Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am happy to accommodate the Senator from California. With respect to the comments by the Senator from Pennsylvania, I had asked that those be reserved for the arguments in favor of the amendment. How much time remains on the chairman and my side of the aisle?

Mr. BOND. We will reserve that and accommodate the Senator from California. I thank the Chair and my colleagues.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand we are coming up on a hard break, as they say in television, for the party lunches.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to reclaim my time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend from Virginia, but we were going to start the FISA debate at 11. I understand there is a request to extend. I would like to lock in a time when we can accommodate those Senators wishing to speak but establish a firm time when Senator Rockefeller and I may begin the discussion of FISA.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, are there other requests of people wishing to speak?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think Senators Cornyn and Durbin wish to speak. So after the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Connecticut finish speaking, if we could--I would suggest that we give them the remaining time on morning business until 11:30. I ask unanimous consent to establish morning business until 11:30.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Well, to reply to my friend--who served in the past on the Intelligence Committee, I believe--that committee was set up to handle matters that involved the most critical classified information. The committee was set up, long before I came to the Senate, to provide a forum, a bipartisan group of Senators with a very able staff, to go over everything that was done in the intelligence community, to oversee it, to make sure it was proper, to make sure it stayed within the guidelines and to provide support and change it where necessary. Now, I have fought very strongly, alongside my colleague, the chairman, to get the full committee briefed on all these programs. As I have said before, the terrorist surveillance program was not briefed to the full committee, it was briefed and then oversight held with eight people. This, to me, was a mistake. I believe it should have been briefed to the entire committee, but the members of that group of eight did know about it and were briefed about it. Now, I might say to my good friend, the Senator from Pennsylvania, that we have many important committees putting out legislation on the floor. No person can participate in all the committee work. No person can be involved in every committee. So we have to take the reports, and usually on a bipartisan agreement or disagreement, based on what our colleagues in those committees have studied, have reviewed, and have found to be the case. In this case, an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of 13 to 2, after studying the bill and the question for 6 months and engaging in about 2 solid months of hard work, found out it was appropriate to give retroactive liability protection to these companies that had acted in good faith. We were shown the certifications and the authorizations that went to them, and I believe, based on my legal background, that those were adequate and sufficient for these companies to participate. Let us remember, these were critical times. We had just experienced an attack. We were being threatened with more attacks. The Government went to some of these--not all of them but some--companies and said: Please help us. You must help us. We believe in the committee that their actions should not be punished but should be rewarded by preventing them from being harassed by lawsuits. The legality of the program, if it is to be judged, was not one for a judgment for those companies to make, but it will be played out in Judge Walker's and other courtrooms.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am happy to answer my colleague. He has stated that the Executive has violated the laws. Not under the constitutional authority that I have outlined. The FISA Court itself recognized what he fails to understand; that it is not a question of the carriers being held liable for any amount of money. Because I agree with him, they are not going to find anybody liable. But what they would do, by continuing having this out in open hearing, is to disclose the most secretive methods and procedures used by our intelligence community, giving the terrorists and those who seek to do us harm a roadmap for getting around it and avoiding those intercepts. Now, what it would also do is expose those companies to tremendous public scorn and possibly even to injury to their property or to their personnel. Where they operate overseas, they might be attacked. When we started this debate, my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, was talking about how an unwarranted disclosure of a question about one of the vitally important exchanges operating in Chicago had cost billions of dollars to that exchange. When you leak out something that is classified, when you leak out something that is secret, you can have a tremendous impact, and every shareholder of that exchange and every shareholder, whether it be in your pension fund or anyone else, of one of the carriers that might be drawn out and drawn into court in one of these actions, would lose significantly. Now, to answer the question put specifically by the Senator from Pennsylvania, the cases against the Government are not blocked. The cases against the Government are not blocked. If we are looking for a means of determining the constitutionality, which I believe exists--he obviously doesn't believe exists. OK, we have a disagreement. He is a learned lawyer, and I studied constitutional law a long time ago. We have different views. I can line up a bunch of constitutional law professors on my side. I am sure he can do the same. But that court can go forward because a suit really is a suit against the government. I think he is right when he is saying he doesn't want to hurt the companies. I don't believe any significant number of Members of this body want to hurt the employees or their shareholders of the companies that may have participated because they were true American heroes. But if he wants to solve the problem that he has--getting court review-- then there is no bar in this legislation to a suit against the Government, a Government officer, or a Government agent.

Mr. BOND. I make a very generous allotment of 12 minutes. If he needs more, I am anxious to hear what he has to say.

Mr. BOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was asked by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, if there would be any objection if I asked that, after I finish my remarks, he be recognized for 5 minutes; that the Democratic time be extended 5 minutes and the Republican time be extended 5 minutes. Is there any objection to that?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know this is morning business, but I need to get people's attention back on FISA, I hope. Let me clarify some things that have been said earlier today. From time to time, some have tried to rewrite the history on what happened 1 year ago in producing the Protect America Act, our first attempt to fix the problems with foreign intelligence surveillance 1 year ago. That was not pretty, but I note there have been mischaracterizations of it. After last year, many critics of FISA, most notably in the House, tried to rewrite history and discredit ADM Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, and this compelled me to speak out on the matter at this time. He, in my view, from what I saw, acted in good faith, and he was charged with not having done so. But it seems there is another effort today to rewrite history. I can say, as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the cosponsor of the Protect America Act, I was the lead negotiator during the final hours of the Congress, as we tried to pass a critical short-term update of our Nation's law governing terrorist surveillance. As one who was there, I dispute the misinformation that was spread and largely by those who were not there. I will outline the events as they occurred, and here is what happened. As I think most of us know, in January 2007, the President announced that the terrorist surveillance program was coming under the FISA Court. Our Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, subsequently stated that after that time, the intelligence community lost a significant amount of collection capability and that, combined with increased threat, compelled him to ask Congress to modernize FISA, sooner rather than later. On April 12, Admiral McConnell sent his full FISA modernization proposal to Congress, and on May 1 he presented it in open session to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Some would like us to believe that was the first time this became an issue for us, in July, but it was not. The DNI had appeared in open session before the Senate Intelligence Committee and had pleaded with us to update FISA months earlier. I might say, along with another colleague of ours on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Bayh, we visited Iraq in early May of 2007, and the Joint Special Operations Commander, LTG Stan McChrystal, told us at that time that the blockage in electronic surveillance by FISA was substantially hurting his ability to gain the intelligence he needed to protect our troops in the field and gain an offensive advantage. I believe I, and perhaps Senator Bayh, spoke about that in committee and on the floor. Immediately following the admiral's testimony in May, I had urged the Intelligence Committee immediately to mark up FISA legislation. I was told by members of the majority that until the President turned over certain legal opinions from the terrorist surveillance program, Congress would not modernize FISA. That Congress would hold America's security hostage to receiving documents from a program that no longer existed was disheartening to me. We had already received an inordinate amount of documents from the Department of Justice and the Director of National Intelligence. Yet I do not dispute the desire or the right of members to seek privileged documents from the executive branch. In fact, I joined in requesting some of that. But I did disagree with holding up FISA modernization when those documents were not necessary to do that. Despite the urging from the Director of National Intelligence, and knowing this outdated law was harming our terrorist surveillance capabilities, for more than 3 months Congress chose to do nothing. Let me be clear, it was Congress that chose to ignore the pleas of the intelligence community. As a matter of fact, in late June, Admiral McConnell had a briefing for the entire Senate. I believe about 42 to 44 of us showed up there. He briefed Members of the Senate, again urging us to modernize FISA. Finally, his pleadings began to gain traction. In mid-July, Members of Congress agreed to discuss a short-term, scaled-down version of FISA to protect the country for the next few months before we could address comprehensive reform in the fall. Admiral McConnell immediately sent Congress his scaled-down proposal. Over the next week, Admiral McConnell was given nearly half a dozen versions of unvetted proposals from various congressional staffs across Congress and then pressed for instant support of these proposals. The admiral returned a compromise proposal to the Senate, including some of the provisions requested. Unfortunately, there were numerous bait and switches that took place during that time. Since the bipartisan committee process was circumvented to craft legislation behind closed doors without input from the relevant committee and the minority, it got messy in the final hours. Even as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I was excluded from the key meetings. Not only was I excluded, most members of the Intelligence Committee, Republican and Democratic, were left out of the process. Therefore, in the waning moments before the recess, I got together with a number of Democrats, including several from our Intelligence Committee, to discuss the short-term approach for the Protect America Act that Leader McConnell and I had introduced and which had the support of the DNI and the Department of Justice. Finally, on August 3 and 4, Congress, on a strong bipartisan basis and a desire to get out of town for the August recess, passed the Protect America Act. That was why it was jammed up. The administration was not trying to stiff us. The administration felt it was being stiffed. Fortunately, a solid, bipartisan majority of the Senate came together, passed the bill, and gave the House, regrettably, no choice but to pass it--which they did. But after the passage of the act, I think we all learned a good lesson. We sat down together on the Senate Intelligence Committee and began, on a bipartisan basis, to work out a permanent solution to FISA. I am very thankful we could do it. We put in a great deal of work. We spent a lot of time with the DNI, with the lawyers and the operatives for the program, and Senator Rockefeller and I worked, in a bipartisan fashion, to come up with a strong committee bill that we passed out of the Senate later on a 68-to-29 vote. I thank my colleagues on the committee, their staff, and all the Members of Congress who supported us, particularly the 68 who came and voted aye to pass the FISA amendments in February. That started the process that led us to where we are today. There is a strong bipartisan product before us. There were changes, cosmetic changes largely, made that the House believed were important and the intelligence community assured us would not interfere with their ability to collect information under the structure we had set forth in the FISA amendments that were passed by the Senate. That is where we are today. I am ready, willing, and able, whenever it is the will of the leadership, to act on amendments that may be before us and try to pass this bill so we will have some certainty for the intelligence community that they will know what the guidelines are for the next period through 2012. In any event, I will be back when we get on the bill to go over some of the items which are in question. But I think you see our chairman, Senator Rockefeller, who is on the floor, and I can assure you this is a good, solid, bipartisan bill that we should pass. I see it is a good time to yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank our leaders for getting us on this very important bill. As we have discussed before, the failure to modernize and authorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last summer has caused serious gaps in our intelligence capability. When the Protect America Act that was introduced by our Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and me last year finally passed, we put the intelligence community back in the business of intercepting critical intelligence communications from foreign terrorists talking to each other about possible activities in the United States, or against our troops and our allies elsewhere, and obviously any of those who were threatening the United States. I can tell you, without going into detail, that the foreign intelligence collection from these has been about the most valuable piece of information we have with respect to terrorist intent. So I appreciate the fact that this body is ready to move forward. I hope we will have a way forward to get it done by the time we leave for the Fourth of July recess. It is critical we get this done promptly. If we go into late July or even into August without getting it done, serious consequences will start to impact our ability to collect intelligence. Again, I thank our minority leader, Senator McConnell, for his kind words, especially about my very capable staff who have worked very hard, not only to help put this bill together, but we have briefed Members of both sides of the aisle, their staffs. We have spent a lot of time doing that. Of course, as I outlined yesterday, we spent a very long 2\1/2\ months working with the House. As I indicated, the bill this body passed, the FISA amendments, we passed 68 to 29 in February with the good, strong support of the chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller. We worked on a bipartisan basis. We worked with and listened to the intelligence community to do several things that were critical. No. 1, we wished to make sure there was protection for the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans and U.S. persons here and abroad. For the first time, we included that. We also needed to protect the telephone companies or carriers who have participated in the terrorist surveillance program under the lawful orders issued by the President, under his constitutional authority in article II, an act in good faith by those carriers. We provided that immunity, or retroactive liability protection, more accurately, that was critical to ensuring that they can continue to participate. They are loyal American citizens, and they wanted to be able to help. But when frivolous lawsuits, seeking billions of dollars in damages, are filed against them, whether they participated or not, and there is no assurance that any telephone company so sued has participated. They cannot use a defense that they did not participate. They have to have protection. We built in that protection in a way that was acceptable to both sides in this body in the FISA amendments and also satisfied the concerns of the majority party in the House, which, as Leader McConnell said, had the votes, if they had wished to pass our FISA amendments. We believe this new bill we are considering, H.R. 6304, which passed the House with a strong majority vote of 293 to 129 last Friday, should be passed here. As with the Senate's original FISA bill passed several months ago, the compromise that is before us required a little give-and-take from all sides. But, in essence, what we have before us today is basically the Senate bill all over again. I am aware that some on the far left wish to paint this as some radical new legislation. But if you read the language, it is not different. The press picked up on this straight away last week and kept asking me to help them find the purported ``big changes'' in this bill that no one can find. I have not been much help to them because the answer is, there is not much that is significantly different, save some cosmetic fixes that were requested by the majority party in the House. For example, I am pleased that the strong retroactive liability protections that the Senate bill offered are still in place, and our vital intelligence sources and methods will be safeguarded. I am pleased this compromise preserves the ability of the intelligence community to collect foreign intelligence quickly and in exigent circumstances without any prior court review. I am also pleased the 2012 sunset, 3 years longer than the sunset previously offered in any House bill, will give our intelligence collectors and those parties we need to have cooperate with us the certainty they need in the tools they use to keep us safe. I am confident the few changes we made to the Senate bill in H.R. 6304 will in no way diminish the intelligence community's ability to target terrorists overseas, and the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General agreed. That had to be the test. They worked with us. They made compromises. When we had a proposal for additional protections for Americans, they agreed. But we had to work out the language to make sure we provided protections without destroying the basic integrity of the bill. I believe we did that. We did that with the Senate bill, and we did it again with the minor changes the House wanted to make. Let me address, for the time being, the banner issue of the legislation, which is Congress's affirmation that the telecom providers that may have assisted the Government after 9/11 should have the frivolous lawsuits against them dismissed. I am confident in the standard of review in title II of the bill on which we agreed with Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Blunt, his counterpart in the House, namely, a ``substantial evidence'' standard, which will ensure that those companies that assisted the Government following the September 11 terrorist attacks obtain the civil retroactive liability protection they deserve. Unlike the amendment we defeated in the Senate that asked for the court to determine whether the providers acted in ``good faith,'' we affirm in this legislation, as we did in the previous Senate bill, that the providers did act in good faith, and that the lawsuits shall be dismissed unless the judge finds that the Attorney General's actions were not ``supported by substantial evidence.'' The focus is on the Attorney General's certification to the court, not the actions of the providers. We know the providers operated in good faith, and they deserve liability protection. We are allowing, however, the court to review the Attorney General's role in that. Another way to describe it is that we have essentially provided the district court with an appellate standard of review, just as we did in the Senate bill. Congress affirms in this legislation that the lawsuits will be dismissed, but then we give the district court an opportunity to change that outcome if the judge determines the Attorney General's certification was not supported by ``substantial evidence'' based on the information the Attorney General will provide to the court. So the intent of Congress is clear: the companies deserve liability protections. That principle has been approved overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in both the Senate when we adopted our bill in February and the House when it adopted its bill last Friday. Also, there are clear limits on what documents the court may review and the extent to which parties may participate in legal arguments. Because of these important limitations, I am confident that neither the standard of review nor the court processes will jeopardize liability protections or our intelligence sources and methods. Thus, Congress is again positively reaffirming that these companies should have the lawsuits dismissed. Mr. President, for the record, I thank publicly these providers--and they know who they are--who came to our Nation's defense in a time of national peril. Thank you for ensuring that our Government could keep Americans safe. Thank you for withstanding years of frivolous lawsuits that you did not deserve. But, unfortunately, that has been your penalty for your patriotism. You are a big factor in why America has not been hit with another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. You helped keep us safe for nearly 7 years since that terrible day, and you did so without legal relief. I thank you, and those who stand with me today thank you. The least we can do in Congress is to provide you with the legal protections you so rightly deserve. Now, some Senators would like to strip the providers' civil liability protections in the bill. Some believe the thanks these providers deserve should come in the form of billions of dollars of penalties through frivolous lawsuits that threaten their business reputation. Having reviewed the underlying authorities, the certifications, as one who has practiced a little bit of law in this area, I can tell you there is no way they could or should be held liable for any monetary damages, much less the billions of dollars irrationally requested in the lawsuits. What these lawsuits do is seek to undermine our program by laying out who participates in it. By getting at the details of the program, we would provide those who seek to do us harm with information on how we collect the information on them that is needed to prevent their attacks. Just as important, bringing them, dragging them through the mud of trials in court would simply assure that their business reputation would be severely damaged in the United States and potentially obliterated abroad. In addition, there is a real likelihood that terrorist activities or other extremists would turn on and attack their property or even their personnel. I believe seeking to strip liability protection is void of any mature understanding of the threats this Nation faces. That sort of shortsighted pandering to far-left political interest groups endangers our citizens and pays back patriotic service with politically motivated penalty. I do not join with those who want to treat those who responded to our call for help with disregard and disrespect. I thank the providers for responding to the call, and I will join many others in passing this legislation who will be thanking them with their vote on this important national security legislation. For those who want to challenge the program, note that we did not ban civil suits against the Government or against any officer of the Government. And criminal suits--if there are any criminal penalties-- are not banned. They could be instituted by the appropriate jurisdictions with law enforcement responsibility. So, Mr. President, there are lots of other points to consider, and when we get on the bill I will be happy to join in discussing any further questions that are raised. Again, I thank my staff, I thank Senator Rockefeller and his team for having passed the FISA bill. I am very grateful to Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader in the House, whose efforts were essential to passing this bill and bringing it to us. We have thanks also for the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, who worked with us day in and day out on all of the changes that were requested. Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, he and his staff and his team worked with us throughout. We have before us not a perfect piece of legislation--I do not think on this Earth we will ever see a perfect piece of legislation. But for the challenges we had to go through and the compromises we had to make, this is the best possible product we can produce that has already gained an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House. I hope it will also get the same kind of response in the Senate. Our intelligence community deserves it. The citizens of the United States deserve not only their rights protected, but they need and deserve the protection this act will give them from further attacks like 9/11. Mr. President, I do not see anyone seeking the floor, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my remarks, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, be recognized, and that she be followed by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, while my good friend from Vermont was on the floor, I thought he raised some good questions. I believe we have good answers for those questions. I know of his dedication and commitment to the rule of law and accountability, his very distinguished service as head of the Judiciary Committee. But there are several things I would point out. No. 1, we have been working on this entire issue of the President's terrorist surveillance program for better than a year now. We have reviewed all of the documents. We have had all of the people who administered the program, who have given opinions on it, come in. I dispute his statement that there were 6 years of unlawful activity of the President. He said no court will be able to review the illegality; no independent officials have reviewed it. First, it is my understanding, although I was not one of them, that the big eight at the time--that is, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate and the leaders of their Intelligence Committees--were briefed on this program before it started. I don't know the substance of the briefing. I would imagine that they told them the problems in the existing old FISA law would make it difficult to implement that law, given the new technology which, in fact, was the case. In any event, it went forward. When the program was finally disclosed and briefed to the Intelligence Committee, I spent a good bit of time reviewing that. I have studied constitutional law and made constitutional law arguments before. I believe if my friends who have questions about it will check the Constitution and the appellate court's interpretation of article II, they will find that they assume the President does have power to collect foreign intelligence information as an adjunct to his responsibility to conduct foreign affairs. There is no question that Congress cannot pass a law abrogating that constitutional right. As a matter of fact, in one of the released cases, one of the cases made public by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, they noted that Congress could not abrogate that constitutional right. It would be unconstitutional. For those who raise the test of the steel cases, I don't necessarily accept that test, that the enactments of Congress can affect the measure of credibility and extent of the President's power. The Congress did pass the authorization for the use of military force prior to the imposition of the terrorist surveillance program. We had access to the documents. Based on review of the documents, the Senate Intelligence Committee, by a vote of 13 to 2, passed out the bill which is the essential framework that is before us. The courts can review to see that there are certifications by the Attorney General, directives by the President, and only if they find no substantial evidence to support that, then the suits will be dismissed. My friend from Vermont said we ought to substitute the Government for the phone company for judicial review. There is another provision in the bill he should understand. If you want to sue the Government, there is no ban in this bill on suing the Government or suing Government officials. That can go forward. That is not affected by this bill. There has been extensive discussion over the legality of it. For those who wish to have a trial on the legality of the program, there are other means still available. To penalize a phone company or other carrier which, in good faith reliance on a representation of the Attorney General and the President of the United States, carried out a program that I believe is lawful to protect American citizens, I think is totally unwarranted. Let me describe today for my colleagues and for those who may be interested this long and difficult process which I believe has finally accomplished its goal. This week we have a chance to tell the American people that the intelligence community on which our citizens, our troops, and our allies rely to keep us safe from terrorists and other forms of evil in the world can continue to do its job. We can tell those companies that answered their Government's call for help in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks that a grateful nation stands behind them and that they will be given the civil liability protection they rightly deserve. I strongly support voting for cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, this afternoon. I strongly encourage my colleagues not only to do the same but also to oppose any amendments offered to it. We have finally struck a deal with the House, and the House honored the deal last Friday by allowing no amendments on the House floor. I ask my colleagues to hold up our end of the bargain. While it is in every Senator's right to offer an amendment, I urge my colleagues to vote down all amendments no matter what they may be so that we may send the bill immediately to the President for signature and make sure we don't have further gaps in our intelligence system which could appear once again if we do not pass this in a timely fashion. If we send it back to the House, there is no telling when a final bill could be back here for passage. Let me describe briefly how we got here. Approximately a year ago, Director of National Intelligence ADM Mike McConnell came to Congress and asked that we update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Changes in technology resulted in court rulings or interpretations that made it very difficult to use electronic surveillance effectively against terrorist enemies overseas. The problem came to a head in May 2007, with a ruling that caused significant gaps in collection. Although the DNI at the time pleaded to Congress to help, the leadership of Congress did not move. In the looming pressure of the August recess, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, and I cosponsored the Protect America Act which Congress passed the first week of August last year. The act did exactly what it was intended to. It closed the intelligence gaps that threatened the security of our Nation and of our troops. But it was lacking in one important aspect, as we were not able to include in it the retroactive civil liability protection from ongoing frivolous lawsuits against those partners who had assisted the intelligence community in the President's program. Following the passage of the Protect America Act, I am proud to say that Senator Rockefeller and I worked on a bipartisan basis to come up with a permanent solution to modernize FISA and give those private partners the needed retroactive liability protection. We worked closely for months with the DNI, Department of Justice, and their experts from the intelligence community to ensure there would be no unintended operational consequences from any of the provisions included in our bipartisan product. In February of this year, after many hearings, briefings, and a lot of debate on the Senate floor, the Senate passed the FISA amendments by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 29. The bill coming out of the Senate reflected the Intelligence Committee's conclusion that the electronic communication service providers who assisted the President's TSP acted in good faith and deserved civil liability protection from frivolous lawsuits. The Senate bill also went farther than any legislation in history in protecting the privacy interests of American citizens or U.S. persons whose communications might be acquired through targeting overseas. It also required the FISA approval to target U.S. persons overseas, if they are going to have collection initiated against them. At the end of the day, there were many difficult compromises. Both sides gave, and we came up with a bill that was not only bipartisan but the best piece of effort we could get out of this legislative process. Although the Senate passed the bill before the Protect America Act expired, in the House there was a clear majority. But the leadership didn't let it come up. They went on recess. In the days following the expiration, private partners refused to provide intelligence information, frankly, in light of the ongoing litigation, the tremendous threat to their business franchise, the fact that they and, particularly their shareholders, who may be retired persons depending on pensions and others, could be losing billions of dollars in the marketplace because of the size of these outrageous lawsuits seeking billions of dollars, when, in my view, there was no damage and no grounds for recovery. Fortunately, after several days' negotiation, the intelligence community was able to get the providers to resume cooperation, but the intelligence lost in that time was gone, and we will never know what we missed because the House leadership refused to bring up the Senate bill. Some have accused me and my colleagues of saying at the time, falsely, that the sky was falling. For a few days the sky was falling until a tenuous agreement was worked out between the executive branch and the providers. But the agreement was all predicated upon ongoing work to pass a FISA modernization law in the near term. That is another reason why it is vital the Senate move immediately to consider the FISA Amendments Act. Once the House returned from the Easter recess, my good friend and fellow Missourian, majority whip Roy Blunt, and I met with the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, asking him what he thought the House needed in order to allow the Senate bill a vote on the House floor. We and our staffs began discussions and sent proposals back and forth attempting to come together. During that time, Roy Blunt and I conferred repeatedly with Congressmen Hoekstra and Smith and, of course, vetted our proposals with the intelligence community. Finally, after four personal meetings over 2 months--and a tremendous amount of staff work--between Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority Whip Blunt, and me--Whip Blunt and I delivered a proposal to Mr. Hoyer before Memorial Day, a deadline he had set. This agreement was one that had been signed off on and fully discussed with Mr. Hoekstra, the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. We felt this was the best offer we could make on behalf of the Republicans in the House and Senate, and it was agreed to by the intelligence community. The Memorial Day deadline, however, came and went, and again the House went on recess. Finally, after more interaction among our staffs, I received word 2 weeks ago that the House Democrats were ready to work out final language. So Leader Hoyer and Whip Blunt and I met for a fifth time, this time inviting my colleague, Jay Rockefeller, to join us in the final negotiations. On June 12, the Democratic House leaders gave up their idea of having a commission take a look at the surveillance program, which we believe would have been political, further interfering with the work of the Intelligence Committee and perhaps community, and perhaps lead to increased leaks about the program. They agreed on a longer sunset than in previous bills. We abandoned the idea that the FISA Court should be the one to assess compliance with the minimization procedures used in foreign targeting. With the concessions Republicans and the administration had already made, along with some minor technical fixes, I am proud to say the intelligence community was given the flexibility and tools it needs to keep us safe. We had a compromise. Now, I offer all that as background so the record is clear. That brings us where we are today. Once we get on the bill, I will explain what is before us, and I will explain how statements from some about this legislation is nothing short of fear mongering, such as from those who are saying all Americans who talk to anyone overseas will be listened to by the Government. That is flat wrong. Americans cannot be targeted without a court order, period. If someone overseas is targeted and talks to an American, then the American's end of the communication is what we call minimized, which means it is hidden, protected, suppressed. I will elaborate further on this. But at this time, I simply ask my colleagues to vote for cloture so we may move immediately to the bill. I note some of my colleagues from the Senate Intelligence Committee are seeking recognition, and I appreciate the work all members of the committee have done. I see my colleague from Georgia, who has been an outstanding help, and the Senator from California, who has offered many useful ideas. This has been truly a year's long work, and we are happy to bring the final process before the Senate today. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I am hoping very shortly we will vote on or act on or somehow pass an amendment that I have offered, offered on the previous housing bill which, incidentally, I thought was a much better bill than this one. I ask unanimous consent to speak for--well, Madam President, I am going to continue to tell you that. The teaser rate problem is one which has afflicted many borrowers in Missouri. They get these offers for loan rates. They are told, verbally, that they can get a good rate when the time expires. The problem is, it is not in writing. So we would require full disclosure in advance, written down. If the people are going to make a representation, it has to be a binding representation. My amendment is designed to advise consumers, before they purchase a home, what they are going to have to pay. I understand there is a modification that will make this amendment acceptable to all sides. I think it is terribly important to avoid putting so many people, in the future, in the trap that they now find themselves, that we require they disclose what the rates will be, and if they want to offer good terms, they put them in writing. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as modified. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I came to the floor for another subject, but I do wish to tell my friend from California that we will have an opportunity to talk about the FISA bill that was passed. The bill we passed in the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan majority protected civil liberties of American citizens much further than they have ever been protected even under existing criminal law, we provided more protection. The Senate committee looked at the essence of the terrorist surveillance program for which we recommended that retroactive immune liability protection be provided for those who cooperated. They cooperated in good faith on the basis of the representation by the intelligence community that there was a Presidential directive authorized by the Attorney General. It was authorized under the clear constitutional authority of article II of the U.S. Constitution, supported by the MOFA that was passed by Congress. We determined that they were entitled to protection. As a lawyer, I have read all of the documents. I am convinced that the bill we passed does not in any way give away any rights or protections. Anybody who objects to the granting of this liability protection should know that we do not protect Government officials or the Government itself from lawsuits. If one wants to challenge it, file suit against the Government, file suit against Government officials, but don't ruin the business reputation of those who, in good faith, as good citizens, provided the intelligence that was needed to keep our country safe and to keep our soldiers and marines, such as my son, on the field safe from battlefield attacks. They provided that information, and we owe them better than to haul them before a court to have them exposed to the vengeance of terrorists or people who didn't like what they did. We owe our security in the United States better than to lay out in an open court proceeding all of the things our intelligence community can do to stop terrorist attacks--terrorist attacks which have not occurred in this country since September 11, 2001, which were certainly planned and underway before they were interrupted. I can't go into any more on the floor. Any Member of the Senate is entitled to have that information in confidential SCIFs where we discuss classified information. I invite them to be briefed, and I will have much more to say about the FISA law when we get on the debate. Missouri Flooding But I come to the floor today to share some observations with my colleagues, and anyone else who may happen to be watching, about the natural disaster that is going on right now in my State of Missouri. If you turn on the television, you will probably see the flooding that is expanding over an area west of St. Louis County and St. Charles County. The Eagle Point levee breached last night, and that is only the latest example. Many other levees have also been breached. This past weekend, I went to visit the people on the front lines. I met with State and local officials, who are prepared and are responding extremely well, given the prolonged damages, the challenges, and the extensive duration of the flood. This effort, I am proud to say, is a good testament to how bad disasters can be mitigated from becoming worse disasters when competent local and State leaders and volunteers proactively take steps at the immediate scene of the disaster. At Winfield, MO, on Friday afternoon, right along the Mississippi River, I met with volunteers from the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, Missouri Civil Air Patrol, local law enforcement's emergency planning officials, the Missouri National Guard, and local and surrounding community volunteers. It was inspiring to see how people came together to help protect lives and property. Over 1,000 volunteers--some of my staff members joined with them--filled sandbags and built the levees. They were joining neighbors, church groups, civic groups, and other people coming in to help. By that afternoon, they said they were going to have to call and say: We don't have need for more volunteers now, so wait until there is a problem elsewhere. As always, the National Guard acted valiantly. Their work has given businesses and families the critical time they need to get important assets out of harm's way where levees are in danger of failing. And so far--knock on wood--we have come through with minimal personal damage. People from all walks of life across Missouri and across the heartland--neighbors came in from Illinois--have pitched in to help. It has truly been an all-hands-on-deck effort, and I couldn't be more proud of them. I thanked them in person, and I come here on the floor to express my thanks to them. Missourians and our midwestern neighbors have pulled together and, as it turns out, they may be doing too great a job of fighting the floods. Local communities have been burdened with the financial strain that comes with any disaster. Communities along the Mississippi have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in pumps and sandbags, and untold tens of thousands of volunteer efforts in trying to protect property and lives. While these current investments made are small compared to cleanup costs, our small towns, our communities, still need Federal help. I come here today to report, regrettably, that despite national news coverage day after day of the destruction in Missouri, FEMA has still not declared Missouri a Federal disaster area. Our families and communities along the Mississippi River are investing every resource they have to mitigate the disaster while FEMA figures out the extent of the disaster. Not only has this flood destroyed homes, but it is currently saturating tens of thousands of acres of some of our State's most productive farmland. In addition to waiting for the waters to recede, farmers will have to remove the debris the Mississippi River leaves behind before they can plant their crops. I don't know if you have ever been to a flood scene, but it isn't just a whole bunch of land getting wet; it brings in everything you don't want to have on your land, and you can't plow it, you can't even mow it because of all the debris left. Many have heard the saying ``knee high by Fourth of July.'' That used to be a reference to corn height in Missouri, if you wanted a good crop. Now, in a good year, if it isn't six feet tall, then you are way behind. But this year, regrettably, in talking about the height of corn, there is a lot of land where we are going to be talking about the height of water. USDA, FEMA, and other Government agencies, I hope and I expect, will provide emergency funds to clean up the disaster. I am pleased I have been joined by my other colleagues from the Midwest to fund these programs in supplemental appropriations bills that will ensure disaster victims receive much needed aid. We have to continue to do our part in the Senate to make sure these flood victims will be able to get their feet back on the ground. I have joined with eight of my colleagues in cosponsoring Senator Grassley's disaster tax package, which will also help. But, I repeat, none of these actions will provide any relief until Missouri gets a disaster declaration. And with everyone in Missouri doing their part--his and her part--acting responsibly and responding locally, I urge FEMA to do its part and approve the predisaster declarations they asked our State officials to make. We know there is going to be more work in finding out the total extent, but anybody who looks at the pictures on the television and who doesn't believe this is a major disaster, is saying, I am not believing my own lying eyes, because it is right there for them to see. I wish FEMA would start the mechanism rolling. We know we have a lot of work to do, we have a lot of disaster, but we are thankful in our hearts for minimal human damage and the tremendous human outreach. It is time for the Federal Government's emergency management agency to get off the dime and move. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. That is correct. There is no intent to correct that.

Mr. BOND. That is the purpose of the modification.

Mr. BOND. That is correct.