Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. When leaving the Fifth Circuit, Judge Bell returned to King and Spalding and distinguished himself as one of the country's premier lawyers. In closing, as I have paid tribute to his distinguished career, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to this wonderful gentleman and friend. As a lawyer, I learned so much from him about the practice of law. As a Congressman and Senator, I learned so much about politics and public service. As a friend, I enjoyed our visits and conversations. His keen sense of humor has been compared to Mark Twain. As my good friend, Bob Steed--Georgia's very own ``Mark Twain''; a real humorist, columnist, and long-time law partner of Judge Bell--said this week of his wisdom and wit: If he took a position, he'd take it strongly and defend it. But if someone improved it, he was willing to give way. His ego didn't get involved with choices . . . He was sharp to the very end. He told his son that there must be a committee in heaven in charge of dying, because it was taking so long. That was Judge Bell. Griffin Bell changed the course of the history of our country. As a judge on the Fifth Circuit, his decisions regarding integration of school systems in Georgia and across the South were a model for integration throughout the Nation. In his role as Attorney General, he did much to restore the public's trust in the Department of Justice. He was a close personal friend of mine, and this is not only a national loss but a personal one as well. Mr. President, I have before me a commencement speech that he gave at Mercer University Law School in 2002. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. In two short weeks President-elect Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. I am proud of this moment for him and for our Nation. The new President will have my prayers and support. I believe it is appropriate to link in some small way the President-elect's great and historic victory to the courage and integrity of Judge Bell. In the 1950s and 1960s across the South and across our Nation as a whole, the country worked to implement the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education. While serving as chief of staff to Georgia Governor Ernest Vandiver, Judge Bell provided counsel to the Sibley Commission. This blue-ribbon panel held hearings throughout Georgia for the purpose of educating citizens on the inevitability of public school desegregation. In my view, his efforts on this commission were an important step down the path Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others traveled that enabled Atlanta to become the city and community that it is today, for Georgia to truly become the empire State of the South, and for our Nation to elect our new President. After cochairing President Kennedy's successful Georgia campaign during his 1960 Presidential election, the President nominated Judge Bell to a position on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. To quote from his excellent biography provided by King & Spalding: Judge Bell was unquestionably one of the court's strongest civil rights enforcers. He fervently believed in the rule of law and had little patience for segregationist-minded government officials seeking to evade or defy court orders to deny African Americans their civil rights. In United States v Barnett . . . Judge Bell voted with the majority of the court in ordering the University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith as a student and enjoined the governor from interfering with his admission. I ask unanimous consent that the firm's biography of Judge Bell be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I too wish speak of my good friend, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. Senator Smith came to the Senate for all the right reasons, most importantly to represent the people who elected him and he has done an outstanding job of doing just that. Gordon never shied away from the controversial issues and often went against the majority position of his own party. Every time he did so he articulated in a very professional way his reason why he was voting and the way he did. This always takes courage and conviction, and Gordon Smith possesses both. I will always admire Gordon's faith, which allowed him to survive personal tragedy as well as deal with the day-to-day decisions of the Senate. Senator Gordon Smith is one of those Members who makes serving in the Senate a pleasure. I will miss his counsel, his advice, and his friendship. God speed to he, Sharon, and their family. john sununu

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I wish to speak of the retirement from the Senate of my friend Senator John Warner. Senator Warner is the quintessential Virginia Gentleman. He is gifted of speech, courteous, possesses courage and conviction, and is a defender of freedom and the Senator most committed to the protection of our men and women in uniform as well as their families. It has been my privilege to serve with Senator Warner on the Armed Services Committee. His leadership as Chairman was superb. His commitment to protecting America and Americans is unparalleled. From his days in the U.S. Navy to his years as Secretary of the Navy to his years in the U.S. Senate, John Warner has provided the kind of service and leadership that Virginians and Americans appreciate and respect. I will miss John Warner but certainly wish him and Jeanne Godspeed as they continue life's journey. Ted Stevens

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge an important occasion in the history of Savannah, GA, and the business- aviation industry--the 50th anniversary of Gulfstream flight. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation got its start in 1958 when Grumman Aircraft Engineering Company, a company known for military aircraft production, developed the first aircraft specifically designed for business travel. On August 14, 1958, Grumman test pilots Carl Alber and Fred Rowley took that aircraft--the twin-engine turboprop Gulfstream I--on its maiden flight over the company's headquarters in Bethpage, NY. After 800 hours of additional testing, the G-1 received Federal Aviation Administration certification on May 21, 1959. The G-1 laid the foundation for the future of Gulfstream Aerospace. Five decades after that first flight and more than four decades after moving to Savannah, Gulfstream has manufactured more than 1,800 aircraft. The company's jets have been used to train NASA crew members, transport top Government officials, and support our Armed Forces, making Gulfstream a vital part of America's aerospace industry. Gulfstream also plays a key role in the city of Savannah, where its workforce has grown from just 100 employees in 1967 to more than 6,000 today, making it the largest manufacturing employer in the city. That workforce is expected to grow even more in years to come thanks to a 7- year, $400 million-plus Long-Range Facilities Master Plan that includes at least 1,100 new jobs. I am delighted to recognize the golden anniversary of Gulfstream flight and to congratulate its employees on their many contributions to the community, the country, and the worldwide aviation industry. With the help of its employees, Gulfstream has become a corporate citizen of the highest standard. I commend Gulfstream Aerospace on all their achievements and look forward to their continued success in the city of Savannah and the great State of Georgia.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Hawaii in celebrating National Bible Week. I get together every Wednesday morning with a group of our colleagues for our weekly prayer breakfast, and he is always such an inspiration. He is our song leader while we do, except for he and the Chaplain, some of the worst singing that can be done. He is a great inspiration for all of us, and I commend him for bringing this resolution forward.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we all know that our country has seen better economic times. Across the United States and around the world, businesses and individuals are feeling the effects of this financial turmoil--not only on Wall Street, but at home on Main Street as well. I don't need to remind this body of the volatility of our financial markets. Evidence of this market precariousness has been splashed across the front pages of newspapers and television screens everywhere, causing panic and further instability. As the conversations in Washington continue over how to address our Nation's financial crisis, and as the details of the problems in our financial sector are revealed daily, I am convinced that something must be done and done soon. But I want to be clear about congressional action: we must act because inaction could well cause serious harm to American families, farms, and small businesses as well as community banks and other lenders, and we must do our dead level best to make the right decisions, because action for the sake of expediency could put our Nation at further risk. Nevertheless, I oppose to the old saying of just do something, even if wrong. We should not follow that logic. Since last Thursday, I have talked to numerous bankers, economists, academicians, as well as business leaders and owners who have told me that doing nothing would lead to irreparable harm to our economy. And I have heard from and talked to hundreds of Georgia taxpayers, virtually all of whom are opposed to the plan as originally presented. Everyone is concerned about doing the right thing. Georgians are furious at the current situation and for good reason. I am angry and upset that the oversight supposed to be afforded by the regulatory bodies was not provided the way it should have been. The American taxpayers should never find themselves in this situation again, and that is why there must be confidence that what Congress passes will work--not for Wall Street but for Main Street, Georgia. Before I give my support and work to pass legislation, it will have to have strong safeguards with accountable oversight. The plan must provide that any revenue earned by the treasury on this effort will be used 100 percent to retire the debt and not one penny used to expand Government. I will fight any legislation that proposes to use one cent of these funds for pork barrel projects. Furthermore, I want to make sure that if fraud or other illegal acts took place that the people responsible are tried and punished. And while much of the focus has been on assisting larger banks and lenders, I am working to make sure that neighborhood banks and lenders are protected too. I intend to see that every single American has access to his or her money at all times, and that Americans who need credit have it available to them. As the Senate debate unfolds, any proposed legislation must protect the citizens and taxpayers of Main Street, their savings, their retirement funds, their small businesses, their careers, their homes, and economic well being. This financial debacle on Wall Street must not be allowed to infect Main Street anymore than it already has. We have to clean up this mess and keep America on track. We must be certain that those responsible do not profit from this legislation and, where appropriate, necessary compensation control policies be instituted. Golden parachutes for any plan participants must not be allowed. And civil and criminal penalties should be levied and pursued when and where appropriate. During these next critical hours and days, I will carefully review the details of whatever package emerges, and I will fight for Georgians in this process. I will have my say. I am prepared to work through the weekend and into October and beyond--I will not vote for just any proposal--I will work for and vote for the proposal that I truly believe is in the best interest of Georgians and Americans, and I pledge to work on this as long as it takes to get the job done right and to make sure we do this in a bipartisan way. The fundamental necessity of a strong financial market is transparency, liquidity and confidence. The tools to provide further clarity and integrity in our financial system are already available to our regulators. We need to ensure that these instruments are properly applied, so that we protect investors from deceptive practices. Faith in the market is vital to its success. Security and soundness must, and will, return to our financial system through more effective oversight and guarantees of legitimate transactions. In turn, this security will restore certainty and faith in performance of the market. It is important to recognize the connection and significance of a strong financial system in a capitalist society. We are still targets of terrorism because our freedoms enable us to be among the most prosperous, most powerful nations in the world. Recent economic shakeups will not alter these freedoms. Through the renewed faith and trust of the American investor, we will return to the height of prosperity, and as a beacon of fundamental fiscal strength throughout the world. I look forward to the package that we hope will be forthcoming from our bipartisan, bicameral group that is working now as we speak to draft the legislation--to negotiate the legislation that will ultimately be committed to a draft. I hope, as we return tomorrow, we see positive signs of a conclusion to the drafting of that legislation and that this body can have an opportunity to study it in as much detail as necessary, proceed to debate, and I am hopeful it is the kind of legislation that we can all rally around, support, pass, and tell the American people that we are doing everything possible from a policy standpoint to protect them, to protect their communities, and to protect the financial institutions of this country. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jerry Acosta, a military fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of S. 3001.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have reached the 1-minute mark. Mr. President, I first want to say, as I rise to support the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 and honor all of our service members and their families who continue to serve and sacrifice for the sake of the country, that I am very appreciative of the leadership of both Chairman Levin and Senator Warner and, obviously, Senator McCain who has been absent some and Senator Warner has so ably filled in. Chairman Warner will always be chairman to me. He has been my dear friend through many years. What a great service to our country this great American has provided in the true Virginia gentleman tradition. He has always been such an asset to this body and such an asset to our men and women in uniform. I thank Senator Warner for his great service, I thank him for his friendship, and I thank him for what he does every day for our men and women in uniform.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, last week marked the seventh anniversary of the day our country was attacked by terrorists, resulting in the deaths of approximately 3,000 innocent people. Since that day and for the past 7 years, our Nation has devoted itself to winning the global war on terrorism. It is astonishing how the commitment of our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines has inspired the Afghan and Iraqi people to build their own political framework, improve their security and infrastructure, and promote human rights, freedom, and democracy in their respective countries. I am proud to say that our commitment to and investment in the global war on terrorism is now bearing fruits that are leading to a safer and more democratic world. All of our accomplishments in this area start with our servicemembers and their families who every day face the challenges, sacrifices, and dangers inherent in the profession of arms. Congress is entrusted with providing the necessary resources, policies, and programs for our servicemembers and military departments in order to ensure their success. This year's National Defense Authorization Act serves as the vehicle to do just that and provides the resources and policies to carry out the missions we ask of our military. Specifically, the bill provides the following: An increase of 7,000 soldiers, 5,000 marines, and 3,371 full-time personnel for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve over the 2008 force structure levels; a 3.9-percent pay raise for all military personnel; a total of $125 billion for military personnel to improve allowances, bonuses, permanent change of station moves, and death benefits; reauthorization of over 25 types of bonuses and special pay to promote enlistment and continued military service; more rigorous oversight procedures for military housing privatization projects; and a report to Congress on the implementation of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. I also have several amendments to the bill, all of which I understand will be included in a manager's package. I wish to discuss these amendments very briefly. First, last year, I worked with many of my colleagues to include a provision in the National Defense Authorization bill allowing for members of the Guard and Reserve who deploy in support of a contingency operation to receive their retired pay early based on how much time they deploy. This year, Senator Kerry and I, along with 15 other Senators, have offered an amendment that would make this provision retroactive to include any duty performed after September 11, 2001. This amendment recognizes a significant sacrifice that members of the Guard and Reserve and their families have made since 9/11 in answering the call of duty. It is only right that their duty and support of the global war on terrorism since September 11 be recognized and included when considering when they should receive retired pay. It is my hope we can keep this provision in conference and included in the final version of the bill. Also for the Guard and Reserve, I have offered an amendment, cosponsored by my colleague Mark Pryor from Arkansas, which would provide 180 days of transitional health care for members leaving active duty who agree to affiliate with the Guard and Reserve. An identical provision was sponsored and included in the House bill by my good friend Congressman Sanford Bishop from Georgia. This amendment provides a powerful incentive for members leaving active duty to join the Guard and Reserve and could result in several thousand more people entering the Guard and Reserve each and every year. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support for this amendment from the Reserve Officers Association.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, another amendment I have offered to the bill, along with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, provides a sense of the Senate on the care of wounded warriors. Last year's Defense Authorization bill contained the Wounded Warrior Act which went a long way to helping DOD and Department of Veterans Affairs establish a network of recovery care coordinators who would work to manage and coordinate care for recovering servicemembers. This is a powerful program and stands to make a huge impact in the lives of our wounded warriors. My amendment calls on DOD and the VA to expedite the recruiting, training, and hiring of these personnel, and also to partner with civilian institutions, such as the Medical College of Georgia School of Nursing, to help train these personnel and ensure they have access to the most up-to-date research and skills in order to best serve our wounded warriors. Two other amendments I will mention briefly are first a sense of the Senate that the Air Force should conduct a robust demonstration of the SYERS system on the Joint STARS aircraft. SYERS would provide an expanded combat identification capability for Joint STARS and the Air Force should fully explore its utility and the possibility of incorporating SYERS on the entire Joint STARS fleet. Second, I have offered an amendment that would require DOD to report to Congress on the requirement for Non-dual status National Guard technicians. These personnel are often used to backfill deploying Guard personnel, and due to the large number of deployments, we need to look at expanding the number of Non-dual status technicians as a means of ensuring the Guard's home State missions are not neglected. The National Defense Authorization Act is designed to strengthen our military, provide the required resources to the Department of Defense to carry out the responsibilities our Nation asks of them, and to improve our servicemembers' and their families' quality of life. The proposed legislation and the funding priorities will ensure that our Nation maintains an adept and quality force to defend our country and allow us to continue to be an ambassador for a prosperous and peaceful world. I commend the chairman, the ranking member, and committee staff for their hard work on the bill and their diligence in bringing it to the floor. Unfortunately, the bill does have several problematic provisions, including an unnecessary limitation on the role of private security contractors and an unnecessary prohibition on trained and qualified personnel conducting lawful interrogations. I hope we can address and resolve these issues in conference in a way that best serves our military personnel and allows them to effectively carry out their responsibilities. I also hope the Senate can complete action on this very important piece of legislation and proceed to a House-Senate conference and passage of a conference report prior to the end of this month. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my comments Senator Bennett be recognized.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, to support July 30, 2008, as the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Forty years ago there was a significant awakening in this country about the issue of hunger and its impact on Americans. As the resolution states, the CBS award-winning documentary ``Hunger in America'' was an important impetus to putting a human face on this situation. Like many Americans, Senators George McGovern of South Dakota and Robert Dole of Kansas were moved by this documentary, and thus into action. The first step was the creation of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. The committee focused on the magnitude of hunger within our borders as well as shortcomings of existing domestic nutrition assistance programs. For example, the Food Stamp Program required participants to purchase a portion of their food stamp allotment which left many Americans unable to receive any benefit because they could not afford to buy stamps. The work of the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs and the McGovern-Dole partnership led to many improvements in our country's nutrition assistance safety net. Today, domestic food assistance programs touch one in five Americans each year. The Food Stamp Program, which was recently renamed in the farm bill the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is the cornerstone of this safety net by assisting over 27 million Americans each month. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, serves 8.5 million Americans and provides expecting mothers and their young children with the nutrition needed for a healthy start in life. The National School Lunch Program provides over 31 million lunches each day and nourishes schoolchildren with balanced and healthy meals. As a husband and father of public schoolteachers, I particularly know the direct correlation between healthy, nutritious meals and the ability of a child to learn. The Emergency Food Assistance Program assists food banks all across the country in meeting families' food needs in times of sudden hardship. I am very proud to serve as ranking member on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This committee ties the important role of production agriculture to the necessity of ensuring that all Americans have a safe, nutritious, and affordable food supply. The select committee we are honoring today is the predecessor of the committee's Subcommittee on Nutrition and Food Assistance, and the issues before it receive significant attention. My colleagues on the committee and I share the determination to provide an effective nutrition safety net, and we continue the bipartisan approach established by Senators McGovern and Dole. This is proven in the recently enacted 2008 farm bill, in which funding for domestic nutrition assistance was substantially increased. Now, 73 percent of the total spending in the 2008 farm bill is allocated to domestic nutrition assistance programs. Given rising food prices, we worked to lend a hand to those citizens in both rural and urban America who are struggling to feed their families. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this resolution. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the fight against hunger.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for yielding me part of his time. He certainly makes a very convincing case. I rise to discuss the actions taken today by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to combat manipulation in the futures market specifically relating to energy activity. At 11 o'clock this morning, the Acting Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission at a news conference announced that it was bringing an action against a hedge fund for manipulating and attempting to manipulate the crude oil, heating oil, and gasoline markets. This proves that the CFTC is policing the market for suspicious activity. They are not sitting back and allowing traders to run wild, as some in Congress have suggested. While this particular case is specific to manipulation, it only makes sense that the surveillance efforts used to identify this activity are also providing much needed additional data to the Commissioners for ongoing monitoring efforts to detect excessive speculation--the subject of much debate on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, some have even confused these two terms. I want to clarify this. Manipulation is illegal, while speculation is a normal occurrence in all of our futures markets. That said, the Commission has recognized that more information is necessary to ensure that speculation has not become excessive. I happen to agree with them. We do need more information in order to make an accurate assessment of the situation. There have been many assertions made in the Senate not based on factual information. It is never a good idea to propose a solution for market conditions without carefully analyzing all of the facts. An uninformed solution, no matter how well-intentioned it is, can easily result in unintended counterproductive outcomes. Many in this body have accused CFTC of timidly utilizing their regulatory enforcement authorities or only utilizing these authorities after extreme prompting from Congress. To the contrary, this particular civil enforcement action that was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was uncovered as part of an investigation initiated by the CFTC for offenses that took place in March 2007--long before some began blaming CFTC for the $4 gasoline. Working proactively with the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, the CFTC was able to uncover wrongdoing and ensure that violators of the Commodity Exchange Act are identified and brought to justice. This particular case took place over an 11-day period. The New York Mercantile Exchange--as they have the authority to do and the information to carry out that authority--saw exactly what was happening in the early part of what was happening, and they followed it and immediately shut this hedge fund operator down. So this 11-day period in March 2007 occurred over a year ago. The ongoing investigation has taken a year to get it to where it is ready for prosecution. Fortunately, the CFTC has been able to fulfill its regulatory oversight responsibilities in spite of being horribly underfunded. Today's announcement affirms the dedication and hard work exhibited by the CFTC. Furthermore, we should not continue to hold up the confirmation of those--both Democrat and Republican--whom the President has nominated to carry out this very important regulatory task. The American people would be much better served with a fully seated Commission, a Senate- confirmed Chairman, and more regulatory oversight staff than by the baseless allegations made by some. If we are truly interested in a fully functioning regulatory body, let's provide the agency with these tools rather than wrongly condemning them for lack of enforcement. I will close by simply saying that during the process of the passage of the recent farm bill, which passed overwhelmingly in this body, we took action relative to market regulation by closing the so-called Enron loophole, which allowed for some sales on the market to take place without the ability on the part of the regulators to get all of the information relative to those particular trades. In addition to allowing the market regulators to get the information, we also increased the penalty for a manipulation--just like the CFTC has filed this suit on today--from $100,000 per incident to $1 million per incident. So we are in the process of giving the CFTC the tools it needs. We need to continue down that road. Let's don't destroy the markets. Here we are seeing a good example of how the tools in the hands of the regulators are being used in the appropriate way. When someone tries to take advantage of a system, the CFTC, as well as NYMEX, CME--all of the boards of trade--has the ability to stop this type of manipulation and prosecute wrongdoing. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sincere concern about the manner in which this body is considering energy- related legislation. My constituents are interested in meaningful policy that will address the extremely high energy costs they are facing today. They know that in order to deliver real results, we must develop legislation designed to address the entire problem--supply, demand, and market oversight. They are not interested in why one policy proposal is more worthy than another and therefore should be addressed before the other necessary elements of the solution, which is no doubt the debate we will be having today. We need to deal with increased supply from both traditional energy sources and next-generation sources, improve conservation of resources, and ensure greater market transparency and oversight. I recognize that for meaningful, comprehensive legislation to pass, both Democrats and Republicans are going to need to work together, which means everyone will not get everything they want, and we will all have to accept a few things that do not necessarily appeal to our interests. But that is what it takes to forge a workable compromise. Democrats and Republicans need to come together and determine what we can agree to, rather than bringing legislation to the floor of the Senate that, frankly, is designed to offend one side or the other. For this reason, I have sought to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and have found that many within this body want to develop a bipartisan proposal that will yield real results. Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate today seems more intended to divide the Senate rather than unite us in an effort to develop a meaningful solution. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry--the committee with jurisdiction over commodity futures trading--I have an obligation to ensure that legislation dealing with such matters is appropriately analyzed. Unfortunately, the committee of expertise did not have an opportunity to review this legislation before it was brought to the Senate floor, and for that reason many problems exist within this language. When dealing with issues of such complexity, we cannot afford to ignore the potential unintended consequences that will surely result from this approach. What if we are wrong and we actually drive up the price of crude oil? What if we miscalculate the true burden we are placing on the over-the-counter market and such activities migrate to foreign markets? What if we reduce liquidity in the market so much that our physical market participants have limited hedging opportunities? As I said, this issue is extremely complicated, and the factual data is lacking, which, unfortunately, allows everyone to paint the picture convenient for their own cause. I am sure you all have heard conflicting reports. For example, some claim that in recent years noncommercial participation, or speculation, in the oil markets has not changed when compared to the proportion of commercial participation by those who actually have a stake in the physical commodity, while others say that speculation in the oil markets has increased from 37 percent to 70 percent in recent years. This is quite a discrepancy in the facts. The truth is that neither of these claims is proven completely accurate. Why? Because the category used to determine commercial participation includes swap dealers who actually trade on behalf of both commercial operators as well as speculators, and we simply do not have the data to verify which claim is accurate. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is now in the process of getting more segregated data from these swaps dealers to determine how much activity is truly speculative in nature. But data separated out in this manner is currently not available. We simply do not know yet how speculation participation may or may not have increased compared to participation by those we would consider physical market stakeholders. I only mention this as an example of conflicting data upon which some of those proposed policy changes are predicated. I am not claiming that one side or the other is correct. But I do believe we need to have accurate data before we seek to make major modifications in the manner in which these futures markets operate. I want to be perfectly clear about this: I am not opposed to all aspects of the bill before the Senate today. In fact, I believe many of the components designed to yield more transparency in these markets are necessary and that they could be improved upon and enacted. We must ensure that the information both the regulators and Congress use to ensure proper oversight is accurate to warrant our actions. However, this language goes far beyond what I consider reasonable, especially absent factually based data to support such radical changes and a thorough review of the potential unintended consequences. I truly believe that a reasonable market oversight component could be developed as part of a bipartisan, comprehensive package, but, unfortunately, this approach is only distracting us from developing more reasonable and balanced legislation. I have in hand a letter from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, among others, dated July 21, 2008. It is a letter from what is referred to as the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. It is a group made up of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Acting Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. We requested that group--which is the group that is viewed in this town as the most expert group on issues related to the financial markets--we asked them to take a look at S. 3268, the bill before the Senate now, seeking to put more restrictions on speculators in the oil commodities market, and to see what they thought about the particular bill--not the issue of speculation, but the bill itself. First of all, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I want to take a minute to read a couple of statements in the letter. The PWG refers to the bill, talks a little bit about what it will do, and then it says: . . . the PWG believes that [the] bill S. 3268, as introduced, would significantly harm U.S. energy markets without evidence that it would lower crude oil prices. It goes on to say: To date, the PWG has not found valid evidence to suggest that high crude oil prices over the long term are a direct result of speculation or systematic market manipulation by traders. Rather, prices appear to be reflecting tight global supplies and the growing world demand for oil, particularly in emerging economies. As a result, Congress should proceed cautiously before drastically changing the regulation of the energy markets. This mirrors exactly my concern about this particular piece of legislation. If we have a knee-jerk reaction to the issue of speculation in the markets, and we are wrong, what we are going to do is we are not only going to destroy the energy markets in this country, but we are going to take those legitimate operators, those legitimate investors in the energy markets, and we are going to drive them overseas. We are going to have no control whatsoever over their buying and selling of contracts, whether it be oil, and the next thing we know it will be other food products that are dealt with in the commodity world on a daily basis. So I think we need to listen to the experts. We need to make sure we take the time to develop the right kind of policy, with the right kind of expert information, having input into the legislation, whatever it may be. At the right time, let's have a bill on the floor that encompasses not only the energy markets themselves and any type of additional restrictions or regulations we need to put there, particularly from a transparency standpoint, but also we need to deal with the overall issues of additional domestic exploration. We need to deal with the issue of conservation, whether it be through lessening the use of gasoline, diesel, or whatever.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Plus, we need to make sure we are developing the right kinds of incentives in the automobile industry, as well as for consumers to encourage the manufacture and purchase of vehicles that are operated by alternative methods, whether it is electricity or natural gas, or whatever it may be. So I urge we move cautiously, we not react too quickly, and we be very careful in our approach to this issue and the bill that is on the floor today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Kinard, a fellow in Senator Graham's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to talk about the issue of gas prices. As I have done over the last several weeks, I wish to read a couple of letters I have received from Georgians. I know everybody in here is similar to me. You have thousands and thousands of these. But this shows how critically important this particular issue is to every single American. Scott Needling of McDonough, GA, writes: Senator Chambliss: I'm fed up with Congress ignoring the will of the American people. Stop playing politics, and act on the will of the people. We have been demanding that you drill and use our 3 trillion barrels of oil. We need other resource avenues that the last three administrations [have not] addressed. Stop the partisan politics and pass the will of the people. The American people do not want a socialistic society, period. Fix the problem. That is a very frustrated constituent. Robin Lasseter of Tifton, GA, writes: Senator Chambliss: Please do something about the gas prices. I am a stay at home mom and with raising a family on one income, the price of gas is cutting us short on our needs. Something needs to be done soon. We are having to cut corners in a lot of different places in order to afford gas to and from work. Everything is increasing except wages. We both have a college education and drive fuel efficient cars, but the money we bring in just isn't stretching far enough. This is a sample of the issues facing real people out there and they are looking to Congress for relief. I just left an Energy Committee hearing or roundtable discussion. The Presiding Officer was also there. There were two energy experts there. I wish to read several bullet points that were mentioned by these individuals who deal with this issue every single day and have a long history of studying it. The first gentleman said, at the bottom line, supply and demand is the cause of the increase in prices today, but it is a complex issue. It ranges from the Iranian risk factor, all the way to the markets. He also said the cost of exploration has doubled in the last 4 years. The reason is a shortage of labor, a shortage of engineers, and a shortage of steel. In the markets, while speculation is a hot topic and transparency is a good thing, why have commodities risen? His answer was: First of all, the value of the dollar; secondly, oil is a good investment, and it is a good hedge against inflation. The second gentleman said that between 2003 and 2005, there has been a shock of increased demand and decreased supply. As a result of that, the excess capacity of oil on hand by oil-producing countries has been exhausted. He said there are fears that new fields are not coming online. There are fears there is disruption in the marketplace. Between 2004 and today in the market, there has not been enough supply. There is barely an increasing amount of supply each and every year. He said oil is now a financial asset, that this happened sometime not in recent weeks or months but back in 2006 and that the primary driver of the increase in oil prices is the value of the dollar, just like the first speaker commented. He said people are looking for a place to invest. Pension funds are looking for a place to invest. They are looking for a way to hedge against the value of the dollar. Lastly, the increase in demand, which we have seen in the United States over the last couple years, is not being met by our global partners. I say this to indicate to the American people how complex this problem is. We, as policymakers, have to take our time to make sure that we get it right with respect to whatever type of policy we set with legislation. I think there are four issues we have to think about with respect to trying to find a solution to gas prices. First of all, I do not think there is any question that we have to have more domestic production of oil. Today, we depend upon foreign imports for 62 percent of our petroleum needs. That has gotten way out of bounds. So it is imperative that we look for additional resources inside the United States. We have those resources. The resources are available from different assets. Some are controversial. Some are not controversial. We as policymakers have an obligation to find those areas for domestic exploration that we can get done in the short term and make sure we move that balance away from 62 percent to certainly something that is much lower and much more reasonable. Secondly, from a gas supply standpoint--not oil supply, a gas supply standpoint--we simply have to have more gas refined in this country. There may be some oil companies that do not have excess capacity. They may be producing all they can produce. We need to make sure there are incentives out there, as we have on the books today, to incentivize additional production. If they do not have excess capacity, we need to make sure they are able to build new refineries. We have not seen a refinery built in the United States in the last 25 years. Certainly, we know what has happened with demand for gasoline in the last 25 years. The third thing we need to do is continue down the road of research and development of alternative fuels, alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. These, again, are not the total answer to the problem, but we have taken steps in this body to make sure we have an increase in the supply of alternative fuels, particularly ethanol, over the next several years. In my home State--which has never been an ethanol-producing State; thus, we have never been an ethanol user--we now have two ethanol production plants under construction. In the farm bill we just passed, we greatly expanded the energy title. I am very proud of that energy title we put in place in the current farm bill because here is what it does: We recognize that we need more production of ethanol in this country. We also recognize that, with the mandates we have put in place over the last couple of years, we have had some unintended consequences that have arisen. We have 101 ethanol-producing facilities in this country today. We have an additional 100 that are either under construction or are on the drawing board to be completed within the next 14 to 16 months. All but two of those ethanol-producing facilities are resourced with corn. So, as a result of the mandates we have put in place, the demand for corn has risen for the production of ethanol, to the point where we are now seeing food prices increase. The price of food at the grocery store today, based on the increase in commodity prices, is truly not reflected yet. The increase in food prices we are seeing today, in my opinion, is solely the result of additional transportation costs or energy costs. This fall, when our manufacturers of food products start taking in new commodities at the new prices, that is when you are really going to see an increase in the cost of food. As a result of that, in the farm bill, when we looked at this issue, we said: We don't need to incentivize the additional production of alternative fuels from corn-based ethanol-producing facilities. What we need to do is to incentivize the production of ethanol from alternative sources, such as cellulosic products. In Georgia, we cannot grow corn in the quantities they do in the Midwest. We have a hotter climate, a longer growing season. Our soil is not quite as rich, and we do not have the dependable rain resource they have. But there is one thing we can grow like nobody else in the country; that is, a pine tree. The two exceptions to the 201 facilities I mentioned earlier--one located in Colorado, one located in my home State of Georgia--are going to be manufacturing ethanol from cellulosic products. In our case, in Georgia, it is going to be from pine trees. That is the type of innovation and creation we have provided for in the farm bill, and it is part of the equation we need to have in place as we move forward. There is one other area, and that is the area of conservation. We simply have to move down the road of making sure we have alternative vehicles available for those individuals who really want to implement conservation measures from a personal household perspective. Electric cars, battery-operated cars--those types of vehicles need to be available. We have a bipartisan effort underway to help solve this problem. I look forward to continuing to work with Republicans and Democrats to see a resolution of this issue regarding gas prices. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, Senator Warner, Chairman Levin, thanks for getting these nominations up in short order. I rise to speak in favor of the nominations of GEN David Petraeus to be Commander, United States Central Command, and LTG Raymond Odierno to be General and Commander, Multi-National Forces--Iraq. Over the past few years under the leadership of these two men we have seen vast improvements in the conditions on the ground in Iraq, the quality and number of the Iraqi security forces, and increasing ownership of the political process and issues facing their country by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. These accomplishments are due to the efforts of our young men and women in uniform who have sacrificed to defend our values and build democracy in Iraq. General Petreaus and General Odierno have led these men and women and they have done so ably, wisely, and with integrity and professionalism. They are without question the right men for the jobs for which they have been nominated. Our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan have had the opportunity to be led by some of the greatest military leadership we have witnessed in our era. General Petraeus and General Odierno embody our military values and leadership principles in the tradition of great military leaders who have come before them. These two combat veterans, who between them have served our Nation in uniform for over 60 years, have demonstrated that they have the skills and commitment to carry out and complete our mission in Iraq and safeguard our 150,000 servicemembers in Iraq. With the right leadership--which these two generals can provide--Iraq will continue to benefit from the implementation of our current military and security strategy. I feel honored to have witnessed the efforts of these two soldiers and am certain that their leadership will continue to successfully guide our efforts in Iraq. I have had the opportunity to visit one on one with both General Petraeus and Lieutenant General Odierno on the multiple trips I made to Iraq. I often refer to David Petraeus as being the best soldier that the U.S. Army has today. General Odierno is right there with him. They have the greatest men and women serving under them. Without their outstanding leadership, certainly we would not have been able to accomplish what we have in Iraq over the past year and a half. The first time I saw David Petraeus in action in Iraq was while training Iraqi security forces. He did a great job correlating the efforts of the Iraqi military on the ground with the security forces. He had a way of directing the Iraqi military commanders in a way that was extremely unusual, very positive, and very professional. Today, what we are seeing as a result of the efforts of David Petraeus is an Iraqi military that is growing stronger, more confident and in the short term, is going to be in a much better position than certainly they are even today of protecting the citizens of Iraq from external sources. They will also help the security forces provide domestic security for Iraqi citizens. General Odierno has made great sacrifices by being away from his family for so long. He just returned from Iraq. Now we are asking him-- and he has graciously committed, once again, for the benefit of service to our country--to return to Iraq to be in the position of commander on the ground. He is truly a great individual and certainly his record in the military speaks for itself. Both of these men deserve our utmost respect and certainly a strong vote in this body confirming their positions. In closing, let me say a commitment to the military is a family commitment. Both General Petraeus and General Odierno have made great sacrifices being away from their families for extended periods of time--not just while they have been serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan but certainly previous to that time also. I do know they have been away from home for an extended period of time. Without the great support of their families they would not have been as successful as they have. I salute their families as well as saluting them both. I urge this body to give a strong and resounding vote in favor of these two men for the positions for which they have respectively been nominated. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act. I am disappointed that after so many months of negotiations, after the Senate passed similar legislation in February, and after the House passed this bill by 293-129, the Senate is stalling enactment of necessary changes to FISA by debating amendments which would gut this bill of a valuable provision liability relief for our telecommunications carriers. The three amendments we debate today would singularly undermine months of hard work by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House to reach an agreement on this bill. In particular, Senators Dodd and Feingold have offered an amendment striking title II of the bill which provides liability relief to those telecommunication carriers who currently face lawsuits for their alleged assistance to the Government after September 11. Senator Specter has offered an amendment that would require the courts to determine the constitutional merits of the President's terrorist surveillance program, TSP in cases against private parties. And, Senator Bingaman has offered an amendment which would needlessly delay liability relief for a review of the President's TSP to be completed, which Members of this body have already done. I do not support any of these amendments. Over 40 lawsuits have been filed against our communications providers alleging statutory and constitutional violations, seeking billions of dollars in damages. These suits are not intended to bring justice to any individual; rather, they are a fishing expedition. The lawyers who brought these cases hope to use our court system to discover some claim or discover some standing for their clients; yet none of the plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits have any evidence to illustrate that they were subjects of the President's TSP or that they suffered any harm. As a result, I wonder how a court could uphold that any of these individuals even have a claim to raise. The President has stated repeatedly that in the wake of 9/11, the TSP intercepted communications of suspected terrorists, including those communicating with individuals inside the U.S. or whose communications pass through the U.S. To date, this program has been reviewed by numerous Inspectors General, the Department of Justice, our intelligence community and Congress. Do we need to add the courts to the list? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is already on that list. As a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I had access to the classified documents, intelligence, and legal memorandum, and heard testimony, related to the President's TSP program. After careful review, as stated in the committee report accompanying the Senate's FISA 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. The committee concluded that granting civil 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 and others in the private sector. It was clear in discussions within the committee that most of us were concerned about the harm the Government could face if it cannot rely on the private sector. Without this provision, the harm faced by the Government will become a reality. I cannot understate the importance of this assistance, not only for intelligence purposes but for law enforcement too. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General stated, ``Extending liability protection to such companies is imperative; failure to do so could limit future cooperation by such companies and put critical intelligence operations at risk. Moreover, litigation against companies believed to have assisted the Government risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding extremely sensitive intelligence sources and methods.'' There is too much at stake for us to deny those who assist the Government the liability relief they need, and deserve, or to delay its implementation. Senator Specter's amendment asks the courts to review and determine the constitutionality of the President's TSP before dismissing any lawsuit against the telecommunication carriers. This amendment not only severely undermines the findings of this body, but also calls into question the activities of the other political branch in our Government, the executive. The courts would be granted access to highly sensitive, executive branch intelligence activities, which they are not experienced in, and be required to make a legal determination on the constitutional authorities of the President. The courts usually avoid these types of decisions, and rightfully so. Moreover, the courts should not issue mere advisory opinions, yet this amendment requires the court to determine the constitutionality of a Presidential program when the government is not a party to these actions. Even with the passage of this bill the government or a Government official can still be sued for a TSP violation. If a plaintiff brought an action against the Government, the courts could then determine the constitutionality of the program; however, Congress should not hold America's private companies hostage until the courts review what Congress and others already have found. Further, regardless of the Government's program, our companies should not be held liable for assistance that they were assured was lawful. Let the Government carry the burden for its own actions. Similarly, Senator Bingaman's amendment would stay all of the lawsuits brought against the communications carriers until the inspectors general conducted a review of the TSP. Various inspectors general have reviewed already the President's program. The review called for by the FISA Amendments Act is nothing new. I see no reason to delay liability relief like this. The scope of the IGs' review included by this legislation is not intended to be a legal determination of the TSP. Instead, the FISA Amendments Act calls for the IGs to review each respective agency's access to the legal reviews of the program and grants the IGs access to communications with the private sector related to the program. Any review conducted pursuant to this legislation will have no impact on the lawsuits brought against private corporations. The only thing this amendment does is hold the cases up in court for over a year while the reviews are completed. This is purely political and Congress should not play games with our national security, or even when U.S. companies and their customers' money are involved. Finally, Senators Dodd and Feingold offer the same amendment that they did in February, to completely strike Title II of the bill which provides this liability relief. This same amendment failed to pass the Senate in February by 31-67. As I have stated, I support Title II, and believe the Senate has already shown its lack of support for this amendment. Mr. President, I oppose all three amendments offered to the FISA Amendments Act and urge my colleagues to do the same. It is time for the Senate to stop delaying enactment of a FISA bill and to reject these amendments which would gut the bill of much needed relief for our telecommunications providers.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to speak about H.R. 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act. Before I do that, I wish to make a couple comments relative to the comments made by my colleague from California regarding the TSP or terrorist surveillance program implemented by the President within days after September 11, and make sure Americans are very clear about two points: First of all, Congress did know about this program. Members of Congress were briefed throughout the duration of this program. Members of Congress were briefed on a regular basis. That doesn't mean every Member of Congress but the leadership knew exactly what was going on, exactly what the President was doing. They were kept very informed. Secondly, the targets of the terrorist surveillance program were not Americans; the program targeted the communications of al-Qaida, that we knew--not guessed but that the intelligence community knew were used by al-Qaida. Today, al-Qaida gets up every morning, just as they did before and after September 11, and they think of ways to kill and harm Americans. Our intelligence community, without getting into the details of it, suffice it to say, has done a magnanimous job since then in protecting Americans. The fact that we have not suffered another attack on domestic soil since then indicates the terrific job that members of the intelligence community have done. The terrorist surveillance program that was implemented by the administration immediately after September 11 is a major factor in why we have not suffered another act of terrorism on domestic soil. Information gathered from the terrorist surveillance program was used rightly to disrupt terrorist activity, both domestically as well as abroad. Some of the instances where the terrorist surveillance program has stopped attacks and saved lives are very public right now. Again, I rise to comment on H.R. 6304. This critical legislation has been the subject of many negotiations and, although the legislation is not perfect, I am pleased with the bipartisan nature of this compromise bill. I commend Vice Chairman Bond, Congressman Hoyer, and Congressman Blunt on their work. I am satisfied that this legislation will provide our intelligence agencies with the legal tools necessary to perform their jobs, the flexibility they require, and the capability to protect Americans' civil liberties. However, I am perplexed it has taken Congress this long to adopt meaningful legislation necessary to protect our country; legislation which Congress knew, at least since last August, needed to be enacted expeditiously. Normally, Congress is accused of being guided by expediency rather than principle but not usually in national security matters. Intelligence is bipartisan. Securing our Nation is bipartisan. It is in every American's interest that Congress act quickly to protect our Nation from terrorist attack, espionage, or any other harm. Yet the bill before us now is substantially the same as S. 2248, which was drafted in a bipartisan nature by Senators Rockefeller and Bond and passed the Senate over 4 months ago, on February 12, 2008, with a supermajority vote of 68 in favor and only 29 in opposition. Last summer, our intelligence community officials informed us that, as a result of a decision by the FISA Court and changes in technology, they had lost the ability to collect intelligence on terrorists around the world who wish to harm the United States. Congress responded to these pleas from our intelligence community and passed the Protect America Act, which temporarily fixed this problem, but we knew then we had to have a more permanent solution. Despite this knowledge and despite the hard work of the Senate Intelligence Committee for the previous 10 months, Congress failed to fix FISA in February. The House leadership refused to consider the Senate-passed bill, despite stated support from a majority of that body's members. I can only surmise that there were political, rather than substantive, reasons that prevented this legislation from passing months ago. Some may say this is the nature of one of the political branches of Government. What no one talks about is the harm this has caused. But, as a result of the Protect America Act's expiration, our collection efforts have been degraded. The public likely is not aware, nor may be many Members of this Chamber, but the members on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have heard regularly about the disruptions and legal obstacles that have occurred as a result of our inaction. The week after the Protect America Act expired, the Director of National Intelligence told us that ``we have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act.'' Gaps in our intelligence collection began to resurface, and it has had a real and negative impact on our national security. Our intelligence collection relies on the assistance of U.S. telecommunications carriers. These communication providers are facing multimillion dollar lawsuits for their alleged assistance to the Government after September 11, 2001. After the expiration of the Protect America Act, many providers began to delay or refuse further assistance. Losing the cooperation of just one provider could mean losing thousands of pieces of intelligence on a daily basis. According to the Director of National Intelligence, uncertainty about potential liability caused many carriers to question whether they could continue to provide assistance after the expiration of the Protect America Act. In just 1 week after its expiration, we lost significant amounts of intelligence forever. We will never be able to recover those lost communications, nor will we ever know what we missed. For this reason, it is crucial that any FISA legislation include retrospective, as well as prospective, immunity for telecommunications providers who assist the Government in securing our national security. Title II of this bill, just as title II of S. 2248, provides the minimum protections needed for our electronic service providers. In a civil suit against a communications provider, the Government may submit a certification that any assistance provided was pursuant to a Presidential authorization and at the time determined to be lawful. The district courts may review this certification, and if it finds that it is supported by substantial evidence, the court must dismiss the case. This is not a commentary on, or a court sanction of, the President's alleged terrorist surveillance program. It is the right thing to do. Unlike many countries which regularly suppress an individual's speech or violate an individual's right to privacy, a cornerstone of our democratic and free society is a limited Government--one that doesn't sanction Government intrusion on an individual's private life. The Government cannot infringe upon an individual's rights without due process. But, in order to preserve those rights, Americans rely upon the Government to provide that freedom and security to protect them from harm, whether it be from a criminal on the streets or from an international terrorist. Under U.S. criminal law, the U.S. frequently requests the assistance of private citizens and companies in order to combat crime. These companies provide assistance, usually pursuant to a court order-- but not always--to help keep Americans safe. When assistance is needed to combat terrorism overseas, patriotic U.S. companies step up to the plate and help their country. At a minimum, these companies rely upon Government assurances that their assistance is lawful. When sued in a court, they are sometimes unable to supply a defense for their actions without exposing Government secrets or jeopardizing Government investigations. Instead, they rely on the Government to come to their defense and assert Government sanction. In the case of the President's terrorist surveillance program--which despite leaks in the press, remains highly classified and secret--these companies are defenseless. If the Government can show a court its assurances--still classified-- that the assistance was lawful, and the court determines upon substantial evidence that the company acted pursuant to a Presidential authorization or other lawful means, then our American companies should not be liable. If any constitutional or privacy violation occurred, an aggrieved individual may still sue the Government. This bill, however, assures America's corporations that their good-faith assistance will not subject them to frivolous lawsuits from individuals who really are alleging a claim against the Government, not those who assist it. Ordinarily, Americans should be protected against Government intrusion, but it should not be at the cost of higher phone and Internet access bills for customers just so these corporations can defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits. This legislation preserves liability protection for Americans, and I am pleased to see that our bipartisan, bicameral negotiators sustained this provision. Title II of this legislation is largely the same as what was in the Senate-passed bill. I commend the House for passing legislation including this provision and the Senate for now taking much-needed action. One thing that came out of the debate on this particular aspect of the bill within the Intelligence Committee was the fact that in this situation it is pretty obvious that the Government was in a crisis situation just following September 11. We had just been attacked by terrorists. We needed the assistance of private corporations in America. When we asked for their assistance, they stepped up to the plate. We know it is going to happen again. It may not be a terrorist attack next time; it may be some other crisis that is inflicted upon America. At that point in time, we are going to need the assistance of the private sector in America again. If we don't tell the private sector, in this particular case, that we are going to protect them and make sure they suffer no loss as a result of stepping up to help protect Americans following September 11, then should we expect the private sector to step up next time, whatever the crisis may be? The answer to that is obvious, and, in a very bipartisan way within the Intelligence Committee, there was general agreement that is the way we should proceed. The only real and meaningful differences between this bill and the Senate-passed bill are more judicial involvement in the President's constitutional duty to conduct foreign affairs and protect our Nation. Our intelligence agencies will be allowed to collect intelligence against individuals located outside the United States, without having to first seek individual court orders in each instance. Rather than having to seek numerous court orders and losing time and valuable collection opportunities, this legislation will require a reasonable belief that the target is outside the United States, so our intelligence analysts have the ability to assess and task new collection in real time; that is, before the bad guys get away, switch phones, and continue their planning. Unlike the Senate-passed bill, this legislation requires prior court review and approval of the targeting and minimization procedures submitted by the Attorney General, our chief law enforcement and legal advisor, and the Director of National Intelligence, our primary national security adviser. I wish to state in the record that the exigent circumstances provision included in this legislation is not meant to be limited. Rather, it is a provision necessary to allow the retention of intelligence gathered in those situations where prior court approval was not practical. Under no circumstance is it acceptable for intelligence gathered under an exigent circumstance, and later found to be acceptable by the court, to be discharged. Intelligence does not wait for court orders, and it must be collected timely. The intelligence community should not have to wait for a court order to continue collection against those who seek to harm America. If the court later determines that the targeting and certifications were lawful, then our intelligence officials should be allowed to review that which was collected. It is now time for us to make more permanent changes to FISA to ensure we have the ability to obtain intelligence on terrorists and our adversaries. Although not a perfect bill, the FISA Amendments Act will fill the gaps identified by our intelligence officials and provide them with the tools and flexibility they need to collect intelligence from targets overseas, while at the same time providing significant safeguards for the civil liberties of Americans. This bill will ensure that we do not miss opportunities to target and collect foreign terrorist communications just because our operators had to get permission from a U.S. court first. Let me be clear, these amendments to FISA would only apply to surveillance directed at individuals who are located outside of the United States. This is not meant to intercept conversations between Americans or even between two terrorists who are located within 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. In fact, this legislation will provide new protections for U.S. citizens under our law. Under this bill, for the first time, a court order must be obtained to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes against an American who is located outside the United States. It also includes a prohibition on reverse targeting; that is, our intelligence agencies will not be allowed to target an individual overseas with the intent and purpose of obtaining a U.S. person's communications. I am satisfied that the FISA Amendments Act will close gaps in our intelligence collection as well as provide some legal certainty to those patriotic companies that assist us. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and give our professional intelligence officials the confidence they need to secure our Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can we propose a unanimous consent request that following Senator Feinstein, I be recognized to speak, and then Senator Sanders will be next?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent agreement be amended, and that following my comments, Senator Sanders be recognized, and that following Senator Sanders, Senator Hatch be recognized.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up amendment No. 5008, which is filed at the desk.