Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of cloture on S. 2248, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, or FISA Amendments Act. Time is running out on congressional action to fix FISA. The Protect America Act, which Congress passed in August to close gaps in our foreign intelligence collection, expires this Friday, February 1, 2008. Prior to congressional action in August, our intelligence community was unable to collect vital foreign intelligence without the prior approval of a court. And I emphasize in that ``foreign'' intelligence. This will be the case again if we do not make permanent these changes. Before August, if our intelligence community wanted to direct surveillance at an al-Qaida member located in Pakistan who was communicating with an operative terrorist in Germany, they would have to first petition the FISA Court for approval. In August of this year, our intelligence community told us that without updating FISA, they were not just handicapped, but they were hamstrung. The Protect America Act temporarily fixed the intelligence community legal gaps. The Director of National Intelligence highlighted some of the critical intelligence gained under the Protect America Act, including: insight and understanding leading to disruption of planned terrorist attacks; efforts of an individual to become a suicide operative; instructions to a foreign terrorist associate about entering the United States; efforts by terrorists to obtain guns and ammunition; terrorist facilitator plans to travel to Europe; identifying information regarding foreign terrorist operatives; plans for future terrorist attacks; and movements of key extremists to abate a risk. With the Protect America Act set to expire, Congress must act swiftly before our core collectors are faced with losing this kind of valuable intelligence as a result of inaction by Congress. Although the Protect America Act enabled the intelligence community to continue its important work, Congress would be derelict in its duties to merely extend the expiration of this act. The Senate Intelligence Committee has been reviewing and drafting FISA legislation since April of last year. Last fall, the committee considered and passed the bill that is now before us. In December, the bill came to the Senate floor for consideration, but some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle delayed its consideration. We are now faced, after almost 10 months of thorough consideration, with the ability to pass legislation which will improve our intelligence collection and which contains safeguards for U.S. citizens' privacy rights that the Protect America Act does not contain. The FISA Amendments Act contains a clear prohibition against intentionally targeting persons located inside the United States and a prohibition on reverse targeting of U.S. persons, which the Protect America Act does not. The FISA Amendments Act makes clear that the FISA Court approval is required for intentionally targeting U.S. persons abroad and requires that any collection be consistent with the fourth amendment. Most important, the FISA Amendments Act contains retrospective immunity for our telecommunications carriers that may have assisted the Government in protecting American lives. Extending the Protect America Act does not ensure the continued and necessary cooperation of those who may have assisted the Government with the terrorist surveillance program after September 11. The Government often needs assistance from the private sector in order to protect our national security. Telecommunications carriers may provide the Government access to communication contents and records pursuant to many Federal processes, including judicial warrants, subpoenas, title III orders, FISA orders, attorney general certifications, administrative subpoenas, national security letters, and other statutory authorizations. In return, they should be able to rely on the Government's assurances that the assistance they provide is lawful and necessary for our national security. In Smith v. Nixon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia suggested that the Government's request to wiretap a home telephone was illegal. Yet they dismissed the telephone company from any liability because of the assurances they received from the Government, the reasonable expectation of legality, and their limited technical role in assisting the Government in surveillance initiated by the Government. As precedence suggests, America's telecommunications carriers should not be subjected to costly legal battles and potentially frivolous cases, yet ones which could expose intelligence sources and methods, harming our national security, merely for their good-faith assistance to the Government. It is necessary and responsible for Congress to provide telecommunications carriers with liability relief. I urge my colleagues to support cloture on the Rockefeller-Bond substitute amendment and oppose a simple extension of the Protect America Act. Senators Rockefeller and Bond have worked hard and long hours to make sure we got it right in this bill that came out of the Intelligence Committee. After many hours of negotiating, debate, and hard work, it would a shame to see this bill not come to fruition and pass this body at this point in time. Our intelligence community needs the tools and additional safeguards provided in the FISA Amendments Act to keep our people safe, and Congress needs to act quickly before the Protect America Act expires and these tools are taken away.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would inquire as to what the pending business is before the Senate.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Chair, and I rise to support the managers' amendment on this piece of legislation as proposed by Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond. This is the result of a bipartisan discussion which included the Office of Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. I commend Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond on drafting this complicated yet critical piece of legislation. The Senate has had a healthy debate while considering the Judiciary Committee's substitute amendment. I was pleased to see a majority of the Senate reject that bill, and I hope the Senate can now move past that flawed bill rather than offering a number of amendments which contain fragments of it. There is no benefit to rehashing the same points in the Senate bill that was just handily tabled versus the Rockefeller-Bond compromise piece of legislation that came out of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Department of Justice have stated their opposition to a number of proposed amendments which were part of the failed Judiciary Committee's substitute. The DNI has made it clear he would recommend to the President that he veto this legislation if it does not contain immunity for communication carriers, and rightly so. Some Members offered amendments to strike title II from the managers' amendment or to substitute the Government as the defendant in these lawsuits. But substitution will not give the carriers protection, nor will it protect our national security. The plaintiffs can still seek documents and other evidence from them through the discovery process at trial. This risks exposing our intelligence sources and methods, and there is simply no doubt about that fact. The Government can assert the states secrets privilege, but the ongoing litigation has shown that courts reject this theory. Even the FISA Court, which operates in secret and handles classified information, is not suited to handle these cases. The FISA Court primarily reviews ex parte requests and was not meant to hear regular trials. The members of the FISA Court are sitting district court judges and have their own full dockets. The risk of unnecessarily exposing some of our most sensitive collection if litigation continues is too great. The best remedy is to provide immunity to the telecommunication providers as the managers' amendment does. Other amendments propose unnecessary additions to provisions already included in the managers' amendment. For example, the managers' amendment contains a 6-year sunset and an exclusivity provision. Yet amendments have been offered to make this legislation expire in 2 years or 4 years. Additionally, an amendment has been offered to state that absent some other expressed order from Congress, FISA and title XVIII are the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance. This would require Congress to pass a law authorizing the President to conduct electronic surveillance after an attack on our country. What if Congress were not able to meet, let alone agree on language authorizing electronic surveillance after an attack on our country? This amendment ignores longstanding debate regarding article I and article II powers, a debate the courts have dodged time and again. I support the bipartisan language in the managers' amendment which maintains the status quo of this important constitutional question. Finally, an amendment has been offered requiring an audit of the terrorist surveillance program. As I stated earlier in comments yesterday, the Intelligence Committee has conducted a thorough review of this program over many months, which included testimony, extensive document reviews, and even trips out to our intelligence agencies to witness how this program is operated. I understand that sometimes partisanship impedes action in Congress. But I do not recall when some of my colleagues have had such little faith in the bipartisan findings and conclusions of a committee in this body. This amendment disregards the committee's finding and asks for yet another retrospective review of this program. This is not only duplicative, but it is unnecessary. The Protect America Act expires a week from today; the threat from al-Qaida will not expire a week from today. It is now time for Congress to act and to fix FISA so our intelligence community has the tools it needs to do its job in a very professional manner and gather information necessary to protect our national security. Protecting our national security is in the interest of all Americans, and Congress should seek to ensure that our Nation is protected fully. The members of the intelligence community say the managers' amendment contains many tools they need to protect our country. I urge my colleagues to support the managers' amendment. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, while I have great admiration and respect for my friend from Connecticut, this is an issue upon which we simply disagree. I rise today in opposition to the Judiciary substitute amendment to S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act. This legislation would strike, in its entirety, the bipartisan bill voted out of the Intelligence Committee by a 13-to-2 vote and replace it with a bill full of limitations on our foreign intelligence collection. There are serious differences between the Judiciary Committee's substitute and the bill voted out of the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee bill is the result of a long drafting process where the committee reviewed the classified mechanisms under which FISA operates. As a result, the bill reflects the minimum tools our intelligence community needs to improve our foreign intelligence collection. Some of the provisions of the Judiciary bill seem to ignore the needs of our intelligence analysts and instead seek to hamper our ability to protect the Nation from hostile foreign intelligence collection and terrorists. I believe the Judiciary Committee bill is seriously flawed, and I would like to highlight just two examples of how seriously flawed this amendment is. First, it seeks to impose an unreasonable new restriction on the use of foreign intelligence information. If the FISA Court finds the minimization procedure is deficient in some manner, information, including information not concerning U.S. persons obtained or derived from those acts, may not be kept. Our intelligence community analysts have used and complied with minimization standards for over 25 years. They know how to do it. They are familiar with when and how to minimize information in order to protect the identity of U.S. persons. It is important to point out that minimization is used when disseminating important foreign intelligence. In other words, an intelligence analyst has determined that the information contains relevant foreign intelligence. Under the Judiciary Committee provision, if the FISA Court determines that the general proscriptions on how to minimize need improvement, the intelligence community may not use any previously gathered intelligence. This allows the FISA Court to second-guess trained analysts. The FISA Court's own opinion from December 11, 2007, recognizes that the executive branch has the expertise in national security matters, that the court should not make judgments as to which particular surveillances should be conducted. Second, the Judiciary Committee amendment contains no provision for retroactive or prospective immunity for communications providers. After careful review of the President's terrorist surveillance program, a bipartisan majority of the Intelligence Committee believed that providing our telecommunications service providers immunity for their assistance to the Government is absolutely necessary. I think without question this is such a critical part of the bill that came out of the Intelligence Committee for all of the right reasons. The Intelligence Committee heard testimony and reviewed the President's specific intelligence program. The President granted the committee members and staff access to the legal memoranda and other documents related to this program. As stated in the committee report accompanying this legislation, the committee determined: That electronic communication service providers acted on a good faith belief that the President's program, and their assistance, was lawful. The committee reviewed correspondence sent to the electronic communication service providers stating that the activities requested were authorized by the President and determined by the Attorney General to be lawful, with the exception of one letter covering a period of less than 60 days, in which the Counsel to the President certified the program's lawfulness. The statement continues: The committee concluded that granting liability relief to the telecommunications providers was not only warranted, but required to maintain the regular assistance our intelligence and law enforcement professionals seek from them. Although I believe that the President's program was lawful and necessary, this bill makes no such determination. This is not a review or commentary on the President's program. I urge my colleagues to support the determinations of the Intelligence Committee, which is charged with regularly reviewing the intelligence activities of the United States and all of the agencies included within the intelligence community. Providing our telecommunications carriers with liability relief is the necessary and responsible action for Congress to take. The Government often needs assistance from the private sector in order to protect our national security, and in return, they should be able to rely on the Government's assurances that the assistance they provide is lawful and necessary for our national security. As a result of this assistance, America's telecommunications carriers should not be subject to costly legal battles. This is not the last time that the private sector is going to be asked to come to the aid of the American people in protecting us on a matter of national security. There will be other days when the private sector will be called upon by the Government to act in concert and in partnership to protect the American public. If we do not grant immunity in this particular instance, should we expect the private sector to be cooperative with us in the future? I think the answer to that is pretty clear. That was the gist of the bipartisan discussion and agreement within the Intelligence Committee about the main reason why, if no other reason, we should seriously look and give the immunity to the telecommunications providers that may have been involved in this situation. I urge my colleagues to reject the Judiciary Committee substitute amendment, which contains numerous problematic provisions which will hamper and try to micromanage our intelligence collection, and support the carefully crafted bipartisan bill passed out of the Intelligence Committee. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent the time be equally divided on both sides.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I know many of my colleagues have become involved in issues in their States stemming from a shortage of water over the years. Sometimes these issues are intrastate, sometimes they are interstate. Regardless of the size or scope, they always get very complicated quickly. The water wars between Georgia, Florida, and Alabama that have been going on for decades are no different in that regard. They too get very complicated very quickly. There are decades of negotiations, agreements, lawsuits and settlements, and the Governors of the three States are still attempting in good faith to come to a resolution. In fact, those three Governors met in Tallahassee, FL, yesterday, along with Secretary Kempthorne, to create a roadmap forward on this very complicated issue. There is language included in this Omnibus appropriations bill that does not resolve the very complex problems that the three States continue to deal with, the allocation of water among them. Rather, the language in this bill seeks to, one, insert Congress into the middle of an ongoing dispute and attempts to pick winners and losers in that dispute; two, it attempts to limit the ability of the Corps of Engineers to provide complete and accurate technical data to make recommendations to the States involved in the dispute; and, three, prohibits the Corps of Engineers from completing the process of updating water control manuals, which they have begun to do on one basin, and which they are required to do by statute and their own regulations. I object strongly to the language regarding this issue included in this bill. The Army Corps of Engineers operates a number of different reservoirs across river systems around the country. Normally they conduct their operations under a water control plan, which is a plan that identifies the objectives for managing the system; basically, the release and retention of water for different needs, such as navigation, water supply, hydropower production, recreation, as well as other needs. The water control plan is the manual by which the Corps of Engineers manages the river systems, and they do so within the confines of water allocations set for each State. Now water can be allocated among States in one of three ways: interstate water compacts, direct congressional appointments, or equitable apportionment by the Supreme Court of the United States. Obviously, interstate water compacts are the preferred method for allocating water, because they allow the States, which are the most knowledgeable about their own water resources and needs for water, to do the apportioning. That is what the Governors of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida are currently trying to do. The State of Georgia shares the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin with Alabama and Florida. Georgia also shares the Alabama- Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin with Alabama. After 17 years of litigation, the Governors of these three States are finally at the negotiating table finding a way forward on this very difficult issue. I commend them for doing so during these exacerbating drought conditions we are now experiencing. It is always harder to discuss sharing water when there is less of it to go around. So during this time of progress, it is mind boggling to see this language in the omnibus bill intended to block that progress. It is a blatant dilatory tactic. I am disappointed it is included in this bill. I am disappointed for several reasons. First, this is not an issue into which Congress should be inserting itself. The Corps of Engineers is required by Federal statute and their own regulations to operate the reservoirs with up-to-date water control manuals. However, for the ACF basin, the only approved water manual was prepared in 1958 and does not even include the Federal facilities at West Point, Walter F. George, or George W. Andrews. The process of updating the manuals has been on hold for almost 20 years as litigation between the States has been ongoing. However, last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered that the Corps of Engineers proceed with its NEPA studies, which is the necessary first step in updating the water control manuals. The court ordered it be done as expeditiously as possible. Apart from the fact that Congress should not be inserting itself in this issue, apart from the fact that everyone knows updated water control manuals are required by law, have been ordered by a Federal court and are beneficial to all parties, I am also disappointed to see this language because of the process by which it got into this bill. This language was not in the House-passed version of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. And, in fact, the only instance in which the House has considered this issue was last year during the debate on the fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water appropriations bill. Similar language was removed from that legislation by a House vote of 216 to 201. So this language was not in the House-passed bill. The full Senate did not even debate the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water appropriations bill. Only the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee approved this language. It has now been included in this omnibus bill. That simply is not right. Finally, let me say that I noted with interest the fact that last week, seven States in the western part of the United States signed a historic water-sharing agreement. I congratulate those from Utah, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming who worked on this issue and were able to complete what I am sure was a very difficult process. It gives those of us in the Southeast hope for that light at the end of the tunnel, hope that we, too, can reach agreement one day. I ask my colleagues to consider for a moment that if during the midst of progress on that historic water agreement a Member of the Senate attempted to use the appropriations process to prevent the Corps of Engineers from implementing the most up-to-date information in the management of the water that crosses those States. I hope those colleagues would consider the negative impact that would have on the process in which their States were engaged. I read very carefully the language my colleague from Alabama inserted into this omnibus bill. I can only take solace in the fact that at least the language allows the Corps of Engineers to continue the process of updating the water control manuals, even though it seems to prevent them from actually implementing those manuals, whatever recommendations come out of those manuals. We all know updating water control manuals is a 2-year process. You can rest assured that we will revisit this issue and rest assured when the time comes, I will do everything in my power to make sure these critical updated manuals are actually implemented. I think at the end of the day my colleague from Alabama will discover that updated water control manuals will benefit all parties involved in the difficult negotiations of water allocation among the three States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes, I do have a statement I want to make, followed by Senator Isakson.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Surely.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the Valdosta State University Blazers football team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division II National Championship. The Blazers celebrated their second national championship in 4 years on December 15, 2007, in Florence, AL, and completed their season with a final record of 13 to 1. Valdosta State's playoff run included victories over Catawba University, University of North Alabama, and the University of California-Pennsylvania en route to defeating Northwest Missouri State 25 to 20 in the championship game. I am extremely proud of these talented men for all of their hard work and dedication that contributed to this victory. I congratulate all of the team members, particularly the senior class. Their leadership and talents will surely be missed. In addition, sophomore wide receiver Cedric Jones and junior safety Sherard Reynolds were both named First- Team All-Americans. The Blazers also had seven players named to the Gulf South Conference All-Conference Team, including Cedric Jones, Gerald Davis, William Montford, Sherard Reynolds, Maurice Leggett, Michael Terry, and Travis Harrison. Furthermore, I would like to extend my appreciation to all the families and fans for their continual support of the Blazers throughout the season. The success of the team could not have been achieved without the exceptional coaching staff, led by head coach David Dean. Coach Dean is in his first season as head coach of the Blazers, having been the team's offensive coordinator for the past 7 years. He is only the second first-year coach in history to lead his team to a Division II title. Valdosta, a city long known for its tradition in high school football, can now boast about the success of Valdosta State University, which has won 2 Division II National Championships in 4 years. It is my hope that the winning tradition at Valdosta State will continue for many years to come. Congratulations again to all of these young men and to all associated with the Valdosta State Blazers football program for their great accomplishments and hard work.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, those of us who come from the South take great pride in our heritage. Part of the heritage we are very proud of is the fact that whether it is the State of Mississippi that sent John Stennis and Senator Eastland to this body or whether it is my State that sent Richard Russell and Paul Coverdell and Sam Nunn, we are very proud of the folks we have sent to the Senate. Come January, we are going to add the name of Trent Lott to those great men who have represented the South in this body. When I think of Trent Lott, I think about something that a lot of people probably can't relate to, but he and Thad will directly relate to. Trent is the epitome of the genteel southern gentleman, married to a beautiful belle with whom he went to college. In the fall in Oxford, MS, there is a special occasion that takes place on football Saturday afternoons. They have a place down there called the Grove that is unlike any other area I have ever been to on any football afternoon. The Grove is what one might think. It is truly a beautiful spot with trees and green grass. All the University of Mississippi football fans gather in the Grove and, instead of backing up SUVs and pickup trucks with beer kegs on the back, as we do in Athens, they pull out silver goblets, white tablecloths, chandeliers on the table, and they enjoy a great festive atmosphere. Trent Lott brings that same gentility, that same mannerism of our part of the world to the Senate. A couple of quick personal anecdotes that somewhat relate to that. Trent has a way of being able to look at somebody and, whether it is trying to figure out how they are going to vote, what they are feeling like that day or whatever it may be, boy, he can get right to the heart of it. I am reminded of when I was thinking about running for the Senate back in 2002. Trent came to me in the summer of that year. I remember this conversation like it was yesterday. He said: Look, I know they are working on you to run for the Senate. You and I have been good friends for several years during your House days. I don't think you have got the fire in the belly. Unless you do, you better not run. He was exactly right. About 6 months after that, he came to me again and said: I have heard you speak more and more about what you want to do, and you have the fire in the belly. It is the time to run. The other anecdote I will never forget about Trent is that during my campaign, we had a farm bill we had finished in conference. It was a late farm bill that year. It was in the early spring of 2002. I needed to be all over my State campaigning. Unfortunately, I got stuck in Washington for a weekend with the farm bill conference. Trent was coming to Georgia to campaign for me. I told him: Trent, I am not going to be able to go. I feel bad about this. He said: Don't worry about it. Stay here and do what you have to do. Julianne and I will take care of this. So he went to Georgia, spent the whole day traveling around to five different events in different parts of my State, drew big crowds because he was Trent Lott. He called me up on Sunday morning when he got back and said: Saxby, I got this thing figured out. I know how you are going to win this campaign. What you need to do is stay in Washington and let Julianne and me take care of that campaign for you. Trent is one of those people whom those of us junior Senators looked up to from day one. As I think back on my class, Lindsey and a couple of us served in the House together, where we got to know Trent. But whether it was Elizabeth or Norm or Lamar or others in our class, from day one, Trent has been one of those individuals whom we admired so greatly because of his knowledge of the institution, because of his ability to come to you when you knew you were struggling with an issue. He could talk to you for 2 minutes and all of a sudden you would feel better about whatever it was you were struggling with. That is the kind of person Trent Lott is and that is the part about Trent Lott I truly am going to miss. His office happens to be right around the corner from mine. There is many a day we will be on the elevator together going back after a vote. He will start picking at me about something. He will say: I know you have been worried about something. What is it? Invariably, again, he is right. He has had the ability to say a couple words that all of a sudden changed my perspective on whatever the issue was I was struggling with. So, Trent, we are mighty proud of you as a Southerner. We are mighty proud of you as an American. And we are certainly mighty proud of you as a Member of this body. You are truly going to be missed. But I treasure the last 13 years of having the privilege of serving with you in my House days as well as my Senate days. God bless you, and may God bless your family.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to associate the following comments with my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Isakson, to honor the late former Georgia House Leader Tom Murphy, who passed away last night. Tom, known by his friends as Speaker and others as ``Mr. Speaker,'' was once the longest serving State House speaker in the nation, serving Georgia from 1974 to 2002. In describing the life's work of Tom Murphy, one of our veteran reporters in Atlanta quoted an old 1960's western film and wrote, ``When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.'' The reporter goes on to say, ``There will be no such confusion over Tom Murphy, the tough-talking master politician whose gruff exterior concealed a heart that ached for the poor and helpless and in the Speaker's case, they were one and the same.'' He was a true champion for our great State, and all Georgians, from Rabun Gap to Tybee Light, will reap the benefits of Tom's work legacy for generations to come. During the time Tom served our State, Georgia became one of the leading States to attract international business, our ports were expanded, the Quick Start program was created and expanded to help companies train new workers, and teachers salaries were given higher priority. The expressway system in Georgia was completed during his tenure, and if you live in the vicinity of Atlanta, you have Tom to thank for the widening of the connector in Atlanta; additional runways at Hartsfield- Jackson International Airport; and the World Congress Center that was built and expanded to allow Georgia to compete for conventions and trade shows. He was always supportive of rural Georgia and agribusiness, and he was part of a transformation of our state into a State that has a significantly more diversified and stronger economic base than ever before. One of our former colleagues, former Senator and Governor, Zell Miller, one of our greatest Governors, describes his working relationship with Tom as one that was tumultuous, but mutually beneficial. They worked together for many years in the State legislature, and it is no secret that the two often dueled over many issues, but they always had Georgia's best interest in mind. Zell has stated, ``If there had not been a Tom Murphy, I guess I would have created one, and if there had not been a Zell Miller, I guess he would have had to create one. Because that's the way we rallied our troops.'' Both recognized that they could not survive without the other.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise in support of the motion to proceed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2007. It is important to underscore just how critical this legislation is and how the bill which was voted out of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence by a vote of 13 to 2 is a comprehensive and bipartisan bill. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made allegations that this bill will infringe upon Americans' right to privacy. This bill only infringes on one group's right to privacy, and that is terrorists. Prior to congressional action in August, and again if we do not make permanent these changes, our intelligence community was unable to collect vital foreign intelligence without the prior approval of a court. If our intelligence community wanted to direct surveillance at an al-Qaida member located in Waziristan who was communicating with another terrorist in Germany, they would have to first petition the FISA court for approval. In August, our intelligence community told us that without updating FISA, they were not just handicapped, they were hamstrung. Congress passed the Protect America Act which temporarily fixed the intelligence community's legal gaps. However, the Protect America Act will expire in February of 2008. Congress must act swiftly before our core collectors are faced with losing valuable intelligence as a result of inaction by Congress. When FISA was enacted in 1978, it was meant to provide our Government with the means to collect foreign intelligence within the United States while not infringing upon U.S. citizens' rights. Prior to FISA, the courts held that fourth amendment warrant protection applied to surveillance in a variety of cases, including the decisions of Katz and Keith. Congress reacted to these cases in the criminal and foreign intelligence arena by enacting legislation addressing the requirements of the fourth amendment in title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and in FISA. While debating FISA, Congress sought to protect the rights of U.S. persons from unwarranted Government intrusion while collecting foreign intelligence within the United States. The congressional report accompanying FISA states: The purpose of the bill is to provide a statutory procedure authorizing the use of electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes. Regulating the collection of foreign intelligence, including the electronic surveillance of foreign communications made by terrorists, was neither contemplated during FISA nor by the courts after enactment of FISA. It has been long held that foreigners do not enjoy the protection of our Constitution unless they enter the territories of the United States, and even FISA provides an exception to that warrant requirement if it is unlikely that a U.S. person's communications would be intercepted. As an unfortunate consequence of the rapid advancements in technology since 1978 and post-Cold War threats, surveillance of some overseas communications were subjected to court orders. It is now time for Congress to act to make permanent the fix to FISA so that our intelligence community has the tools they need to do their job in a very professional manner and gather the information necessary to protect our national security. Let me be clear: These amendments to FISA would only apply to surveillance directed at individuals who are located outside the United States. This is not meant to intercept conversations between Americans or even between two terrorists who are located in the United States. The Government still would be required to seek the permission of the FISA Court for any surveillance done against people physically located within the United States, whether a citizen or not. This is not good enough for some Members of Congress. They wish to extend the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment currently not bestowed under U.S. criminal law and procedure to American citizens overseas. The U.S. laws do not extend beyond our border, but the Supreme Court has held that certain fundamental rights such as those protected by the fifth and sixth amendments, as well as the reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment, do extend to U.S. citizens outside the country. However, despite the opportunity, the Supreme Court has refused to hold that the warrant clause of the fourth amendment applies abroad for U.S. citizens. In a criminal prosecution, U.S. courts will accept evidence against U.S. citizens obtained by foreign governments without the probable cause demanded by U.S. law. U.S. courts recognize that the Bill of Rights does not protect Americans from the acts of foreign sovereigns, and excluding evidence obtained by them will not deter foreign governments from collecting it. Therefore, the evidence can be turned over to the United States and used in a criminal prosecution. There was an amendment offered in the Intelligence Committee that requires that anytime a U.S. person is a target of surveillance, regardless of where the collection occurs, the Attorney General must seek approval under title I of FISA for that collection. The amendment fails to consider the intelligence community's adherence to current regulations which were drafted to comply with the reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment. Currently, under Executive Order 12333, section 2.5, the Attorney General may authorize the targeting of a U.S. person overseas upon finding probable cause to believe that the individual is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. The intelligence community will now be required to obtain authorization from the FISA Court prior to conducting surveillance against terrorists or spies overseas who assist foreign governments merely because they are United States persons. It is my belief that the intelligence community has demonstrated to Congress how judicious, selective and careful they have been when it comes to protecting the very small number of U.S. citizens this applies to and does not necessarily need the court to approve their actions every step along the way. This complicates, and attempts to micromanage, the efforts of our intelligence community. Additionally, it prevents the intelligence community from acting quickly and with discretion in a process which has worked well to protect U.S. citizens for almost 30 years. Some of my colleagues have expressed opposition to title II of the bill which provides that no civil actions may be brought against electronic communication providers if the Attorney General certifies that the assistance alleged was in connection with a lawful communication intelligence activity authorized by the President and designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack against the United States. Providing our telecommunications carriers with liability relief is necessary and responsible. The Government often needs assistance from the private sector in order to protect our national security and, in return, they should be able to rely on the Government's assurances that the assistance they provide is lawful and necessary for our national security. As a result of this assistance, America's telecommunications carriers should not have to front heavy legal battles shrouded in secrecy on the Government's behalf. The chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence introduced a carefully crafted, bipartisan piece of legislation. Although it was not a perfect bill, in committee I was willing to forgo offering amendments to support the bipartisan process and provide our intelligence community with the minimum requirements it needs in an environment with rapidly changing technology. I believe that the bill which was ultimately adopted by the committee, and with my support, contains troubling language which should be altered before enactment. Even so, this legislation is strides ahead of the partisan bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee and offered here as a substitute. This is not, and should not, be a partisan issue by any means. The ability to collect the intelligence necessary to protect our country from foreign adversaries and terrorists should not be subjected to partisan politics in Congress. Protecting our national security is in the interest of all Americans, and Congress should seek to ensure that our Nation is protected fully. There are serious differences between the substitute bill voted out of the Judiciary Committee and the bill voted out of the Intelligence Committee. I urge my colleagues to reject the Judiciary Committee's substitute amendment and support the carefully crafted bipartisan bill passed out of the Intelligence Committee. However, differences of opinion exist and make it essential for Congress to examine and debate these issues on the floor. For these reasons I support cloture on the motion to proceed to FISA. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate? Is it appropriate for me to make some comments on the underlying bill while we are awaiting the next action?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, knowing the chairman is about my age, I hope he doesn't have another child in the next 2 hours.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to add to what I said a little earlier and some comments made before the vote. Mr. President, today the Senate provides certainty to America's farmers and ranchers, conservationists, school lunch program beneficiaries, environmentalists, and rural communities all across this great land. Today, the Senate sets aside partisanship in favor of assisting those in need. Today, we honor our commitment to the American agriculture sector with the passage of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. The bipartisan bill before us today is the culmination of years of hard work on the part of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the millions of constituents we work so hard to represent with dignity and purpose. And, as in any great endeavor, this accomplishment is the fruit of the labor of so many. As we approach final passage of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, I would like to take a moment to express my thanks and sincere appreciation to everyone that has made this historic day possible. First, let me extend my appreciation to the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Tom Harkin. He has truly been a leader throughout this process, demonstrating the bipartisan work ethic that is essential to this body's work. Furthermore, each and every member of the Senate Agriculture Committee has played a critical role in crafting this bill and formulating the fiscally responsible policy contained in this farm bill. Every Senator, regardless of party affiliation or the region of the country they are fortunate to represent; came together to produce a farm bill that will carry our agricultural sector into the next 5 years of prosperity. I would be remiss if I did not extend my praise to one particular member of our committee, Senator Kent Conrad. I can say without equivocation, that there is no way we could have arrived where we are today without his leadership, budgetary skills, and tireless willingness to set aside partisan differences in order to accomplish our common goal of continuing our commitment to the American farmer and rancher. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent has obviously played a key role throughout this process and I have not served with a finer individual in all my years of public service. Inside the Beltway, everyone knows that the Congressional Budget Office is a critical part of the legislative process and provides us with the information to make informed and balanced decisions. Sometimes their decisions frustrate us and the complex nature of their work sometimes confuses us. Nonetheless, they are professionals and their commitment to public service should be commended. Every time we embark on a farm bill, the Agriculture Team at CBO is called upon to make very difficult decisions and to analyze policy that is based on hypothetical assumptions. I would like to personally thank Jim Langley, Greg Hitz, Dave Hull, Kathleen Fitzgerald, Dan Hoople, Megan Carroll and Kathy Gramp for their hard work this past year. They all have been extremely responsive to my staff and helpful answering our questions. I would like to thank also a number of individuals who have worked behind the scenes and who were certainly instrumental and largely responsible for the passage of this farm bill. I can't say enough about my staff director, Martha Scott Poindexter. She is the type of staffer you want in the trenches with you, and I am fortunate to have her on my team. She has been with me now, off and on, for 13 years, and she is one great southern lady from Mississippi who understands agriculture, having grown up on a farm. Without her, I simply wouldn't be able to function when it comes to agriculture, so I am very pleased she was as instrumental as she was and here to help guide me. I would also like to thank the chief counsel to the committee, Vernie Hubert. Vernie, with his vast knowledge of farm policy, was simply indispensable in this process. As the chairman probably remembers, Vernie was a staff director on the House side during the last farm bill, as well as a couple of others previous to that. But he was a staffer on the Democratic side, and I was so impressed with Vernie during the course of my years in the House, that when I was elected to the Senate, I told Martha Scott the first thing she had to do was to go out and hire Vernie Hubert, and she did, and he has been a great one. All my staff deserves a great deal of recognition, and I would like to extend my thanks to: Hayden Milberg, Cameron Bruett, Kate Coler, Betsy Croker, Anne Hazlett, Christy Seyfert, Dawn Stump, Patty Lawrence, Alan Mackey, Erin Hamm, Matt Coley, Jane Anna Harris, and Carlisle Clarke. Also, to those individuals on the Democratic side, and I mentioned Mark a little bit earlier, but this is a bipartisan committee, both memberwise and staffwise: Todd Batta, Richard Bender, Eldon Boes, Phil Buchan, Dan Christenson, Kate Cyrul, Katharine Ferguson, John Ferrell, Kerri Johannsen, Susan Keith, Peter Kelley, Amy Lowenthal, Tina May, Stephanie Mercier, Derek Miller, Adela Ramos, Jonathan Urban, and Dave White. What great folks they are and what a great service they have provided to Senator Harkin as well as me. There is also, over on Senator Conrad's staff, two guys over there, Jim Miller and Tom Marr. These two men have worked extremely hard, and all these folks have put in hundreds of hours. I know how much time we have put into it, but staff has two, three, and four times as many hours as we have. To all of them, I say thank you. To Megan Hauck, from Senator McConnell's office; Ann Wright from the majority leader's office; Robert Holyfield from Senator Lincoln's office, their leadership and commitment helped to ensure final passage of this crucial legislation. I am extremely proud of the legislation before us today and the example it provides to the American people of what can be accomplished when we focus on the needs of those we serve. While not every Member may be pleased with each and every provision in this bill, I am certain we can all agree the Senate has made an honorable endeavor in securing the future of American agriculture. The investment in this bill will not only benefit our farmers and ranchers but will promote prosperity far beyond the farm gate, and I am very pleased to have been part of this with my chairman, Senator Harkin.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today, the Senate provides certainty to America's farmers and ranchers, conservationists, school lunch program beneficiaries, environmentalists, and rural communities all across this great land. Today, the Senate sets aside partisanship in favor of assisting those in need. Today, we honor our commitment to the American agriculture sector with the passage of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. The bipartisan bill before us today is the culmination of years of hard work on the part of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the millions of constituents we work so hard to represent with dignity and purpose. As in any great endeavor, this accomplishment is the fruit of the labor of so many. As we approach final passage of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, I would like to take a moment to express my thanks and appreciation to everyone who has made this historic day possible. First, let me extend my appreciation to the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Tom Harkin. Tom, you have truly been a leader throughout this process. You have demonstrated a bipartisan work ethic that is essential to this body's work. You have been a true friend and have been extremely cooperative with me. I appreciate that. Furthermore, each and every member of the Senate Agriculture Committee has played a critical role in crafting this bill and formulating the fiscally responsible policy contained in this farm bill. Every Senator, regardless of party affiliation or the region of the country they are fortunate to represent, came together to produce a farm bill that will carry our agriculture sector into the next 5 years of prosperity. I would be remiss if I did not extend my praise to two other members of the committee. First of all, Senator Blanche Lincoln. Senator Lincoln has been a dear friend since our days in the House. We have had the opportunity to work together on several different agriculture measures. I am extremely appreciative for the work she has done on this particular bill. My friend, Kent Conrad, what a great champion for agriculture he has been. I would have to say that in my 13 years in public service, I have never served with a finer individual or legislator than Kent Conrad, nor will I in however long I remain in public service. To Kent and to the services he has rendered as chairman of the Budget Committee, as well as a member of the Agriculture Committee on this endeavor, I appreciate it. There are a number of other folks whom I wish to acknowledge. I would also like to thank those individuals whose work behind the scenes was instrumental to the passage of this farm bill. I cannot say enough about my staff director, Martha Scott Poindexter. She is the type of staff who you want in the trenches with you, and I am fortunate to have her on my team. Without her efforts, we would not be here today. Also, I would like to thank the chief counsel of the committee, Vernie Hubert. Vernie's vast knowledge of farm policy was indispensable throughout this process. All of my staff deserves a great deal of recognition and I extend my thanks to: Hayden Milberg, Cameron Bruett, Kate Coler, Betsy Croker, Anne Hazlett, Christy Seyfert, Dawn Stump, Patty Lawrence, Alan Mackey, Erin Hamm, Matt Coley, Jane Anna Harris, and Carlisle Clarke. I would also like to recognize Senator Harkin's staff director, Mark Halverson and his entire staff; Jim Miller and Tom Mahr from Senator Conrad's staff; Robert Holifield from Senator Lincoln's staff; Megan Hauck from Senator McConnell's staff; and Ann Wright from the majority leader's office. Their leadership and commitment helped to ensure final passage of this critical legislation. I am extremely proud of the legislation before us today and the example it provides to the American people of what can be accomplished when we focus on the needs of those we serve. While not every Member may be pleased with each and every provision in this bill; I am certain that we can all agree that the Senate has taken up an honorable endeavor in securing the future of American agriculture. The investments in this bill will not only benefit our farmers and ranchers, but will promote prosperity far beyond the farm gate. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for final passage. Inside the Beltway, everyone knows that the Congressional Budget Office is a critical part of the legislative process and provides us with the information to make informed and balanced decisions. Sometimes their decisions frustrate us and the complex nature of their work sometimes confuses us. Nonetheless, they are professionals and their commitment to public service should be commended. Every time we embark on a farm bill, the ag team at CBO is called upon to make very difficult decisions and to analyze policy that is based on hypothetical assumptions. I would like to personally thank Jim Langley, Greg Hitz, Dave Hull, Kathleen Fitzgerald, Dan Hoople, Megan Carroll, and Kathy Gramp for their hard work this past year. They all have been extremely responsive to my staff and helpful answering our questions. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, that is correct. As I recall, I had reserved the right to object. I do not object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, crop insurance has experienced tremendous growth and success since the enactment of the 2000 crop insurance bill, which increased premium subsidies to producers and made other program improvements. In my State of Georgia, we were not a big user of crop insurance in years past. In 1994, only 38 percent of eligible acres were insured; whereby, in 2006, 89 percent of eligible acres were insured. This is a valuable tool that our farmers now have available to them, and it saves the taxpayers money by decreasing the amount of annual emergency disaster programs we have to come and ask for relative to agriculture. In the committee-approved farm bill, over $4.7 billion has been taken out of the crop insurance program to fund other farm bill priorities. These savings were achieved to answer criticisms of the program, some of which were raised by Senator Brown, and are directed to improve operational efficiency. We have tried to manage these funding reductions in a way that will not unduly harm the program or the delivery system. Twenty-one agricultural organizations have sent a letter opposing the Brown amendment. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been requested on this amendment?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, these organizations recognize the importance of a solid crop insurance program, and in the letter they state: Without a crop insurance safety net that is fairly and effectively available, many family farms will not be able to rent land and obtain credit to produce a crop. They express concern that changes proposed by Senator Brown will cause unintended harm to the availability and delivery of this vital farm security program. With that, I urge a vote against the Brown amendment. I yield back our remaining time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. We have a couple more speakers who are on the way. As soon as they arrive, we will yield time to them.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I have one comment on the statement the Senator from Illinois made. Let me make sure there is no misunderstanding because he misstated something. This amendment has nothing to do with amount of payments. This has to do with the eligibility of payments. I assure you, anyone who has an adjusted gross income of $750,000 from a farming operation, which is required under the bill that is before this body, has invested millions and millions of dollars into their trough in order to be able to achieve that goal, and they probably had a pretty good year to do that. There is nothing in this amendment that says to that farmer, if you lose all those millions of dollars, that we are going to do something for your benefit. That is what our safety net is all about. That is why this is such a bad amendment. I yield the balance of the time remaining on this side to the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.