity, understand it, and devise policies that address it.

This administration has a historic opportunity. And there are indications that lessons are being learned. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center--whom the President rightly kept on from the previous administration--recently said the following:

This is a global struggle for al-Qaida, but if we think

about it too much as a global struggle and fail to identify

the local events that are truly motivating people to join

what they view as a global struggle, we will really miss the

boat. We have to try to disaggregate al-Qaida into the

localized units that largely make up the organization and

attack those local issues that have motivated these

individuals to see their future destiny through a global

jihad banner.

This is the strategic framework that we have been waiting for, and it is encouraging.

But statements such as these are only the beginning. To effectively fight the threat from al-Qaida and its affiliates, we have to change the way our government is structured and how it operates.

First, we need better intelligence. Recent reforms to our intelligence community have focused on tactical intelligence--on ``connecting the dots.'' We have not tackled the gaps in strategic intelligence. We need to improve the intelligence that relates directly to al-Qaida affiliates--where they find safe haven and why. But we also need better intelligence on the local conflicts and other conditions that impede or complicate our counterterrorism efforts. And we need better intelligence on regions of the world in which the increasing marginalization of communities, resentments against local government, or simmering ethnic or tribal tensions can result in new safe havens, new pools for terrorist recruiting, or simply distractions for one of our counterterrorism partners.

Second, we need to fully integrate our intelligence community with all the ways in which our government, particularly the State Department, openly collects, reports, and analyzes information. This integration, which was the goal of legislation that I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Hagel and that twice has won approval from the Senate Intelligence Committee, is a critical component of strategic counterterrorism. Without it, we will never understand the conditions around the world--most of them apparent to experienced diplomats--that allow al-Qaida affiliates to operate, nor will we be able to respond effectively.

Third, this integration of clandestine intelligence community activities and open information gathering must include the allocation of real resources to the right people. This is fundamental. We can no longer afford to have budget requests driven by the equities and influence of individual agencies, rather than interagency strategies. And while Congress should do its part, real reform must be internalized by the executive branch.

Fourth, we need to recognize that when whole countries or regions are off limits to our diplomats, we have a national security problem. We know that regional tensions in Yemen, clan conflicts in Somalia, and violent extremism in Pakistan all contribute to the overall terrorism threat. But if our diplomats can't get there, not only will we never truly understand what is going on, we won't be able to engage with the local populations. In some cases, we can and should establish new embassy posts. For years, I have pushed for such an initiative in northern Nigeria, a region where clashes between security forces and extremists have taken hundreds of lives in recent weeks. In some cases, the security concerns are prohibitive. But there, we cannot just turn our backs; our absence doesn't make the threats go away. Instead, we should develop policies that focus on helping to reestablish security, for the sake of the local populations as well as for our own interests.

Fifth, we need strong, sustained policies aimed directly at resolving conflicts that allow al-Qaida affiliates to operate and recruit. These policies must be sophisticated and informed. We have suffered from a tendency to view the world in terms of extremists versus moderates, good guys versus bad guys. These are blinders that prevent us from understanding, on their own terms, complex conflicts such as the ones in Yemen or Somalia or, to inject two other examples, Mali and Nigeria. They have also led us to prioritize tactical operations--DOD strikes in Somalia, for example--without full consideration of their strategic impact. Conversely, we have viewed regional conflicts as obscure and unimportant, relegating them to small State Department teams with few resources and limited influence outside the Department. This must change. Policy needs to be driven by the real national security interests we have in these countries and regions, and our policies need to be supported by all elements of the U.S. Government. That includes a real recognition that, sometimes, policies that promote economic development and the rule of law really are critical to our counterterrorism efforts, and they need real resources and support from the whole of our government.

Mr. President, after 7 years of an administration that believed it could fight terrorism by simply identifying and destroying enemies, we now have an opportunity to take a more effective, comprehensive, long- term approach. The President, in his speech in Cairo, reached out to Muslims around the world. The Director of the NCTC has stressed the need to address local conditions in the global struggle against al- Qaida's affiliates. The Secretary of State has committed to aggressive diplomacy around the world. And the Secretary of Defense has acknowledged the need to increase the role and resources of other agencies and departments. Now, however, the real work begins. Changing the way the government, and Congress, for that matter, understands and responds to the national security threats facing us will not be easy. But we have no time to wait.

Mr. President, as founder of the Senate Wilderness and Public Lands Caucus, I led a Senate resolution commemorating the upcoming 45th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964. I am delighted the Senate passed this resolution last night, and am very pleased that Senator McCain joined me in leading this effort. I also thank our other colleagues for their support as cosponsors: Senators Lamar Alexander, Evan Bayh, Michael Bennet, Barbara Boxer, Sam Brownback, Ronald Burris, Robert Byrd, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin Cardin, Susan Collins, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Judd Gregg, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Robert Menendez, Jeff Merkley, Patty Murray, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, George Voinovich and Ron Wyden.

This Wilderness Act was signed into law on September 3, 1964, by President Lyndon B. Johnson, 7 years after the first wilderness bill was introduced by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota. The final bill, sponsored by Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, passed the Senate by a vote of 73-12 on April 9, 1963, and passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 373-1 on July 30, 1964.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System ``to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.'' The law gives Congress the authority to designate wilderness areas, and directs the federal land management agencies to review the lands under their responsibility for their wilderness potential.

Under the Wilderness Act, wilderness is defined as ``an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence which generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.'' The creation of a

national wilderness system marked an innovation in the American conservation movement--wilderness would be a place where our ``management strategy'' would be to leave lands essentially undeveloped.

The original Wilderness Act established 9.1 million acres of Forest Service land in 54 wilderness areas. The support for wilderness has continued through the 111th Congress with the creation of 52 new wilderness areas in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Today, the wilderness system is comprised of over 109 million acres in over 750 wilderness areas, across 44 States, and administered by 4 Federal agencies: the Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior.

As we in this body know well, the passage and enactment of the Wilderness Act was a remarkable accomplishment that required steady, bipartisan commitment, institutional support, and strong leadership. The U.S. Senate was instrumental in shaping this very important law, and this anniversary gives us the opportunity to recognize this role.

As a Senator from Wisconsin, I feel a special bond with this issue. The concept of wilderness is inextricably linked with Wisconsin. Wisconsin has produced great wilderness thinkers and leaders in the wilderness movement such as Senator Gaylord Nelson and the writer and conservationist Aldo Leopold, whose ``A Sand County Almanac'' helped to galvanize the environmental movement. Also notable is Sierra Club founder John Muir, whose birthday is the day before Earth Day. Wisconsin also produced Sigurd Olson, one of the founders of The Wilderness Society.

I am privileged to hold the Senate seat held by Gaylord Nelson, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. He is a well-known and widely respected former Senator and former two-term Governor of Wisconsin, and the founder of Earth Day. In his later years, he devoted his time to the protection of wilderness by serving as a counselor to The Wilderness Society--an activity which was quite appropriate for someone who was also a cosponsor, along with former Senator Proxmire, of the bill that became the Wilderness Act.

The testimony at congressional hearings and the discussion of the bill in the press of the day reveals Wisconsin's crucial role in the long and continuing American debate about our wild places, and in the development of the Wilderness Act. The names and ideas of John Muir, Sigurd Olson, and, especially, Aldo Leopold, appear time and time again in the legislative history.

Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, chairman of what was then called the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, stated that his support of the wilderness system was the direct result of discussions he had held almost forty years before with Leopold, who was then in the Southwest with the Forest Service. It was Leopold who, while with the Forest Service, advocated the creation of a primitive area in the Gila National Forest in New Mexico in 1923. The Gila Primitive Area formally became part of the wilderness system when the Wilderness Act became law.

In a statement in favor of the Wilderness Act in the New York Times, then-Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall discussed ecology and what he called ``a land ethic'' and referred to Leopold as the instigator of the modern wilderness movement. At a Senate hearing in 1961, David Brower of the Sierra Club went so far as to claim that ``no man who reads Leopold with an open mind will ever again, with a clear conscience, be able to step up and testify against the wilderness bill.'' For others, the ideas of Olson and Muir--particularly the idea that preserving wilderness is a way for us to better understand our country's history and the frontier experience--provided a justification for the wilderness system.

I would like to remind colleagues of the words of Aldo Leopold in his 1949 book, ``A Sand County Almanac.'' He said, ``The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not the television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little is known about it.''

We still have much to learn, but this anniversary of the Wilderness Act reminds us how far we have come and how the commitment to public lands that the Senate and the Congress demonstrated 45 years ago continues to benefit all Americans.

I would like to recognize the following organizations for their efforts to continue protecting our wild places: American Rivers, Alaska Wilderness League, Campaign for America's Wilderness, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Environment Group, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and The Wilderness Society.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that seeks to answer a question more and more Americans are asking in light of our economic woes and our struggle toward energy independence: Why aren't the oil companies developing 65 million acres, or nearly 75 percent, of land that they are leasing from the U.S. Government? Those same companies and some of my colleagues continue to argue that we need to open more Federal lands to drilling and recently have been insisting on opening up part of the Gulf of Mexico off Florida's coast that Congress agreed to keep closed during debate in 2005 for military and security purposes. I would first like to know why the oil companies are not producing on most of the Federal lands they already have under lease.

Last year, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I had the chance to ask top oil executives just that question. They couldn't come up with a good explanation. In fact, one of the executives told me that they have the manpower and infrastructure to put all their existing leases of Federal lands into oil production.

I find this troubling. No one is talking about pulling oil out of a hat. But with nearly 75 percent of currently leased Federal lands and waters not producing oil and gas, Congress must insist on some accountability. This is why today I am introducing--along with Senators Dodd and Menendez--the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, also known as ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. This bill says that if oil and gas companies want to lease additional Federal lands, they must either be producing or diligently developing their existing Federal leases, or they have to first give up those leases. Under my bill, the Department of the Interior is required to establish diligent development benchmarks, which will encourage leaseholders to demonstrate they are taking steps that may lead to oil and gas production. This is a responsible way to increase production and keep the private sector accountable for production of existing Federal resources.

Last fall, the Government Accountability Office issued a report, ``Oil and Gas Leasing: Interior Could Do More to Encourage Diligent Development,'' that looked at whether enough is being done to ensure oil companies are taking steps to develop Federal oil and gas leases. The report found that the Department of the Interior--whose Minerals Management Service manages offshore leases and Bureau of Land Management manages onshore and National Petroleum Reserve leases--lags behind State and private landowner efforts to encourage development of land leased for oil and gas development. The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior ``develop a strategy to evaluate options to encourage faster development of its oil and gas leases.''

Though both MMS and BLM require ``reasonable diligence'' in developing and producing oil and gas on Federal leases, the GAO found that the Interior Department has not clearly defined what activities or timeframes constitute reasonable diligence--something my bill requires the agency to do. Currently, the GAO concludes that leaseholders, in general, are not required to take actions to develop a

lease during the primary term. The only specific diligent development requirement that Interior officials identified to the GAO applies only to lessees of 8-year leases in the Gulf of Mexico and requires drilling to occur before the end of the fifth year or else the lease terminates. However, these leases represent less than 1 percent of the total lease universe.

In addition to the GAO evaluation, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General issued a report in February 2009 on its investigation of whether oil and gas companies were adequately developing Federal leases and whether the Department of the Interior was ensuring companies bring their leases into production. The inspector general concluded that, while there is no guarantee that a particular lease contains oil and gas in commercial quantities, there are no requirements to ensure lessees are taking steps to reach this conclusion and to ensure the development of leases capable of production. Specifically, the inspector general found there are no requirements for the Department to monitor production progress or compel companies to develop leases and there is no requirement to detail activity on nonproducing leases. My bill will ensure the Federal Government develops diligent development requirements for oil and gas leases.

With over 100 billion barrels of oil under Federal lands and waters that are being leased or are available for leasing, Congress must properly encourage their development. This won't solve our energy problems--the unfortunate truth is that in today's global market, gas prices are dictated less by our domestic production and more by OPEC's actions. Nevertheless, Congress must ensure appropriate oversight of our Federally leased lands and waters, as we simultaneously reduce our dependence on foreign oil through continuing to be a world leader in oil and gas production, decreasing our demand of oil and gas since we are the No. 1 consumer of both in the world, and pursuing alternative energy sources especially in the transportation sector.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that seeks to answer a question more and more Americans are asking in light of our economic woes and our struggle toward energy independence: Why aren't the oil companies developing 65 million acres, or nearly 75 percent, of land that they are leasing from the U.S. Government? Those same companies and some of my colleagues continue to argue that we need to open more Federal lands to drilling and recently have been insisting on opening up part of the Gulf of Mexico off Florida's coast that Congress agreed to keep closed during debate in 2005 for military and security purposes. I would first like to know why the oil companies are not producing on most of the Federal lands they already have under lease.

Last year, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I had the chance to ask top oil executives just that question. They couldn't come up with a good explanation. In fact, one of the executives told me that they have the manpower and infrastructure to put all their existing leases of Federal lands into oil production.

I find this troubling. No one is talking about pulling oil out of a hat. But with nearly 75 percent of currently leased Federal lands and waters not producing oil and gas, Congress must insist on some accountability. This is why today I am introducing--along with Senators Dodd and Menendez--the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act, also known as ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. This bill says that if oil and gas companies want to lease additional Federal lands, they must either be producing or diligently developing their existing Federal leases, or they have to first give up those leases. Under my bill, the Department of the Interior is required to establish diligent development benchmarks, which will encourage leaseholders to demonstrate they are taking steps that may lead to oil and gas production. This is a responsible way to increase production and keep the private sector accountable for production of existing Federal resources.

Last fall, the Government Accountability Office issued a report, ``Oil and Gas Leasing: Interior Could Do More to Encourage Diligent Development,'' that looked at whether enough is being done to ensure oil companies are taking steps to develop Federal oil and gas leases. The report found that the Department of the Interior--whose Minerals Management Service manages offshore leases and Bureau of Land Management manages onshore and National Petroleum Reserve leases--lags behind State and private landowner efforts to encourage development of land leased for oil and gas development. The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior ``develop a strategy to evaluate options to encourage faster development of its oil and gas leases.''

Though both MMS and BLM require ``reasonable diligence'' in developing and producing oil and gas on Federal leases, the GAO found that the Interior Department has not clearly defined what activities or timeframes constitute reasonable diligence--something my bill requires the agency to do. Currently, the GAO concludes that leaseholders, in general, are not required to take actions to develop a

lease during the primary term. The only specific diligent development requirement that Interior officials identified to the GAO applies only to lessees of 8-year leases in the Gulf of Mexico and requires drilling to occur before the end of the fifth year or else the lease terminates. However, these leases represent less than 1 percent of the total lease universe.

In addition to the GAO evaluation, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General issued a report in February 2009 on its investigation of whether oil and gas companies were adequately developing Federal leases and whether the Department of the Interior was ensuring companies bring their leases into production. The inspector general concluded that, while there is no guarantee that a particular lease contains oil and gas in commercial quantities, there are no requirements to ensure lessees are taking steps to reach this conclusion and to ensure the development of leases capable of production. Specifically, the inspector general found there are no requirements for the Department to monitor production progress or compel companies to develop leases and there is no requirement to detail activity on nonproducing leases. My bill will ensure the Federal Government develops diligent development requirements for oil and gas leases.

With over 100 billion barrels of oil under Federal lands and waters that are being leased or are available for leasing, Congress must properly encourage their development. This won't solve our energy problems--the unfortunate truth is that in today's global market, gas prices are dictated less by our domestic production and more by OPEC's actions. Nevertheless, Congress must ensure appropriate oversight of our Federally leased lands and waters, as we simultaneously reduce our dependence on foreign oil through continuing to be a world leader in oil and gas production, decreasing our demand of oil and gas since we are the No. 1 consumer of both in the world, and pursuing alternative energy sources especially in the transportation sector.